Jason Biggs Kills

Izzie, Izzie

2010-01-18T14:19:00.003+08:00

Izzie: I don't see anything wrong with being a moderate Muslim. For starters, there's enough evidence from Quran and Sunnah that teach us to be moderate plus balanced. As for an Islamic state, there are no defined, clear injunctions towards Darul Islam... Scholars have differed greatly on that issue.. As for apostates, there's also enough evidence that harmless apostates should not be killed. One day when I'm not busy I'll make a video or a blog entry about it insha Allah. I'm a moderate Muslim, and I'm fine with it. I believe in the mercy of God while at the same time I strive to be better morally and spiritually. No one's perfect right? if anyone goes too extreme in religion, he/she can be destroyed. As for Hell and Heaven, yes I do believe in them. There's a minority opinion that says punishment of hell is not eternal, and I will someday research more about that. I'm no scholar anyway. Islamically, it is wrong to attack places of worship if you refer to Muhammad pbuh's covenant with the christians. it is haram to attack any place of worship but whatever. people are assholes, deal with it. But your argument against Allah's name is sooooo typical, I've heard it so many times before by Christian apologists and it's been refuted.*rolls eyes*

I'm afraid Izzie's reply is a bit... Vague. There's claim of there being evidence, but no evidence is presented. There's claim of refutation, but no refutation is presented.

If you think my argument is typical, then really, does it have anything to do with the validity of the argument? Common use of the argument, or the typical nature of the argument does not make it less valid. The theory of gravity is pretty much the common explanation people use to explain things from falling apples to ocean tides, but the fact that it's now a typical explanation does not make it less valid.

Of course, let's try and use your logic here:

A: "You know, after centuries of advancements in Chemistry and Physics, it has been theorised that water has the formula H2O."
Izzie: *Yawn*. That's such a typical explanation. And it's been refuted. *rolls eyes*

And what of this refutation about the word "Allah" not being exclusive to Islam? Please, give me details. I'd like to hear it. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Izzie is being a tease here. "People's not sure about that one... There's a group that says the opposite... I don't see anything wrong..." It sounds like an apologist with no self-esteem even. There's also quite a few statements of belief, with no attempt to justify said beliefs.

And please, if it's going to be a long reply, reply to the comment section.

The Word of God

2010-01-18T04:00:00.001+08:00

If you haven't heard, there is a controversy in Malaysia about the use of the word "Allah" by a Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia in their publication called the Herald. You can read it here (one link was provided on the cBox by Reader):

(The Mainichi Daily News) Malaysian church fire-bombed amidst "Allah dispute
(AFP) Malaysia church attacks 'minor aberration': PM
(The Economist) Malaysia's Burning Churches: In God's Name?
(Mysinchew.com) Govt. Wrong On All Counts
(The Times) Attacks after Malaysian court rules Christians can worship Allah
(Reuters) Malaysia church torched amid Allah row
(BBC) Malaysia church attacks continue in use of 'Allah' row

Now I would think there are no justifications for these acts of violence. None. Violence towards a party that has not acted violent against you is simply not justifiable.

There's also the matter of why some Muslims are acting out so violently. Put simply, the violence is a part of the ongoing protests against the overturning of the ban of the word "Allah" in a Roman Catholic publication. Now this is where things get stupid.

What a lot of people are claiming is that "Allah" is exclusive for Islam. But it's actually quite conclusive that it's not.

If you know your Islamic history, then you'd know that the word "Allah" was used to refer to God even before the time of Islam. Remember Muhammad's father? His name was Abdullah, i.e. Slave of Allah. His name referred to Allah even before Muhammad was even born.

Allah in pre-Islamic times referred to the supreme deity, but wasn't the 'wahid', or the one. He had sons and daughters. Again, open that Sejarah textbook. Uzza, Manat and Lat? Those 'idols' were Allah's daughters in pre-Islamic times. Heck, the word Allah comes from Al-Ilah, meaning the god. There's even corresponding equals in Aramaic (Elaha) and Syriac (Alaha).

In Arabic countries, the Christians and the Jews use the word "Allah" to refer to their God, because in Arabic, it simply means God. It's not exclusive to Islam. Even in Indonesia, Christians use the word Allah without any repercussions. In Malta, where the population is almost entirely Roman Catholic, the word for God is "Allah."

Let's say, just for argument's sake, that Allah is indeed exclusive to Islam (which it isn't). Bear with me here.

Is that still reason enough to attack places of worship?

It almost makes me want to scream out, "THEN COPYRIGHT IT, YOU WHINING FUCKERS." Of course with a word in such common use and used for thousands of thousands of years can't really be copyrighted anymore. So, my response would simply be, "tough luck."

Tough luck that a Christian publication wants to use a word that wasn't exlusive to Islam in the first place. Sure, now it's very much tied to Islam, and that is the first religion people think about when the Allah is mentioned, but what about Malta, or Indonesia or in Arab countries where such exclusivity does not exist?

Of course it doesn't really help with the message "Islam is a religion of peace," does it? Oh, but there'll be people who'll say, "but hey, it's only the minority being violent."

Yes, true. But the more disturbing fact is that even the supposedly moderate Muslims talk about being persecuted, or that Muslims have to unite to fight against the common enemy i.e. non-Muslims. You see supposedly moderate Muslims nodding when religious speakers speak of a holy war against Jews and non-Muslims. It's quite worrying, to be honest. Some of my friends have supported the ban of the word "Allah," which is quite bad in itself. What is worse is that they also feel the violent attacks are justified, i.e. the Christians had it coming.

What the fuck?

The logic is that the Christians should not have provoked the Muslims. What, are Christians expected to expect that Muslims will be protesting so viciously and so horrifically? Here it is. Muslims aren't violent, but don't be surprised if we burn your churches when you insult our religion. How is that not a paradoxical claim?

This is also the justification used to explain the axe attack on one of the Danish cartoonists who drew Muhammad a few years back. Muslims are a peaceful bunch, but don't expect us not to come at you with an axe and send death threats when you draw a cartoon about our prophet?

It's not just the people who commit the attacks, it's the people who says either that the attacks were justifiable, or that the victims had it coming to them. Despicable acts should be condemned by anyone, and not be seen as "the proper response" or "predictable, it's the victim's fault."

Religious Freedom

2009-12-02T22:00:00.000+08:00

I'm not one for censorship, except for some very special cases. For instance, children should not be viewing pornographic images because their cognitive ability has not developed to the point where they can process sexual ideas and images properly.

Or ideas that incites racial hatred. Even then, one could argue that by letting racists sound off, we'll be exposing how absurd racist ideas are. By suppressing them, we are almost giving a legitimacy or handing them the 'persecution' card. We are giving them the opportunity for the racists to say "well, they're scared of the truth, that's why they try to oppress us, but we will not be oppressed." And people usually sympathise with persecuted people.

There's also religious freedom. I'm all up for it. I am. I may not be a fan of religion, but I believe that people are free to believe whatever it is they want to, just as long as they don't try to make their religious beliefs as part of the law. In fact, I'm all up for people to advertise their beliefs, if other people are allowed to dissect and criticise said beliefs rationally and methodically.

Which brings me to this.

See the USA's report on religious freedom in Brunei:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127265.htm

This report caused a minor stir in Brunei. Even Pehin Kapitan Lela Diraja Dato Paduka Goh King Chin defended Brunei's religious policy:
http://www.brudirect.com/index.php/2009111610630/First-Stories/us-criticism-of-brunei-too-harsh.html

What I can't understand is, why is the criticism harsh? Pretty much most of the report is accurate. The 'freedoms' the Pehin mentioned is not criticised in the report. So it's not providing an unfair review by stating untruths. The Pehin did not, however, address the issues mentioned in the report, mainly:

(1) Non-muslim religious education is not allowed/heavily restricted in schools
(2) Muslims trying to convert to another religion face huge official and societal pressure not to.
(3) Proselytism of other religions (or even other sects of Islam other than Mazhab Shafi'e) is heavily restricted
(4) Interfaith dialogue is realistically non-existent due to regulation

When the Pehin (hereafter named as GKC) mentioned mutual respect, I think personally, that the 'respect' that the government gives to other religions is pretty low. There are still a lot of hurdles to be passed through before we could say there is any sense of actual religious freedom in Brunei. It's defined pretty loosely in Brunei as simply being free to believe in what you believe in. That's what religious freedom is. While on the surface it might seem pretty good and dandy, it's really just an incomplete, minimal understanding of what the term actually means.

Religious freedom means that there should be no restrictions that state Islam should be the only religion taught in schools. Even in Christian schools Christianity is no longer taught anymore (anecdotal. If I'm wrong, correct me). Religious freedom means that other Mazhabs should be free to be practiced and preached in public without fear of being arrested. Religious freedom means that religious conversion should not be such that converting away from Islam should not be a million times harder than to Islam.

GKC says that "there is no problem unless 'you create one'." Well, this is really just saying don't mess with the status quo. The laws are unfair on other religions. There are many problems, but as GKC says (unintentionally), people dismiss it in fear of 'creating one.' That's how the Bruneian mentality works. Don't mess with the status quo. It's worked till now, didn't it?

It has worked because we have blinded ourselves to the regulatory, bureaucratic religious persecution that other religions face because we assure ourselves that a country that has Islam as its official religion should only have to provide minimal freedom to other religions. But oh the hypocrisy. When countries such as Sweden ban the building of new minarets, we cry loudly and say 'where is the religious freedom? They are persecuting Muslims!.'

Imagine this. Imagine if Brunei was a Christian country. Only Christianity is taught in schools, and every Christian child is required to attend six-years of 'Sekolah Ugama Kristian.' Melayu Kristian Beraja. Churches instead of mosques. Christians pressured with regulations and social obligations not to convert to Islam. Everyone must respect the saying of grace in meals, even non-Christians. The sound of church bells every Sunday in every part of the country (not even five times a day!).

I bet most of you are fuming. I bet you're thinking, 'they're persecuting the Muslims!'. But hey, there's only a problem if you 'create one.' Note the sarcasm.

I think religion is a bit rubbish anyway.

Finally

2009-11-06T20:36:00.004+08:00

Hello fellow Bruneians, not forgetting the non-Bruneians too. Some people might wonder why I have very long breaks inbetween posts. Well, this is a blog about my beliefs as an atheist (and other things) in a Muslim country. And being an atheist does not define all of me. By all means, no. Sure, being an atheist also leads to or overlaps with some of the other things that I do believe/support, like secularism, humanism, tolerance, equality in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. So I don't feel the need to talk about it all the time.

Okay, now I'm going to present you with a theory of mine. I'm sure some people will completely disagree with me, like they always do. I must emphasise though, this is a theory that is completely dependent on my own experience and speculation. Therefore I will be honest with you, I have no evidence for this and will not pretend to have any. But I think I'm justified to deduce, from whatever I've gathered, the points that I will make here in this post.

The idea of a 'moderate' Muslim has always puzzled me. I mean, the concept of it is great, it's progressive. Some moderates even advocate secularism. So to be clear, I'm not against the idea of moderation in terms of religion. I believe it's a healthy step towards secularism. You're free to believe in anything you want just as long as you don't impose it on others and do not expect others to follow the same rules your religion impose on you. That's totally fine with me. (Not completely, but that's a whole other topic).

I'm just perplexed by it.

Let me tell you why. If you do believe in Allah, then you definitely believe in Heaven and Hell, unless you're the extreme Muslim minority who believe in God but not Heaven & Hell (who can be argued to be distorting the Quran). The people who believe in Heaven & Hell would then in turn believe in the Quran. I'm leaving out the hadith because I know a considerable minority can find fault in the nature of them.

So why are you moderate? For many moderates, many of the little, everyday things they do would surely make them 'hell-bound'. Things like women not wearing headscarves, guys wearing shorts that go above their knees, getting and paying interests in banking, superstitions, etc.

Surely then you've realised many of the restrictions imposed by religion are simply impractical, nonsensical and backwards? At least subconsciously you're being skeptical of some of the major and minor rules in Islam. Do we demand that a full Shari'a court be installed so that adulterers would be stoned, thieves would have their hands cut off and ex-Muslims be beheaded?

No. Deep inside we know they are wrong. Deep inside these moderate Muslims who might be good friends with gay people, sexually active people and hedonistic people know that these people don't deserve what the Quran says they deserve. In fact these moderate Muslims might even be gay, sexually active or hedonistic themselves.

The thing is, I think a lot of Muslims are more skeptical/agnostic than they would like to believe they are. But culture and tradition does not allow for even the mere thought of doubt to form inside the head. It is considered a virtue to never question the core belief that there is a god, that Allah is the one true god and Muhammad is the last true prophet.

So 'moderate' believers are left with just ignoring and choosing to leave out the parts they know to be wrong and still stick with the core beliefs, unable to go further with their own skepticisms.

The cBox Is Not The Best Place

2009-07-25T13:19:00.003+08:00

Okay, first I apologise for having been absent for what has been quite a 'productive' exchange in the cBox. I've been really busy for the past couple of weeks.

The problem is, the cBox does not notify me nor is it convenient for me to check [older messages]. Please, if you can, if what if you're trying to say requires more than one line on the cBox, please, please use the comment box on the blog entries. It's easier for me and everyone else to keep track what comment refers to what post, and so it's easier for me to reply. And comments stay on the comment box. Comments on the cBox disappear after a while, so people might not know if they're repeating the same point a person made a few weeks before.

After going through the cBox, I still find many comments not worth replying to.

I don't really mind people coming to this blog challenging what I say. I'm not one for censorship here. It's just that there's always the temptation to really filter out stuff that their best are irrelevant, and at their worst just too plain stupid. But hey, I've not acted on that temptation so far.

I guess for people it's an easy idea to just banish people out of the country who simply doesn't agree with you. People don't really get the idea that you can still criticise something while appreciating it, or even loving it. There's so many things wrong in Brunei, but then there's always something wrong with any country. Running away from the problem does not fix it. Nor does exiling people who voice out the problems.

One of Izzati's points. About the scientific nature of the Quran. The idea of modern scientific theory can be derived from the Quran, is quite frankly, in my opinion, just bullshit. I don't assume people who say the Quran is scientific to be idiots. I'm saying the arguments I've read so far are ignorant, manipulated propaganda. It does not help that one of the proponents of Quranic science is shown to be a criminal, manipulative bastard. But I know it doesn't invalidate the arguments either. The thing is, the arguments themselves usually don't validate themselves. Trust me (or not), I've read and seen people argue for Quranic science (and other forms of 'science,' mostly creationist 'science). Many make me cringe. I don't assume. I actually research a lot of this stuff.

I can't challenge the Quran? What is that supposed to mean? And saying something is a linguistic miracle is a bit meaningless. Shakespeare managed to write whole plays using iambic pentameters and still manages to write dialogue that is both insightful and entertaining. Milton wrote ten books of Paradise Lost while being blind. C.S. Lewis wrote poems with nonsense words that are revered as a magnificient use of linguistic rules that seem to mean something and nothing at the same time. The term linguistic miracle is a subjective term. Miracle is a subjective term. Some palindromes here and there do not constitute as a miracle. Seeing patterns here and there does not constitute a miracle.

And I still find it hilarious how Bibit does not remember how he said these things:

bibit: the more I read your blog, the more i find it absurd. you're talking as if you studied Sociology and religion for two years and bammmmmmmmm you are an Atheist. Cali.

bibit: how old are u again Jason? 19, 20, 21? you still need to learn more..iatah ni baru jua abis belajar.

For some reason people cannot imagine a 7-year-old being inquisitive and curious. Is it too hard to believe a child may just question what people are saying because it doesn't make sense to him? Of course I was playing guli, gatah and skopong with my friends, but I bet your 7th year alive did not consist solely of those things. If it's really that hard for you to imagine an inquisitive 7-year-old, then I cannot hope to convince you.

And again, why does my age matter? I could be 20, I could be 15, I could be 35, heck I could be fucking 5 or 95 for all you care. Does that make my points less valid? Heck, a 5-year-old making a good point is still a 5-year-old making a good point. An 80-year-old making a terrible point is still an 80-year-old making a terrible point. And it could be vice versa. Why has my age become a topic? It's weird.

And it's kind of stupid telling people they're being blasphemous when they don't actually believe what they're blaspheming against.

I'm Old-Skool

2009-07-12T04:46:00.003+08:00

Bibit: ya ryt... ko ingat pecaya ku tu ko doubt religion since u were 7? pls ok... kesian eh, semua points mu atu mcm belajar sociology all over gain and ko masukkan verses atu ani as if ko paham apa yang ko buat ah. Jgn ckp ambung. Anytime God can cabut nyawa mu ah... dibagi chance to live, tapi menghina ur own creator... inda tau beterima kasih... all these atheist any bnrnya sick of living rules them of doing whatever they want, don't read too much nonsense, gila ko krg. Ani pun udah ko ranting pasal org bekonvoi smbyng jumat, sakit plang atimu. Haha. Ari jumat, I bet ko tdur masih, sal bejaga meliat dvd, nada jua org sibuk and marah2. Lau ko nda suka mndgr what came out of your ugama teacher's mouths, napa ko inda beranti? To be honest, aku pun beranti ugama awal sal ku sanak mendagar ceramah tapi udah basar ani tah bru ku nyasal and balik semula belajar ugama bh bye.

SOA: seriously, you're being such a baby. Complain pasal ugama nganya. Live ur life and shut your mouth. No one cares what u think. But hey, its not like kami totally ignore u. we've warned u n everything. If u think u dont have a purpose in life, do this. Grab a gun, put it in ur mouth and pull the trigger. Here's what I think. I think you have a serious childhood problem. Full stop.

Bibit: SOA I second you. Ranting about religion ani old skool berabis. Bangga ia bah tu, kiranya ia think outside the box. Modern, know it all, iatah ia rasa he's superior than God.

Hahaha. These messages on the cBox actually made me laugh so hard. I'm not even offended or anything. I just shook my head and and smiled. These words have come so many times before from various people in various forms. And I've replied to them several times. I remember when I first started this blog, these kinds of comments made me really angry, but answering them, I had to make myself calm first. Here I'm trying to keep calm, but not from anger. Instead I'm trying to keep myself from laughing.

None of the 'criticisms' here are original. Some of the questions that asks bits about my personality, I feel do not warrant an answer, since, well, they bear no relevance, really.

Okay.

Bibit first says “ko ingat pecaya ku tu ko doubt religion since u were 7?” and then later says “ To be honest, aku pun beranti ugama awal sal ku sanak mendagar ceramah.” So you don't believe me, but you've been in my 'unbelievable' situation? It's okay. I don't need you to believe me. You can go on believing I'm a 20 year old sociology graduate, if you must. I prefer to think of myself as the guy from American Pie. But hey only I and some people close to me know who I am offline, and they'd be laughing their ass off at some of the assumptions people make about me.

And your assumption of me as a sociologist is somewhat peculiar. I'm very surprised that you only see the sociological side of everything I say. What about the scientific, the philosophical, even with just plain, old common sense? Are you a sociologist by any chance?

“Ani pun udah ko ranting pasal org bekonvoi smbyng jumat, sakit plang atimu.”

Proof you did not read the entry. Nothing other than that captioned photo of kittens was about sembahyang jumat. Hell, if you've read me before, I've used kitten photos before (once, I think), usually as an introduction to what I feel will be quite a heated rant.

“Lau ko nda suka mndgr what came out of your ugama teacher's mouths, napa ko inda beranti?”

That's the point. I wasn't allowed to 'stop' listening to them. Ugama school is a dogmatic institution. They force-feed you religious tripe till you either quit or graduate. Being a kid with religious parents, quitting wasn't an option. So I had to swallow all that bullshit for a few years then vomit it out.

“seriously, you're being such a baby.”

Hahaha. This comment is so funny it made my day. No further comment needed.

“Live ur life and shut your mouth.”

Offline, I do have a life, just like everybody else. And I'm not what you would say a content apathetic person. If I see something wrong, the least I can do is write about it. And hey, at least I'm not invading your personal space while I do it. I don't write pamphlets and shove them at people's faces. Hell, I'm still here in my own personal blogsite (well, Blogger's, really) writing for those people who by their own choice come to my blog. I've only ever promoted my blog once, and that was way back when I first got started. Now I guess it's just through word of mouth, which brings me to my next point.

“No one cares what u think”

You'd be surprised how many do care. You don't realise there's Bruneian atheists out there who feel unsafe about telling people what they think (and from the replies I get on this blog, it's easy to see why). You don't realise there's Bruneian muslims who are eager to seek out active discussion and opinions from an opposing/differing side. If nobody cared about this blog, I would've deleted
the blog a long time ago.

“If u think u dont have a purpose in life, do this. Grab a gun, put it in ur mouth and pull the trigger.”

Wow. So you think your life's purpose is defined by God. In my honest opinion, that's pretty damn sad. By the way, read this. I've addressed your suggestion before.

[link to Optimistic Nihilist]

“Ranting about religion ani old skool berabis.”

I did not realise I was catering to the 'cool' people here. The hip hipsters, the nu-skoolers. And there I was thinking that I should just start a blog because I had something to say.

“Bangga ia bah tu, kiranya ia think outside the box. Modern, know it all, iatah ia rasa he's superior than God.”

Hahaha. I cannot feel superior to a being whose existence I don't believe in, much like I don't feel superior to a unicorn, or even Ultraman. I don't think I'm even thinking that far outside the box. This is not some meta-physical existentialist debate. Most of it really is just common sense.

The saddest thing about it all is both these people didn't actually make it their point to argue against anything I've said. Most of it were just personal attacks. “you're this, kau atu.”

There were more messages on the cBox after, but they were just petty insults (or sad attempts at insults), I felt no need to reply to those.

Purpose

2009-07-06T10:19:00.002+08:00

3 Jul 09, 06:34

Izzati: Islam actually gives me a sense of liberation and a feeling of inner peace. Deal with it.

27 Jun 09, 09:22

bibit: religion for two years and bammmmmmmmm you are an Atheist. Cali.

27 Jun 09, 09:21

bibit: the more I read your blog, the more i find it absurd. you're talking as if you studied Sociology and

Bibit, I think you simplified things just a tad too much.

If you did read my blog, you'd know I've been doubting religion and God ever since I was about seven years old, and especially in my days in the Agama school where I could not take in what I thought and still think is bullshit coming out of my teachers' mouths.

And Izzati, asking me to 'deal with it' is kind of hypocritical of you. I think you're the one having a problem with dealing with the fact that I'm criticising your religion and that I cannot find the same feeling of 'inner peace' you tried to convince me you felt. Ever since I found my mind free of religious constraints, I feel more spiritual than I had ever been. And yes, spirituality is a separate thing from religion.

"What is your purpose in life? Why do you think you are here?"

This is why I feel liberated. I don't feel burdened by the thought of my life devoted to a 'Supreme Being' that I've never seen or felt. I didn't choose to not believe. It was not a rebellion borne out of a desire to be different. It was just a state of mind shaped by years and years of personal thoughts and moments.

I've addressed this point in detail by the way, in a previous post. I can't be bothered to to look up the title, but it might be something about being an optimistic nihilist.

And yes, this is a busy time for me, and I have a lot of things to do. You're right. Haha.

So replies and posts might be few and far between.

Slaves & Women

2009-06-24T18:14:00.000+08:00

rebelle: Men all over the world twist the teachings of Islam to justify their actions of abusing their wives or ‘mistresses’. So you see we can’t really blame the religion. . Blame the men who perverted islam for their own ‘evil’ purposes and personal sexual gratification.

One example of Quranic verse manipulation does not mean every 'evil' thing every Muslim has done in reference to the Quran is a twisted interpretation.

For example. there are various mentions of slavery in the Quran, none of them in a disapproving manner.

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers, and whose whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned thee."
- Verse 50, Surah Al Ahzab

"There is no blame (on these ladies if they appear) before their fathers or their sons, their brothers, or their brother's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the (slaves) whom their right hands possess. And (ladies), fear God; for God is Witness to all things."
- Verse 55, Surah Al Ahzab

"And say to the believing women they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons. their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hand possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards God, that ye may attain Bliss."
- Verse 33, Surah Al Nur

I've given the verses from where it came from so that before you accuse me of quoting out of context, you can check the context for yourself. Or maybe you want to question the authenticity of the translation. For your convenience, I used this specific version:

The Holy Quran, Original Arabic Text with English Translation and Selected Commentaries, by Adullah Yusuf Ali (2000, Saba Islamic Media). It was printed in Malaysia, and has a stamp in front of it showing it is approved by 'Kementerian Dalam Negeri' (it does not tell if it's from Brunei or Malaysia). I've checked various tafsirs online, as I currently do not have several different versions of Quranic translations lying around, and they pretty much say the same thing.

So it's not something I pulled out of the internet from an atheist website. It's taken straight out of the Quran. I did not take quotes from hadith (not even from one as acknowledged as Bukhari) because, well, some people might argue they're not authentic or suspect in accuracy.

There's also the devaluing of women in the Quran:

"...And get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her."
- Verse 282, Surah Al Baqarah

"God thus directs you as regards to your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females..."
- Verse 11, Surah Al Nisa

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hand possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
- Verse 3, Surah Al Nisa

"Truly man was created impatient. Fretful when evil touches him; and niggardly when good reaches him; Not so those devoted to prayer; Those who remain steadfast to their prayer ... And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hand possess - for (then) they are not to be blamed."
Verse 19-30, Surah Al Ma'arij

Apologists argue that it was a different time then. People in Muhammad's time were not subject to the same ethics or moral system we apply to ourselves today. So then, why are we still using the Quran to shape our morality? Doesn't that show morality is not something Allah showed us, but merely our own sense of what is right or what is wrong?

When we begin to cherry-pick verses and say that slaves are not acceptable anymore or that women can work and don't have to stay at home all the time, then we are contradicting the Quran's teachings. So the 'moderate' Muslim is caught in a weird place.

If one were to accept Quran as the true word of God and Muhammad was the last true prophet, then one would think the Quran is infallible. That would mean obeying it to the smallest detail. Yet we don't, because we know deep in our minds that many of the things in the Quran are morally suspect, ambiguous or even clearly wrong.

We don't stone adulterers. We don't cut off hands of thieves. We know these are harsh punishments.

And why would God, the omniscient one, not see this coming? Did God not see that morals and ethics would change in the next thousands of years? If the excuse is to 'ease' converts into the 'new' religion at the time, as people have argued, then it is quite inconsistent of God. Okay. So God writes (or reveals) a whole holy book meant to tell you how to live your life in staggering detail. Then God puts in a few bits just to 'ease' people into converting? And hey, it's not minor offences like not covering your hair or washing parts of your body before a prayer. It's about owning a slave and undermining women rights! That should probably be the first things on God's list if God was introduing a new religion to a merchant.

Opening The Mind

2009-06-23T17:17:00.003+08:00

Dayang: Also remember that Islam is a religion whereas Malay is a race and culture, thus treat each as such.

23 Jun 09, 04:40

Dayang: so keep debating, but do not lose sight of your purpose, in hope that you may find your answers.

23 Jun 09, 04:38

Dayang: I applaud when and if you debate with due intelligence, because Islam encourages man to use his mind

23 Jun 09, 04:36

Dayang: ...content in the remembrance of Allah.

23 Jun 09, 04:34

Dayang: What's beautiful about Islam, if you dare open your heart to it, is that the true Muslims are...

23 Jun 09, 04:33

Dayang: It's rather ironic that the self-proclaimed "open-mind" resorts to such parochial tactics.

Hi Dayang.

My last post was a rant. I made that clear. But I understand your point.

In addressing one side of God that Muslims usually ignore (or even become apologists for), I am trying to highlight what I think are absurd qualities for such an influential 'God' to have. I also think that religious people are so caught up in the 'beauties' of their religion, they tend to forget the blindingly obvious, like their God being unreasonably punitive, narcissistic and flawed.

For the sake of argument, I will use Islam here, even though it's general to most religions.

While you claim that Islam encourages using the mind, it has made many people narrow-minded and 'parochial.' A few verses in the Quran saying you should use your mind contradicts the assertion that Islam should not be questioned. That doubt in the belief of God itself is a grave sin in the eyes of Islam is something that does not cater to the 'open mind' claim.

When you say what's beautiful about Islam is that 'true Muslims are content in the remembrance of Allah,' has been said about every major religion out there. 'You will find true happiness if you open yourself as accepting Jesus as your personal saviour,' for example. It's easy to say about anything, and thus will never sway anyone. Heck I can even say that for things like Star Wars or stamp-collecting.

'If you open yourself to it, you might find stamp-collecting is a rewarding experience.' Notice how easy it is to say it, but how hard it is for someone listening to it to be convinced? That's how I feel when you say 'open yourself to Islam' to me. Unless of course you happen to like stamp-collecting. In which case, replace it with collecting Star Wars figurine.

I've got a better idea. Let's use Atheism. If you open your mind to atheism, you will find content in knowing you've got one life to live and you might as well live it. If you open your mind to atheism, you will find content in knowing that it's your conscience, not fear, that is dictating your actions, and thus your good deeds become all the more valuable and rewarding. If you open your mind to atheism, you will find content in the remembrance of humanity. You get the point.

I'm quite confused about your last statement. I have never confused the Malay culture and Islam. I often talk about the two side by side because in Brunei, they intertwine a lot of the time. So I really don't know what you're implying I should do here.

If God Is Real

2009-06-16T09:00:00.001+08:00

Ah yes. This is a rant. So if you're easily offended, here's something to look at. Another photo of kittens.

I don't fucking get it.

Is God really that petty?

Oh, don't wear your tudung. You'll go to hell for millions and millions of years. What the fuck. Talk about some harsh punishment there.

It's like any kind of torture, genocide or general stupidity can be justified if God does it.

What? You worshipped a golden cow while my boy was gone? Go kill yourself in a mass suicide. What? You didn't slaughter that animal in the exact way I asked you to? You're fucking filthy, you filthy haram-eater. Really. Some of these rules are fucking ridiculous.

If you were just to think for a moment about these rules, then you'd notice that a lot of them are so trivial yet disobeying them could land you an eternity being sodomised by Satan. Is this the God I'm supposed to worship? Really? Fuck him (it's always a him with these Abrahamic religions). I'm not worshipping that prick. God is like an angry child who's got too much power in his hands.

God is a cock-up. Human beings as the most perfect beings on Earth? Unlikely. We nuke each other up just because of big egos and money and greed and power and land and pride and ethnocentricity. We've spoilt the Earth so much we've probably already went past the point of no return. 99% of all species already extinct? Not very efficient eh, God? Tsunamis, natural disasters, terrorism, general fucked-upness. I think God needs secretaries. Oh wait, that's what angels are for. Beings created solely to worship him.

Wait. What. The. Fuck.

How more narcissistic can you be? You created a whole species (?) of beings just so they could worship you? Really? No wonder Satan fucking rebelled. I know where he's coming from now. With a boss like that, who needs, urm... Dictators? Mass-murderers? Narcissists?

Aaaaaah!

Did I make you angry?

Do I fucking care?

This here is, I admit, not a discussion. It's a motherfucking rant. I will be more civilised in my next post. But hey, I'm not done with this one yet. Oh, you didn't think you're gonna be let off that easily, did you?

Well, you're right. I'm done.

I'm Back For Seconds

2009-05-22T16:51:00.003+08:00

I'm kind of back. But I won't be blogging as often as I did.

There's things left unsaid, I think, from before the very long hiatus. I've still got bits and bobs of thoughts floating here and there, but I haven't had the time to actually write it down properly.

So in the meantime, I'll just go on like before, on the top of my head, and no punches pulled.

In spite of how my tone has been for a lot of the entries, I don't think the world is so black and white. There's no good and evil people. People never think they're bad, or that they're doing the wrong thing when they believe in something.

Of course thinking they're right and believing what they're doing is good is not necessarily a good thing. For example, Hitler. He believed what he did was helping the Jews, putting them out of their misery of their 'sub-human' existence. He truly didn't think what he was doing was wrong. Yet in hindsight we knew what he did was unjustifiable, horrific and inhumane in the grandest of scales.

A study a few decades ago on mafia dons in New York revealed that these bosses thought they were doing the community a service. That they had their justifications for doing so. Yet we would never accept their justifications, simply because our instincts say that murder, violence and terror cannot be justified with anything.

Do I sympathise with these people? No. Do I understand how they could've been so blindsighted? Yes. It takes some kind of neurological disorder or self-denial for them to be able to justify their motives and their actions.

The thing is, we do this too, albeit on a much smaller scale. Have you ever done something bad to a person intentionally, and then justify it by saying "he/she deserved it" or "it's just for fun"?

If you have, you're guilty of the same technique. Special pleading. This is when you give yourself the privilege of being excused the reality of your actions. If someone else were to do to you the same thing, you would never give them the same excuse. You would maybe even instantly label them as bad people.

People do this all the time. It's in our nature. If we're late, we can easily explain away our lateness. If someone else is late, we tell them off for their rudeness. If we get told off for being late, we'll talk behind the person's back and make them out to be unforgiving, uptight and unreasonable.

There's a reason I use the pronoun 'we.' Because I'm sometimes guilty of it too.

In other news. And at risk of contradicting myself.

I do find this ridiculous.

"I think of those in religious orders and some of the clergy in Dublin who have to face these facts from their past which instinctively and quite naturally they'd rather not look at. That takes courage, and also we shouldn't forget that this account today will also overshadow all of the good that they also did." - Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster

Sure, it sounds okay. But when we put it in context, it sounds utterly ridiculous.

This is the response to the reports of sexual, physical and emotional abuse in Irish Catholic churches. So you're saying it is courageous for the Church to acknowledge that your priests are fucking molesting the children? Fuck, I'd call that too fucking late.

You know what courage is? It's fucking handling it when it's going on. Not after a third party reveals it to the whole fucking world. That's not courage. That's fucking damage control.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims]

This is quite narcissistic, really. Think about the fucking children! Oh wait, the priests are already thinking about fucking the children!

I shouldn't really depend on the Church to be doing the right thing. Or acting with consideration or reason anyway.

The Church has excommunicated gays and pro-choicers, but it is funny they've never excommunicated Robert Mugabe or Adolf Hitler (both are Roman Catholics), even when they have been repeatedly called upon to do so. So apparently homosexuals and pro-abortionists are worse than mass murderers and power-hungry dictators.

Of course now they can't excommunicate Hitler because he's dead, but the Church has never tried to stop or say anything against Hitler in World War II even when it was clear Hitler was a practicing Roman Catholic. Now the same thing is going on with Robert Mugabe, but they've not said anything.

So why not excommunicate the paedophile priests?

Wait, if you've been reading this wondering what the fuck is an excommunication, here is its definition:

(noun) the act of banishing a member of a church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the church; cutting a person off from a religious society

Wait, did I just target on Christianity rather than Islam? I surprise myself.

My Name Is Jack

2009-05-11T17:05:00.003+08:00

You know what made me laugh?

Sections of the Jewish and Muslim community thinking swine flu validates their beliefs.

"What did we tell you? Pigs are dirty! Now they've got a virus and you still keep eating them. Islam is the one true religion! We've warned you all along!"

Never mind that it's still unclear where the virus originated from. Most unlikely it did not originate from pigs at all, the reason why they're renaming it the H1N1 virus. And funnily enough, the first case this year about the infected pigs was suspectedly because a human being (yes, a fucking homosapien) infected the pigs. So by that logic, human beings are dirtier than pigs. Which is of course what the Christians have been saying all along.

"Men are full of sin! Jesus saves. He died for your sins! We fucking told you! You ungrateful bastards."

Funnily enough, when you think about it, Jesus is a bastard, literally. I mean Mary and God weren't married to each other. Heh.

I have no idea where I'm going with this.

I really do miss ranting here.

I've been watching a lot of Bill Maher lately. I like him, he's occasionally funny. The thing is, sometimes he doesn't have to make an effort when it comes to making fun of religion. Really, religion just makes fun of itself most of the time. Sometimes he just needs to say it matter-of-factly and it'll be plain hilarious. But there is one thing I don't like about him. Just this one particular thing. He dismisses all religious people as stupid and irrational.

You know what I think? He's partly right. But it's not that black and white.

People are irrational if they think a guy can split a moon in half and make it go through both his sleeves. I mean if I told you someone survived days inside a whale's stomach (where it's impossible to live in, despite numerous cartoons saying it's possible) and he came out unharmed, would you believe me? If I told you someone just woke up from a 1000-year slumber in the caves in Sarawak, you would think I was making things up.

Fairytales gain credence when it's associated with religion. It's ridiculous. I mean if I replace Jack with, say, Adam, and make him climb the beanstalk, we would be saying "oh how marvelous of God to have given Adam the magic beans."

That's what I think. Is that really that controversial?

How To Be A (Non-)Believer

2009-05-10T17:31:00.003+08:00

I saw this posted on someone's Facebook. From the tone, I'm thinking it's supposed to be satire. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a bit biased, but this isn't funny at all. I've read some Christian comics and some are actually quite funny. This, not so much.

Source is here

http://ourdailythoughts.com/2009/04/13/how-to-be-an-atheist/

How to be an Atheist:

Refute everything in the Bible because men wrote it.
Believe and quote other writings of men to prove that the Bible is wrong.
Completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 1 & 2.
Call yourself a “freethinker” and “open minded” but don’t practice such virtues when it comes to Christianity.
Try to laugh out loud every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe even if you don’t think it’s really that funny. This helps avoid a “serious” conversation.
Always bring up Zeus, Allah, and Santa Claus to prove that if you must believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them otherwise it’s just not fair.
When referring to the Bible use the word “myth” as often as possible and call believers whatever names you want because the goal is to frustrate the Christian so that his sinful nature comes out and he gets angry and then you can call him a hypocrite.
Set your own moral standards very very very low so that you’ll never look like a hypocrite yourself. The lower the better.
Never answer a question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you’re asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.
Be as argumentative, loud, sarcastic and verbal as possible – there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments – just keep arguing.
Use words like “strawman,” “ad hominem,” “fallacy,” “red herring” and non sequiturs” against every argument whether you understand those terms or not.
Claim that atheism is rooted in “common sense” even though less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists.
Reject all notions of faith even though you must put your faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in.
Always ask for evidence for God but never accept anything presented to you. At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some evidence for God.
Quote only the Bible verses that make God look mean and unfair.
Talk about being a good person remembering that you are allowed to define good however you would like because there is no objective moral standard.
Say that you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether this is true or not.
Only pick on Christians – you don’t want to get killed in a Jihad. However, be sure to say that there is no difference between Radical Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians.
Always use the crusades to make the point above.
Remember that you are looking for faults in other worldviews not trying to defend your own – do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it’s much easier to destroy than build up.
Make the claim that you only have one life and don’t want to waste it on religion.
If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with drugs, alcohol, sex, or pride. You can give up the first three but never give up your pride.
Everyday feel free to thank God that you’re an atheist – just in case.

Then I tried to reply, using the exact same devices this person applied. But hey, as soon as I pressed 'Submit,' the words 'awaiting moderation' suddenly popped up. So there I was thinking, wait, there's a chance my reply will be moderated out. So here I've posted my own.

1. Believe everything in the Bible because ‘God’ wrote it.
2. Believe and quote the Bible to prove that the Bible is infallible.
3. Completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 1 & 2.
4. Call yourself a “tolerant” person and “open minded” but don’t practice such virtues when it comes to Atheism.
5. Try to laugh out loud every time am Atheist makes a statement about what they don’t believe even if you don’t think it’s really that funny. This helps avoid a “serious” conversation.
6. Always bring up the existence of everything to prove that there is a God and ignore the argument that this is a ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy.
7. When referring to the Bible use the words “accurate” and “historically” together as often as possible and call unbelievers whatever names you want because the goal is to frustrate the Atheists so that his sinful nature comes out and he gets angry and then you can call him a hypocrite.
8. Act as if your moral standards are higher than everyone else. Stereotype atheists as morally-suspect people and cast them as evil.
9. Never answer a question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you’re asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.
10. Be as ignorant, close-minded, dismissive and verbal as possible – there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments – just keep arguing.
11. Use words like “sin,” “hellfire,” “saviour,” “Satan” and “Jesus loves you, no matter what” even when the other person clearly doesn’t believe in them.
12. Claim that Christianity is rooted in “faith” even though faith is just another word for blind belief.
13. Try to use the “faith” argument back to the atheists even though science is not faith, it is a method of finding truth through rigorous experimentation and rationalism.
14. Always ask for evidence for the non-existence of God but never accept anything presented to you. At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some evidence for the non-existence of God.
15. Quote only the Bible verses that make God look good and fair.
16. Talk about being a good person remembering that moral standards have change dramatically over the centuries.
17. Say that you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether this is true or not.
18. Believe that people only pick on Christians – Christians are the victims! We all know Christians have been discriminated against more than Atheists.
19. Always use Hitler to make the point above. Even though Hitler was actually a Christian.
20. Remember that you don’t have to prove the existence of God, though the burden lies on you, the person who is making the claim.
21. Make the claim that you have an afterlife, so you can waste your life on Earth worshipping a God instead of the hundreds of other Gods out there.
22. If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with the Bible. The Bible justifies a lot of the nasty stuff.
23. Everyday feel free to thank God that you’re saved – just in case.

I'd like to think I'm a good person, and I know most Muslims and Christians are actually good people. But so are a lot of atheists I know. So from the evidence so far, goodness has nothing to do with religion.

And yes, if you replace the Bible with the Quran, and Christians with Muslims, my reply would also make sense. Except of course. Hitler. He's still a Christian.

But again, Hitler being a Christian is not really a proof against Christianity, is it? If he was an atheist, it would also not be a proof against Atheism. I mean, Osama bin Laden is not the sole representative of the whole Muslim population. Funnily enough, people have been using Hitler as a retort to anything. The funniest one is actually against vegetarianism, when in fact the Fuhrer actually loved Bavarian sausages. Sure, he loved animals. Don't many of us?

Actually, I'm still on hiatus. Maybe. Is this the right time to come back? I don't know. We'll see.

Hiatus

2009-04-23T19:31:00.002+08:00

If you have not figured it out by now, Jason Biggs is on hiatus.

I will be back, at one point.

Overdue

2009-03-19T01:20:00.002+08:00

Talk about bad timing. It turned out to be a very busy weekend.

I had not had time to check Liyana's replies or Facebook posts until today. And I've come to a conclusion of what she's saying.

She's ranting. The same thing I do, but at least I'm honest it's a rant.

Surprisingly she's also prone to taunting, which in my opinion is quite juvenile.

"sure Nietszche did collapse the belief system only to reorganize it again in his later writings, take that nihilism!"

"HAHAHA thats what they say when they dont understand post modernism, when people are SOO ethnocentric "

"I rest my case. :) "

Actually I'm having quite a hard time reading it because I don't know where the sentences begin and where they end. Really. I'm trying hard to read it, but I can't really filter the junk from the points. It's frustrating. Liyana, if you're reading this, I'd be glad to analyse your arguments if they were properly worded, paragraphed and punctuated. I wouldn't be so fussy if it wasn't for the lack of coherence and cohesion.

There are things I managed to pick out:

Apparently I don't have a philosophy. Or at least I don't write my philosophy here.

Well, even the most well-known philosophers can't explain their philosophies in their lifetimes. They wrote numerous books over the course of decades and I bet they still had a lot to say. I've only been blogging for about a year. Do you expect a detailed overview of my views on everything?

You can't dismiss a problem because other religions/countries/culture have it worse. And besides why would I be talking about the USA's policy on abortion. Besides, Bush is known to be a man of faith, someone who is deeply Christian. This influenced his stance on a lot of key policies, such as stem cell research (which he opposed) and of course abortion.

And do I really have to attack every single perpertrator of any of the wrongs I mention? Should I mention the names of every singly sexist priest as well? Or mention all the religions that don't have a female God? Or mention every single case of book-burning? Or list every massacre or infanticide case out there?

Do I really have to mention every single kind of religion there is?

I'm not talking about Islam vs The West here. I never was. I was just talking about Islam.

And by the way, I'm not glamourising the West (which is really too broad a generalisation).

You keep saying I think tribesmen are primitive. I don't. I meant no disrespect when I merely mentioned the phrase 'Bedouin tribesmen.' You gave that definition of Bedouin being the 'lowest of the low.' In fact you implied that I don't know that they're supposedly leat-regarded. How can you accuse me of looking down on them?

Why am I ethnocentric? I'm not promoting my ethnicity or culture as superior. When someone criticises a way of living does not mean he or she is ethnocentric. When someone criticises somebody's beliefs it is not ethnocentric. When someone criticises someone's religion that is not ethnocentric.

I think I've explained why I attack Islam the most. I really don't feel like reiterating this point.

My arguments are based on mass media? What mass media in Brunei?

I'm representing only one side of the argument. Fair enough. That's because I am one side of the argument. I'm expecting other people to be the other side of the argument. This doesn't mean I haven't looked at the other side of the argument. I could argue the same thing against you. This really does not hold.

Maybe I'll write more once I get through that mess of a reply.

Ethnocentricity & Chauvinism

2009-03-13T06:16:00.002+08:00

I assumed that Liyana would've been fine for me to put it on this blog since she wrote it on my wall. If you, Liyana, don't think this is appropriate, I'll be glad to take it off the site.

This is continuing the discussion from "To Think About Heaven."

Written on Facebook wall by Liyana Tassim:

ah, u remember that controversy about whether or not the Koran was created or uncreated?
1) the prophet did not ask for the Koran to be made into a book, he is a prophet why did he not ask for it to be made into a book?
2) the Koran was collected by the Sahabah and certain versions which Umar Al Khattab did not like was burnt.
Btw, the Bedouins are not all Muslims, they are considered the lowest of the low, and its kind of an insult for someone like you calling them low when in their society they are already considered low

I wonder why you're always ethnocentric, empirical thought has its problems are already countered by post modernists, one of which is although you disagree with evolutionist thought what you're very much associated with, the idea that organized religion especially monotheistic religions are at the top of the food chain, I dislike such a presumption, after all aren't polytheistic religions part and parcel of organized religion?

In addition matrilineal as well as female Gods and Goddesses of polytheistic religions, such as making the female as a High God are many in different cultures and societies, to mistake that they do not have a right to religion is very insulting. Its so la di da to be accusing mass organized religions which on the one hand are already making small polytheistic religions anyway but adding you to that is just making it even extra ethnocentric. The whole point of some societies creating religion is that it provided a social aspect to it, what you're presenting, the need to be atheistic is in line with evolutionist thought, Sigmund Freud had talked about this in Totems and Taboo and I've talked about this as well, Freud argued that being atheistic is the highest of the high, with monotheistic thought second and polytheistic thought and religion as primitive and lowly. What makes you think that simple societies are in essence actually 'simple'? And that your modern thought is above polytheism? IN addition to that is the multiplicity in which religion manifests itself,

The problem here is you're disallowing people of ALL religions, regardless whether they're polytheistic, animistic, monotheistic and in addition Godless religions such as Buddhism from having A religion in particular. I myself am not an atheist but neither am I a Muslim, but I do know for one thing, to accuse hotentot almighty and chucking in the bin monotheistic religions who have insulted animism and polytheism and philosophical religion as one, is a pretty chauvinistic attempt. Here, here let me point this out to you, religion is a belief in the supernatural, therefore whatever belief in the supernatural including say Buddhism, what is intangible IS religion. To think of tribal peoples and summing them up as primitive and backward is rather insulting, I believe that even the Penan have something to tell us, the Bedouin are a nomadic tribe, some of them have followed their older religions are what one would say 'half' Muslims. Some of them who have settled in Saudi Arabia is ofcourse 'fully' Muslim, whatever Islam means.
Not all organized religions believe in the idea of Heaven
although there has been 'corruptions' from the original ideas proposed by Siddhartha for example Mahayana Buddhism (Greater Cycle - does not mean that it is the better Buddhism haa) however, Theravada BUddhism with its strongly strict scriptural interpretations are more in line with the idea of attaining Nirvana. Thats the part where I found what you said as insulting and chauvinistic, the part when you said 'organized religion', Nirvana is not heaven, the idea of attaining NIrvana is to simply blow out, organized religions are not as simple as you think, there are sociological and anthropological reasons as to why people have religion in the first place, it is after all the root of all technology, science, art and culture, it is not necessarily a completely bad thing. There are several religions that have also amalgamated the idea of Buddhism and traditional religion such as totemism, this also includes Shintoism, to say that ALL organized religion is USELESS is a very as I said, narrow minded conception.
Oh yes, before I end it, I gave some thought to the idea of heaven, you see religions evolve, they continuously from time to time adapt and change according to what the demands of the then contemporary times are. For example, today, Catholicism has already chucked massive bits of heaven out of the window, the problem with Islam is that they have hooked on to orthodox and traditionalist interpretations of Islam, remember certain factions of Islam have thrived during the 15th century and they have claimed that the Koran is 'created'. And I see nothing wrong for a Muslim to not believe in heaven, as I said your conception of religion is pretty narrow, and whoever said jihadists make sense in the first place? Try reading Clifford Geertz when he compares to Islamic societies, to depend on people like Gellner as a source of Islamic thought I think is very one handed. I don't care if you insult Islam, by all means trample on it, but that's because I am part of it, but if you start insulting other religions such as polytheism, animism and philosophical religions and lump it together with monotheism, dear you know nothing about and stick with your monotheistic toys

Reply on Facebook from Jason Biggs

I was impressed with the number you assumptions you made. Though I would appreciate it if you used some appropriate punctuations (like a fullstop) every now and then. It's very hard to read one sentence that's five lines long and with nine commas.

To assume I think tribesmen as backward and primitive, you must be joking. From that single mention, you think I'm ethnocentric. What a big leap.

Anyway, to say that I think all religions are 'useless' is untrue. I would say a large number of them are dangerous. When I say dangerous, I don't just mean jihad-dangerous. I mean science-hindering dangerous. I mean blind-faith dangerous. Homophobic-dangerous. The reason I talk about Islam is it's one of the fastest growing and biggest religion out there, and it's also one seeming to be permanently stuck in its ancient form.

To say I think I'm superior to religious people is an assumption you made without sufficient evidence. I have not said that. The reason I started the blog anyway was because I believe that people, no matter what their beliefs are, will be able to discuss their views intelligently. And I don't see atheists as the 'superior' kind. I don't see the need to categorise how superior people are by what they believe in. I fail to see atheists as a kind or even a group of people. You cite names and attribute their believes onto me. You assume I fit into these philosophies. You don't know what my philosophies are. For example, just because I accept evolution doesn't mean I am a social Darwinist.

Yes, I think religion did (and do) have a social aspect to it. Yes, I know religion was a major part in uniting people. Yes, I know theology is a deep subject, and religion is not a simple make-believe, imaginary friend thing.

But can't I argue that it has become obsolete? Or even harmful? When it forces people to become irrational? Or unable to accept criticism?

I don't have a problem with Muslims who don't believe in heaven. But I do have a problem with Muslims who support fatwas to kill authors. I have a problem with Muslims who advocate mysogyny. And I have a problem with Muslims who want abortions illegal even in cases of rape and incest.

In fact, why I discussed heaven anyway is because the idea doesn't appeal to me. I'm not saying people who believe in heaven are stupid. I'm saying I'm not a Muslim because I don't believe in the idea of the Quranic heaven, amongst other things.

To say empiricism has already been countered by post modernists is preposterous. Empiricism is the foundation of science. Post modernism is too vague a term, blanketing too much while saying very little.

I'm a bit confused as to why you say I'm ethnocentric. I have made no references to ethnicity nor of superiority of any kind. I think superiority is arbitrary anyway. Please do enlighten me.

Not all religions believe in a heaven. Fine. I was specifically discussing the religions that do. Particularly Islam.

Can I try you trick? That is to use one point and to exaggerate it to the point of beyond recognition?

You said I should stick with my monotheistic toys. Just because you think I'm younger than you doesn't mean I know less. Just because you like to use big words and mention names doesn't mean you know more. You're the chauvinist here. To label me as narrow-minded without actually knowing the full extent of my philosophy, and then falsely attributing beliefs from well-known figures just because they have a bare resemblance to what I've said. And what are you asking of me? Do you want me to include or not include polytheistic, animistic and philosophical religion?

Do you see what I've done there? Do you see what is wrong with my approach in that paragraph?

Really. I expected more from you than this.

To Think About Heaven

2009-03-10T22:16:00.000+08:00

One of the main reasons I don't believe in organised religion is their concept of heaven. It's mostly quite sexual, materialistic and misogynistic, with no similar sexual pleasures for women offered. Why aren't there 72 celebrity-lookalike male virgins for each women? Why does the Islamic concept of heaven resemble those of oases and palaces? Sounds like a heaven imagined by some bedouin tribesmen to me.

I've heard of the 'beauty' of these angels. They don't seem to be beautiful to me. Everytime the Quranic version of these angelic sexual servants is mentioned, I actually get turned off.

But that's beside the point.

The concept of eternal happiness or everlasting bliss is a flawed and logically impossible. What does it mean to have eternal happiness? Surely a million years in heaven would be boring. Monotonous. I might even turn gay out of boredom.

And what about knowing that the people you love and care about are rotting in hell? How is that supposed to be blissful? How is that supposed to make you happy? Truly the most rewarding thing about being human is the ability to connect with other people, to share your life with others. In the long term that is what matters.

Imagine this situation. You have a partner, who you love very much. You're religious, yet your partner isn't. Your partner is a wonderful human being, charitable and humanitarian. He/She is considerate to other human beings and has contributed to society in many ways. You feel like your partner is your soulmate, but no matter how hard you tried, you can't change your partner's mind about God. But you go on with the relationship anyway, hoping God will forgive him/her or show the way. You have a wonderful sexual relationship that goes beyond its physical pleasures, as well as a healthy romantic relationship that is mutually satisfying.

Both of you die in a car accident. You go to heaven, he/she goes to hell.

Will you be happy in heaven knowing the only human being who knows who you are and loves you more than anything in the world is being tortured because he/she didn't believe in a god who never made Himself clear anyway?

People argue that the pleasures of heaven is so great that you will forget your earthly nature. Isn't that basically changing the way you are? It's erasing a part of you, who is forever in love with a hell-bound human being. If you forget that part of your earthly past, you forget a part of yourself. Was your love meant to be meaningless? Is it supposed to be a test? What kind of considerate, forgiving God would do that? What human being would even think that's right?

Will you enjoy sex with angels/servants who you have no connection with? Would you enjoy your palace knowing that for eternity you would spend it without your partner?

I reject that heaven. I reject any form of 'everlasting happiness,' because it is itself a contradiction. Happiness is relative. If it is everlasting, it loses its meaning. It loses its delights. Happiness will become the new indifference.

Life on Earth for me is enough. I don't need an afterlife. A life without an afterlife makes it infinitely more special. It makes you cherish life more. Heaven is an illusion, a dangerous one.

I remember watching a film called 'What Dreams May Come.' It forced me to re-evaluate my thoughts about heaven, and how troublesome and conceptually flawed such a concept is.

50 Reasons I Reject Evolution

2009-03-09T22:33:00.002+08:00

This is just brilliant.

Taken from Bobbie-The-Jean's deviantart.

50 Reasons I Reject Evolution

1.) Because I don’t like the idea that we came from apes… despite that humans are categorically defined and classified as apes.

2.) Because I’m too stupid and/or lazy to open a fucking book or turn on the Discovery Science Channel.

3.) Because if I can’t immediately understand how something works, then it must be bullshit.

4.) Because I don’t care that literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology.

5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ZAM MOTHAH-FUCKAHS!!!

6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the process of speciation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a fucking Tootsie Pop.

7.) Because the fossil record doesn’t comprise the remains of every single living thing that ever existed on this 4.5 billion year old planet, even though fossilization is a rare process that only occurs under very specific circumstances.

8.) Because science has yet to produce any transitional species… except for the magnitudinous numbers of them found in the fossil record which don’t count because… I uh, OOH LOOK! A SHINY OBJECT!!! *runs away*

9.) Because I know nothing about Darwin except that he had a funny beard.

10.) Because the theory of evolution (which, according to scientists, perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth) contradicts biblical literalism… ya know, flat Earth with a firmament that keeps out the water, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, bats are birds, flamey talking bushes, virgin births, food appearing out of nowhere, massive bodies of water turning into blood… etc etc.

11.) Because I think the word “theory” actually means: “random stabs in the dark” when it really means: "an explanation of certain phenomena that is well-supported by a large body of facts and often unifies other similarly well-supported hypotheses" i.e. atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, some-people-are-dumb-motherfuckers-theory, etc.

12.) Because the fact that science is self-correcting annoys me. Most of my other beliefs are rigidly fixed and uncorrectable.

13.) Because I am under the severely mistaken impression that evolution implies someone in my very recent ancestry was a chimp.

14.) Because everything appears designed to my mind which was expertly tuned by nature to perceive design, probably as a survival mechanism.

15.) Because some secretly fabulous closet-dwelling televangelist (who unironically preaches hate towards gays) told me that evolution is Satan’s way of leading me away from God.

16.) Because that same guy (who was also caught snorting blow off a male hooker’s shiny naked ass) told me that God planted those fossils to test my faith.

17.) Because I’m 100% correct about everything 100% of the time and there is 0% chance that some snooty Oxford educated scientist with numerous honorary doctorates could possibly know something that I don’t.

18.) Because I don’t know that fossils are found in sedimentary strata corresponding to their age as one would expect if evolution were true.

19.) Because I don’t understand why, if we share common ancestry with chimps, there are still chimps. And when someone with more than three brain cells in their head inevitably replies: “for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Brits but there are still Brits, I can’t follow the logic. It’s just too big a leap. Who am I, Evil Knievel?

20.) Because my mom dropped me on my head when I was a baby.

21.) Multiple times.

22.) On purpose.

23.) Because the idea that life evolved naturally over billions of years is infinitely less believable than the idea that an 800 year old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat when the entire planet flooded, an event for which there is absolutely no geological evidence whatsoever and also makes no fucking sense at all.

24.) Because Jesus totally rode around on a fucking t-rex. He’s just that badassed. And also, did you know that t-rexes were vegetarians? Ken Ham says so and I believe it.

25.) Because I don’t realize that saying “microevolution is possible but macroevolution isn’t” is as stupid as saying “I can pick my nose for one second but I cannot pick it for 10 seconds.”

26.) Because the education system failed me miserably.

27.) …and then took a big wet dump on my face.

28.) Because I think that knowing how nature works magically obliterates all of its beauty.

29.) Because I didn’t know that evolution has been tested and observed in laboratories.

30.) Because when confronted with that, I refuse to believe it. It’s obviously a scientific conspiracy aimed at turning everyone on the planet into atheists... even though evolution says nothing about god's nature nor whether he, she, it, or they exist.

31.) Because I’m too stupid to realize that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and is actually a pseudo-scientific bastardization that real science largely rejects.

32.) Because the planet and all the life on it was designed for humans… kinda like how the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY was designed specifically for the dust-bunnies that may accumulate on the floors.

33.) Because I don’t realize that if we actually found croco-ducks in the fossil record, it would falsify evolution.

34.) Because plenty of respectable people like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (who are not scientists) don’t accept evolution, and that somehow validates my opinion.

35.) Because my mother didn’t know not to drink while she was pregnant. She also didn’t know not to repeatedly throw herself down a flight of stairs in an attempt to undo the accident of screwing someone who voted for Bush both times.

36.) Because I don’t know that “irreducible complexity” has been debunked a frazillion times by a frazillion different people and is no more credible an argument than “NEEN-er NEEN-er NEEN-er, I’m right and you’re wrong.”

37.) Because I have never seen a duck evolve into a cat over night, despite the fact that such a thing would be contrary to all known scientific disciplines.

38.) Because I have no imagination, learning is too much effort, I don’t like proven facts, change scares me, and I think deoxyribonucleic acid is something I’m supposed to clean my bathroom floors with.

39.) Because evolution means that I absolutely MUST reject everything else I know, abandon all my beliefs, and start aping around my house like a fucking monkey. OOOh-ooohh-ooohohh -OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!

40.) Because I haven’t put my cave on the market and moved into the 21st century yet. I’m waiting for the cave market to rebound from the recent financial meltdown.

41.) Because I don’t know what an atavism is and if you told me, I still wouldn't believe it. Too weird.

42.) Because I don’t know that evolution explains methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and also provides the answer in preventing it from turning into a superbug and killing massive numbers of people.

43.) Because I don’t know that evolution is routinely used in medicine to diagnose and treat certain illnesses such as genetic ailments, bacterial infections, and viral infections.

44.) Because I believe there is a strong comparison between designed inanimate objects such as buildings, paintings, and watches (which we know were pieced together from identifiable components by human beings) and living organisms (which reproduce with genetic variation under the effects of environmental attrition).

45.) Because I see no significant similarities between humans and apes. *scratches my ass-crack then smells my fingers*

46.) Because I think I’m too special to have been crafted by any natural process and the entire planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe were created with me especially in mind.

47.) Because I unquestioningly swallow the ignorant anti-science bullshit spewed directly from the fraudulent stupid asses of people like Ken Ham, Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, and Kent Hovind.

48.) Because I’m a freethinker and freethinking really means ignoring anything that contradicts what I already believe.

49.) Because I don’t know what confirmation bias is.

50.) Because despite the fact that in all my years of life, I have never seen any magic, I still believe magic is the answer to anything I don’t immediately comprehend.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. Quod erat demonstrandum, I fucking win. Take that you EVILutionists!

Facebook

2009-03-05T20:34:00.002+08:00

Hey. This is going to be short. A proper update is coming soon.

I've just recently (yesterday to be exact) made a Facebook account. Why, you ask? I know, Jason Biggs isn't my real name, and my alter-ego is also somewhere on Facebook.

I'm using Facebook as a mirror to this blog, so if anything happens to this blog I'll still have everything on Facebook (as notes). If that fails, I've also got everything backed up.

My name on Facebook is Jason Biggskills, as FB didn't allow the name Jason Biggs Kills. I'm guessing it sounds too violent. Oh well. JB on FB it is.

Harun Yahya, You Say?

2009-02-27T05:11:00.004+08:00

I just realised why so many Muslims are against evolution. At least partly why. It's because they've read books by a supposed Muslim scientist who "disproved" Evolution. I've also seen people reading his other books, like "Quran Leads The Way To Science" which ironically only gives the name of only one Muslim scientist in his 'Scientists of Faith' lists. [1]

This person is of course Adnan Oktar, who is better known as his pen name Harun Yahya.

Did you know this guy has no scientific background? There's no mention of him having qualifications in biology, chemistry or anything scientific for that matter. Not even on his own website. [1] For a guy who is so against materialism, he really loves his Versace suits, Versace shirts, Versace tie and Versace sunglasses. He's even got a Versace tie-clip thing [1].

Never mind many of his books are inaccurate and erroneous. He also has poor grasps of scientific facts and theories. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. He also distorts hadith to serve his own meaning. [1]. He also cannot take criticism well, trying to censor/ban anything that disagrees with him in Turkey [1] [2] [3]. For someone who claims to have disproven Evolution, he doesn't even understand the concept of Darwinisn. [1] In that video he also shows himself to be fond of conspiracy theories.

Did you know this guy is trying to avoid getting into jail after being arrested for "creating an illegal organization for personal gain"? [1] [2]

A Turkish TV video of Harun Yahya's "arguments" being refuted by someone else. Also, you can see how irritating broken English can be. [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]

Here are my own about evolution vs creation: [First] [Hoax?]

For me he doesn't sound like a reliable source at all. For anything.

Buses II

2009-02-25T17:18:00.003+08:00

Sequel to Buses.

Number One:
Something for National Day. Kedewasaan Bernegara. Being proud of our Sultan's obscene spending habits.

Number Two:
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, I find it absurd that he's always angry at me all the time. He knows what I was going to do, and he made me do it using his will, yet he's mad at me anyway?

Number Three:
The fear of hell. Manipulating our fears, using them to make us believe. Don't do this, or else you'll get tortured in Satan's fiery abode.

Actually, I feel sorry for Satan. Allah is a twat for punishing Satan. He knew all along it was going to happen anyway. He knew by creating Adam & Eve he would make Satan jealous. I mean, I would be. Satan wasn't top dog anymore. It was a case of nepotism of godly proportions. I'll say it again, Allah is a twat.

There's also a theory that the supposed '72 virgins' promised to martyrs could've been mistranslated. It could mean raisins.

Number Four:
The hypocrisy of men (and boys). After an afternoon of making fun of gays, they go home, turn on their PCs (or Macs) and start masturbating to lesbian porn. Apparently they don't want to be turned gay with dicks everywhere in hetero porn.

Number Five:
Why is faith good? says Bill Maher. Having faith does not make it true. I mean, Hitler had faith in Nazism. Tom Cruise has faith in Scientology. Does faith make it true?

Number Six:
Islam as having all the answers. Anyone who claims to know all the answers, I'll treat with extreme suspicion. Especially one who follows a dead person who claimed an indescribable powerhouse is watching over us and that we shall all not eat for thirty days in a year and wash our hands from right to left 3 times for each, and do the same things with other parts and then do a serious of rituals in a building that costs hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to make.

Number Seven:
Self-explanatory. Well, kind of.

Buses

2009-02-24T19:37:00.004+08:00

I'm sure this will offend people. But what I hope most is that it'll make people smile. Here I'll discuss a few things aided with some bus ads. A few months ago I stumbled onto an article saying how atheists in UK put ads on buses saying 'There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.' I thought that was brilliant. Now in tribute to that I've made these (not on real buses) using an online bus slogan generator (no Photoshop, as it turns out).

Number One:
A lot of muslims cannot accept criticism. Some are very anti-Western or anti-Semitic. Even in islamic books and so-called 'ceramahs' you hear these people blaming the Jews and spreading hate. 'Yahudi' this, 'Yahudi' that. I don't know about you but I'd call that hate-mongering and obscenely racist.

Number Two:
This is an inside joke. A few posts ago, I wrote about sex and violence. And I used eating chocolate and smoke pot as weird analogies for sex and violence respectively. Read that. Although right now it doesn't make sense, it will after you read it.

Number Three:
Sex. This was just intended to be humorous. But intention does not equal output. I really don't get it why sex outside marriage is unacceptable (other than because of religion) and then in marriage it suddenly becomes good, or in some people's cases nauseating and repetitive. Refer to previous posts for detailed discussion.

Number Four:
This is for people who use religion as an excuse to do horrible things. Of course for me religion itself gives a lot of excuses to do bad things (like treating your wife as second-class or beating up your children, just to name the milder stuff).

Number Five:
The art of taking quotes out of context. People used to quote Einstein as being religious just so that they think one the greatest human minds ever agreed with them on religion. Truth is, he was not religious in the way you think. It's more spiritual. This is his reply to that claim:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

Number Six:
The four wives thing. Mysogyny and sexism at its best.

Number Seven:
We'll ignore facts. We'll ignore science. We'll ignore evidence. Because Islam is the one and only truth.

Of course when the science is compatible with Islam, we''ll have no problem accepting it. We'll use it as a weapon to convert or humiliate unbelievers. Any other scientific facts that aren't compatible with Islam can go to hell.

Number Eight:
I'm getting tired of hearing "God will punish you for that" or "I'm only doing what God would want me to do." Who are you? God's chosen representative on Earth? The 26th Rasul? Or the 124,001st prophet?

Number Nine:
Self-explanatory.

Number Ten:
What I think of the Quranic God. He commits so many acts of violence and has such a bad temper, he should either be in anger management or a maximum security prison. He also seems like an angry child.

Evolution vs Creation: Hoax?

2009-02-01T19:57:00.005+08:00

I forgot to discuss one of the most ridiculous things people say about Evolution in my previous post.

That it is a hoax.

How is this idea even credible? How can people be in so much denial that they fail to see how a hoax is impossible. I use the word impossible here to mean extremely, undeniably, next-to-impossible unlikely. The chance of it as a hoax must be somewhere between 0% to 0.0000000001%, surely.

Think about it for a second. Let's assume for a second that all the scientists in the world agree to everything, to every single detail. How would they even begin selling this hoax? Are they under some secret scientific umbrella corporation that is bent on misinforming the public and telling lies about one of the most important scientific theory in the history of civilisation? How would you get in into this secret society? How would you qualify? Do you just have to believe in evolution? Why has nobody ever blown the whistle? Not even rumours of a secret pact between scientists to keep evolution alive. Surely if such a society exists there would be ex-members who see it as wrong and reveal the 'evils' of such a society. Even religions have ex-members like that. But there's none whatsoever here.

There's so many ground for them to cover in terms of secrecy it's really just practically impossible. There is no secret society of Evolutionists.

Okay. Say the idea of Evolution is only an idea concocted by the elite few, and all the other scientists follow it because it is by the elite. That is not how the scientific community works at all.

Any theory has to be published in scientific journals, however elite or famous or influential you are, and these theories are scrutinised to the smallest detail by some of the most brilliant minds in the planet. If it's wrong or incredibly unlikely, then no matter how many scientific discoveries you've made or how much contribution you've made to the scientific community, it is still wrong.

If Evolution is as weak as the Creationists want us to believe, it would've never passed this rigorous process in the first place.

And what was Darwin's motive to commit this alleged 'hoax'? Such a theory in his time would alienate him in such a religious environment. He published his articles and books because he researched it thoroughly and had reasonable and sufficient evidence to claim it happens in nature. There were death threats and disbelief thrown at him from a variety of sources. That doesn't seem like the universal recognition a fraudster would want to strive for.

This is an excerpt from a website that claims evolution is a hoax:

"But how, exactly, did these changes take place? What are the mechanisms and required steps? How did the bones form? Or the muscles? Or the nerves, or the auditory and olfactory systems?"

Clearly they don't understand how evolution, be it macro or micro, works. And that's the problem. Creationists do not bother to understand how the theory works.

Here is another problem.

Scientists start from the evidence, or to be accurate, clues. From these clues, they work out the puzzle and then make a conclusion. If any evidence shows the contrary, they go back to step one, work out the puzzle with that extra piece and make another conclusion. Science gets revised. It evolves.

Creationists on the other hand begin from the conclusion, and from that they try to find evidence that supports their conclusion, therefore ignoring any evidence showing the contrary. So when they hear a theory that is completely against theirs, they dismiss it without considering its plethora of evidence, and then try to disprove it through a process of highly selective deductions.

Evolution is without evidence, you say? That is a laughable statement. It has been observed in real-time, and through fossil records. For references, see my previous post.

From what I've heard or read so far, the basic argument is this. Many of the living beings on Earth are too complex and too perfect for it to be borne out of evolution. Therefore it must be an Intelligent Designer.

Again, natural selection and Evolution explains the complexity. Through millions and millions of years of genetic mutation and adaptation. Too perfect? No, nothing is perfect. By the way, complexity is a different thing from perfection. You can be perfectly simple, or complexly flawed.

People say the eyes have to be formed perfectly from the start. What good is half an eye? Or a blurry eye? This argument is extremely flawed. Our eyes are not perfect. It gets damaged. There are people with short-sightedness or long-sightedness. It is not as light-sensitive as other animals'. Some people will develop cataracts. And there are animals with 'half-eyed' features. Some have eyes that can only tell them if it's day or night.

We humans are so prone to diseases that we cannot be said to be perfect. Our bodies are frail little things. We cannot hear far. We cannot smell far. But evolution has stopped for us at the moment because we don't need it. Technology does the evolving for us. We do not need strong, fast legs like cheetahs because we have created cars. We didn't evolve any defense mechanisms like shells because we have no more predators anymore.

This is more like a rant rather than a proper scientific article. Sorry about that.

And oh, this article made me laugh, because of its ignorance and stupidity:
If Earth is that old, history records should stretch back to millions of years (!)

Edward Current's brilliant satire on the faulty reasoning of religious apologetics (you can even replace when he says The Bible with The Quran, and it makes sense):
Occam's Razor Is Simply Wrong!
Godless Scientists Are Ignorant!
Stop Taking The Bible Out Of Context!
God Only SEEMS non-existent!
An Atheist Meets God

Evolution vs Creation & Other Important Things

2009-01-29T05:31:00.005+08:00

You want to be surprised?

I used to believe in Intelligent Design. Yes, I did. In the past tense. I was reading this book that was trying to disprove evolution (I think it might've been Harun Yahya) and for about a month I was convinced by it. But then after that moment of weakness I caught up with my common sense again.

Reading on both sides of the Evolution vs Creation argument, now I can safely say I'm convinced by Evolution. This is due to several things:

I really don't think a God (or Intelligent Designer) creating the Universe and a man and a woman who was derived from his own rib and an incestuous start to the human race is the simplest and most believable origin story of the beginning of the human species.

There has been an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution, but none for Creationism. Just vague "look around you!" shouts and a corrupted, distorted, biased and incomplete view of the Evolution theory.

What I can't digest is actual biologists (and biology students) that I know who immediately dismiss Evolution when a large part of biology owes to the theory of Evolution. It's just a theory, you say? Well, so is gravity. So is Quantum Physics. A theory is more than just vague suggestions of an answer. It is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world" (taken from here) in its scientific sense. Evolution is that. "Well-substantiated." With scientific evidence, of transitional fossils/species [1] [2] [3], and of recreated instances [1].

Using that definition, Creation isn't even at all close to a theory. Heck, if it wants to be called a theory - and it wants to be called more than that, it wants to be called the absolute truth - the only term that could vaguely work would be one under 'conspiracy.'

One of the most idiotic arguments against evolution is why don't we see people evolving back into monkeys. This is idiotic on so many levels. Clearly this person has no understanding on what the concept of evolution involves.

First of all, we don't evolve from monkeys. We have the same ancestors. So both humans and monkeys evolved from the same ape, probably millions of years ago.

Second, evolution is about getting "fitter," i.e. natural selection "selects" the best traits, and therefore evolving back into your ancestral ape would be a devolution, which does not benefit the human species.

I'm not a biologist, but I do like to read up on this stuff. I like to read Creationist "evidence" because it shows how ignorant people can be, and how dismissive of actual, scientific evidence they can be when it goes against their beliefs.

I know. The cartoon is a bit lame today. But I've kinda run out of ideas, yet I really wanted to do one.

Sometimes I just go to religious sites and read, because it makes me laugh. Of course I try and start with an open mind. But it just gets too ridiculous. Which reminds me. Watch "Religulous" by the comedian Bill Maher. It's funny. And it lets religious people make fun of themselves without even knowing it.

Like what one Anonymous guy said: "People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

Do I sound harsh?

I find it hypocritical when people try and use the "respect over free speech" argument for anything that criticises their religions. I think it's just bullshit. I mean, I get offended by a lot of stuff, but I don't tell people to shut up. I certainly don't issue fatwas to have people killed (Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, for example). I certainly don't stand outside newspaper offices screaming "Death to Borneo Bulletin for saying Manchester City is shit because they have too much money." Yes, I made that up. People do say football is a religion.

People should have the ability and freedom to criticise anything. Absolutely anything. You want to talk about the Sultan's spending habits in detail? Sure. You want to write about how reality television is a piece of shit? Go ahead. You want to write praises about a guy who cut the moon in half and made it go in and out of his sleeve? You're welcome to.

Why is religion constantly made exceptions for? What's so special about religion that it deserves special critical protection? Maybe because it's founding principles are too weak to accept criticism. Maybe because it gives people false hope. Maybe it takes away basic human liberties. And people don't want to know that their religion is doing that. So happiness in denial is more acceptable than the rational truth?

Politics. People. Art. Ideas. Scientific theories. Literature. Your hair. These things get criticised. These things get analysed. Why shouldn't religion be in that bracket?

I admit it's a bit too early in the morning for this.

I looked up an article for you guys:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

Quote Me

2009-01-24T00:40:00.002+08:00

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

The genius that was, Douglas Adams. Funny as hell with an unmatchable wit, his Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy books are some of my favourite books ever.

Due to laziness, here are some similar quotes, from atheists:

"Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness' sakes"
- The American Humanist Association's bus ad campaign

"There's probably no God. Not stop worrying and enjoy your life."
- British atheist bus ad campaign

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
- Stephen Roberts

"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions"
- Blaise Pascal

"And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence"
- Bertrand Russell. A genius mathematician and philosopher.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one"
- George Bernard Shaw (yes, I've used this point a few times)

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
- Kurt Vonnegut. I love his books. Amazing author

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."
- Anonymous. Yes, one of the major flaws of religion is its incapacity to be criticised and questioned.

"I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Both by Albert Einstein. Just to de-bunk the myth that Einstein believed in God.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
- Don Hirschberg. I don't know who he is, but I agree.

"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
- Anonymous. Don't you think so?

"Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make an exception for the last one."
- Anonymous

"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day;
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish"
- Anonymous. Funny stuff.

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Everytime we go to church we're just making him madder and madder."
- Homer Simpson. Who else? Replace church with mosque, and we get a localised quote.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes"
- Gene Roddenberry. Yes, the guy who made Star Trek.

"Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent."
- I'm not sure by who.

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs"
- Anonymous

"I refuse to believe in a god that would send me to hell just for not believing in him."
- Bob Snuka

Obama Obama

2009-01-22T17:37:00.003+08:00

Did anyone watch the inauguration ceremony a couple of days ago?

The inaugu-what?

Yes, Obama is now officially the new President of the Wor... I mean the United States of America. I think it's awesome that a half-black man who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia with a middle name like 'Hussein' can become a US President.

No, no. That's not sarcasm. Trust me, it's not. I'm being honest. I think it's awesome.

I am an Obamaniac, yes. I followed him all the way from the primary elections. I quite like his policies and his charisma. He's not someone you'd forget. I mean, I'm already starting to forget who John McCain was. Isn't he the guy who makes those oven chips?

Do I expect instant changes to the world? Do I expect an overnight recovery of the world economy? Do I expect an end of all wars by July 4th?

You must be kidding me. Of course not. What I do expect though are slow, assured changes and steps towards these goals.

Obama's been talking about the fall of partisanship i.e. it doesn't matter what party you stand for. I think the concept of parties are absurd anyway. You choose a party, then adhere to all its ideologies without question? Sounds too much like religion for me.

I need an ice-blended mocha. You, get me one. Now. I said now!

Two Thousand Fucking Nine

2009-01-21T04:27:00.004+08:00

Trying to start writing again after a long rest feels like getting up from bed after sleeping with Angelina Jolie. You feel a creeping desire to retreat again into your deep, warm slumber in the hands of your Lara Croft.

Yes, it's me, the foul-mouthed, Jolie-obsessed, sex-deprived (well...) friend, Jason Biggs, saying happy 2009. To the whole lot of you.

Now I'm here to tell you what to do with your year. It's my time to preach. Hand over the fucking mic, Ustaz. I'm here to teach these pre-pubescent kids a lesson.

(1) Laugh at as many nonsensical bans as you can. Then think. Are there underlying things under these fuckingly preposterous bans? Like a fear of feminism? Or a fear of intellectual provocation? Or simply laughable decision-making ? Or maybe even all three?

(2) Make fun of homophobes. Call them names. Like gay-hater or something. And tell them this research find: it's the homophobes who get the most turned on while watching gay porn. Yes, it's true. He doth protest too much ain't just a saying. The people who blabber on about how homosexuality is wrong is usually insecure about their sexuality. People who are straight and comfortable with their sexuality usually don't have a problem with gays.

(3) Racists are idiots. Tell them so to their face. Tell them stuff about us all being related in terms of genes and other things. If they're still not listening, ask them what they think if you're American and started shouting "Damn fucking lazy Malays" or something. Please adjust stereotype for people of other ethnic backgrounds.

(4) Don't let me tell you what to do. Think for yourself.

Don't let anyone tell you what to think. Not even me. I'm here to get you thinking. Just one point of view, a purveyor of my own truth.

Never accept any ideology wholesale. Scrutinise every fucking thing. Every little fucking detail. If one aspect seems right, it doesn't mean the whole thing will work.

Fucking assholes.

Cinema Censors

2009-01-15T23:43:00.003+08:00

I have been missing in action for way too long. And no, I'm not dead. Or get shut out. Or anything like that.

I am still Jason Biggs and I still have quite a lot to say.

Except right now I'm completely blank. Sheesh.

I have this little pet peeve that has something to do with going to the cinema. It's when the Brunei censors cut off a three-minute scene because it is sexual. I don't mind the censorship because there are no age limits for any movies (yes, I saw parents bringing their kids to the ultra-violent 'Wanted'), which I think is ridiculous.

But for fuck's sake, do it sensibly. I mean am I the only person who wondered what the fuck happened in the middle of '300'?

That's all I have to say on that one for now.

More posts soon.

This is just to mark my return.

Jesus & Mo

2008-12-07T08:37:00.003+08:00

Right. Sunday morning.

I was thinking of things to write about, but then I stumbled onto this quite funny comic strip discussing religion, religious stereotypes and the cause & consequence of religion.

For people who are quite sensitive about portraying Muhammad, then you're not gonna be happy.

If you see it for what it is, a satire about religion, then here it is:

Jesus and Mo

The Sex-Disease Pie Chart

2008-11-25T17:57:00.000+08:00

Hahaha. No, there's no pie chart.

Refer to previous post.

I'm really sorry, Guest4. I think the chatbox is way too small to actually convey accurately what anyone is trying to say.

STDs are diseases. STIs, infections.

To stop anyone from having sex because of the avoidable possibility of contracting an STD is like stopping your kid from riding the bicycle because he might get bruises.

Obviously STDs are much worse than a bruise. And losing your virginity is a much bigger step than your first bicycle ride. Though a bruise is actually more likely, provided people are more educated about sex.

The naturality (I'm making this term up) of STDs is irrelevant to whether you should have sex or not, because STDs are diseases, i.e. the consequences if you do it unhygienically/carelessly/recklessly and are avoidable/preventable. It's hard to illustrate this point because of the severity of STDs.

Let us contrast sex with smoking.

Smoking directly damages your lung. It's the act of smoking itself. It doesn't matter if you smoke carefully or safely, you're still damaging your lungs. Smoking by definition is harmful to the body.

Sex on the other hand, does not directly damage anything. The act of having sex does not automatically transmit STDs if you don't have one or if you're careful. There is no reputable health organisation that would make posters that would say sex=STDs. Instead they say unsafe sex leads to STDs.

*

From a philosophical view of whether STDs are natural or not, it's quite hard to answer. This section discusses STDs as a disease separately from sex.

A disease by definition is: an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions and can be deadly.

So it's abnormal. Automatically we think this means unnatural.

But then do we think of the flu as unnatural? Do we think a fever is unnatural? Abnormal just means out of the norm, not necessarily unnatural.

Diseases are abnormal to the body but are natural in its conception. It's a product of nature. Cells mutate all the time. And from so many of these mutations we get cancer and HIV. But also from these mutations we get diversity. We don't look exactly like our parents because of gene mutation.

*

I can only spend a certain amount of time before I get bored writing an entry in my blog. I wonder why that is. The excitement just fades as I get into this tedious construction and deconstruction.

The Sex-Love Venn Diagram

2008-11-25T00:26:00.001+08:00

Guest4: So you're saying it's natural if our kids got infected with STDs and we should simply accept that?

Guest4: Hahah.Right, sex education.Both sex and violence project a similar effect to the public

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

I was wondering if you intentionally missed the point in brackets:

"To be honest, I'd rather my children be having sex than killing people (when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course)."

I'll take it out of the brackets, just to make it clearer:

"when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course"

Having sex does not equal STDs. Making sweet love to your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/neighbour's wife or husband/Angelina Jolie does not automatically give you crabs/herpes/AIDS/hepatitis/celebrity status.

I've always supported safe, educated sex. Condoms, sex education, the likes.

You're assuming I let my (imaginary) kids run wild and have sex with anyone and everyone without protection and education. That's stupid. For you to assume that. And for me if I actually did that.

The problem is the lack of sex education. I know, you would've read this argument a million times. I really don't want to repeat anything. The basic thing is that without proper sex education people will practice unsafe sex and teenagers/youths/adults/oldies will have sex outside marriage with or without sexual education. Better safe than sorry (pun very much intended).

Marriage isn't actually a magic STD-blocker, by the way. Of course monogamy will reduce your chances of getting an STD, but then monogamy can apply outside marriage. This also assumes the one you're actually marrying is STD-free.

So marriage reduces the chance of contracting STD.

So does a piece of Durex rubber.

By a bigger margin.

Love versus Lust. That was a point brought up by Md. Yes, I do read the Chatbox. Yay.

Yes, inspite of my lack of faith in marriage (or perhaps because of it), I do personally relate sex with love. When I talk about love here, I mean romantic love. I don't mean platonic love or family love or brotherly love. That's a whole completely different venn diagram.

This is my personal venn diagram. That does that not mean that I fall in love or with anyone I lust for, neither do I confuse that lust with love. It's in fact the opposite. I lust for the one I fall in love with. The lusting comes after the falling in love. I do lust for people I don't love, but then other than in my own personal fantasy world (very few virgins, I prefer experience. Hahaha), I'm not planning or hoping to have sex with them any time soon. Example, in my fantasy world, I'd love to make sweet love with Angelina, but then in real life, fuck no. I don't love her in a romantic way, so in terms of reality, I don't therefore 'lust' for her.

That small exclusive to sex part is when I watched Angelina Jolie in 'Wanted' and 'Gia.'

Some might have it like this:
To them, sex is an almost or fully separate entity from love. And I totally understand this view.

This is also another view:

I just put that in for laughs. People who love p0rn sex but know nothing about love or actual sex (i.e. inconsiderate, selfish partners or horny, preteen virgins).

My attention tank just ran out.

Chocolate-Coated Marijuana

2008-11-20T19:52:00.003+08:00

I'm going to talk about sex again, after I've left this topic alone for quite a while.

Really, it's to do with how out of perspective we are about the dangers of sex when compared to say, the dangers of violence. Here are two situations that are almost identical yet produce very different reactions:

A boy caught watching Titanic (yes, I know it's old):

A boy caught watching Rambo IV:To be honest, I'd rather my children be having sex than killing people (when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course). I'd rather have my kids influenced by something rather natural than something that is violent and insensitive to the concept of human life.

People mistrust sex. People mistrust something that they are told is wrong and yet feel so good. The thing is, sex is like chocolate. The more people say it's wrong, the more they want it. Coincidentally chocolate makes women release the same hormones that are produced during orgasm. Yes, I had to fit that fact in somewhere.

Violence is like marijuana. It's not socially acceptable to talk about it, never mind practice it. But then people gather around and have a go at it from time to time.

Funnily enough, people would rather be tagged as sexy than violent. Hahaha.

So yes, I'd rather my children eat chocolate than smoke pot.

Just something I had to say to clear my mind.

Obscene Amounts

2008-11-14T00:23:00.000+08:00

I'm gonna post some links. Just further reading, until I update properly:

The Sultan has a world record number of Rolls-Royces.

Royals' Spending Habits

The Unpaid-for $8m Quran

Prince Jefri

Another article on Prince Jefri

Trying Economic Discipline in Brunei

How To Lose $30 Billion

Do request if you want some more.

To Hire A Private Jet

2008-11-08T21:41:00.000+08:00

Damn it. I'm fucking bored.

I've realised, that the link to the article on my blog has been e-mailed to some people. Yeah, it's obvious.

It's either people are promoting it, or people are pissed off about it. Either way, it's all good.

Hey, give it up for Guest4:

Guest4: Hmm, nice one. I would like to add that the government officials are taking advantages out of this

I need a clarification. What does this mean? It's so damn ambiguous. Advantages, as in, "yes, we are listening to you, oh Jason Biggs. You've got a point there," or "how dare you, Jason Biggs, we will fucking hunt you down like a rabid dog."

I sure hope it's not the second one. If it is, it just shows how close minded and unaccepting people are of criticism. It's all immediately categorised into one big, sweeping category, called S-L-A-N-D-E-R. Or treason. Or bullshit like that.

I'm not saying all the facts in there are true. But a lot in that article is. Most of us even know which. I mean, a few wrong facts shouldn't overshadow some of the more horrific, true points.

On a funnier note, that post attracted two spam comments. A bit annoying, but hey, unavoidable, I guess:

mikemathew said...

Royal unveiled her presidential platform in a much-awaited speech on Sunday that her party hopes will inject new momentum into her flagging campaign. The rightwing Le Figaro said Royal had presented a "catch-all" programme, advancing ill-defined proposals and failing to spell out how the French state would pay for the new social benefits.
________________________
mikemathew
social marketing

06 November 2008 02:42

bookajet.ca said...

Hire Private Jet - Bookajet provide you best services to hire private jet at your utmost satisfaction. Check out here our business and corporate jet charters that you can hire and get for rent.

07 November 2008 22:05

Thanks. I was recently looking to hire a private jet. Thank you bookajet.ca! You saved my day.

We shouldn't kill the messenger. Kill the message. Oh, that doesn't really work, does it? I'm a messenger. Some would say a messenger of hate and blasphemy. But others, a messenger of openness and constructive critical discussion. For those who haven't decided, well. I feel sorry for you.

A Royal Spree

2008-11-05T20:21:00.000+08:00

Reading 'Giving My Two Cents Worth,' I disagree with Md with the Royals being free from scrutiny.

The truth is, their money is what the government gives them, and in a potentially catastrophic circle, the government is the Royals. I don't mind them spending some money here and there. But when it's becoming wasteful then they are essentially wasting the government's money. If it was from their own business I don't care.

In fact I don't care about their personal lives. I don't care if they're gay, if they're polygamous, or if they're all assholes. As long as the nation's money is not all wasted on Rolls Royces and Mariah Carey then what they do with their personal lives is up to them.

Yes, I think HM is a good ruler. I honestly do. But I don't think we'll be lucky next time. A lot of sources say our oil will run out very quickly, and most estimates put it at 50 years.

This is an article someone sent me via e-mail a few years back, and I checked the magazine (it's banned because it's an adult magazine) by asking a friend to bring it over, and yeah, it was there. A lot of it makes sense, and a lot of it is true. But to be put so harshly, or without bias, or without the "our Sultan is richer than yours" pride, it was eye-opening. After that I've researched a bit more, and this is not the only article chronicling the Royals' epic spendings.
--------------------------
Taken from: FHM (UK), December 2006, Issue 204, The Ultimate Edition, page 128-134
By: Christian Koch

IS THE PARTY OVER FOR THE KING OF BLING?

How do you blow £30 billion in less than 20 years? Ask the Sultan of Brunei: a wayward brother, a randy son and worryingly dry oil wells have shrunk his stash by 75%...

By all accounts, Hassanal Bolkiah was just your average pop music-loving student who was always up for a kick-around. It was 1964 and he made a point of mingling with his fellow classmates in his Singapore secondary school and even went on to enjoy a relatively anonymous stint at Britain’s exclusive military academy, Sandhurst. But then one day his ploddingly average life was turned upside down when his father called him back to his troubled homeland of Brunei. He was the heir to a £40 billion fortune and was charged with cleaning up a country in disarray. Just one problem: he was 21. At an age when most are contemplating gap years and sponging off their folks, he was set to become the world’s richest man.

Born Keebawah* Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah (it goes on for another equally ridiculous 12 names so we’ll spare you) in 1946, Brunei’s 29th Sultan has always been known as the planet’s most extravagant ruler. He lives in a 1,700-room mansion and has squandered squillions on custom Rolls-Royces and gold-plated loo seats. He was the richest man in the world until Bill Gates came along and seems to be Islam’s official ambassador for parties.

Bolkiah inherited his title at a time when his country was making the transformation from puny British protectorate on the north coast of Borneo to one of the world’s richest nations. Oilfields were discovered in Brunei way back in the 1920s but it took a good 50 years before foreign investors made the Norfolk-sized nation ker-ching with oil dollars. The people of Brunei got rich and the Sultan and his Royal Family got even richer.

Beer might be banned in Brunei, and the only fodder served in the Bandar Seri Begawan branch of McDonalds’s are Muslim-friendly egg sandwiches, but compared to other Southeast Asian countries, life in Brunei is pretty cushy. The Sultan’s biggest fault could well be his generosity. Education and health care are free, there’s no income tax and 94% of the population can read or write. The Sultan has built them a £1 billion Disneyland-gone-daft theme park and he coughs up for every citizen to make pilgrimages to Mecca. If you’re a Bruneian bright young thing, he’ll even pay for you to study abroad. Best of all, every July 15, the Sultan gives every citizen a free present to celebrate his birthday – this year it was a pay rise.

Citizens of Brunei do pay a price for their leader’s share-the-wealth policy – there are no elections, political parties or a free press – but such details are readily overlooked by happy constituents. Earlier this year, he even managed to change the constitution to declare, “His Majesty the Sultan can do no wrong in either his personal or any official capacity”.

BOY’S TOYS

While Brunei and its politics remain relatively anonymous to the rest of the world, the opulence of its leader has given him surprising notoriety over the years. He gave his daughter an Airbus 340 painted in her favourite colours for her 18th birthday, while he himself whizzes around in two Boeing 747-300s, both kitted out in enough glittery stuff to give P Diddy bling blindness. But the Sultan’s real soft spot is for cars. The petrol-headed billionaire is one of Rolls-Royce’s best customers, splurging on 50 limos every year, often with bespoke engines, which he’s named the “Sultan’s Special”. During the 1990s his family accounted for almost half of all Rolls-Royce purchases in the world, and his 200-strong stockpile is so huge, it takes an entire team of mechanics from the UK to service them. His collection was augmented last January, when he bought 12 Phantoms for £5 million each, with each one boasting bulletproof glass, body armour and widescreen TVs. And just to let everyone know who’s boss, he tootles around town with a number plate bearing the title “K1 NGS”.

Have a look around the Sultan’s garage and hidden among his 5,000 strong hoard, which includes a Porsche 959 (only 200 ever made) and 300 Aston Martins, you’ll find such motoring rarities as the Ferrari Mythos concept car of which only a few were ever made, as well as the world’s only right-hand drive Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR Le Mans. The Sultan also owns one car for every Formula 1 World Champion since the 1980 season.

And then there’s the palace: Istana Nurul Iman is a gold-domed shrine to grandiosity, boasting a gargantuan 1,788 rooms, five swimming pools, air-conditioned stables for his 200 polo ponies and a £37 million painting by Renoir. Fifty-one thousand light bulbs power 567 chandeliers. Meanwhile, his Kensington pad here in the UK is rumoured to have two silver tissue dispensers that cost £250,000 a pop.

Whenever the monarch leaves the country, he takes a 500-strong army of butlers, cooks and playmates with him. He’s known to hire entire floors of hotels, and he often doesn’t venture downstairs until check-out day. He’s also visited by fashion-houses such as Versace and Armani, who set out their entire stock in front of him. “If he liked one particular suit,” remembers one Armani aide, “he’d buy 100 at a clip, all in the same colour. I could outfit entire countries with the clothing bought by the family.”

BROTHERS IN ARMS

The only curious blip in the Sultan of Brunei’s fantastically over-the-top lifestyle was his unwillingness to capitalise on his right to four wives, as dictated by Bruneian Islamic law. Every good Sultan should have a Harem, but rubbishly, Hassanal Bolkiah’s wife-turnover is relatively rare. He got hitched to his first cousin, Saleha, in 1967, then made space for his triple bed for a stewardess from his own airline in 1981. Divorcing her three years ago, he set eyes upon a 26-year-old Malaysian TV presenter while on a state visit, became glued to her channel and finally made the diva an offer she couldn’t refuse by getting spliced to her in August last year.

News of the palace’s revolving door of global beauties continued to make headlines nonetheless – thanks to the reckless lady-chasing of his brother, Prince Jefri, which would later cast serious doubts on the stability of Brunei’s Royal Family. Such was playboy Jefri’s fondness for the female form, he christened his own 152ft yacht the SS Tits, and named its two speedboats Nipple I and Nipple II. He was known to pack agents off around the world to cherry-pick models, who he’d then jet into Brunei to “entertain” him and his cronies. Ex-Playboy model Rebecca Ferratti spent two months in the Sultan’s pleasure palace in the 1990s and loved her lobster-and-champers lifestyle. “If a girl becomes a favourite at the palace she can easily come back with more than £2 million after just one year,” she said. “And she could probably make another £1 million selling all the jewellery she is given. There was no way I was going to have sex, and Prince Jefri never touched me. Any girl in LA would have jumped at the chance to go – you get tons of money and are treated like a princess.”

Then the inevitable happened. In 1998 he was sued for £47 million by former Miss USA, Shannon Marketic, who claimed that she and six other women were held captive in the Sultan’ palace for use as sex slaves for over a month. A US District Judge eventually found that the Sultan’s status as a head of state entitled his brother to “sovereign immunity” and the case was thrown out.

During his tenure as Brunei’s finance minister, Jefri had managed to embezzle £8 billion. He used this to purchase 30 mansions around the world, a jewellery collection (including a £210 million diamond) and a battalion of cars, leading the Brunei Investment Agency into bankruptcy. This, along with accusations of masterminding high-class prostitution rings, resulted in a severe falling out with his older brother. The Sultan sued him in 2000 and boldly banished him from Brunei for five years, forcing him to live on a paltry £30,000 a month. But more problems were brewing even closer to home.

The Sultan’s son, a 24-year-old Prince Azim, shows every sign in following in his uncle’s spendthrifty
footsteps. Last August he stunned Mariah Carey by flying a £3 million diamond necklace via private jet to her gig in New York. But it was Prince Azim himself who had his sights set on a pop career and was quoted as saying “I can sing (Everything I Do) I Do It For You better than Bryan Adams and would love a career in music. Sadly, I don’t have the face to be a singer – I’m 21, but people always think I’m 14.” Latter, in a bid to catch the eye of Sienna Miller, he picked up her £14,000 bar tab after a big night out at a London nightclub.

LAST ORDERS

Amid public spats with his looting sibling and trying to keep an eye on a boyband wannabe son who’s keen to live the high life, the Sultan has also been beleaguered with financial problems of his own. Geologists are predicting that by the time the Sultan’s 70th birthday comes around 2016, Brunei’s oil and gas reserves (which accounts for 93% of national exports) will be nearing an end. Moreover, having frittered away £30 billion in the last 20 years, the coffers of the ex-richest bloke in the world are now thought to be running dry. It is believed the Sultan is living on a quarter of the wealth he once enjoyed.

Stroll around Brunei these days and you’ll find the ostentatious hotels he built are empty and half the rides at the Jerudong theme park are shut. Most recently, the Sultan even faces a lawsuit over his refusal to pay a weding gift (a 400-year old handwritten Koran in a bejewelled box, valued over £5 million) for his second wife.

Could the Sultan be taking financial advice from his pal Michael Jackson and gliding towards bankruptcy? With oil reserves running out quicker than booze at a Charlotte Church party, it mighn’t be long before the Sultan’s gilded palaces are melted down to make crown fillinfs and Brunei is forced to revert back to the malaria-ridden tropical cesspit it once was. If you were ever planning a visit, now’s the time to do it.

The legacy now rests in the hands of the Sultan’s heir, Crown Prince Al-Muhtadee. The product of first cousins, the Prince is regarded to be a bit dimwitted, with Jefri’s old advisors claiming he’s so doofus-like he “can’t walk and chew gum at the same time”. He’s also plagued by diabetes, poor eyesight and, you guessed it, sex allegations – a Slovenian woman accused the Prince of cajoling her to have sex with him after meeting on the internet in 2003. Brunei may be on the verge of financial collapse but, with him in charge, at least life in the tiny Southeast Asian kingdom will never be dull.

THE FIVE MOST RIDICULOUS SPENDS

1.The Sultan is known to leave £20,000 tips while touring around the world.
2.His brother bought the Beverley Hotels for £100 million and lost a further £70 million on duff property deals.
3.Not content with a single necklace, Prince Jefri bought an entire Bond Street jewellery shop for £200 million – he was its best customer anyway.
4.The Sultan’s London home is said to have £250,000 tissue-holders.
5.He once paid Michael Jackson £10 million to play at his 50th birthday party.

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

There's a lot here.

I doubt every one of you will trust the source. But before you dismiss it as "poisonous western media propaganda," do think. Before it's too late.

Poisonous Western Media Propaganda

2008-10-23T00:30:00.000+08:00

Don't you notice, that any really big news about the royal family that doesn't involve either a wedding or a surprise visit to a primary school never, ever turns up on the local newspapers? Oh, you've more than noticed. Either that, or you treat Pelita Brunei as the be-all end-all source of news, with Borneo Bulletin just a minor source for comic relief. Garfield, anyone? I don't like the new strip. I can't remember what it's called. The name escapes me. Of course everyone likes Garfield, the inoffensive, obese, lethargic cat who hates Mondays and dogs, much like the typical Bruneian. Obviously if you treat PB as the encyclopedia of all knowledge (which I know most of you don't), you won't be reading this at all.

It's freedom of speech we're talking about here. It's censorship. It's journalistic censorship.

I know that for a lot of people, the royals are untouchable. To be honest, I don't think they should be. They should be subject to scrutiny as much as everyone else, if not more. I mean, if one of the princes decides to have a massive party with generous amounts of alcohol and the Pussycat Dolls dancing gleefully somewhere (just an example, people. Hahaha), then I think I should be able to say something against that openly without fear of a KDN official jumping out of the bushes with a potato sack and a horse tranquiliser.

I know people do talk a lot about these things, but only through word of mouth. It's never in writing. Maybe people have complained. Maybe people have written. But there's no evidence of it. They're never gonna publish a letter saying that though our princes have a tendency to be madly in love with celebrities, that doesn't mean millions should be spent for the expression of that particular sentiment. I mean, I'm in love with Angelina Jolie myself (girlfriend's not here... safe), but I don't go out of my way to send her a diamond-studded baby from a third-world country.

I wanna watch Beowulf all over again. Thanks for reminding me. Virtual Angie nakedness. The next best thing to the real thing.

A Weak Update

2008-10-20T02:49:00.000+08:00

I have to admit, I am sometimes perplexed at some of the replies I got. Some of them don't make sense, some of them are pretentious. Some of them are way off the point. A minority covers those three pillars. I'm not gonna say who.

I know, the activity in this blog is waning day by day, and it's mostly my fault. I used to update once every couple of days, at least. Now it's once a week. As I have recently discovered, I also have a life to live. My real life, not being Jason Biggs.

It's weird nobody pointed out who the real Jason Biggs is. It's the actor from American Pie. Yeah, that's the one. I don't know why I chose a virgin high-school loser to be my pseudonym. Maybe I relate to that somehow. Hahahahaha.

I need to find back that anger, that surge of rebelliousness, recklessness yet in no way thoughtless.

I need an injection of revolution into my veins, then I'll be up and running.

I will return. For real.

Oblivious Beings

2008-10-10T20:04:00.000+08:00

Fuck it, it's not right. The oblivious overrides the obvious. The ignorant collaborates with the arrogant. The state of the state was and is in dire need for change. Revolution and evolution are the vehicles for change. The revolution of ideas and the evolution of ethics. And vice versa. The ageing wolves are in it for the long haul, they will not let go that easily. They will do everything in their power to keep the status quo, which favours them.

The preachers preach of righteousness and morality, yet in the same message they preach an embracing of hate, prejudice, oppression and intolerance. The poisonous propaganda is ingrained, and the effects are long-lasting. It's in the blood and flows through your brains and hearts. It becomes a part of your subconscious. You accept the message of hate, prejudice, oppression and intolerance because it is diluted with ideas of hope, purpose and luxury.

Apathy and complacency become obedience and submission. Ignoramuses.

The search for answers should not end at the first answer we get, because when it comes to questions that matter, it is not enough. Questions are more important than answers. False answers make for false epiphanies. False epiphanies lead to unalterable fallacies, embedded into a society reluctant to change the status quo. Questions on the other hand, can never be false. Irrelevant, maybe. But never false.

We are the generation that can initiate change. As more of us become better educated than our forefathers, then we will see beyond our comfort zone and dare to question the status quo.

The Optimistic Nihilist

2008-10-09T14:40:00.000+08:00

When I say I'm an optimistic nihilist, I didn't think it'd be a hard idea to grasp. But when I think about it now, I can see why people do get confused.

When I say life is meaningless, that doesn't mean I don't have a purpose in life, or that I'm constantly on suicide watch. What I mean here is that the meaning of life is only asked by us because we exist and we are intelligent enough to acknowledge we exist. To me any any kind of life was never meant for anything. We exist only because we exist. Nothing else. It's the product of millions of years of evolution. If we didn't evolve into the thinking beings we are, we would never contemplate the purposes of our own existence.

Again, I'm a non-believer in God, so I don't believe that we were created, less so that we were created with a purpose. In Islam that purpose is to serve under God. If that is indeed our purpose, I think that's infinitely more depressing than having no pre-set purpose in the first place. I'm a person who holds close to his heart the phrase 'carpe diem.'

I do have thoughts for the future, but most of my life is concentrated in the here and now. And most of us is like that, but to a different degree.

When I say I'm an optimist, it's because I do approach life cheerfully and do believe that for happiness to come you don't need a specific pre-set purpose that was set for you before you even existed. I don't believe in the question 'what is the meaning of life?' because with all the time you spend trying to find an answer, you've missed just living your life.

I love my life. I know a few nihilists, and some of them would rather not exist. Me, well. I don't think I mind either way. It's not really a choice, is it? Unless you think suicide is a choice.

It is, sort of. For people who feel too powerless to control anything, they must feel their own mortality are the only things they are left in control with. Which is why I find it extremely harsh that anyone would condemn someone who committed suicide to hell. The concept of heaven and hell is a very black and white process when it comes to suicide (and with a lot of other things). Kill yourself, you go straight to hell.

What kind of god would condemn a vulnerable, helpless human to hell for eternity? We know better than to ostracise any suicidal person. I mean, a vulnerable, depressed and unstable person is hardly the ideal candidate for eternal torture. This God, if He put himself in human form and spoke about suicide in that harsh manner, He would be considered insensitive at the least. Ironically it would make him a Darwinist. The weak and helpless are thrown into hell without any chance for parole. The surreally virtuous and sinless go straight to heaven. If you're inbetween, you go to hell for a few million years, then you can go to heaven, albeit naked and marked.

It took me another week to update. I think that'll be the normal interval from now for updates.

Road Trip To Fill The Void

2008-10-03T04:29:00.000+08:00

Hey guys (and girls. And hermaphrodites). I'm back.

I apologise for the indefinite, unplanned hiatus that I had to take. It was unforeseen, necessary and now, it's all over. So. After about two weeks of no posts, here I am. I checked my jasonbiggskills e-mail account and in those two weeks I get a meager 6 e-mails, all but one from Gabrielle Moore, a sex specialist (it's spam, unfortunately, but she's got good tips), and the other from cBox asking me if I want to upgrade to premium. Hell no. I'm thinking of opening a Facebook account for Jason Biggs. Who thinks it's a good idea? I'm not sure what it would achiece, but hey, I think it'd be nice.

I've mellowed down a bit in the last two weeks, so right now I don't feel like talking about anything in particular. Sorry to disappoint you. I'll discuss about something soon though. I promise.

Oh. What about Raya?

I quite like the whole thing. I mean, sure, we go completely over the top when it comes to Raya, but it's still fun. A road trip to KB with friends to meet friends. You can not not like a road trip. Albeit in our case a very short one.

I mean, it's become a thing of culture, Raya. It's not really religious anymore. It's more of a national ceremony. You spend a thousand on new sofas, hundreds on green packets of ang pow, a hundred thousand on a new Mercedes, three hundred thousand for your wife's breast enlargement surgery, a thousand for two extra maids just for the month, and four thousand on a new television. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but hey, the whole Raya thing is an exaggeration anyway.

You know what freaks me out? Kids going to strangers' houses for money. I mean, sure, it looks innocent. And most of the time, it is. But in these paranoid times, surely some people would think that there might just be a paedophile or two drooling at such opportunities. I wonder if there are any paedophiles in Brunei. There must be. I mean, seriously, when we were kids, some of us would've met the uncle who likes being with children just a bit too much and can be a bit touchy. Most of the time we ignore it and dismiss it as nothing but a playful pinch or pat on the stomach. Sure, not all of these uncles are paedophiles, but hey, we got to be careful.

I don't have a specific agenda here. It's like a stream-of-consciousness thing. I might've got the term wrong. I'm just writing what comes into my head right now. So I apologise if it comes out as nonsense.

I'll try harder next time. I'm just filling a void.

Sex, Drugs & Religion

2008-09-18T02:49:00.000+08:00

bantal said...: 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.
-------------------

I just want to comment on these 'brilliant' deductions.

- 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.

Reason: I'm Back

2008-09-17T04:00:00.000+08:00

As I said, I was taking a break. And it's been about 5 days since I last posted.

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.

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.

Taking A Break

2008-09-13T04:11:00.000+08:00

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.

Racism II

2008-09-11T16:03:00.000+08:00

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

Double Topic: Discussion & Racism

2008-09-11T02:01:00.001+08:00

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.

I'm Going To Hell, And I'm Taking My TV With Me

2008-09-10T23:57:00.001+08:00

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.

Power Of Suggestion

2008-09-10T04:03:00.000+08:00

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

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.

Wait A Minute

2008-09-09T20:18:00.000+08:00

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.

Attention-Seeker

2008-09-09T16:06:00.000+08:00

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.

Bastard Of A Deranged Dog

2008-09-09T13:05:00.000+08:00

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.

Here's That One

2008-09-08T21:53:00.000+08:00

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.

Correction

2008-09-08T19:47:00.000+08:00

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.

Question & Answer

2008-09-08T17:06:00.000+08:00

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.

Medieval Fuckers

2008-09-06T14:40:00.000+08:00

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.

Moral Tissues

2008-09-01T01:45:00.000+08:00

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.

The Religious Pill

2008-08-21T01:10:00.000+08:00

Did I mention I'm an atheist?

Oh, don't act so shocked about it. Trust me, there's a lot of Bruneians who are atheists or agnostics. And I don't blame them.

And no, I didn't skip the whole religious education system. And no, I didn't spend my whole entire life out of Brunei. In fact, I spent my whole entire fucking life before this in Brunei. Of course in Brunei you can't really have a fucking life, literally. For me at least, it was difficult. Trying to find a place to fuck in Brunei for me was fucking impossible. Or impossible fucking, as I like to call it.

I know the spots, I know the hidden corners. Even in school I knew there were people sucking girls' tits in classrooms and fucking their respective partners senseless in Centrepoint toilets. But I don't know enough to go around. My sex life in Brunei was entirely uneventful.

Okay, back to religious school, or Sekolah Ugama. Tauhid was a bitch to understand. Nothing made less sense to me than trying to justify God's existence through some very pathetic 'proofs,' if that's what you wanna call it. I can't believe they're brainwashing kids with this stuff. Illogical, nonsensical proofs that even with the slightest scrutiny by my 7-year-old brain, was found to be a load of bullshit. A whole lotta crap.

Sekolah Ugama is a brainwashing machine. That's what it is.

So I guess I become an agnostic at age 7. I think that's quite impressive, don't you think? And then a few years (maybe even a decade) after that, I became an atheist.

When a guy, say Richard Dawkins, criticises religion, people criticise him because they say religion is too easy a target. That it shouldn't be taken literally. That the Bible, the Quran, whatever, shouldn't be translated literally. That religion makes people happy. Bla de bla de bla.

Okay. In the first place, why is it such an easy target? Because it's bullshit. Religion (especially organised) makes itself too easy a target with its claim of miracles and messiatic phropecies and saviours.

And a lot of people take the religious books literally. Brunei is a good example. I don't even have to elaborate on that.

Religion makes people happy? Maybe so, but illusory happiness is still illusory. It's a damn god illusion. See, a drunk person is happy, but that happiness is illusory. Religion is a drug, and a strong one at that. As Karl Marx said, it is the opium for the masses. Of course someone argued once that opium is the opium for the masses, but that's way besides the point.

One might say religion is the only way one can become moral. But that again, is just bullshit. I'll discuss that soon.

One Earth Under Gay

2008-08-14T05:43:00.000+08:00

I think lesbians are slowly taking over the Mall in Gadong.

I'm being serious. They're so ubiquitous we don't notice them anymore. Oh, by the way, ubiquitous basically in this context means all over the fucking place.

Okay, I'm all for unrepressed sexuality here, but it seems to me here, it's just a trend. A fad. The cool thing to be. If you're a not-so-good-looking, weight-challenged female (hey, I'm trying to be politically correct here, give me a break), then being a delightful homosexual is the cool thing to be.

I wonder when being gay (boy on boy) will be cool. Imagine two guys holding hands walking around the Mall. Imagine the ruckus. I want to see that. I'll pay good money to see two black-clad emos from SOAS booking a couple seat at the Cineplex.

But if this is what I hope it is, I think it's good. I mean, people embracing their sexuality. That's all fine and dandy.

I don't like people who say homosexuality is unnatural. If it's so unnatural, then it would be unnatural to think that it would happen so often in nature. But it does. In fact, a lot more than we would like to think. Here's a list of animals that scientists have observed to display homosexual behaviour:

Elephants, bears, rats, buffalos, cats, cheetahs, dolphins, chickens, gulls, salmons, frogs, lizards, snakes, dogs, raccoons, penguins, koalas, whales, guinea pigs, chimpanzees, goats, squirrels, antelopes, seals, horses, chipmunks, shrews, possums, sheep, monkeys, deers, rabbits, kangaroos, hyenas, tasmanian devils, gazelles, bats, warthogs, giraffes, foxes, gorillas, manatees, orangutans, mice.

That's just a small part of the list. You can google 'animal sexuality' if you want. In fact, it is widely believed that there are very few species found with no homosexual behaviour.

Does that mean it justifies homosexuality in humans? Not necessarily, but hey, it throws the 'unnaturalness' argument out of the 36th-fucking-floor window.

I'm straight by the way. Mostly. I think. I've got a girlfriend. That's got to count for something, doesn't it?

You're So Laughable

2008-08-06T16:23:00.000+08:00

A lot of people in Brunei are so image-fucking-conscious.

Everything we're asked to do is to some degree to make a good impression on the people currently watching you and judging you and watching you more carefully, and then scrutinizing that bulge in your pants as you're fantasizing about that girl at the 'kem perempuan' (at an orang-kahwin) being naked and licking your abs (which in real life don't exist), then stripping you down to nothing, then...

Oh, I'm sorry. I got carried away there.

The point is, everything you do in Brunei is constantly being scrutinized. To the smallest detail. What? You got back home last night two minutes late? Oh, you must be fucking the neighbour or that guy your mum saw you were with for two seconds in the Mall. You want to move out and be independent? Oh, you must be having orgies every night.

Bruneians are also sex-obsessed, as you can tell. And I won't deny it, I'm including myself. But really, even the people who aren't having it are ranting about it. It's borne out of an inner desire to get laid themselves. It's a case of if "I'm not getting laid, nobody else will". Sure, they won't admit it. Hell, they would even say that it's not that, it's religion. It's this. It's that.

Sure, I buy that. Totally.

Hey, it's not all about sex.

Public image.

Don't do that. The neighbours will think this. Don't do this. Your uncles and aunts will think that. It always ends with "what will the [insert appropriate group of people] think/say?" Or, or. What will God say?

I have a problem with this argument. A very severe problem.

I think people who use God in every argument are arrogant, assholes and asexual. How's that for alliteration? First of all, who the fuck are you to declare yourself God's chosen representative on Earth? Okay, maybe that's over the top. What I'm saying is, don't pass judgment on someone based on what you think God thinks.

By the way, I'm an atheist. I think the concept of a God, or even gods, laughable.

But just to show how much of a nice guy I am, I'm arguing the point as if I believe in the Almighty Himself is looking over me.

So, does it offend you, yeah?

Get Laid & Get With It

2008-08-03T23:58:00.000+08:00

My first post. I'm fucking damn god excited. What shall I write then?

Oh, have I already offended you? I'm flattered. That was, really, my intention of starting up this blog. To offend as many people as possible. And along the way to entertain and put a smile to that face that just can't wait to get laid, at least deep inside.

So people, you need to get laid. That's the bottom line.

And by you, I mean all those uptight, morally self-righteous, judgemental fuckers who panic and run around in circles shitting themselves at the slight mention of sex.

These people are the one who need to get laid the most urgently. I don't care how, I don't care where, just make it happen. Be it in Thailand (no child-sex please, you sick fuckers) or Soho, or even with your orgasm-starved husband/wife (if you're married, or if you're not, just pretend the one you're having sex with is indeed someone you're married to). As soon as fucking possible.

The next advice is: Calm the fuck down.

You don't need to police every single thing that's happening around you. Unless it affects you or society directly, shut the fuck up. We don't want to hear your hypocritical bullshit being vomitted out of your cock-starved lips.

Thanks very much for reading my very first Jason Biggs Kills post