A Direct Response

This article, by MalayMail contributor Boo Su Lyn is arguably the first( to my knowledge ) popular atheistic wave to hit Malaysia in recent memory, and has managed to spark interesting philosophical/theological discourse over the past few days within the blogsphere. This article is also a follow up to a previous article titled " Why I left the faith ", in which many critics have effortlessly exposed it for its fallacious feminism( sorry for being redundant ). My response will be centered around her latest article, in which she tries to justify her atheism. It seems to me that from her justifications, she is either uninformed on the matter or a village atheist. I would propose the former to be the better conjecture, but would not rule out the latter.

This is where my refutation begins.

" Firstly, this assumes that time is linear and that the universe came into being at a certain point, popularly known as the Big Bang Theory. But another theory posits that time could be cyclical and the universe could have existed forever, without requiring a beginning. "

- This of course is the typical retreat atheists go to in hopes of salvaging the century old, empirically refuted ' Steady State Theory ' . With Einsteins equations of General Relativity, time is linear, with the speed of light moving from one moment/point to another in ONE direction at a given speed constant. This allows physicists to safely assume the adoption of the A-theory of time, whereby the past, present and future do in fact move in one direction and they do not coexist simultaneously or in other words, linearly. Using Einsteins's equations, George Lemaitre( a priest ) and his colleague Alexander Friedman managed to prove that the universe is indeed expanding theoretically. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble empirically verified this via the discovery of the red shifts of distance galaxies using the Hubble telescope. To briefly explain( because I'm not an actual scientist ), Hubble observed that the further away a galaxy is from his point of view( his observatory ), the ' redder ' it is, the nearer it is, the ' bluer ' it is. This is significant because based on the electromagnetic spectrum,the further away an object is from you, the wavelength increases, and the frequency decreases. Which means that the object( in this case the galaxies ) in question would become more red, given that speed of light is a constant. Hubble's empirical evidence also shows that the universe expanded from a point of infinite density, where the space-time continuum began to come into existence. This is known as the ' Big Bang ' . In 2003, a monumental study on modern cosmology put the ' static universe ' notion in the grave. This study was formulated by three scientist- Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin and Arvind Borde. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorum almost definitively shows that a universe cannot be past eternal, and have a beginning. The mountains of evidence available from modern cosmology points almost unanimously to a beginning of the universe, to not accept the scientific evidence is to display a deep seeded dogmatism in Boo Su Lyn's( BSL ) worldview. Unless she wants to be a bible-hating village atheist, she would do well to reconsider her views on cosmology.


" Why should God be the Uncaused Cause? If we can accept that there is something which doesn't need a causal origin, ie: God, then why not apply it to the universe itself? If God can exist on its own, so can the universe. "

- In the first segment, she proved herself to be scientifically inept. In this, she proves herself to be philosophically inept. Educated Christians don't argue that the uncaused first cause needs to be Yahweh. It could be any one of the Abrahamic Gods. Given that the beginning of the universe requires a cause, because it can't be self causal, whatever the cause is, it must be outside the space-time continuum. Which immediately opens up the possibility of God as an explanation. God may not be the only candidate for the uncaused first cause, but the logicality of this strongly implies that atheism is false and should not be taken seriously as an intellectual pursuit. In short, whatever you want to label the uncaused first cause, the universe itself can't be in your list possibilities, which immediately disproves the static universe( eternal universe ), which directly disproves BSL's version of atheism.


" A Christian friend told me that he could not accept the randomness of existence. He said he found atheism depressing as without God, there is no reason why we're here on this Earth. Of course, science can only explain the how, but not the why. For centuries, mankind has struggled to explain the purpose of our existence. But we cannot answer that question by inventing God just to resolve our existential angst. That is putting the cart before the horse. We like to feel special, like we are different from the other seven billion people on this earth. It's comforting to believe in a God who knows us personally to the extent that every hair on our head is counted (Luke 12:7). However, all the belief in the world cannot make God real. "

- But as BSL points out herself that her Christian friend is making an existential argument, not a rationalistic or empirical argument. Her friends challenge to her is not about truth, but meaning. What her friend says is true. If there is no God, and may a reiterate the importance of the ' IF ', then life is meaningless. Which means her feminism is meaningless, her atheism is meaningless, and ultimately her life is meaningless. We are but atoms and molecules awaiting the impending doom of the universal heat death . Which then begs the following existential question: " Why is she behaving as if this article is meaningful? "


" However, I have a problem when the bible tells a man to love his wife, while the wife is to respect her husband (Ephesians 5:33). This reflects a relationship with unequal power dynamics, akin to a parent-child or a boss-subordinate relationship. The woman is not of equal status with her husband; she is meant to “respect” or obey his authority. This notion can be easily misused in abusive relationships, in which the man claims that he is beating his wife out of love to “teach” her. "

- Her atheistic assumptions proved bearable, but her feministic ones are out of touch with reality. What more does she want the bible to say? Does she think that love isn't enough? Taking the verse out of context, does she assume that the bible tells men to disrespect women, simply on the basis that the Ephesians 5:33 never spelled out everything BSL wants to hear? Taking into account that the bible asks men to give himself up to women isn't sufficient? What more does she want? If the man of the household abuses his wives via authority, don't you think that will be an unloving act? Therefore violating the very commands that the Lord gave man? Come on...


" Even if we accept the argument that women are treated fairly in the bible, it certainly isn't reflected in society, where right-wing Christians in America oppose abortions, the Obama administration's birth control policy and gay marriage. The Christian church in Malaysia is also fairly conservative. "

- Christians oppose most abortions because they are murder. Does BSL support murder of the innocent? Birth control policies is a debatable issue I admit. What does gay marriage have to do with women rights? So she incessantly complains about these supposed problems within the Christian community, but does she acknowledge that conservative Christians in America would fight for a women's right to vote, to choose her spouse, to work in any economic industry, to have free speech etc? Or is her mind filled with the deluded modern liberal indoctrination manufactured by the American Left?


"  It's strange to see right-wing Christians attacking same-sex marriage when churches allow divorcees to remarry, even though divorce is frowned upon in the bible. "

- Allowing divorce and frowning upon it isn't contradictory. I can allow my children to drink as much as they want but that doesn't mean I don't frown on it.


" Religious believers who oppose other people's right to marry someone of the same sex are like vegetarians who want meat banned. It's as bad as banning interracial marriages, which would be unthinkable at this time and age. "

- This is not true, given that meat/race and gender differences are vastly unanalogous( I am not sure what the negative is for analogous ). I won't go into this subject in this article because this deserves an entirely new post.


"  Then there is the teaching of creationism at some schools in America instead of evolution. Malaysia doesn't fare much better as the government has banned the Malay translation of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. How can we teach children myths instead of basic science? Young minds should be encouraged to explore and to question. Simply teaching children “God did it” will only hamper their growth and create an unquestioning generation that thinks in absolutes. "

- I can safely concur with her sentiments on creationism. While it is true that evolution needs to be taught in schools, it must not include the atheistic presuppositions that Darwinism adheres to, but instead allow students to rationally explore the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory as an explanatory mechanism of the natural world. Regarding absolutes, I wonder if BSL finds it acceptable for anyone treat her feminism and atheism as non-absolutes? Or perhaps the absolute view that no absolutes should be rooted in society? Absolutely!

" Religion has inspired violence too, whether it's the Crusades launched by the Christians during the Middle Ages or the massacres currently carried out by the Islamic State that includes beheadings, crucifixions and rape. The holy scriptures may not explicitly permit such violence, but it is problematic when belief in God is the main motivation for such acts. We can't simply dismiss such barbaric groups as minorities who are wrongly interpreting their holy books. Holy scriptures are always open to interpretation anyway. The problem is with the holy text, not believers, because it can push men to commit such dastardly acts in the name of God. "

- As I've pointed out in a previous post of mine, religion maybe responsible for some wars, but the overwhelming majority of wars are political and secular in nature. Atrocities in World War II are perfect examples. Yes, we should condemn the abuse of scripture, but that's a problem with human nature, not the holy scriptures of the Bible.

" However, I must stress that in the same vein, the lack of meaning of our existence should have nothing to do with whether God exists or not. We create our own purpose in life. As Jean-Paul Sartre says, humans are “condemned to be free.” "

- If one wishes to mistreat women, burn homosexuals and harm infidels, then justify it by saying: " That is our self-engineered purpose in life!", I wonder how BSL would react? Would she condemn such acts of violence, or would she start mining for more quotes from french philosophers?

Women: They've changed, for the better?

         

As I contemplated exposing my views on this topic, I thought I might be swimming in pre-boiling water, then again, if I see my understanding as helpful to others, I should just proceed at the expense of a possible backfire. In other words, to put it mildly, YOLO.

          I discovered this article on Facebook and decided to have a go at it, as I found it very dogmatic yet interesting. There is also widespread empirical relevance on the matter, which makes it, I hope, socially bubble-popping for whoever is reading. Do read the mentioned article to ease some of my burden on explaining.


She writes : " Gentleman, you are part of a new era, the era of the emotionally unavailable woman. "

• Well, this doesn't bode well for relationships...

" The Millennial women is different from the women of former generations. We're extremely career-driven, goal-orientated, and independent. Since we tend to gear towards this path in life-- to make our mark and leave with a legacy. "

• So I presume she thinks that women who prefer raising families, being obedient to husbands and other traditional notions of women do not leave notable legacies? So women of the yester-generations like Margaret Thatcher, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa, didn't make their marks in history?

" There is absolutely nothing wrong with being emotionally unavailable. In fact, this generation of women is the finest we have ever seen. We've traded our recipe books for iphones full of networking contacts ; We've traded early motherhood for for corporations. "

• Why is this remotely beneficial? What about ' being cold ' is good for any relationship? Finest? She must then be referring to contemporary female role models Miley Cyrus and Nicki Minaj. What makes any of these trade-offs definitively advantageous? I don't think society gets degraded by having a few more women who can cook, or a few more women with the ability to bear responsibility at a young age. This isn't to say networking and the finance sector is muted in its value, but why think of them as better?

" We want more out of life than what has been previously allotted. In fact, we want it all. We control our destinies, and this makes us slightly fearsome, but also thoroughly impressive. "

• Because child-bearing and family building is loathsome and destiny-obliterating but making money gives real empowerment and self worth as a women at age 25.

" The Millennial woman shouldn’t be resented, gentlemen, but instead, needs to be embraced and accepted. We want partners, not patrons. We want to achieve substantial goals, not live vicariously through yours. "

• If this is indeed what a Millennial women should be( I don't for one second agree, but let's say I do ), then it should be resented. Because it makes women think that they should behave like men, aggressive and egocentric, while understanding traditional women qualities like gentleness and obedience to be repulsive.

" We are an upgraded version of the soft and fragile characters we are often so wrongly assigned. "

• Err... upgraded?

" In fact, the relationships we can provide are multilayered and unique. We’ll challenge you and frustrate you. We’ll motivate you and push you to be the best you can be. With the emotionally unavailable woman, you’re exchanging normal female roles for atypical, far superior partnerships. "

• Yeah, because only modern women can motivate and drive men, unlike the billions of traditional women around the world that constantly go through hard life conditions to maintain her household while being as mentally stable as possible and gentle in touch.

" The emotionally unavailable woman feels slightly guilty about being affectionate, as if it somehow betrays our feminist ideals. We’re also afraid that expressing ourselves fully could put us in a potentially vulnerable position. "

• Desires a relationship, but wants not to be exposed or vulnerable. Like wanting to swim, but hoping not to get wet. These feminist ideals seem to be really good at blocking meaningful relationships.

" It’s not that we don’t want to feel happy; it’s that we don’t want to feel susceptible to what that happiness means. "

• But how can one feel happy if they don't know what happiness means, or is?

" If this isn’t happiness we’ve created for ourselves, for instance, like a great ad campaign or an intriguing article, we fear the possibility of it being taken away. The emotionally unavailable woman prefers feelings of happiness that she has direct control over. "

• Why think, that which we have direct control over, can't also slip through our grasps?

" We ladies will feign indifference when we want you to take initiative because, once again, we don’t want to be vulnerable. Being direct, by asking a man to stay the night, would open us up to the possibility of rejection. "

• But I was made aware earlier, that feminist are robust, steadfast and strong individuals that likes a challenge and can stand on their own two feet. How did this narrative of women suddenly slide into fear of rejection and the shunning of vulnerability? Wouldn't these iron-hided women demonstrate high levels of imperturbability?

" We ladies don’t want to jump in the deep end and compliment you on your kindness or profound intellect. By objectifying you, you’re less threatening. Sex and good looks make for an easier complement. "

• Ah, the quintessential modern-day feminist slogan. ' We can't be asked to be submissive but we can treat you as lumps of atoms and molecules, thereby allowing ourselves to call you animals! YAY! '

" We will engage in the bedroom with aggressive gusto. What we lack in emotional availability we promise to make up for with sexual insatiability. "

• sigh...

Conclusion :

This woman, or man( since the distinctions are blurred and unimportant ), is without a doubt a walking oxymoron. On one hand there is great aspirations to be full of spine and gusto, on the other a deep display of insecurity and detestation of the unknown. Why would the fearsome be afraid of fear?
Such is the inauthenticity of the views provided in this article. If this is what we should expect from the so called ' Millennials ', then to paraphrase Ronald Reagan :" I am selling my bonds! "

Hell Is Where the Devils Dwell.

Three months of astronomical hope sent into oblivion within three football matches...Wait, oblivion? Pessimism be gone! For the best is yet to arrive. The knee jerk reaction with regards to Manchester United's meek performances over the past few weeks reminded me how inept we fans can be. Looking at the evidence inductively, why would we believe that Louis Van Gaal's tactics will come into fruition in an instance. His three months engine starter have been present in just about every club tenure abroad. Barcelona, Bayern Munich to mention the well known ones. But here's my season preview and prediction for Manchester United's Barclays Premier League 2014/15 campaign.  

Man with a vision

What Pre-Season Taught me.

Introduction to Louis Van Gaal's tactics.

Obvious from the get go is that Louis Van Gaal is going to fundamentally transform Manchester United's tactical philosophy. Employment of the 3-5-2 system is just the beginning. We can pretty much argue that the ' first half players ' during the club's tour gives fan a clear vision of the kind of players wants for his formation( with the exception of Danny Welbeck, simply because Robin Van Persie had a post-world cup rest ). This is why Darren Fletcher has been kept at the club despite poor performances, clearly Van Gaal sees him as some sort of pseudo-Vidal. The ones that started mostly in the second half- Chicharito, Shinji Kagawa, Welbeck and Cleverley, not to name all, has left the club.

The strenuous nature of Van Gaal's training methods.

Reputation has it that Van Gaal's training regime can be considered one of the world's most physically demanding. This is why the surge of injuries coming from players like new boys Ander Herrera and Luke Shaw, Rafael Da Silva, Johnny Evans, Michael 'Calm' Carrick, Maruoanne Fellaini and Jesse Lingard comes as no surprise. Is this a cause for concern? Perhaps it is, considering the physicality of the Premier league, Van Gaal could tone it down a little.

Expectedly, youth usage will not die out.

A host of unfamiliar names were present at the tour during games, Tyler Blackett, Reece James, James wilson, and Saidy Janko can give United fans good hope that Van Gaal will pick up where Sir Alex Ferguson left. What is even more interesting is the fact that Van Gaal can transform a mediocre player into an essential cog in his machine. Could we see the next Rio Ferdinand in Blackett?

Season Preview

Abysmal Beginning For Louis?

Three non-wins, in the modern game, will garner unwarranted animosity among the media and fans. Undoubtedly Van Gaal has had his first experience of the Premier League's own version of knee-jerk reactions. Such is the fickle nature of football fans and media personnels. Man Utd fans should know two things. One, Van Gaal has a history of getting his team to hit good gear rather slowly( 3 Months to be precise ). Two, Van Gaal has publicly admitted this. This shows his confidence in his football philosophy. So much so that he can even give you a specific period on how long he will struggle. These are signs that Man Utd fans should identify as positive. Baskets of injuries also contributes to Van Gaal's struggle in the Premier League. 9 injuries, what the.

New Foreign Arrivals

 (1) Ander Herrera Agüera

Engine with the skills to pay the bills

   
Probably the buy that all Man Utd fans felt that the club needed. Energetic and creative, Herrera should see himself slot effortlessly in the new Utd set up without much competition. However, questions can be raised on his fitness levels. Being such an engine, I wonder if he has what it takes to withstand the extreme physical nature of the league, but there is no champions league, so his stamina should be manageable. Will be looking forward to more of his clever tackles.

(2) Luke Paul Hoare Shaw

Too bulky to be 19

The real criticism of Shaw is his price. Does his talent and statistics justify the amount paid by utd( 30 Million )? If this purchase had been made by another club, the risk would be exponentially higher. This is because of Utd's history with youth. With Man utd and Van Gaal's youth policy conflating, Utd fans can rest assure that Shaw will easily prove his doubters wrong, dude has almost a 100 Premier League caps at only 19. Tried and proven. Do a little predictive mathematics, you will see that should Shaw last a decade at utd, which isn't an unfair estimate, 30 million would look like peanuts in terms of the appearances and performances he will rack up by then( bar major injuries ). Proof? Rio ferdinand, Wayne Rooney and David De Gea. What about Anderson and Nani? Fair points, but keep in mind that these players were bought when they haven't really proven their worth at their respective former clubs in a different league, Shaw does not sit in the same category.

(3) Faustino Marcos Alberto Rojo

Remember me Van Gaal?

This is probably the most confusing buy, not because Rojo is a bad player, but because Utd fans were having a certain German centre back in mind as a replacement the departing old defensive guards. Many argue that Rojo was actually Van Gaal's fourth choice centre back, behind Hummels, Thomas Vermalean and Mehdi Benatia. So I'm pretty sure Utd fans are ambivalent about this buy, or they could adopt the view that this is in fact a decent buy, when you notice that he is actually a World Cup finalist. Surprisingly, what a I gather from popular opinion is that Utd fans actually include Rojo in their preferred line up without much hesitation.

(4) Ángel Fabián Di María Hernández

The 'Noodle'

The purchase that got all Utd fans quaking with excitement, myself included. The Premier League's record signing is expected to light up the league with ease, and has shown flashes with his performance against Burnley. I should point out that Di Maria is actually quite injury prone, so hopefully he can remain fit for most of the games this season. We should see Di Maria occupy the midfield position, tactics will be discussed in more detail below or in a different blog post for the future.

(5) Daley Blind

Meest Knappe Van Het Stel

In my view, the most important but least talked about acquisition. He has worked under Van Gaal in the World Cup, worked under Frank De Boer at an all dominant Ajax team, multi-role player, and a tireless engine. Holding midfielder looks like the most viable position for him as most of the left sided slots are densely populated. We should expect a Michael Carrick-esque player in him, or perhaps one day we'll call Carrick a Blind-esque player.

(6) Radamel Falcao García Zárate

Actually is Colombian beardless Jesus

What a deadline day shock. Many thought that this was a suicidal buy, considering Utd have great strikers in the form of Rooney and Van Persie. But with the morose departure of Javier Hernandez and Danny Welbeck, this buy proves to be theoretically a rational buy. Absolutely looking forward to some clinical finishing from Falcao.


Formation

3-5-2( 3-4-1-2 ), 3-4-3, 4-3-1-2( 4-1-2-1-2 ) are the most likely formations to be deployed this season. Although I would opt for the 4-1-2-1-2 formation, simply because it is a four man back line, making it easier for Evans, Jones and Smalling to adapt without jeopardizing much Van Gaal's vision for the team too much. But as always tactics are never that simplistic. I will make a further post on Man Utd's tactical formation alone soon.

My Predictions for the season

(i) 3rd/4th place in the League.

(ii) Quarter Finals of the Fa Cup.

(iii) Falcao to score more than 25 goals.

(iv) Rooney to achieve double figures in both assist and goal department

(v) Do well against top 7 clubs but struggle against weaker ones.

(vi) Around two signings in January transfer window.

In Need of Change

                   Fifty-seven years...wow.

                   Are we approaching vision 2020? Not quite. 59th on GDP per capita don't even bring us in sniffing distance with the world's economic elites. Protectionist policies coupled with race based state benefits to the majority of the populace pours cold water on the hope for prosperity. The constant comparisons with Singapore only makes us more envious as a people. Entertaining the idea that one day the possibility of Indonesian hiring our kinsman as servants makes me sick( nothing against Indonesians ). Businesses failing to attract foreign investors and ideas. Could go on and on.

                    How about our journey towards being a more democratic society? Religious intolerance still consuming large segments of our major media sources. Ignorance clouds the nation. Ethnic friction still, very depressingly, exist. You'd think 57 years of cultural assimilation would move us away from the damnation that is May 13. Liberalism is thoroughly rejected by many in the nation, but somehow they still believe that Malaysia can achieve modern political atmosphere without a fundamental understanding of rights without it. Talks of an Islamic theocracy even surfaces from time to time. Could go on and on.

                     But lets clear the elephant in the room. Race is the biggest locus of Malaysian conversation. Implicitly in hiring jobs, whether one acknowledges it, race is a influential factor. When dealing with business partners, many would engineer their actions based on the stereotypes that they perceive for the other races. Interracial marriage, though legal, still causes an undesirable amount of tension in families. Cliques in government schools are still bordered by race. School canteens can often be divided into three- Malay, Indian, and Chinese. Not the case for all schools, some will cry, but the fact that they exist prevalently bugs me infinitely. So the alpha question to ask is: " Why is a country, so preoccupied with racial integration ala 1Malaysia, failing so miserably to achieve is goals? ". The answer is very simple. Multiculturalism when understood properly, intends to tell the sub-concious mind, that race is important. In fact, so important that it could be utilized as a life defining entity. If you accept my mundane hypothesis, then it is easy to explain why races still clash swords. If you believe that you are defined by your race, then any threat to your racehood will give you an unearned sense of moral superiority over the critic. Giving unconcerned politicians leverage for more than decent polling results during elections. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Malaysia's biggest problem- the notion that ones race and culture is of great importance. In a free society, blood/race is not essential, merit is. The greatest obstacle to progress is what we believe to be pure and tranquil--Multiculturalism.

                     But hey! For all Malaysia's shortcomings, we still have awesome food and natural habitats right? Laid back lifestyles and cultural heritage will always be an attraction. But all of this comes at a cost. Stay put with current methods, fear is the only emotion that be can associated with the predictions one makes for the next 57 years. Happy Independence Day all Malaysians.

Tale of The Conceited Non-believer

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/107211_top-50-questions-christians-cant-answer

                    I came across this article( the one in the link above ) some time ago and I decided that I would one day take advantage of one of my blog post by elaborating on this rather arrogantly written article, the kind of article that makes you wonder how someone could manifest in him/her self such high self esteem when the issues that they are discussing requires a substantial amount of research done. Having said this, I'm pretty confident that I spent at least three times the length of time in my response in comparison to this fellows article. Nevertheless a challenge is a challenge, and I have no complaints about the research that I have to do in order to undercut the presumptuous nature of this piece of frustration. This article, as it claims, is written in an attempt to provide a case against the Christian faith. The case being that no answers will satisfy the evidential standards of these fifty questions. The equally cringing part of this article is actually his opening statement, where he remarked that no matter the Christian, they will not have sufficient reasoning to meet the ' lofty ' demands of his ' challenging ' questions. Upon reading the entire piece, I think it is safe to point out that he has only interacted with a grand total of two Christians in his life. This is perhaps why he is so cocksure of the validity of his questions. As I will show you, most if not all his questions are flimsy at core and can be soundly deflected. It will be a bit of a long read, but if you are interested, bear with the fifty questions posed and the length of my responses. Here we go.

 Q1: ' If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why did he take six days to create everything? Why not speak everything into existence all at once? '

 - Well here we need to first understand the meaning of timelessness. God, as pointed out many times by the bible, is an eternal being ( Psalm 90:1-4, Exodus 3:13-14, Ephesians 3:10-11, Revelation 1:8,1 Timothy 1:17 ). Perhaps a better word to describe God is ' atemporal ' . In other words, a being that exist without relation to time as we humans perceive it. Whether its six or four hundred or eight billion years, God still spoke everything into existence in an instance in his dimension, not necessarily ours. In short, to us, six days might represent a ' duration ' , but to God, as the bible defines it, its nothing.

 Q2: ' Why won't God heal amputees? '

 - Is this the Judeo-Christian God's aim with respect to humans? Did he promise that he will be a physical doctor to everyone? Behind this is the ' Why would an all-loving God not solve the problem and suffering of humans? ' objection. Firstly, happiness and eternal life is not available on earth according to Christian doctrine, that is why heaven exist. But to answer the question directly, I can think of so many ways as to why God would refuse to intervene and heal our physical deficiencies. One good example is that he wants give us lessons on the harshness on life. There are a multitude of Christians being persecuted in the middle east as I write this, I don't see them complaining? Not as often as first world inhabitants like the writer and me at least. Perfection is for the afterlife and suffering is for this.

 Q3: ' If God is so perfect, then why did he create something so imperfect allowing pain, suffering and daily atrocities? '

 -Because free will and love are intertwined inextricably. In order to be a truly loving God, he must first allow humang beings the freedom to love or hate him. God created us perfect in his image, but we disobeyed him at The Fall in the Garden of Eden. It is our fallen nature that causes pain, suffering and daily atrocities, not him. Conversely, it is because he loves us so much that he gives us up to our sinful desires instead of creating us as robots with no free will and volition.

 Q4: ' Why did the little old lady that God healed one Sunday need her walker to get around again next Sunday? Was she only temporarily worthy of a healing? '

 - No one is worthy of healing. What did the old lady do to ' earn ' her healing. God is under no obligation to service anyone's needs.

 Q5: ' How did Noah fit the millions and millions of species on this planet into his ark?

 -http://creation.com/how-could-noah-get-all-the-animals-on-the-ark
 
Q6: ' If Noah did fit all of these species on the ark for forty days and forty nights, how did the penguins make it from Mt. Ararat to the Antarctic? How did the koala bears make it to Australia with no eucalyptus to eat along the way? '

 - Refer to the answer for Q5.

 Q7: ' Why do innocent children have to suffer with terminal diseases such as cancer? What part of 'God's plan' is this exactly? '

 -Refer to the answer for Q2

 Q8: ' How is it that the bible explains the earth to be 6,000 to 8,000 years old when we know that dinosaur bones are at least 65 million years old? The 'missing link' fossil 'Ida' found recently is estimated to be at least 47 million years old. '

 - This of course assumes that the Christian must adopt the Young Earth Creationist view with respects to genesis.

 Q9: ' Why can't the all-powerful God not forgive someone of their sins after they die? Example: A christian man that is seemingly on God's good list makes a stupid decision and decides to drink a little too much at the fish fry. On his way home he crashes into a mini-van killing a mother and her two children and himself. This man led a very faithful life and made one stupid, yet grave mistake. If this man did not ask for forgiveness of his sins before the electrical activity in his brain ceased, then God will judge him and send him to hell to burn for eternity. '

 - Because the all-powerful God is also an all-just God. So to forgive someone without acknowledging the legal consequences of the sin committed would make God a bad judge. The example of course misrepresents the doctrine of salvation. Where is it stated in the new testament that someone must ask for forgiveness every time he does something wrong? By the way, forgiveness is not ' requested ' , but given freely. This is called grace and lies right at the core of the Christian message. God forgives the sins that you committed in the past and forgives you for the sins that you are likely to commit in the future. Salvation is not earned but given freely. We have the ability to deny or reject it.

 Q10: ' God wants everyone to worship and follow him and if they don't, they burn in hell for all eternity. What does this type of attitude say about his character? By definition, he would be described as a tyrant. '

 - Another straw man. God wants everyone to worship him for their sake, not his. When we die, it's either we go to hell or heaven. Heaven is with God, Hell is without. People go to hell by choice because they refuse to worship God. God being omni-benevolent , gives them up to their desires for hell. He will not force anyone to enter heaven.

 Q11: ' If Jesus died on the cross and spent three days in hell to pay for the sins of the world, then why would we have to go to hell ourselves and pay for them again? God is then, in essence, being paid for our sins twice.

 - Lord help me, I can't...I just can't... the reasoning involved here is plain fallacious. Firstly, where is it stated that Jesus goes to hell during the three-day period? Secondly, why do we have to go to hell again? This me no comprehend.

 Q12: ' was Jesus' sacrifice not worthy enough? If that is the case, why should we care that he died for our sins if his sacrifice means nothing at all?

 - The bible does say that the sacrifice is enough, who said it isn't?

 Q13: ' If God wants us all to follow and worship him, why didn't he create us as such? *Your expected answer will be addressed in the next question. Q14: What good is it for us to have free will if the intention is for us to not use it? Sure, we can use our free will, but we will burn in hell for eternity if we do. Russian roulette, anybody? It sounds like a set-up to me. '

 -This is a misunderstanding of free will. It seems that the questioner thinks that free will implies free of consequences. This is logically inept. For example, someone has the free will to jump of a cliff, does he get angry at the law of gravity for breaking his bones upon landing? Free will exist to allow humans to take paths that they think is the best. When they fail, they can FREELY change their ways in hope for a better outcome. All this is only possible if God gives free will. It is a prerequisite of his all encompassing love. Hey, truth is a set up.

Q15: ' In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, why would God kill Lot's wife, Sarah, by turning her into a pillar of salt for simply looking in the wrong direction? *Warning of impending sarcasm.* God is a merciful God, right. '

 - God commanded Lot and his family not to look back at Sodom and Gomorrah when sulphur was pouring on the city because God's power is too strong for the stare of men. She disobeyed God when strict orders were given. It's like if I told you to stay away from fire but you didn't listen and still got yourself burnt. Is it my fault? Parallels can be drawn with Lot's wife.

 Q16: ' What purpose does hell serve? If it is punishment for sinful actions, shouldn't it be used for correctional purposes? Seeing as though you burn forever, you will never get out of hell to show that you have learned your lesson. Would it make since to live a faithful Christian life glorifying the Lord and to accidentally sin by saying a curse word the instant you smash your car into the back of a tractor-trailer, thereby being condemned to burn in hell forever? '

 - Hell serves as the arena where you go when you reject God's love. God wishes desperately for humans to be with him in heaven but unfortunately there are those who are unwilling to bend. God being all-loving, must give them up to their wishes. Correction begins on Earth, not in hell. You are in hell because you DON'T want to learn your lesson, not because you haven't. From the viewpoint of a Christian, everyone who has a knowledge of right and wrong deserves hell because of our wickedness. But because Christ died for our sins, our punishment is taken away by him. This is what God has provided in the gospels in the form of Jesus Christ. A cuss word and cussing is totally different. Christ said to love your enemies as your neighbour and only if you cuss them from the depths of your heart are you sinning. There is no moral comparison between my description of cussing and cussing when you are about to get hit by a truck. One is an attack on another person the other is a cry of despair.

Q17: ' We know that we feel physical feelings through electrical impulses that send information to our brains through our nervous system. Once we die, we no longer feel pain due to the lack of a physical nervous system and, oh yeah, a brain. How could we 'feel' the excruciating flames of hell for eternity? Does God make you feel this torment for all eternity out of pure malice because you wouldn't worship him? '

 - This is a complex issue, not as simplistic as the writer intends it to be. Firstly we can use brain scans to determine what impulses are sent where when you feel pain, but that does not mean we can document the ' pain ' that comes with it. This is the hard problem of conciousness and I don't want to get into a discussion about it. But as a response to the challenge, ' flames ' of hell are simple physical representations of something worse. Hell is spiritual death and despair which is infinitely worse than mere burning I assure you. Again, God sends you there because you reject him, not because he is malicious. You didn't want him in his life.

 Q18: ' If God is omnipotent, why does he not just show himself to all of us, all at once, thereby ending this game of free will and temptation? '

 - He has, in the form of the gospels. But assume that he reveals himself in a more direct manner, what does he prove? The God of the bible don't just want us to worship him because he exist, or that he is this almighty being. He wants us to worship out of love and repentance. That is why he distances himself from us so that we go to him volitionally, but close enough for us to experience him.

Q19: ' If God is perfect and his creations perfect, why did he fail several times? He had to impose suffering upon the human race because Adam and Eve defied him by eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Failed! He had to flood the planet 1,600 years later wiping out all but eight humans. Failure! He had to confuse human language after Nimrod and the Tower of Babel incident so that they could not effectively communicate with each other. Failure! How is this a track record of a perfect being? '

 - This testifies to the ignorance and intellectual laziness of this writer. Why think that because God is perfect, therefore his creations are? If his creations are perfect, won't they be considered God? The punishment is not a track record of his failure, but a track record of ours. We are perfect, AS HE SEES IT. That is why he created us IN HIS IMAGE.

Q20 : ' If, in the beginning, there was only God and he created everything, why would he create angels that had the propensity to defy him? This very fallacy led to Lucifer challenging his authority because he desired to share the same power as God. This led to the rise, or fall depending on how you look at it, of Satan, the most notorious enemy of God and his followers. Failed, again! '

 - Ummm.... free will?

 Q21 : ' Why would you trust 'God's plan' given his track record of many failures? '

 - His failing track record has yet to be shown. At times we might feel his plan is not perfect, but we must remember that this is a fallen world.

 Q22 : ' A disciple of Christ, Thomas, was a skeptic. He walked with Jesus during his time on earth and physically witnessed with his own eyes certain miracles performed by him such as raising Lazarus from the dead and so forth. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus supposedly rose three days later. Thomas did not believe it was truly him despite being told, prior to the incident by Jesus, that he would rise again in three days. Thomas required physical proof. Jesus allowed him to touch him and feel the wounds in his body to offer proof. Why doesn't god extend the same proof to humans alive today? Those that doubt his existence are no different than Thomas, requiring physical proof and he was a disciple of Jesus himself. If Thomas had been born one generation later, or even living today, he would have burned in hell for all eternity because he would not believe for the lack of physical proof. Paul was born after the death and ascension of Christ. Throughout his life, he did not believe that Jesus was the son of God and even went out of his way to persecute Christians thinking that their religion was a dangerous belief system to practice. Lo and behold a flash of light came out of the sky and Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul explaining to him that he is actually the one true god. Jesus told him that he was persecuting the followers of the only true faith. From that point on, Paul was a converted Christian. Again, if God was willing to go out of his way to physically prove to Paul that he actually exists, why is this not done today? Why isn't God willing to show those that doubt today the same degree of physical proof? Why should we be any different than Thomas and Paul? '

 -First and foremost, reasons for doubt are spurious and not the same most of the time, so the comparisons between every sceptic and Thomas is in disarray. But the main question is, if you accept that the gospels are accurate in their report, that Paul and Thomas had physical proof that he existed, why do you still doubt God then? If it is true that these men has life transforming experiences, shouldn't that reduce the amount of scepticism? Physical proof isn't the only type of proof that has converted men to Christianity. People suffering dearly in the middle east today are immensely connected with God, so connected that they won't even hide the fact that they are Christians in front of persecutors, being martyrs in the process. Demanding that God MUST provide physical proof shows how blind one can be. The grace of God can be witness with seemingly mundane events like feeding the poor or shielding the weak. With regards to Thomas, you have to understand the historical backdrop of this history defining moment. Thomas was a Jew and Jewish people would never expect a dying and rising messiah. They always believed that their Messiah will come into this world with glory and power, so as a Jew, to see Jesus being crucified alone was heart shattering, let alone seeing him resurrected. That is why I would argue that the level of doubt of different standards when compared to sceptics today. I am of course open to correction with my interpretation.

 Q23 : ' Christians argue evolution by asking why there aren't any half-ape half-men walking around today, right? Why don't we see giants, fiery talking serpents, talking donkeys and many other mythical creatures that are described in the Bible? '

 - Well not all Christians are creationist, so the charge is once again false. Mythical figures mentioned in the bible are not necessarily true because some of them might be used for telling tales. But in any case, if God exist and that he created the world out of ' nothing ' , how hard is it to create a talking snake?

 Q24 : ' If we are to only have sex for the purpose of pro-creation, and to do so outside of the scope of pro-creation is sinful, then why would God create us with an over abundance of nerve endings in our reproductive organs making sex extremely pleasurable? It sounds like yet another set-up. '

 - Murder produces a high amount of adrenaline among certain people giving them an abundance of pleasure when they see blood. Is God wrong to condemn them? Is banning murder also a set up?Sex isn't solely about procreation, intimacy and lust is also essential, just not as important.

 Q25 : ' Why do Christians share the same statistical rate of divorce as everyone else? "What God hath made, let no man put asunder." How could Christian marriages fail if they are sanctified by God? Hmmmm.... interesting. '

 - Because, a Christian isn't inherently more ' special ' that anyone else? Why think that Christians can't sin? But a good explanation to these statistics can be that the church has failed miserably in having a spine on issues like these. Also, did these couples keep God as the ultimate goal in their marriages? We have to look at each marriage specifically to understand the reasons, instead of making general statements that are unhelpful.

 Q26 : ' In the book of Luke chapter 19 verse 27, Jesus says, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." This seems pretty clear that Jesus would have Christians kill all non-believers. How do you explain this? '

 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYae629sin0 . Nuff said.

 Q27 : ' If God created everything, why did he create AIDS, influenza, ebola, ecoli and so on and so on? These, as viruses, are living things. You definitely can not use the free will card for this one. Is this another part of 'God's plan'? '

 - Because the death is the result of sin.

 Q28 : ' How can God answer a prayer giving a working-class man in the United States a raise at his place of employment so that he can move his family into a larger house, but he does not answer the prayers to stop the starvation and disease of millions upon millions of children around the world? This must be another infinitely wise part of 'God's plan'. '

 - Actually it is part of his plan. Can his plan be proven to be false? You have to prove that IN NO WAY that God has no plan behind all this suffering.

 Q29 : ' If God's word is supposed to be the accurate word of God himself, how are we supposed to trust it enough to model our lives after it 100% when hundreds of books were excluded from the original text throughout so many translations and revisions in history? '

 - There is a reason these hundreds of books are excluded. Because they are not the word of God. I'm not even sure if there are hundreds of book excluded. The bible was not revised to the point where it's contents are edited. Also, we have good historical evidence that we have in the bible today is exactly what the authors intended to share. But since the writer did not give any specific challenge to the historicity of the gospels, I won't go any further.

 Q30 : ' Why is there no evidence of any of the miracles performed by God? None whatsoever. '

 - The better question to ask is : ' Are miracles possible? ' .

 Q31 : ' If God and Jesus are the same, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus beg himself in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself from having to be crucified? Furthermore, why would Jesus ask himself why he has forsaken himself by allowing himself to be crucified? '

 - The trinity dictates that they are not totally the same. This doesn't mean that they don't share divine traits. God via Jesus deliberately reduces his power as God to enter the world and suffer with it. Which is again proof of how much he is willing to sacrifice in order to save us.

 Q32 : ' If you believe that your eternal life is more important than your physical life and you believe that all children are innocent in the eyes of God, why not kill your children so they are guaranteed to go to heaven? You can't tell me that it is because killing is a sin. First of all, you could repent thereafter and be forgiven. Secondly, if you would sacrifice your life for your child who is about to be hit by a train, and you believe your eternal life is more important than this life, then it would stand to reason that you should kill your children to ensure their entrance into heaven before they are old enough to be held accountable for being a creature of sin, right?

 - Potentially the most immoral question of them all, not to mentioned ill-thought too. Just because someone believe that the afterlife is more important, doesn't warrant you to act in heniously in the current life. It is because we care about the eternal life of people that we should take other peoples welfare seriously. If I did take the life of these children, what would that make of me? Would I, not be disobeying God? Hence jeopardizing my eternal life in the process? LOL? It seems to me that the writer does not take repentance seriously. Repentance requires hard work and tough character. It is the bending of the will to do that which is righteous, NOT in order to gain God's love, but because we already have his grace and love. If you truly love God, you wouldn't take the life of an innocent child, if you truly repented, such a morally sick thought wouldn't even cross your mind. It seems to me that there is a notion in this challenge that eternal life is guaranteed only after you die. This is extravagantly false. The grace and love of God can be experience in finite lives. The guarantee of eternal life does not come into motion when you die. It begins when you accept Jesus Christ in your life. THAT is why we should die for our fellow human beings. Someone's entrance to heaven is not obtained by someone else, it is obtained through repenting and the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Full stop. By the way, killing IS a sin. By saying that one can take lives and determine the eternal fate of someone, you are essentially playing God. Which in itself is another sin.

 Q33 : ' If you do believe that children are innocent in the eyes of God, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that abortion doctors are winning more souls for Christ than Christian missionaries? Why not bomb a pre-school? That would surely win a lot of souls for Christ. '

 - Once again, another poorly-reasoned claim.

 Q34 : ' If you do not believe that children are innocent in the eyes of God, wouldn't it be fair to suggest that God is a monster? Do you see the conundrum here? '

 - Well, who thinks that children are not innocent? By children I mean someone who has no rational thinking capabilities yet.

 Q35 : ' It is a common belief among Christians that the only unforgivable sin is consciously rejecting Christ as Lord and savior. With that said, it is also believed by Christians that those who have never heard of Jesus and the Christian faith, i.e. individuals within an isolated tribe, babies and so forth, have no concept of Christ and can not, therefore, be in the position to consciously reject him. This would allow them entrance into heaven by default. With that said, why would you tell anyone about Christ? Why would you spread the word if that would put them in the position to consciously reject him? If they are already going to heaven due to their ignorance of the word of God, why not just let that be? You would, in effect, be losing more souls to Satan by spreading the word. You might want to rethink that whole "fishers of men" thing. '

 - There is general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is revealed through the majesty of nature and the moral realm called conscience. People only under general revelation ie tribesman and babies have the capabilities unknown. But if God is just he will do that which is right. There are many people who did not know Christ but are in heaven. People like Abraham, Moses and the prophets. God is experientially available in many parts of the world. This is why there are so many religions in the world. This is also why there is a psychologically built in reverence for something greater than ourselves- God. But special revelations come in the form of Jesus. Which basically is the announcement that other religions, are partially correct on certain issues. And that Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life. That is why Christianity is a missionary religion.

 Q36 : ' Imagine that I had the power and ability to feed millions and end all suffering. Now, imagine that I simply chose not to do so because these millions of people that are suffering did not like me. You would probably like me even less then, right? Then why does God get a 'get out of jail free card'? Wait a minute, 'God's plan,' right? '

 - Have I not dealt with a question similar to this? Too lazy to scroll up. But as a side note, God does not hate people, he hates sin. Reversely, people hate God.

 Q37 : ' Why are more atrocities committed in the name of God than anything else? '

 - Apparently the twentieth century did not exist in the mind of this author. Which only means he does not know about secular atrocities committed by atheist/non-religious/secular regimes like communism. Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Ring a bell?

 Q38 : ' The bible states that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. If it is fairly impossible for the rich to go to heaven then why are there wealthy Christians? Why wouldn't these rich Christians give up all of their wealth to make it easier for them to enter the kingdom of heaven? '

 - Sigh... does this mean that poor people have it easier to enter heaven? Such brain, so logic.

 Q39 : ' Building upon the previous question, if it is almost impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, then why would God create heaven as having pearly gates, streets of gold and many mansions? It sounds like he wants us to be poor in life so that we will want to be rich in the afterlife, maybe? Does this make any real sense? '

 - Okay, so the questions are getting ridiculous and hilarious as I move on. These are merely imaginary descriptions, no one knows exactly how heaven looks like. With the exception of people with near death experiences maybe. And no, the challenge does not make sense.

 Q40 : ' If God is perfect then his creations should be perfect, right? Then that would mean that the earth is a perfect creation. Then why would God have to create another perfect place, heaven, and use it to entice us to believe in him? What kind of assurance do we have that heaven would be any better than his other 'perfect' creation, earth? '

 - Refer to answer for question 19. Ten more questions. WEEEEE

 Q41 : ' God allowed Jesus to be tempted as a human by Satan in the wilderness of the desert. Again, if God and Jesus are the same entity, then what kind of sense does it make for God to allow himself to be tempted by Satan in the wilderness to see if he would give in to the temptation? In addition to that, if he were all-knowing, he would have already known the outcome and, therefore, could have avoided the whole thing all together. '

 - Did he fall into temptation? Last I remember Jesus did not fall into Satan's trap. Why does he need to avoid it. In fact if he avoided all of this, how would Jesus show his disciples that he is God, therefore showing that he is able to withstand the temptations of Satan? Because he knows everything, that is why there is no losing when being tempted by Satan.

 Q42 : ' If heaven is to be a place free of sadness, pain and suffering, then how can you be happy in heaven knowing that the vast majority of humankind is painfully burning for eternity, especially when some of them may be your loved ones '

 - Well, because the one Christians love the most is God. Hopefully one did his/her best to persuade another into accepting Christ, but if failed, there is nothing do be done.

 Q43 : ' Seeing as though everything we, including Christians, enjoy in the modern world is a product of science, why do Christians so fervently deny factual scientific evidence that disproves so many aspects of the bible and their religion as a whole? '

 - Of course, this must then explain why science sprung out of the Christian world. Where most of the intellects that discovered the multiple fields of science are devout Christians i.e Sir Isaac Newton, Gregory Mendel, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus.

 Q44 : ' If Christianity is the only true religion, then why do practitioners of all other religions feel fulfilled in their faith and achieve the same desired results as Christians? '

 - Do they? More specifications are needed to answer this question.

Q45 : ' If God created everything, then why did he create the tree of knowledge of good and evil and put it right in the middle of the garden of Eden for Eve to eat of it's fruit if he didn't want her to? Furthermore, why did God create the serpent that tempted Eve? Uh-oh, it sounds like another possible set-up. '

 - Once again, free will.

 Q46 : ' In the beginning God created Adam and Eve, right? Then Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. What happens next? How did the species propagate itself? Incest is genetically detrimental to offspring. It is also seen as being terribly immoral among the majority of people alive today, including Christians. There was either some incest going on or God created more people from scratch and we weren't told about it. '

 - Either there are other people that God created that he didn't mention OR incest. Yes this is correct. Now if it is incest. We have to ask if incest was detrimental to people who have perfect genes, like Adam and Eve. We do not know the exact structure of their DNAs, therefore we can't establish if incest among the siblings is in anyway hurtful. But I suspect it isn't. But of course incest is forbidden later on.

 Q47 : ' The same scenario applies to the flood incident. Sure, Noah's three sons had wives, but that would still mean that, out of the eight remaining individuals on the planet, there is only a 50% variation of genetic code. Mathematically, inbreeding was sure to be necessary to replenish the earth. '

 - Refer answer for Q46. To add something, what if God then decided to add new people? Who knows?

Q48 : ' Why does God allow things to happen among his followers that he has already deemed to be sinful, i.e. incest example above, "thou shalt not kill" and so forth, and it is alright as long as it is done in his name? Remember, more deaths have occurred in history in God's name.

 - Not true, no citations or examples are given.

 Q49 : ' How did Adam live to 930, Seth 912 and Methuselah 969 years old when anthropological evidence show that we have progressively increased our longevity throughout history? If they did live that long back then, this concept would be reversed and our longevity should have been decreasing throughout history, right? That would mean that people 500 years ago should have lived to at least 200 years old. Why do we not find evidence of this throughout written historical birth and death records as well as archaeological and anthropological evidence? '

 - Is it established that 1 ' year ' mentioned in the bible = 365 days?

 Q 50 : ' God has killed more people than Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Sadam Hussein, Milosavic and Jim Jones combined. Why would you not follow them instead of God? Based on this standard, these monsters are compassionate compared to God. '

- Again, not true, the writer is leaving out communism here. The men mentioned above and communist leaders are responsible for at least 200 million deaths. Has religion caused as much? Let alone the Christian religion?

 Q 51 : ' Why is it that when a Christian is faced with questions that have huge negative implications towards the logic of their faith, they conveniently say that it is in God's plan? Judging by the above mentioned failures, God's plan does not seem to be a very good one. '

 - Is this true for everyone? As I pointed out. The author has probably only spoken to two Christians in his life.

 Q 52 : ' Why would God give us the capability of logic and reason and expect us not to use it when it comes to belief in him and his word? '

 - It is partially through logic and reason that I come to God and also to accept and complete the challenge.

                                             This is me after finishing the challenge.                                                    

A response to Steph Micayle: The Gay Debate

                    Apart from her well sung covers of songs, Steph Micayle has garnered interest from Youtube with her controversial rants about Singaporean culture such as the video titled: " Why I'm not proud to be Singaporean". Recently, she posted another less controversial, but important, video about the 'Pink Dot' movement where they advocate gay rights in Singapore. My aim is to explore her video word for word to see if her arguments hold water.

                    The video link for her gay rights video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8PLSmAkv-Y&list=UU-Q0CZ73ywaFl-P6pf0_ZHg. If you do not wish to watch the whole video, I have decided to type out her entire dialogue here. This also helps me get a better grasp of her stances.

                    "So just this morning I was reading an article on facebook about the 'Wear White' movement going against the ' Pink Dot ' movement, and I got really angry because of it, so I've got quite a few things to say. Well firstly, I would like to establish myself as a supporter of homosexuality and same-sex marriages and even if I wasn't, I would have at least some sort of basic human respect to not call everyone who supports my cause to wear white on this day. So let's go through the history of ' Pink Dot ' rally. What is the purpose of the PD rally- to promote homosexuality or the freedom to love? The PD movement believes that everyone has the rights to love regardless of your sexual orientation and the turnout is getting bigger and bigger every year because more and more people are accepting the idea that people can love anyone they want and not be judge for it. So, if you, for a second think that everyone at the rally are gay and that the turnout represent the number of gays in the country, you're a f****** retard. I would like to respond to Mr. Kong's statement on PD and rebut it. So he clearly doesn't understand what PD is about. First thing he said is: 'I find it totally confounding that Pink Dot is allowed to promote their agenda. I find it even more disconcerting that the event is being used as a platform of public persuasion to push their alternative lifestyle.' What alternative lifestyle?! They have family and friends, they love and they live, the only difference is that they are attracted to people of the same sex. There is no alternative lifestyle being pushed here. The only thing that they're 'pushing' is their right to love, and are you going to be the one that takes away that right? 'Ultimately, they want to redefine Love, redefine Marriage, and redefine Family. Is this the kind of Singapore we can be proud of and want for our children? I feel sad at the thought of Singapore in moral decline.' Do you honestly think that PD can redefine all these things? There's no way to redefine it. Love is love. Marriage is marriage. Family is family. It's never going to change. Hell, even legalizing same-sex marriages isn't going to redefine all these things. They want to love, get married, and have a family just like everyone else, they just want to FIT IN. The Singapore that I would feel proud of is one that would accept people for who they are and what they stand for. That's the Singapore that I want my children to grow up in. To be friends with gay people and to know there's nothing wrong with it, just like the rest of us. And guess what? Singapore is already in moral decline thanks to people like you- Mr Khong, who choose to fight against such a beautiful movement. All PD wants to do is to push love and acceptance. So you people leading this ' Wear White' movement, shame on you. Aren't a little too old to be this immature? Stop trying to force your views on others. People have the right to love who the hell they want and you shouldn't do something that goes against it. Wearing white and the PD rally can't and won't change anything and here's the cold hard truth-If someone is born gay, then their gay. If your kid is born gay, then what are you going to do? See him or her as an abomination? Are you going to condemn them? Deny who they are? Try to change them or try to embrace your children for who they are? Scientific research that specialize in human sexuality have repeatedly shown that homosexuality is genetic. There's a reason why the term sexual preference have been changed to sexual orientation and I can tell you now, that it's going to be a lot easier to accept your children for who they really are than to try and change them, because the change you want is not going to happen. And if you have a straight kid, no amount of PD rallies will turn your kid gay. So who are you to tell people who they should and shouldn't love? You have every right to practice your religion, you have every right to be conservative in thought but you do not have the right to impose your views and impose others to live like you do if you do not agree with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what this rally represents. The only reason these people rally together is not to promote homosexuality, it is to help you( Mr. Khong ). They're not trying to make you accept it or support it. All they want is for you to stop discriminating them and understand that this is how they are and that is all there is to it. If they want to love people of the same gender then so be it. They're not promoting anything. Like I said, homosexuality is not a choice. If you are born straight, then you won't be gay. All they want you to understand is that what they are is completely natural. There might be a point in life that people get a little bit vicarious, but that doesn't mean that they turn gay. This rally represents the message of love. The freedom to love as you are and as who you are. The freedom to be you, yet at the same time, they aren't asking you( Mr.Khong ) to be like them, they aren't asking for special rights. They're asking for the rights everyone has-The same freedom that everyone has. The right to get married, to love, and the right to have a family. What is wrong with that? So what should we do? Homophobes, stop being scared!Protesters, stop protesting! People love, who they want to love. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom to love. Homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, heterosexuals, we're all people. The only difference is our orientation. I'm not asking you to join the PD rally and support, I'm asking you to not protest and leave them be. Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born. They're people too, just like me, just like you. just normal everyday people, no different from the rest of us. Their proud of who they are, and how they're different. So stop fighting, because the PD supporters are not fighting against you nor are they trying to push anything on you. They just want acceptance and they will get it. Some day same sex marriages might get legalized. Hell I hope it does! Because who are we to take away people's basic rights."

                    So, this is your typical gay rights advocate reasoning or lack thereof. It pains me to see that the entire video was not only emotional, but repetitive. Oh not to mention false as well. I will have four basic contentions in response to her views.

1.The interaction between 'Love' and law.

 -The misconception that takes place in this video begins when she mentions that people should be able to get married simply in the name of 'Love'. Singapore's marriage laws strictly defines marriage only between a man and a woman. So in light of this, it is obvious to see why she would want to repeal the existing marriage laws in Singapore. Now I know very little of Singaporean law but the fundamental question that anyone can ask is: ' What is the governments role in marriage? ' Another way to phrase it is to ask what the criterion is for allowing marriage in a society, and what are the reasons supporting these criterion. 'Love' is definitely not one of them. It is never an imperative for marriage legals to legalize marriage on the basis of 'love'. But just imagine what this would lead to. Beastiality would be viable, so would polygamy, even incest becomes legitimate.

2.Hypocrisy of moral imposition.

 -Large portions of her case revolve around the complaint that Mr.Khong is morally trying to impose his views on society at large, and how that is apparently morally reprehensible and discriminatory. What she doesn't realize, however, is that all laws are discriminatory. Every view on something requires that the advocate of that view discriminate on something, including her. Take for instance, the law against murder, isn't this discriminating on murderers? How about anti-theft laws? Does that not discriminate thieves? Discrimination isn't always wrong and the context must be carefully examined before arriving at conclusions. The irony of her comments is that she accuses Mr. Khong for judging people, yet in return, judges the 'wear white'-ers with statements like 'Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born.' Is this not a blatant use of moral judgement? Isn't she trying to prohibit certain groups of people from protesting? Isn't she IMPOSING her views on others like Mr.Khong?

3.Scientific ignorance and misuse.

 -Upon reading every 'science' article she provided, I realize that they were misconstrued. None of the articles give a definitive view that homosexuals are born that way, this is not to say that the opposite is true, but it does show that the evidence is insufficient. What is even more striking about the articles is that none of them provide any academic citations accept one. When you do actually go to the source, you realize it not a study that proves that people are born with the gay 'gene' but this is their conclusion: "The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters." Does this sound anything like :" It is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that people are born gay." ? The level of research done by is astoundingly childish. I will provide the actual link below. But let's just say for the sake of argument, that homosexuals are actually born that way. So what? That does not imply we should implement laws that allow homosexual marriages. There are people born with pathological killing desires, should we create laws that allow them to do it? How about kleptomaniacs? Should we allow them to steal? The ' it's natural' argument is probably the most baseless argument ever. In fact, all laws are implemented on the understanding that human nature is destructive, that's why laws are prohibitions.

*http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217

4. Issue of identity.

 -This I believe lies at the crux of her rant. Ultimately what the Pink Dot movement wants is to tell the world that they are humans too. But the assertion here is, that deniers of same-sex marriages here regard homosexuals less of a human being. This is certainly false. What people like Mr.Khong is arguing against is not homosexuals, but homosexual behaviour and the ideas supporting it. You should love and accept someone who is gay, this is a must for everyone, But you cannot use sexual orientation as an excuse to revamp the entire marriage system. Laws by definition must deny liberty to harmful ideas. Same sex marriage is one of them. But of course, this is for another day.

Judgementalism: A social hoax of our time.

                    Social ideas/phenomenons/mechanisms that are venomous never happen to be the ones people discuss often, but the ones that are assumed nonchalantly. I submit to you, in my observation, judgementalism to be one of most pernicious ones. The root word of this social furniture is of course 'judge', and its adjective, 'judgemental'. Most people, at some point in their lives have either been accused or accuse someone else of being judgemental. It is highly probable that you have never heard of the word 'judgementalism', there is good reason for your ignorance, I just invented it. Not out of thin air of course, as I define judgementalism as the 'social phenomena that trivializes judgement.' This is a very prevalent phenomena in twenty first century first world cultures that has telling implications for politics and private lives. So to begin, lets look at Oxford dictionaries two definitions and I will show you which, I think is more useful and adequate. I will avoid sentence usage for pragmatic/practical reasons.

                      Judge: (1)A public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court.
                         
                                 (2)Form an opinion or conclusion about.

                                Origins: Middle English: from Old French juge (noun), juger (verb), from Latin judex, judic-, from jus 'law' + dicere 'to say'.

             Judgemental: (1)Of or concerning the use of judgement.
                                   
                                         -[1.1] Having or displaying an overly critical point of view.


                     Now you might put forward that Oxford dictionary isn't the sole dictator on word definitions and you would be correct. But I chose it for, again, practical purposes and also to avoid going into purposeless lexical debates about its definition. However if you do find some fault in Oxford's definition, do exploit the error in the comments below! Make sure to also provide an alternative to Oxford.

                      Definition (1) of judge is rather uncontroversial so there isn't anything moot to discuss. Definition (2) of judge is probably the definition that I fully advocate. I would actually put it as 'The act of differentiating that which is true or false/correct or wrong.' If you tie this with definition (1), you see a connection between them and understand why it is necessary. The more I ponder about definition (2), the more I realize how much people judge everyday. In fact, it is actually an impossible thing to avoid so long you consider yourself a human being. Just for the sake of survival alone, do we have to judge things. Take for instance, choosing a university of your choice. If you desired to obtain the best possible offer, necessarily you would have to evaluate which university will provide you with optimum satisfaction, at the expense of other universities. Economically speaking, this is called the opportunity cost. This can also apply to employers choosing their new job intakes. If an employer wishes to hire an employee that has the level of productivity that justifies their wages, unavoidably he/she would have to judge the applicants by their merits/character et cetera. These examples highlight( only partially ) the importance of judgement in any free society, and in light of this fact, it is perplexing to think that we encourage people to be devoid of judgement or something to that effect. How detrimental could it be if the members of a society don't even judge? Let alone have better judgements.

                      This is where the controversy lies. Definition ( 1.1 ) of ' judgemental ' is very, very debatable. This is because it has sneaked in something that betrays the purpose of the word. If the word 'judgemental' is an adjective, logically, based on definition ( 2 ) of ' judge ', its definition should be ' having or displaying desires to form opinions or conclusions about X '. But why is it then defined as ' Having or displaying an overly critical point of view ' ? Surely, there is has been a misstep in Oxfords definition. Could it be that they, too, have been sucked in by cultural definitions? Then again, this is a red herring, while Oxford may have made an error, they have certainly unintentionally described the social climate of our times very concisely. This impairment has let me to think carefully about this subject and shed light on its complexities. It is perhaps more helpful to give you an imaginary example in hopes of clearing the fog that clouds this controversial issue. I will provide below.

                       Situation: Imagine a conversation between two ladies, one in her early twenties, another in her late forties with children. Her children happen to be around the same age as the other lady she is talking to, and the lady in her twenties know some of the children personally, not necessarily close in relationship. So the older woman, let's call her Jane, is a church goer and has conservative views about life. The younger lady, let's call her Bianca, is, like most young ladies in the twenty first century, very liberal. The conversation begins over dinner during some gathering.

                    Jane: "Hello Bianca! How have you been? Doing well?"

                 Bianca: "Hi ma'am, yes It's been good recently."

                    Jane: "I have to say that you look more beautiful since I last saw you months ago! However, I don't think you should be wearing skimpy clothings like the tight and short skirt you are wearing right now, you might give men the wrong impression of you and that's not what you want in a man.Also, those piercings on your tongue make you look sinful. I hope you remove them some day."                                                  

                 Bianca: "Excuse me miss? I am over 21 and I'm allowed to do and wear whatever I want and I have no obligations to obey whatever you say. How judgemental are you?! You think I'm bad? You don't even know what your own children are doing behind your back and you have the nerve to lecture me! Go teach your own kids first before you even begin with me. Damn you religious hypocrites!"

                    This is a pretty common conversation that arises whenever people of different generations meet and its a believable reality even though its merely an imaginary conversation. The reaction of Bianca is one that I resonated emotionally within first glance but during my second inspection, I find that Bianca actually missed the point. What Jane was saying was that if one is to wear tight clothings, men, being the 'pigs' that we are would tend to direct our eyes more towards an hour glass body, it could be the case that we develop perverse thoughts about women that way, would Jane go the way of refuting this? If we adopt definition ( 2 ), we realize that Bianca's accusation of Jane is, well, not really an accusation at all. Instead, its merely a description of the obvious- that Jane is judging her. But notice how rhetorically powerful this is? It completely trivializes the judgement( that skimpy wear tend to lead to perverse thoughts among men) and shifts the discussion to Jane's children via the 'judgemental' trump card. Most of us don't realize this but it happens as often as breathing. Moving on to the children bit. Notice that Jane's children has nothing to do with Jane's judgement at all? Is there a relevant correlation between Jane's judgement of Bianca's clothing and her children's? Also, how does Bianca know that Jane doesn't lecture her children? But here's the knock-down argument. This question would destroy the intellectual merits of Bianca's reaction. Is she judging Jane for judging? According to my edited definition of 'judge', is Bianca not differentiating right and wrong by calling out Jane for judging? Is she not saying that Jane is wrong for judging? Ultimately, Bianca defeats herself unknowingly. I would like to clarify that I'm not arguing in favour for Jane's perspective of skimpy clothing, but arguing for Jane's right to judge. In order for Bianca to maintain her charge against Jane, she must herself be willing to admit that she too is judging. But of course if she allows that to happen, her accusation self implodes.

                    This is why judgementalism is a progress inhibiting social phenomena. It craftily shifts the discussion via the use of emotion and rhetoric to what the user really intends to communicate- the disdain towards the judgement itself. What's a good way of getting rid of a judgement that you don't like? Define judging as bad of course! This ruse of a social conduct has infiltrated society with much subtlety and swiftness. I would be happy to reverse this process. Judgement is a fact of life. No judgement, no life. What would help is not to protest against judging, but to protest against the judgement itself, with reason of course. It is only then, when we can truly fortify our views and beliefs without having to throw mud at each other.