Apologies to Dawkins

Well, I guess I didn't update this blog as regularly as I originally intended in my rather melancholic turn more than a few weeks ago.

Since then, I have been viewing videos related to Richard Dawkins, and I have to say, I have completely misjudged the man (due in no small part to the misleading claims by "I'm an agnostic, but" A Asohan).

Almost a year after I was influenced into believing Dawkins was actually a militant faction of Atheism bent on destroying everything related to religion, I decided to do something I could only do when I entered university (and subsequently, watch videos on YouTube without needing to wait 5 hours for the video to finish loading), type "Richard Dawkins" into Google.

And lo and behole, for Wikipedia hath spake!

Apparently, the man isn't so pretentious as to promote his book with a "Dr" Richard Dawkins, "Professor" Richard Dawkins, or any other titles any other man would prominently display on their books to gain credibility.
Yeah, originally, I dismissed him as one of those raging lunatic anti-religious militants who think a more proactive stance against the religious should be taken.

How simple it is to change ones view to know than man was an Oxford graduate, and was also the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. Having been suitably impressed, and chagrin by my previous unsubstantiated view that the man was going too far in criticising religion, I began watching a few videos starring the man.

It began with this lecture on the queerness of the universe, which surprised me a lot because I was half expecting the guy to be some unpolished riff-raff (thank you A. Asohan) but he turned out to be... British.

If anyone out there has ever had the opportunity, please watch some British shows for a change, because they have the admirable quality for being wittier than any other nation on Earth (no, this is not a scientifically substantiated statement).

Then, with the brilliant encounter known as Dawkins vs. Tyson, Professor Dawkins has made a lifelong fan out of me.


And there was more to come.

Next, I discovered a video of Dawkins apparently stumped by a Creationist question. My heart audibly sank into my intestine when I viewed the description for that video - for a full 5 seconds.

Then the related video titled "Richard Dawkins 'stumped' hoax video exposed" caught my eye. I skipped that video and headed straight for the article written by the man - the answer to the challenge "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." where a lucid explanation of how the question phrased was a typical indication of Creationism and how Dawkins was suddenly faced with the unpleasant fact that the creationists interviewing him had lied their way into him giving an interview by claiming to be a film crew from Australia.

Okay, I admit, before I had noticed the "Dawkins stumped" video, I still had some reservations about the man's aggressive stance against religion.

That changed pretty quickly after the entire "Information Challenge" shenanigan. Now I have zero respect for Creationists.

It seems these people are hell bent on discrediting people instead of ideas. Come on, do a search on YouTube. While videos by Dawkins will mostly quote evidence, videos by creationists seems to focus on misquotes.

Actually, don't bother, watching Creationist videos is rather depressing compared to the always entertaining Dawkins.

In fact, the Bishop of Oxford makes more sense then them:


Wow, a man of the Church who actually supports science and believes in evolution! I am telling you, those Brits are genetically different from the rest of us (technically true).

But prior to that, I downloaded a few videos off http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/, my first being The Four Horsemen videos, which you can download for free from the stated site.

The talk was fascinating to say the least, particularly the one that centred around the argument that atheist arguments were insulting religion, and how that was used as an argument against atheism.

In response, the men pointed out that if taking things personally as a defence can be used, the argument on the religious end that atheist are without moral scruples could also be used as an argument for theists not to attack atheism.

All in all, I have been forced to swallow a wonderful pill of wit, humour, and science after being trapped in the illusion cooked up by A. Asohan.

I use the term forced because my hand seems preoccupied with clicking on video links to Richard Dawkins.

Take this "What if you're wrong" video as an example:


The "Intelligent Design? Watch it get schooled" video:


And probably a few hundred other videos starring the Oxford professor.

And all in all, I have not seen one video that openly insults religion (using the definition that trying to disprove religious beliefs with evidence is an insult to religion) without the backing of facts, logic, and/or evidence (or wit).

And with this post, I now offer my utmost apologies to Professor Dawkins for once counting myself amongst the "I am an atheist, but" crowd.

Oh yeah, there are no such things as raging, militaristic, lunatic, atheists - only atheists who happen to be raving, raging, militaristic lunatics.

There is a distinction, and if you are to argue otherwise, please remember the Bishop of Oxford.

Sugar & Spice, Truth or Nice

Being a university student changes everything... For most people.

I have discovered that I really have not altered my habits very much. I still go to bed early, wake up early, learn (whether it be lectures during the semester, or studying my own stuff during the holidays) all day, than go home for rest.

Essentially, it is exactly like being at home, except the occasional interactions with family has been replaced by interaction with distant relatives.

To be absolutely blunt, I don't miss anyone.

Maybe my dog, and my sister (Yes, in that order. I am a heartless bastard).

Delving into this question, I do wonder when did it all begin? When and how do you produce a person more interested in people and the things they do, yet not feel any personal attachment at all?

After reading God Emperor of Dune, I started to address myself as the Observer during my many personal chat sessions with myself.

Before that, I started wondering why people believe in things just because it is "tradition, authority, or revelation." Have to thank Dawkins for that, I am just not as eloquently blunt as him yet.

So I became disillusioned, that people could function in such an illogical way, made me bitter, and sad. Never angry though, until I found out about the special rights given to ancestral descendants of the peoples of the Malay Archipelago, the continuous hypocrisy of the government which professes to govern by the twin swords of justice and religion, and by people who refuse to condemn September 11th and then saying: "Who's fault was it in the first place?"

Under such psychological duress, one would usually turn to ones peers.

I turned inwards.

Because I trusted no one. Not completely anymore.

I have found out the hard way that adults lie to us as children, then continue to lie to us when we grow older. I am sure many of you reading this probably recall the same bitter memories of betrayal that completely changed the way you looked at a person. An event that changes the way you view the world.

So it comes down to one simple question: Just how long can one observe before one interferes?

Quantum theory would simply show that observation changes the results. People, are governed by the same rules.

So before I begin a series of posts regarding the student lounge I am planning for my university, I wish to impress upon my audience that nothing I do is as apparent as it seems, that it is utterly impossible for me to remain an observer after seeing and hearing and more importantly, considering what the implications were, are and will be.

This student lounge will be my first social project, one that aims to change the very nature of the society it exists in. Each aspect of the eventual project will be carefully presented over the coming weeks with the hope you, the reader, will give some input on how it will affect the student population, how it will affect the academicians, and what form of an activity it should take to achieve maximum impact, yet remain legal enough to continue operating under the all-powerful political machinery which strangles the urge to learn from our youth.

I said I would stop crapping and start doing something a long time ago when I put an end to my cynical blogging of real world events.

This is a bargain I intend to keep.