Thursday, 31 May 2007

The Grand Canyon: Could A Deluge of Water Cause This?

The Grand Canyon: The Consistent Work of Erosion, or one Super Global Flood?

In my previous post, I have attempted to analyze the implausibility and absurdity of the Noah odyssey. Apparently, one indignant reader was quite "unhappy" with what he thought was my staunch denial of the bible and the supernatural, which I would actually happily admit to, and that he actually claimed that the Grand Canyon, for all its splendor, was no more than the aftermath of that cataclysmic flood of the Old Testament.

I am quite positive that such a claim is, to many atheists such as myself, is nothing more than mere ridiculous, religious speculation, more to do with satisfying the beliefs of Creationists than to conforming to any sort of truth.

However, in order to satisfy the whims of this particular reader, I would attempt, once again, to analyze the Grand Canyon and perhaps debunk the "flood" story that was supposed to form this rather majestic specimen of Mother Nature and her elements.

The Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon itself is a colossal, steep-sided gorge carved up by the Arizona River in the State of Arizona.

To most tourists who frequent the Grand Canyon, it is well known for its over-whelming size, as well as its awe-inspiring and colorful landscape. The depth of the basin - almost a mile at certain locations - meanders along the Colorado plateau.

Less understood, however, its the geological importance of the Canyon itself: It is significant because of the thick sequence of ancient rocks that are beautifully preserved and exposed in the walls of the canyon, providing an almost flawless assimilation of rock layers which record much of the early geologic history of the North American continent.

Given the geological nature of the Grand Canyon, a massive time span would have been required to achieve this spectacular specimen of Mother Nature:

1. The Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has probably took approximately 40 million years to develop.

2. The majority of the Grand Canyon gorge is probably less than five to six million years old. with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years. This odd discrepancy together combine to produce one of the most unique geographic columns ever seen on the planet.

3. The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 2-billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

In short, the Grand Canyon is a grand specimen of erosion. Young Earth Creationists, however, are disputing this claim: A one-time flood, and not millions of years of erosion, did the trick!

Creationist Bullshit: Grand Canyon Gorged By A Single Deluge of Water!

To a Creationist, any semblance of evidence, however massive, must be sieved and adapted via their narrow world-view, which, as it stands, is convoluted by their obscurantist, fiction-inspired book of Christianity, i.e the bible.

Despite consistent findings of rocks ranging from 6 million to 2 billion years old, these Creationists claim, rather staunchly, that a deluge of water (Noah's flooding episode) could result in the formation of this colossal gorge.

The question is, can a sudden deluge of flood waters hammer a gorge that deep and spectacular within a space of 40 days (That is, if you want to defer to the bible.)?

Herein, I shall analyze this possibility within a few vital scopes:

1. Composition of the Grand Canyon

Could a global flood cut through rocks of solid shale???

The majority of the Grand Canyon's composition and deposits consists of shales, granite, limestones, and other hard rocks and minerals. Such elements would have been very resistant to any type of water flow.

For water to produce such a gorge within a space of 40 days would have been a herculean task. Even if we suppose that the force of the flood would have to be the equivalent of a pneumatic drill (As I have countered in the previous post on Noah's ark), a uniform rainfall of such magnitude would have caused a general depression across the landscape, not a gorge as Creationists claim.

2. The Sheer Size of The Grand Canyon

For any super flood to eat out a 277-mile long, 1.6mile deep and an 18-mile wide gorge does require a superlative flight of imagination.

As a rule, floods do not gorge out depressions or rivers of any sort: Any river formed is the result of constant, consistent levels of water flow throughout an extensive period of time.

To even suggest that the Grand Canyon could have been cut out by a flood requires a sort of foolhardy leap of imagination, kind of like leaping out of a 100-storey building into the awaiting arms of paradise.

3. Limestones: Not Created by Floods!

No flood could carve out a limestone formation.........

Most importantly, limestones of those found on the Rim of the Gorge could not have deposited by the floods, since floods do not selectively deposit minerals at any specific spots, let alone create limestone formations!

To be sure, limestone is a sedimentary rock composed largely of the mineral calcite (calcium carbonate: CaCO3). The composition of limestone consist of different minerals, of which one primary source stands out: Calcite.

Calcite can be secreted by marine animals, which eventually settle out of the water column and are deposited on ocean floors. Another form of calcite buildup may be caused by the deposition of secondary calcite, which is present in precipitating groundwater in caves.

In short, there is no way that any form of floods could have resulted in the formation of these limestones.


Once again, the Creationist's attempt to smuggle their own brand of pseudoscience has failed to provide any discriminating evidence against real, scientific investigations.

If these fools of the lord want to play in the realm of real science, they'd better provide real, solid evidence, instead of depending on their stinky scriptures and non-scientific methods of proving their "claims".

As the adage goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs."

Monday, 28 May 2007


It is often claimed by religious fundamentalists that the individual religions and scriptures they subscribe to contains unerring, unadulterated wisdoms or pearls, if you will, of pure truth, and that fables written of this nature are to be regarded literally as truth, no matter how illogical and unfathomable these fables maybe.

Jonah's trip to a fish's guts: Now I wonder if that is a fish or a whale........hmm.....

Stories of the supernatural, such as Man being swallowed by a fish (Fishy tale of Jonah being swallowed, and curiously not chomped into itsy-bitsy pieces, by a giant fish), and of course, the topic of discussion today: Noah's Ark, is being pandered about as truth.

To give credibility to the story, some of the more religious folks have even resorted to carrying out "scientific, archaeological expeditions" to find out about purported arks that have mysteriously turn up at mountain tops, the most famous being the supposedly exposed "structure" of the ark at Mount Ararat.

Given such a hard sell, is it any possible then, that the Noah's spin could have ever happened?

Noah's Ark: The Story

All aboard! First deluxe cruise for Man and Beast (Let's just hope they don't start eating each other up for breakfast........)

Before I begin, it is important to perhaps illustrate what the bible has to say about the ridiculous flood story that may, if found true, destroy much of the earth's surface, and with it much of flora and fauna on planet Earth.

According to Genesis Chapters 6-9:

1. God had, after some time, found man's behavior to be obnoxious enough to deserve a planet-wide Armageddon (Gasp! So much for a benevolent God!), and that all, except one lucky bunch, Noah and his family, were to be spared from a rather deadly deluge of water.

2. God told Noah to construct an ark, and to bring with him his wife, and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives. Additionally, he was told to bring examples of all animals and birds, male and female. In order to provide sustenance, he was told to bring and store food for both man and beast.

The exact verses:

"Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate;

Likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female...."

"Of all other living creatures you shall bring two into the ark, one male and one female, that you may keep them alive with you.

Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you, to stay alive.

Moreover, you are to provide yourself with all the food that is to be eaten, and store it away, that it may serve as provisions for you and for them."

3. According to the bible, the length of the Ark would have been some 300 cubits, roughly 450 feet.

4. And so the flood fell upon Earth for 40 days and nights, until the highest mountains were submerged in water. After an astounding 150 days , the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Mount Ararat.

5. As the waters continued to recede, after about seventy more days the hilltops emerged. Noah sent out a raven which "went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth." Next, Noah sent a dove out, but it returned having found nowhere to land. After a further seven days, Noah again sent out the dove, and it returned with an olive leaf in its beak (How that olive tree survive underwater for more than 150 days, hell, only Zeus knows!), and he knew that the waters had subsided. Noah waited seven days more and sent out the dove once more, and this time it did not return. Only then, did Noah and his family, along with the incredibly stressed-out animals, leave the Ark (which by this point must have been one hell of a mess and hell hole).

6. Just to add a touch of bloody humor, God has the temerity to hang a rainbow in the clouds like some parody of a sick joke, and saying, "Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

Nice touch, God. Seriously, try to imagine Hitler pasting pictures of rainbows outside each and every gulag camp he had painstakingly built across Europe. Must have been a welcome sight for tortured souls.

A Sensible Analysis On the Implausibility of Noah's Bullshit Story

Now that we have a slighter better understanding of the incredible fable-cum-slaughtering odyssey, we may begin to examine and discern the details of these events critically, from a scientific point of view of course, and seriously debunk the notion that not only do such a cataclysmic flood of such a global nature couldn't have happened, Noah and his family could not have achieved the incredible feat of keeping all these animals under one roof (or one Ark) successfully for more than 150 days.

1. Building the Ark

Assuming that Noah didn't have access to modern metallurgy, Noah's putty Ark would have to be made of wood. Given the ridiculous length of 450 feet ( very lengthy indeed, by ancient maritime standards), an Ark of this proportion would have been suspect from a seaworthy point of view. Without the aid of iron straps or other self-sealing mechanisms, the Ark would most likely resemble a bath tub than a ship of any sort.

Unless Noah could have access to a modern day pump (or a series of pumps, to be precise), Noah's ark would have to be converted to a submersible before it could even be considered a sea-faring vessel.

2. Magnitude of the Flood

A "flooding" Episode of Noah's Odyssey would have resembled something like this... could Noah's Ark have survived such a tumultuous episode?

The bible speaks of a flood that would have "covered the highest mountains", and if we are to take the scriptures literally, Mount Everest would be the marking point where the floods would have exceeded.

Hydraulic Power: Noah's wooden Ark was not built to withstand such a pounding.

To call such a disaster a "flood" would be a complete understatement: The waters that would have fallen to "cover the mountains" would have required a volumetric rate that would almost resemble a bloody hydraulic drill!

In short, unless the Ark was made of titanium or other forms of super-annealed metal, the deluge of water would have punched enough holes into the Ark to sink it within a matter of secs, let alone the 150 days of transversing the flood waters.

Obviously, the scripture writers had no inkling with regards to Mount Everest, and the idea of force would definitely not have dawned upon this addle-brained fools of the lord.

3. Where did all the Water Come From?

Another knotty problem that Creationists have difficulty unraveling is the presence of such a massive amount of rainfall: Even if all the polar caps at both the north and south poles were to melt simultaneously, all seven continents couldn't have possibly flooded to the high mountains, let alone the amount of atmospheric moisture in the clouds that were supposed to pour down all within the space of 40 days.

Just how do Christians counter this rather innocuous argument?

Well, according to one theory (Point to note: This is not a scientific theory, as there is no scientific evidence to warrant this), a layer of canopy was supposed to "suspend" water in the atmosphere until, well, someone with the title of "God" decides to rapture the damn canopy (Damn those raptures!).

Before we dismiss this cock-and-bull story, maybe a few questions could be raised:

i. What was the canopy made off? Rubber canvas? How could it possibly hold so much water?

ii. Did God punch holes into the canopy so that it could "leak" like some old leaky pipe, or did he just grab a pen knife and cut a slit on the rubber canvas?

iii. If there really was that much water in the atmosphere, wouldn't the atmospheric pressure be far higher than we experience today? If that is so, oxygen and nitrogen levels would have been built up to toxic levels quite easily, and wouldn't that kill off most life on the planet before God had the chance to kill even a bloody mouse?

iv. What about light? How much light would have been filtered off by the firmament of water before it reaches Earth? How could plants survive on such paltry rays of light? Well, I guess plants of that era didn't exactly photosynthesize, maybe they just made food from reading bible scriptures!!!

And then, of course, there is the Hydroplate theory, which fairs worst: Huge bodies of water trapped within the Earth's crust is suddenly raptured (Damn the raptures! What's with these bible writers anyway? Too much hymen fixation???), water shoots into the sky, and falls down as rain!!!

So much for Christian science.

4. The Animals: Traveling Impossible Distances?

Assuming that the Ark could fit every damn land animal and bird in pairs and in sevens, one would think that these animals may actually not have found their way to Noah's cramped Ark.

Polar Bears: We need Ice, Not Floods!

Noah's location would have been somewhere near or in the Middle East, and one would assume that animals, such as polar bears, would have a torrid time trying to locate the ark. Try imagining this: The polar bear has to track, by sea, from the Arctic regions, to mainland Europe/Asia, and then trudge by foot to central Asia. The distance aside, the gradually-warming weather and the need to find suitable food would have killed off the polar bears before they even have the honor being killed off by the floods.

Yes, God....What? Travel to Noah's Ark? Leave me alone, you sick freak!!!'

Penguins: Too short and stubby for trekking?

And it is not only the polar bears who will actually struggle in the massive heat of the middle east. The slow-as-snails sloth is not going to inch any nearer towards Noah from the South Americas, let alone swim across the Atlantic Ocean! And the half-dreamy koala bears from the Australian Continent couldn't possibly have made it without lugging their precious eucalyptus leaves (Koala bears are fussy eaters)! Oh, and those poor penguins with their pudgy stomaches and shorty legs....wouldn't have made much sense making them walk overland, eh?

In short, even if the animals were somehow "enlightened" to travel to Noah's location, most of these animals would not have been well suited to make their respective journeys. Either the journey or the severe weather, or a combination of both, would kill them off before the flood had been initiated.

5. Logistics and Overloading

Given the sheer numbers of animal species, the ability of the ark to hold even the minimal required numbers would have been a Herculean challenge.

According to the Bible, Noah was instructed to carry "clean" animals in numbers of 7; birds, beasts and "creeping things" in pairs.

Assuming that "creeping things" imply insects, then by conservative estimates, Noah would have had at least ten million species on board, and two-thirds of them would have been insects.

Noah and his accursed family would have to be extremely brilliant biologists to keep all these animals and insects from going crazy from being cramped together into the putty boat.

Space considerations for these animals would have to include caging space, and space for these unfortunate creatures to exercise. Given the dimensions of the boat, one would consider space to be of optimum premium.

Look out!!! Incoming Bullshit On Board!!!

Besides the obvious problem of space, Noah and his crew would be required to clear all the waste materials (i.e Shit) from the animal pens. It sounds like a mundane chore, but when you have something like a couple of million different animals stuck together in a dinghy boat, sanitation can become quite a stinky problem. And as far as animals' digestive system goes, the adage "what goes in must come out" applies, flood or no flood.

To put it more succinctly, animals shit, and they aren't going to go about their business in a civilized and orderly manner, and given the sheer numbers of animals on board, I am not about to buy into the "toilet-training" routine being dished out by Noah and his small little chain gang of a crew.

Even if we assume that Noah has built an intricate flushing system for these animals, there would still be an underlying problem of cleaning these cages, and given the sheer numbers involved, cleaning would have taken up every minute of their time, and it still wouldn't be enough.

6. Food

Yet another thorny issue for Team Noah. Different animals have different, specific dietary needs: Panda bears eat bamboo shoots almost exclusively, not to mention that lions eat sheep (put them both in the same pen, and one would invariably become extinct on board Noah's hellish Ark).

As well as sourcing space to store all the food (Which again goes back to logistics), the sheer magnitude of investigating the exquisite palates of each and every single fauna on board would have been a mind-boggling headache!

Justifying The Noah's Ark: A Tale of Deception and Wacky Theories

In sum, the Noah story is incompatible in every aspect: If one is to believe in such a supernatural tale, one would have to inject incredulous miracles to support this amazingly cruel and despotic event. In short, a desperate leap of faith.

The Rainbow: Just the Splitting of light through a prism (in this case, water acts as the prism): Not some fucking sadistic feel-good symbol of mass murder

And the rainbow story? Well, it kind of adds a warm, heart-felt touch to what is otherwise a toxic dosage of mass-murder, ecological destruction and divine insanity.

Hybrid Human-Animal Embryos: Heralding the Age of Frankenstenic Science?

Frankenstein: Stuff of fiction, or a fore-boding of what is to come?

As a teenager, one of my favorite past times was reading science fiction horror, and one of the more indelible impressions of such science fiction tales was the story of Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelly. It was one of the more classic science horror stuff, and some would think that its relevance towards DNA research, cloning and other scientific advancements may be a glimpse into the future of scary science: Creating a human, hybrid-like creature in the mould of the fictional Frankenstein.

Types of Hybrid Embryos

With the dramatic advancement of DNA and other biological fields, science has progressed in leaps and bounds. Genetically altered plants and crops have been successfully replicated, and organs of humans have also been successfully harvested in animals.

The Creationist Scientist: Wacky, Nutty, and Fruity, and nothing much in between.

In light of such medical scares, perhaps it may be prudent to at least alleviate the fears of people who may harbor unnecessary prejudice against people who do real science, not some quacks who don white coats and hide behind Creationist-related pseudoscience.

Basically, there are two types of genetically-altered embryos:

1. True hybrids:

Creatures created by the fusion of sperm and eggs, involving human DNA. Such a creation would, theoretically at least, throw in some controversial debates, and thus remain outlawed. In all cases, it remains illegal to allow hybrid embryos to grow for more than 14 days or for them to be implanted in a womb, after which, they are to be destroyed.

As controversial as this sounds, I dare venture to say that this may not be a bad thing. Imagine the good it would do to humanity if humans possess certain genes that may help enhance our capabilities, say, humans who can swim by breathing through gills (without the side effects, of course).

2. Animal-human hybrid embryos

This is a far less controversial research route: Scientists take DNA from human cells and place it in animal eggs, which have had most of their genetic material removed. Embryos grown from the eggs contain more than 99% human DNA, with remnants of animal DNA of the originator of the embryo. Once the embryos have been grown in the lab - for no longer than 14 days - scientists can harvest stem cells for research.

Why Hybrid Embryos?

Perhaps due to the religious stigma attached to embryonic research, there exists a severe shortage of human embryos available from donors for the sole purpose of stem cell research.

By harvesting animal embryos (Which are in plentiful supply, and curiously, something which "pro-lifers" never complain about), the immense potential to culture abundant embryonic cells for stem cell research would negate this urgent need for human embryos.

The Pressing Need For Developing Stem Cell Research

As a testimony to the wonders of Science and Medicine, our advances in medicinal science has dramatically increased the lifespan of the average human being.

With the increased lifespan, however, came unforeseen problems: As the population ages, diseases that would never have surfaced as a potential pandemic have began to crop up: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other erstwhile mental diseases that deal a severe blow mainly to the elderly populaces will have a significant effect to the elderly, as well as the younger generation tasked with the inevitable burden of looking after the aged.

In light of this emerging social problem, it is imperative that advances in the field of medical research, particularly stem cell research, be accelerated to cure or at least eliminate some of these age-related diseases.

Fear Mongers Amongst the Fundamentalist Breed?

There have been concerns raised, particularly from the religious and fundamentalist breed, that such advances in biomedical research would somehow be a sacrilegious act, and that Man, as God's creation, should never be allowed to play "God".

The Evil Doctor: Playing the role of "God" by curing those that God intends to wrought his wrath.

That kind of argument is dubious, however. By that logic, whenever a child falls ill from disease, we should never bring him or her to the doctor, because as doctors go, their job is to cure patients or at the very least, alleviate pain. Visiting doctors would then be tantamount to blasphemy, since the purpose of the child's disease, which has been afflicted upon the child, would be to bestow upon him or her death and/or suffering.

Rather than be embroiled by such silly arguments, the real ethics of embryonic research should be geared towards responsible, life-saving research. Resorting to archaic, religious values to denounce real science is kind of like playing water ducky with the microscope.

While there may be real medical and ethical implications for creating adult hybrids, the scientific community cannot be allowed to be dragged down by arguments pertaining to ridiculous claims of "fetus" murder and religious, superstitious fear, traits that would lead us down the path of ignorance and doom.

Tuesday, 22 May 2007

Viva la Resistance: How to Piss Off Evangelistic Crooks

Viva la Resistance! In Your Face, Ye Street Whores For the Lord!

From time to time, atheists such as the likes of myself encounter fervent Christian evangelists. They seem to be everywhere, kind of like plague, spreading their messages of Jesus juice and sweet old bible justice of sinners and hell to any potential recruit.

While there is nothing legally wrong with proselytizing in the streets, it does get annoying to the average atheist, especially when most of us tend to be ex-Christians/church goers and are therefore well-equipped about biblical nonsense to know that this Judaic religion is as ridiculous as Father Zeus from Mount Olympus.

With permission, I have had the previlege and honour to present to you one of the best Christian retorts to street fundies: Welcome to the world of E.N Heath, founder of the atheist blog, Atheist Resistance.

Atheism 2, Religion 0
(By E.N Heath)
Today I had an interesting encounter with two christian women. They stopped me in the street, and did the familiar "Would you take a minute to answer a question?" spiel. Always up for the challenge, I obliged.

The younger of the two started off talking about where we go when we die (either heaven or hell, of course), and mentioned that since we are free to make our own choices, we can choose to 'ask God to forgive our sins' so that we can go to heaven, else spend eternity of pain and suffereing blah blah blah in the fiery lake of 'hell'. I dutifully listened to her tell me all about her recent discovery of Jeezuz by way of a life altering experience, which she declined to elaborate on, and was all rather vague.

I was unimpressed. So I decided to make some more specific enquiries: "What about all the people who were alive before the time of Jeezuz?" I asked, "Did they all end up in this 'hell' because they could not possibly have learned from the teachings of Jeezuz or the bible?" Her answer was rather suprising. "Hades", she said. I was mystified. Wasn't Hades a part of Classical Greek mythology? "No, there's hell, and then there's hades." How convenient. "And- and Jeezuz died on the cross for your sins..." she rattled off, "-he was the son of God, and he could cure sickness and restore sight and heal the lame-". At this point, I sensed that she was getting out of her depth, and irritated with me testing her claim. She called in the older woman for assistance. The older woman proceeded to give me another vague story about an 'out-of-body experience' she had in her younger days, and how '[her] soul had looked down to see [her] body beside it'. Okay...

I considered my position. "Where do you stand on evolution?" I probed. Their response this time was one of genuine incredulity- "Do you actually believe that we could have come from, say, tadpoles?" was the younger woman's retort. I said that yes, I did. She really was astounded, and asked me "where do we come from, then?"

"Amino acids. I'm not a biologist so I don't know all the mechanics of it."

"So how do you know?"

"It's called extrapolation (extend the application of a method, conclusion, etc.) to different or larger groups, based on the available physical evidence", I said. She looked confused, so I explained the concept of extrapolation to her. I don't think she got it, and she got quite snarky from that point on.

"Then what would be the purpose of being alive?" she asked me, crossing her arms. I told her that I didn't believe there was one. She could not comprehend this, or the fact that I was so comfortable with it.

Other notable utterances were that 'the bible is a historical document' and was the 'direct word of God', despite my insistance that the bible contradicts itself in many places, portrays acts which are not physically possible, and was compiled over hundreds of years by various people, most of whom had no contact with the man Jeezuz himself. Add to that the numerous translations and revisions it has undergone... You get the picture. She looked hurt and desparate.

The situation deteriorated, and both women tried to bring their unsuccesful conversion to an end. The younger woman handed me a leaflet, mumbled the times at which services are run at their church, and both started to back away from me.

Victory was mine.

The Case of The Man on the Wheelchair: Left Behind By a Careless God?

God's love: Not Applicable for Handicaps?

An addendum: After the christians ran away, I went to pay some bills. On the way back, I happened across them again. This time they were talking to a man in a wheelchair. I approached the group, and said to the fellow in the wheelchair "Why doesn't God restore your ability to walk?" The women looked furious. "I think our discussion is over" she said, forcing a smile. The man in the wheelchair took the opportunity to escape. I offered to discuss it further over a coffee. They made some non-committal statements about meeting me later or giving me a call (funny, though, that they didn't ask for my number), and backed away again.

So now I know what time they have their services, I may just go and visit the congregation to ask them some hard questions.

My Comments

I think the rebuttal was excellent, as it really hit the nail in the head. For the fundies, it was yet another daunting reminder that their omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God could not have failed worst.....or maybe he just really isn't there after all.

When it comes to taunting evangelical louts, any atheistic taunt, especially the witty ones, are always appreciated. Keep up the good work, Heath.

Saturday, 19 May 2007

Jerry Falwell Eulogy: Good Riddance

Falwell: His 73 year old carcass was found slumped on his desk, according to Hitchens.

Normally, the adage of "letting the dead rest in peace" tends to apply to most deceased people. After all, their bodies may have given up their last breath, but immediate relatives, family members and close friends will still be grieving over the loss of the deceased.

With Jerry Falwell's passing (Christopher Hitchens describes his "carcass" found slumped over his desk on 15th May 2007. Sounds like a dead piece of fish or something rotten), a lot of vitriol and vermin has been spilled from the Atheists' camps, and those from the Conservative Rights seem adamant that us atheists are so full of hate for a man who seems, well, overweight, genial, rolly-polly, and, well, just like any other typical conservative American.

There is a reason, however, behind the vehemence, and that his views may well speak louder than his words.

Falwell's Views of Hatred

As a "Reverend", Falwell has made it a point to air his vitriol whenever and wherever he seems fit, and this includes broadcasting networks, Christian networks, and his favorite pulpit.

Making full use of the title of "Reverend", he managed to smuggle his big fat ass into almost every secular broadcasting network to spread his otherwise unspeakable banter.

Chief amongst Falwell's Agenda:

1. Getting rid of secularity of the Constitution, which would effectively push his evangelist propaganda as a National religious movement.

2. Marginalizing gays (Calling them brute beasts), atheists and everyone else who doesn't toe the biblical/evangelistic line.

3. In his early years at his Thomas Rd Baptist Church, Falwell was prone to lampooning black Civil Rights Movements, and is not shy from featuring segregationist politicians such as Lester Maddox. No doubt, as the years roll past, his archaic views somehow didn't apply anymore, and he very wisely kept these views to himself in his latter years. I seriously believe that given the sinister nature of his demeanour, he would not have deviated from his early racist views.

4. A Pro-Israel Stand: Falwell is well-known for his pro-Israel stand, which includes the almost suicidal creed that Israel must not give "an inch of ground" to the Palestinians. Well, good for Falwell, bad for the Israelis. As if decades of suicide bombings and blood cuddling incursions by both sides are not enough to bring both warring sides to the negotiating table, they had this rambling fool of God pouring fuel into the burning cauldron.

Blaming Pagans, Abortionists,Secularists, Gays, Lesbians and ACLU for 911 Incident

Shortly after 911, jolly good Jerry remarked infamously on his good friend Pat Robertson's 700 Club, that America had in its own way, incurred the wrath of God that resulted in the terrorist attacks of 911:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."

Really. I wonder if any of those terrorists on board were feminists. Too much "le femme Nikita" movies must have freeze his brains.

Instead of joining the androgynous masses to mourn the dead, this moron chooses to deride his fellow Americans for having more rational agendas. Choosing such a tumultuous time to spread his vomit is a sure fire way to earn the ire of the general public (Even though they may seem to forget about it after a while).

Falwell's Legacy

Falwell's campaign of hatred and bigotry may well be his legacy. Along with his pal, Pat Robertson, both "Reverends" were at the forefronts of America's continuous campaigns to usher in a new age of theocracy in America.

As Hitchens commented heatedly on CNN, Falwell's "racket" would still be carried on by his family, and like all family businesses, Falwell's racket will not ride into the Sunset.

Why Should Atheists Say Nice Things About Falwell?

According to Christians, atheists who had upped the ante in keeping up with Falwell criticisms have not observed the decorum of respecting the dead and their loved ones.

The Christians do make a point, with one notable exception: How does one sing the praises of, say, Hitler, Stalin, or some crazy despot and eulogize about his great "accomplishments"?

This is not to say, however, that Falwell was a despot of that order, but he did propagate an agenda based on theocracy, irrationality, hatred and outright vehemence of all that do not agree with his Christian worldview, and when he was alive, he didn't have one good thing to say about those who don't agree with his religious beliefs.

And to that, I shall conclude my eulogy/article:

Butt Plugs: Built to Fit into "Reverend" Holes. God Bless Sodomy!

Good Riddance, Jerry. May the buttplug rest snugly in your ass.

Thursday, 17 May 2007


Yup, the bible is evil & obscene, as the Hongkies will attest.

As most atheists will tell you, most non-religious people know more about the semantics of the holy bible more than those card-carrying fundamentalists who crutch their bibles outside their fancy churches every other weekend.

And the stark truth is, most pastors in churches often regurgitate the same damn boring verses every other day, especially those "feely-goody" types that would actually keep the masses enthralled, leaving the more unsavory bits of the bible out of religious indoctrination during Sunday Service and Communions. And it is this deliberate omission that leaves most Christians and most of the public in the dark with regards as to how X-rated the bible really is.

The funny side is, all it took was one groovy Hongkie and his heathen website to smash away any delusions with regards to the "purity" of the "good" book:

Yahoo News, 17th May 2007

HONG KONG (Reuters) - More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon on Wednesday.

The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.
(The link, here. Unfortunately, it is in Mandarin, and my Mandarin isn't really up a competent level, so I will leave it to Chinese-reading folks to figure this one out.)

The Web site said the Bible's sexual content "far exceeds" that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University's "Student Press" magazine, which had asked readers whether they'd ever fantasised about incest or bestiality.

That column was later deemed "indecent" by the Obscene Articles Tribunal, sparking a storm of debate about social morality and freedom of speech. Student editors of the journal defended it, saying open sexual debate was a basic right.

If the Bible is similarly classified as "indecent" by authorities, only those over 18 could buy the holy book and it would need to be sealed in a wrapper with a statutory warning notice.

TELA said it was still undecided on whether the Bible had violated Hong Kong's obscene and indecent articles laws.

But a local protestant minister shrugged off this possibility.

"If there is rape mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't mean it encourages those activities," said Reverend Wu Chi-wai. "It's just common sense ... I don't think that criticism will have strong support from the public," he added.

Reverend Unsure?

Note that when pressed to explain about the obscenity of the contents in the holy book, all he could muster in the defense of his religion was a bloody big "If".

Of course, we wouldn't expect a Reverend to know every crook and cranny in the bible....the stuff is simply too heavy, but surely, as a man of the cloth, wouldn't he be expected to know those naughty bits? Oh well, that's a bit too much to ask for.

Since Reverend Wu is so inept at finding out those obscenities, I shall oblige to do it on his behalf (A list of great bible stories at the end of this article).

Should the Bible Be Restricted to Above-18 Adults?

Personally, I have never felt the need to indoctrinate minors with religion: Their minds are still too young to grasp the concepts of religion and dogma without having the tools to dissect and decide on a rational basis.

If the law dictates a certain decorum or standard for what is and is not objectionable in terms of obscenity and propriety, I think the bible does fit into the category of triple-X porn stories.

Sure, it isn't pictorial, but that doesn't make it any less pornographic.

de Sade: Great Porn. Bible: Third-grade Pornographic Thrash

Nevertheless, I am not in favour of censuring anything, but the very ambiguous concept that the bible can be read by a minor, while some books written by Marquis de Sade can't, does indeed constitute a form of discrimination on a literacy level.

Besides, works by de Sade are written with far better prose than biblical scriptures, which, in my opinion, seems to be the work of dull-witted fundamentalists with too much sexual frustrations to boot.

Bible Teaching: Nix And Pix?

Hailing from one of the most fundamentalist Churches in Singapore (I was brought up in Harvester Baptist Church, with its main branch in Swainsboro, US), I understand how Churches work, and frankly, those unsavory parts are seldom raked up by pastors, unless they wish to perform theological suicide and risk losing their fold.

The really interesting question here: Does the bible contain depictions of obscenity as claimed by the anti-bible protesters?

In order to satisfy the morbid desires of all porn lovers, I have decided to drag a few porno verses from the jolly good book. May you find inspiration in these sick verses.

Sick-to The-Core Biblical Nonsense

(Warning: The following contains biblical violence as stated in the Holy Bible. If you feel uncomfortable with mass rapes, murders and other forms of gruesome violence, kindly leave this page and dump your bible into the dumpster.)

1. Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites; Female Virgins Becomes Sex Slaves

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.-Numbers Chapter 31:7-18

(For some reason, the authors of such medieval nonsense are often fixated with virgins and intact hymens. No wonder they use terms such as "raptures" to define the End Times: To these ancient misogynists, a ruptured hymen is really the end of womanhood. )

2. God Sanctions Savagery, Extermination, Looting, Rape & Murder

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. - Deuteronomy Chapter 20:10-14

(Spoils of War: Livestock, children, and of course, women. So much for feminism & children's rights....... I wonder if those paedophile priests really treated altar boys as "spoils of war"???)

3. Punishment for Disobedience: Godly polygamy & Infanticide (Acts of A Loving God).

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.' Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.] -2 Samuel Chapter 12:11-14

(P.S: And to think that our dear Reverend couldn't drag any dirt from his holy bible, tsk tsk. Who's he kidding? Santa Claus???)

Wednesday, 16 May 2007

Exploitation Of Supernatural Phenomenon: The Unfortunate Case of Little Audrey

Bloody Mary in Action

Deities do get thirsty, time for some feeding.

As a sort of continuation from my previous post, which I did in a light-hearted manner, one of the most ardent claims of godly manifestations would be those pertaining to the secreting of liquid substances, mostly of the blood, oil and tears variety from religious statues.

Of course, such superfluous claims are nothing new: Hindu statues of the Elephant God, Ganesh, had been purported to drink milk; Statues of the Virgin Mary were found to have blood stains, and some even claim to see statues having a life of their own in Hindu temples, but these unvalidated claims are, by nature, spread through the word of mouth and occasionally with the help of the media.

One of the most cruel and bizarre cases, however, has a tinge of child abuse added into it, and one can't feel anything but pure, unadulterated anger at religious people who would subject a paralyzed, innocent child to such ridicule and pure exploitation.

The Case of Little Audrey

The story of little Audrey Santos is nothing short of heart wrenching.

On August 9, 1987, at the age of 3, Audrey and her brother Stephen were playing in the driveway of her grandmother's house, when she inexplicably fell into the swimming pool and almost drowned. She was immediately rushed to hospital, where, according to Audrey's mother Linda, the presiding physician prescribed too much phenobarbital, causing Audrey to lapse into a coma.

Three weeks later, Audrey emerged from the coma into a state called "akinetic mutism"; she was only able to move her eyes and fingers, and had lost her ability to speak.

With such cases, publicity usually follows, and media coverage prompted many people to come and pray for Audrey - not only relatives, but family friends and even strangers. The hospital was so inundated with people that Audrey was placed in a private room in the PICU.

While the poor girl was struggling with the condition, her rather thick-skulled mother, Linda, had the gall to bring the paralyzed girl to Yugoslavia, apparently to seek "divine" healing in a popular pilgrimage site. Not only did a miracle not happen, she almost died of cardiac arrest, and surprise, she had to be medically evacuated back to the US.

And just who did she put the blame on? Yes, that dastardly abortion clinic, which was close to the site where Audrey was supposed to witness an apparition! You could almost hear her mother screaming: "Damn those freaking liberals and their baby-killing gulags! They almost killed my daughter too!"

The Oil-Oozing Statues

This phenomenon is a little puzzling: When the ancient Volkswagen in the garage leaks oil, one would usually attribute this to mechanical malfunction, nothing new, just the kind of nuisance that requires professional assistance. When statues ooze oil, that, my friends, is an altogether different issue.

Well, we know statues are not supposed to leak oil, but when stories of statues that adorn Audrey's home began leaking oil began to "leak" to the press, it turned Audrey into an overnight saint, and her home yet another destination for pilgrimage. A sample of the oil was sent to a Pittsburgh lab, and lo and behold, the contents of the oil was identified as "80% corn/soyabean oil and 20% chicken fat". So much for a miracle. Hmm.......I wonder where Linda got a soyabean oil from. The Garden of Eden?

Of course, this kind of rational explanation was never going to stop Linda and her superstitious supporters, whom she was going to exploit mercilessly. Not about to pass the buck up, Audrey's mother decided to use this latest media outburst as a means of making a quick windfall: An organization was created on Audrey's behalf, calling itself "Apostolate of a Silent Soul, Inc.", provides a "price list" and sells items such as photographs of Audrey and crucifixes which had been in Audrey's room, while also soliciting donations. These aside, commercially marketable items such as magnets, t-shirts, Audrey's photo, postcards, angel pins, books and CDs become part and parcel of Linda's massive campaign to rake in the cash at the expense of her daughter.

Throngs of people seeking some kind of cure for their individual illnesses line up in Audrey's home, hoping that in her semi-conscious state, she would somehow muster enough energy to bless their disease/illness-ravaged lives, even though she isn't even capable of extricating herself from her own paralysis.

And what kind of a sick, abominable mother would put up her paralyzed daughter as some kind of a freak exhibit for the fervent, crazy religious folks to ogle and enhance her suffering even further? Of course, some would argue, she's already in a semi-coma state, and probably wouldn't feel a thing, but the real issue is, does anyone sane ever hope to gain something out of a tragedy of a young human being, let alone the mother of the stricken child?

Death of Audrey: Not the End of Shameless Marketing

Little Audrey died of cardio-respiratory failure on April 14th, 2007. One would think that with her death, the whole chapter of religious lunacy will come to closure. The truth is, the organization that still exploits the plight of Audrey's misfortune is still in operation today, perhaps in the hope that Audrey's death will precipitate another wave of superstitious sheep for them to fleece money out of.

Although we call ourselves technologically advanced, it seems that our civilization is still rife with charlatans and swindlers of all shapes and sizes, willing to exploit any form of weakness, including that of their loved ones, for monetary benefits.

While there really isn't much we can do from a legal point of view, the least we could do is educate ourselves and our closed ones in terms of reason, logic and rationale. There is no reason why we should be dubbed by such silly claims of bleeding statues and all that nonsense, and much less so when it comes to shameless exploitation of paralyzed people.

(For more information regarding this continuing exploitation, click on the link to the official website here)

Tuesday, 15 May 2007

Jesus Sandwiches, Anyone?

Fancy yourself chomping down your mum's baked sandwich: Before you take the next mouthful of crumps, something on the sandwich strikes you, and you are stumped: Right on the sandwich, a blurry depiction of Jesus on that crusty sandwich - not very clear, but nonetheless, its Jesus!

So you rush off to inform your friends and relatives, and your mum too. She's ecstatic: After all, she'd been in the business of baking sandwiches for decades, and none of them turned out with a Jesus imprint (maybe the customers didn't care for Jesus: After all, sandwiches are meant to be palatable, not admired visually). Your friends turn up to view that crusty Jesus pastry, and one of them thinks it looks like Santa Claus (Blasphemy Alert!).

Yes, folks, Jesus, it seems, loves to manifest himself in the most incredible way (God works in mysterious ways, even if it is some edible sandwich). Welcome to the world of pareidolia: Where everything, and anything, can be viewed as a sign from the heavens.

Pareidolia: The Art of Seeing What You Want To See

First described by Steven Goldstein, pareidolia refers to a psychological reflex to view vague and random stimulants, such as unfamiliar sounds and oddly-shaped objects, with a more coherant, cognitive and logical perception. Random features and landscapes can be perceived to harbor some form of known imprint, such as the face of Jesus, even when such an imprint is non-existent.

In layman's terms, our brains has the tendency to impart some form of rationale with the information we receive, particularly with regards to our visual perception. There is a belief factor in all these: We see what we want to see because our beliefs and cultural upbringing dictates our way of perceiving the world around us.

That would explain why Christians who experience this phenomenon would always associate supposed facial images to be Jesus, Mary or some other deity instead of Zeus, Hercules or other Greek deities. Clearly, beliefs play a huge part in this case.

The Case of "Mary On A Sandwich"

That infamous, crusty sandwich that enthralled the faithful. Note the bite-sized marking

Diana Duyser, from Hollywood, Florida, went about her business of grilling cheese sandwiches, and was about to finish off that one particular sandwich when, lo and behold, she stumbled onto an image of Mary on here bite-imprinted sandwich! In her own words,"I made this sandwich 10 years ago. When I took a bite out of it, I saw a face looking up at me - it was Virgin Mary starring (sic) back at me. I was in total shock."

Of course, one wouldn't treat such images with contempt! With tender loving care, she kept the toast surrounded by cotton wool, in a plastic container on a stand. Duyser claimed that although a decade old, the toast has not shown any sign of mold or crumbling, which she considered as "a miracle". It would seem to me that anyone who would want to keep sandwiches for that long a period would be considered senile. Where is the miracle coming from? Oh yes. The non-molding and uncrumbling piece of pastry.

Well, if there was to be any hope of a miracle, she did find a sucker who purchased the pasta for......US$28,000.00 on Nov 23 2004! (Gasp!)

And who was the sucker who invested that ridiculous sum of money on an old cheese sandwich? Well, believe it or not, an online casino, purchased it. Even the pan that was used to bake that miraculous sandwich was sold on Ebay. Hell, maybe its just me, but some business-minded lady has just managed to hoodwink her way to riches.

I wouldn't doubt Ms Duyser's business acumen (I think she's damn shrewd in a way), but seriously, why do people buy into such purported nonsense?

Evolutionary Explanation

Is that Mother Theresa on the Bun? Or is it Smurf?

Ms Duyser's Mary sandwich is, unfortunately, not the first case of deities supposedly manifesting themselves on mundane objects. The "Nun bun", which supposedly shown Mother Theresa on a bun (Jeez, who wants to eat that???), the Mary-holding-baby-Jesus pretzel (Holy Mother of Christ), and other Christian pastry have all served to wet the appetites of religious people, for........well I really don't have a clue as to the purpose of it all. Maybe someone with a hotline to Jesus can seek clarification.

In any case, we know that humans have the tendency to rationalize random-looking objects, but the question is, is there another reason to explain for this tendency?

According to Carl Sagan, the tendency to recognize human faces may have been encoded in our early genes, as a means to foster parent-child bond:

"As soon as the infant can see, it recognizes faces, and we now know that this skill is hardwired in our brains. Those infants who a million years ago were unable to recognize a face smiled back less, were less likely to win the hearts of their parents, and less likely to prosper. These days, nearly every infant is quick to identify a human face, and to respond with a goony grin".

While there is some kind of rationale behind this explanation, one would think that the ability to conjure false images may be akin to biological suicide: A diving eagle who perceives a rock to be a rabbit worthy of a gourmet will definitely not last very long, unless it has a very thick skull to match. Neither would it be an advantage for cheetahs to run after every moving Savannah grass in search of imaginary prey: its stamina would run out long before it catches its first gazelle.

In other words, this evolutionary trait doesn't seem to impose any sort of advantage on animal species, although humans seem to retain it as some sort of a "feel-good" factor to prevent child abandonment (which really is subjective).

The next time you find a Jesus on your pizza, remember to frame it up and keep it in good shape: It might just fetch you a tidy sum on Ebay.

"There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object, those qualities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice or good- will to every thing, that hurts or pleases us." -David Hume

Sunday, 13 May 2007

Gory, Gory Unto The Lord: The Cannibalistic Tale of The Eucharist

From this............

To this!

Quite often, when we hear gory tales of indigenous people in some god-forsaken place practicing the macabre rituals of cannibalism, we cringe, and most sane people in the modern world would certainly not devour members of their own kind outside most circumstances ( unless under the worst circumstances, such as famine).

Despite the outright respite against cannibalism, the very act of eating one's own kind is very much condoned when practiced in a metaphorical, ritualistic and religious sort of way, and who else but the Roman Vatican Church, of all institutions, endorses such ridiculous flights of fancy?

The Idea of Transubstantiation

Ask any fervent Catholic, and he or she would tell you about the religious importance of transubstantiation. A closer look, however, will lead most non-believers to come to an almost incredible delusion of gore, human sacrifice and one incredible leap of faith.

For starters, Catholics observe Communion or Eucharist in Churches to commemorate, if you will, the sacrifice of Jesus as a means to clear away our debts of sins (Yawn. What nonsense. But let's continue.......).

As part of the ritual, bread is supposedly broken and eaten, with wine served. According to Catholic doctrine, the bread is miraculously transformed into the body of Christ, while the wine turns into the blood of Christ! How this transformation occurs, well, we don't have the slightest inkling, but the Catholics call this rather gruesome transformation "transubstantiation".

In other words, if you partake in a Communion, and believe wholeheartedly that transubstantiation is real, you are actually committing cannibalism! Now, who in the right mind would want to eat some guy's body (brains, guts, testicles, and all) and drink his blood (Is it tainted with Hepatitis or AIDS or some crap disease? )?

Of course, some Catholics wouldn't really believe it literally, preferring to think of it as a metaphorical representation, but still, how does one go about the process of eating pastry with red wine thinking about some guy's dead body and blood without puking and churning in the stomach?

History of Transubstantiation

The rather barbaric notion of eating a deity's body and drinking his blood, it seems, has served the catholic church for almost 800 years. Pity Jesus though. His body must have been mutilated and drained of blood after repeated mutilations and blood letting with each communion. No human, let alone a purported son of god, deserves this kind of treatment.

In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council conjured the word "transubstantiation" in its profession of faith, in recognition of the metaphysical transformation of Jesus' body to a materialistic form.

More than 300 years later, in 1551, the Council of Trent officially gave more details of this bizarre transformation:

" the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

And the Catholic Church had the gall to blame the perfidious Jews for murdering the Son of God, when the Church itself advocates eating and drinking his blood over and over with each and every Communion!!! If this piece of religious nonsense is to be held true, every act of communion would be an act of murder and desecration against their spiritual leader/God.

So, ladies and gentlemen, how about some bread for supper? Or that rather exquisite bottle of Bloody Mary to go down with all that pasta?

-While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Matthew 26:26-28

Saturday, 12 May 2007

Sexual Abstinence, Or Mass Orgies?

How to Alleviate Sexual Frustration............

More often than not, the mere mention of "sex", "copulation" and words of the more erotic nature are seldom discussed, and when they do become a subject of debate, issues relating to religion and morals begin to weigh in, along with more than a tinge of sheepishness. Explicit sexual terms, such as ejaculation, fellatio, sodomy and other terms pertaining to sex can hardly be discussed in public discussions without invoking wide-eyed stares and offended looks from the public, and much of it has to do with how religion views sex: Disdain and abhorrent.

No sex please, we are priests (Now where the hell is the god damned altar boy???)

The Vatican Church, in particular, hates sex, other than for the purposes of pro-creation: None of their priests and nuns under their charge are allowed to masturbate, let alone enjoy hot monkey sex. After all, they have to swear and consign themselves to an oath of celibracy, although curiously, this kind of divine oath does not really stand in their way when sexual abuse of altar boys and other children are concerned.

Next hot thing in the fashion world: Burkhas that make you, well, disappear from public view.

The hardliners in the Muslim forbids the female gender to show even a tiny piece of exposed skin, preferring to deck their women from head to toe in ridiculously eerie clothing known as burkhas, lest they become hot chick magnets for raging male libidos.

To many religions, the desire for sex is defined as a sin: Lust. Images of naked women frolicking around in your head, or sexual fantasies of the sort that can only be found in porn VCDs are considered criminal acts of adultery in the eyes of religion. Mere imagination or desire, it seems, can constitute a crime that really is quite damnable if you wish to book a hot seat in hell.

The classroom too, seems to have an almost pathological problem with the sex issue. Many sex education programs in the US prefer to teach sex education only in the form of abstinence. Sex outside marriage? Well, think of the consequences first. What about condoms and birth controls? No condoms, no birth controls, period.

Clearly, sex seems to be a taboo subject. It is considered somewhat of a paradox: Conservatives define sex as a tool for procreation and little else. Discussing sex outside the traditional adherents of marriage and pregnancies is considered sacrilegious, all conveniently packaged under the "Respecting the Institution of Marriage" ideology.

Sex As Human Need

Sex, if anything else, is anything but bad. When practised by two consenting adults, the idea of sex is to achieve an orgasmic experience (or even several orgasmic experiences) which can only bode well for our mental and physical well-being.

In short, sex is not merely a tool for procreation. It is a necessity, a kind of human need, no more different (though of a less priority, but nonetheless important) than the basic need to eat and drink.

Is a person required to register with the government before he eats his plate of steak, or for the matter, drink a glass of cold water? Why then, must sex prevail only after we apply for some marriage license? Does that even sound reasonable?

Sex In Ancient Cultures

Prior to the emergence of Judaism and its inherent, human sexually was revered, rather than vilified, in the ancient world.

The first Greek Olympians didn't run their marathons in fancy spandex clothing: Rather, they choose to run naked, often with laurels on their heads. There was nothing ashamed about nudity, the exposed breast, or an exposed penis. Human anatomy was not viewed as something heinous, at least not in Ancient Greece.

The Roman Empire was equal to the libertine excesses of their Greek predecessors, prior to the Constantine era. Unshackled by any form of guilt trips and shameful trappings, human genitalia and sexual deeds were both equally suited for public viewing. In fact, such was the extent towards the notion of sex, that sexual ornaments are worn as good luck charms.

In China, gays are actually allowed to marry, provided, of course, that they revert to marrying a heterosexual partner in their latter years. This practice, it seems, stems from an obscure Asian obsession to continue the family line (now we know why Chinese has the largest population in the world).

If anything else, the ancient world was, well, one hell of a mass orgy, metaphorically speaking.

Sex From An Evolutionary Point of View

Ever since the first life forms evolved the first projectile to shoot DNA into a receptive life form, sexual reproduction has been ingrained into higher lifeforms.

In fact, our need for sex can be said to be biologically programmed into our brains, as well as our genetic makeup. The erect penis is merely a signal caused by raging hormones to find a receptive mate.

Such a description may sound a little coarse and vulgar, but it underlies a biological trait that has ensured the survival of our species, as well as others. How then, does one view the desire to fuck to be an act of sacrilege? When morals are concerned, sex doesn't even come to the equation, other than sex with minors and non-consensual sex.

Is Demonizing Sex Necessary?

In the light of the AIDS epidemic, there is a growing circus of religious nuts who are advocating for abstinence. They want to encourage sex only within the heterosexual marriage framework. It is as if sex has become some kind of poison, and that fidelity is the only antidote for this major epidemic.

Despite the fact that condoms constitute a fantastic barrier against the disease, and that sticking to sex with one partner doesn't guarantee complete immunity(A philandering husband or wife can just about screw enough hot studs and chicks to fill up a battalion), these fundamentalists are simply skipping the whole point altogether: Abstinence doesn't work.

One cannot simply stop breathing even if there are toxins in the air (Carbon monoxide from your vehicle can asphyxiate you), nor can one stop eating shellfish even though there is a chance that you might catch some nasty disease. The key point is precaution. We can't deny ourselves and others of the liberty on the presumption of some nasty disease, nor the presumption of moral implications from the religious right.

My conclusion? Go forth, and multiply. Have hot monkey sex.


Sex between a man and a woman can be absolutely wonderful - provided you get between the right man and the right woman.
-Woody Allen

Sex is one of the nine reasons for reincarnation... The other eight are unimportant.

-Henry Miller