Sunday, 4 November 2012

Nothing Wrong Here


Friday, 12 October 2012

Friday Links 20


Why the BJP-Shiv Sena is silent on the mega NCP-Congress irrigation scam in Maharashtra -



Pervez Hoodbhoy on Neutrinos and Angels -

On Thomas Jefferson and slavery -

World freehand circle drawing champion -

Woman operated for tapeworm in brain -

How the fatwa changed a writer's life -

Superb narrative on fascinating subculture -

Woman had to be held upside down to be conscious -

Man at cafe meets inventor of the pixel -

Doctor in Antarctica who removed his own appendix -


Korean drummer steals show -


Octopus steals food and casually wrestles shark -

Leopard catches impala in flying leap -

A note on zoos -

The Amboseli project is the longest running elephant research project in history -

Regrown lizard tails aren't perfect copies of the original -

Alternative theory on canine dominance and learning -

Virgin births among wild snakes -

Time-lapse video of tarantula molting -

Mites living on your face -

Whale vomit is valuable -

Video of stick insect hatching -


On the failed biosphere projects -

Zoos discussing climate change -

Collection of Liam heneghan articles -

On security flaws in Apple and Amazon -

We're getting fat because we eat too much, not because we're sedentary -


Canadian cheese smugglers are earning $2,000 per trip -


The Guadalupe-Nipomo dunes -


WW2 technically ended in 1990 -


Did the US over react to 9/11? -


100 TV series finales in under 7 minutes -


Separate eggs with a plastic bottle -

Giant cartoon paper sculpture in New Zealand -

A website dedicated to the guillotine -


Jesus and Mo cartoons -

I like these -

When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to Gangnam style -

If you thought those '18 Again' ads were weird -

Did you hear the one about the building and the barometer? -

Dramatic entrance fail -


Wednesday, 29 August 2012

The Religion-Violence Correlation

Well, Mumbai had another riot a few weeks ago.

A group of Muslims came to Azad Maidan for a demonstration, some carried weapons and the situation soon grew out of hand. The demonstrators went on a rampage, destroying property and attacking people, before being brought under control a few hours later.

I don't want to go into specifics but look at this event in the more general terms of religion and violence as a whole.

In the aftermath of the riot, fingers were pointed and names were called. I'm not talking about political oneupmanship and bureaucracy. I'm taking about you and me. I'm talking about what normal people talk about in homes, on the streets and online.

People antagonistic to Islam and Muslims felt this was yet another sign of how bad Muslims are, or how much of a curse Islam is.

People who don't like religion saw in this riot another indication of why religion is evil, and played up the harm that religion does to society.
Moderate Muslims apologized on behalf of the rioters and urged justice.
Apologetic Muslims urged people to think about the reasons why people would resort to violence to begin with. 

Which brings up so many points.

Who takes the blame for this?

Firstly, why do we even need to assign blame? Well, because we choose to live in a society governed by elected representatives who are supposed to ensure that we lead a peaceful non-stressful existence. That's what we pay them do do.

Did they perform? No. The police did an admirable job in not letting the riot escalate, and in ensuring law and order returned asap. This quick response is something they need to be commended for. However, it does not excuse them from the fact that they failed to preempt the riot to begin with, and those in charge need to be punished for this.

OK, so with the obvious blame over, can we blame Islam?

Yes, the rioters were Muslims, yes the riot was seeped in an undercurrent of Islam, and yes, if they weren't Muslims, they wouldn't be rioting. Does that mean we blame Islam? 

No, we don't, because Islam is a religion, not a person. It is merely a collection of ideas that people subscribe to. That the principles behind Islam are both ridiculous and irrelevant in today's context is beside the point. The point is they're just principles, which people are free to ignore.

So do we blame the Muslims, people who choose to follow Islam? 

Well, yes and no. 

We don't blame all Muslims, but we blame those who choose to interpret a religion or a belief system in a manner that leads to violence, because their form of expressing this interpretation goes against our laws. 

However, we can't generalize or extrapolate one set of rioters to all Muslims. Only a fool would do this. Most Muslims were as scared as other Mumbaikars when the riot broke out. Only a moron would look at a Muslim riot and go "we must rid this city of all Muslims". 

OK, but why call the rioters Muslims? Why associate them with Islam? They're just criminals, aren't they? Why associate them with any religion?

Because Islam is what the rioters themselves associate with, and it's stupid for us to ignore that, because this sort of information is useful in observing and predicting the ways in which a society moves and how to best control it in future.

Just because the majority of Muslims are wonderful non-violent people doesn't give us the right to purposely disassociate the rioters from Islam. It is entirely possible for two sub groups of people within the same group to interpret a belief system in two different ways. Both the majority and minority sub groups can scream hoarse about who's a true Muslim and who isn't, but they can't disassociate either subgroup from Islam itself, nor can anyone else.

Speaking of anyone else, the one thing that irritates me as much as anti-Muslim fundamentalists are the clueless liberal elite who think that religious rioters are mindless ignorant beasts with no religion. This is just stupidity and I don't know what kind of ignorant guilt-induced political correctness gone wrong, instigates this. 

Sure, all rioters irrespective of ideology tend to act like mindless ignorant beasts when rioting, but their riot has a basis to begin with, and in this case it's their religion. 

This doesn't mean we generalize the riot to draw ridiculous conclusions about Muslims. It just means the riot has a religious basis and we use this information as usefully as we possibly can. Period.

But wouldn't it be easier to just crackdown on Islam and all Muslims? 

This is illogical. You don't punish the group for the individual.

True, fewer Muslims would technically mean a lower chance of riots, but that's a ridiculous generalisation. By application, if the workers in a Maruti factory in a small town decide to riot, do we then get rid of all Maruti workers, or all Maruti factories, to ensure no further riots occur? 

At some point of time in the evolution of a civilization, any group within that civilization is liable to riot if enough members within the group resort to the same kind of violent herd mentality. 

To ban Islam is to ban Christianity is to ban Hinduism is to ban Buddhism is to ban atheism. They're all guilty because they're all groups, and all groups encourage herdthink. 

That one group is currently more violent than the others doesn't exonerate the others. It merely demonstrates that the difference in violence wrought by these groups at any particular time is one of extent rather than principle.

Is this a sign that religion in general is evil and dangerous?

Dangerous, yes. Evil, no. All religions being collections of principles, the only thing that matters to society is how stupidly people interpret these principles.

We can counter this by guarding against groupism in general, by making sure people are aware of the dangers of religion, of any belief system, of any group, of any fundamentalism.

So in summary, do we associate religion with violence?

Yes, we can, wherever we can, as long as it's not a correlation brought about by sinister or ignorant intentions with personal agendas in mind that don't really help anyone.

Also, read this article on war being inevitable by E.O Wilson.


Tuesday, 28 August 2012

The Church of Atheism

I've been observing an increasingly disturbing trend lately. Atheists are forming organised groups. They're showing signs of fundamentalism - acting privileged, entitled, superior, rude and harassing religious people online.

To Begin With

I've written before on the futility of belief, and why non-belief is logical. However, these are my personal views, and I hold that imposing these views on anyone else in wrong. Also, it would be wrong on my part to expect everyone else to adhere to my personal views. Just because I see a way of life to be logical or rational doesn't mean everyone has to hold to that view. It is fine for people be irrational, even purposely so, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

Take religion for example. Religion is irrational, yet it's OK for people to be religious. It's their personal choice. Should religion be encouraged? No more than any other form of irrationality is. Should religion be protected? Of course not. Ordinarily, a state has no part to play in the religions or personal belief systems of it's citizens.

Which is why I'm growing uneasy over this new type of militant atheism, an atheism that people subscribe to like an actionable belief system, rather than merely a philosophy or a personal set of viewpoints. An atheism that has loyal followers who are beginning to resemble religious fundamentalists, ready to defend their atheist leaders and core principles, ever ready to preach to those disinclined to listen. 

We need to guard against this new type of militant atheism.

Atheism Does Not Need Fundamentalism to Work 

I think religion will eventually die out when people see there's no point in taking things on faith, when they realise that the concept of belief itself is pointless. This will happen slowly over time. The number of people who associate with non-belief increases each year. 

Arguments that rationally undermine the concept of belief have been around for ages. These arguments form the foundation of atheism and do not need patron saints like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, or their lapdogs to defend or promote them. 

Militant Atheism is Really Harmful to the Cause

As a rationalist, I have to say that men like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins actually do more harm to rational thought, simply because they rarely indulge/d in any. 

Men like these may occasionally present their ideas logically, but spend more time asserting their superiority over religious people, insulting them, being rude, acting superior and generally just being assholes, that they alienate not just religious people, but the fence sitters as well.

Hitchens in particular was adept at using rhetoric and hyperbole, side-stepping any attempt at debate with humour that reinforced his own one-dimensional points. That his original arguments made sense by themselves is beside the point. The point is that he used the same arguments in contexts that rendered them irrelevant. 

For example, in this debate with Shashi Tharoor on freedom of speech, Hitchens shuns any attempt at engaging in actual intelligent debate. He seems incapable of looking at the world and questioning it in any way that doesn't allow him to spurt his crowd/ratings-friendly one-liners at every opportunity he gets.

Now, as a result of this, two things happen.

One, you give your detractors more ammunition to work with. You are going to be seen as someone who changes the subject and avoids debate, preferring narrow mindedness instead. 

Two, you alienate all those people who want to be on your side, who genuinely care about intelligent debate and an exchange of ideas, and make a mockery of their time.

Groupism is Bad

A true rationalist is interested in debate and an exchange of ideas. That's not what I'm seeing today. I'm seeing people who under the guise of enlightenment, take great pleasure in forming a clique and shoving their non-belief down religious people's throats. 

This is dangerous because, as we've seen in history, any type of groupism has potential to go very wrong. The moment like-minded people get organised around an idea, the potential for disaster is present, especially when that idea revolves around persecution of supposedly inferior beings. 

This is the same kind of groupism that we've seen in religious groups, and we all know the kind of violence it can lead to. In fact, groupism isn't confined to religion. How many millions of people did atheist governments in China and the former USSR kill?

This sort of 'lynch mob' mentality is exactly what happens when you have people eager to belong, to be part of a group, to be part of a movement, something greater to themselves, so that they have meaning in their lives. You see this kind of tribe mentality in all sorts of groups.

On Intelligent Atheism

Is it surprising then that it manifests itself in atheism too? To me it is, because I never imagined any kind of rationalist movement as a kind of cult, which is what it has turned into. 

Rationalism is all about being an open minded skeptic, friendly, ready to engage, open to new ideas, discussion and debate. And let's not forget our humaneness too. Despite all our rationality, we must respect other human beings for their views, whatever they are, even when they decide to be irrational. Their reasons are their own.

I don't see this kind of respect for other human beings in new atheism. If you're not constantly spewing hatred for religion, you're the enemy. If you don't agree with Dawkins or Hitchens, you're the enemy. Atheist fundamentalists cannot grasp that you can be a staunch atheist and still disagree with these so called 'experts'. 

This kind of 'seeing the world in black and white' mentality while ignoring the grey areas is exactly what leads to groupism and possible violence, and is antithetical to the healthy debate that rational thought encourages.

No Excuses

The main excuse of atheist fundamentalists is that their harshness is merely a response to injustices wrought on the world by religion. To which I say "Phooey". 

Granted, the influence of religion is far reaching, and much needs to be done to reverse this. But that does not mean you shove your ideas down people's throats. That doesn't make you any better than the people you're trying to put down. 

And it doesn't accomplish anything. If anything, it makes it worse. Most people dislike non-belief being forced on them as much as they dislike religion being forced upon them.

So in summary

Believe what you like, and keep it to yourself. 
Engage in healthy debate if you feel like it and find the right people to talk to. 
Hear people out and seriously consider what they're saying.
Think and reason logically. 
Be objective. 
Fight for your rights and the rights of others. 
Fight to halt and reverse the dangerous influences of religion.
Support the freedom of religious expression up till the point where it infringes on your rights.
It's fine to hold up a mirror to the absurdity of religion or any irrational thought process to demonstrate how absurd it is, especially when provoked. 
Don't be rude.
Don't end up like one of them.
Keep your individuality. The moment you join a group, you sacrifice a piece of your individuality for a group identity. Be aware of this.


Monday, 27 August 2012


Here's an article about a guy who took 11 hours to make 300 apples power a LED lamp, and then took a 4 hour exposure of his experiment on film.

I love stories about inventiveness. Inventive people do crazy fun stuff, like build Rube Goldberg machines, which I love.

I am always dismayed by people who are dismissive of inventive people. Inventive people are dedicated to their work, and their experiments move the world forward.

If you think about it, all of the things we use on a day to day basis came into being when someone had an idea that revolved around creating something, and decided to experiment with something else, or fiddle around with some contraptions with a view to improving life on this planet.

All the products we use today were invented, they arose out of a series of continuously improving inventions over time. Our electricity, planes, trains, cars, ships, buses, microwaves, ACs, cameras and computer systems were all developed by groups of people improving each other's work over time.

None of these inventors were mere consumers of products that existed in their lifetimes. If that's all they were, we wouldn't have all the stuff we do today. If Thomas Edison or the Wright brothers were merely content with what they had to begin with, with what other people had made for them, our world wouldn't have developed in quite the same way it did.

It was because these special people acted on their impulses, working with and developing the technologies they had, that they came up with new inventions that were in turn improved upon.

And those improvements continue today. Inventive people are continuously toiling away at something they believe in, creating products that other people use, even if that's not always apparent, like with fruit powered lamps.

Here's a video describing the work of Theo Jansen, who creates kinetic sculptures.

I've never been particularly inventive myself, but I appreciate the importance of inventiveness, and I think other people should too. Of course, I don't think everyone should be inventive. Civilizations thrive on diverse skill sets. If everyone was a geek, the government wouldn't have anyone to defend the country. In fact, in a case like that, there might not even be a government. Now what would THAT do to a civilization?


Tuesday, 7 August 2012

On Primates Using Sign Language

Watch below the 1978 documentary on Koko.

And here's Robert Sapolsky's summary. Entertaining as always.


Friday, 1 June 2012

Book Review - Chicken Soup for the Indian Couple's Soul

So I recently read this book called Chicken Soup for the Indian Couple's Soul.

It's one of these feel good inspirational books for people who need them. As the book by-line reads - inspirational stories about love and relationships.

Firstly, this book is huge. I wasn't able to get through it in my usual time, in spite of the fact that I usually skim through books comprising short stories. I suppose this had something to do with the subject matter. I'm not much for literature aimed at inspiring, and this is the first Chicken Soup book I've read, so I wasn't even sure what to expect.

Right, so the book contains around 100 short stories (by a staggering 75+ contributing writers) split up into a bunch of interesting relationship related categories.

The book begins on a bittersweet note with 'The Odd Couple' by Tanya Mendonsa, and continues on with other stories dealing with people who met online or met each other through other means, people who seemed like they weren't right for each other, people who lost and found each other again, etc.

The second set of stories, on starting a family, is somewhat less romantic and covers a diverse range of situations in which people have found themselves in, from struggling with a new born and the consequences that inevitably follow, to not being able to have a child.

The section on love and support is less somber, and also includes a couple of stories I really like. One is travel related, and I wish it were longer. Written by Bunny Gupta, it tells of a Nepali couple and their setting up a life together.

The other, a poem by Roma Kapadia about invisible walls we build, is probably one of the most beautiful and relevant poems I've ever read.

A matter of perspective has some weird stories that don't really seem like they're going anywhere as far as a common theme is concerned, but they're decent reading anyhow even if their classification is haphazard.

The next section, In Sickness and in Health, is predictable, dealing with people sticking with each other even though one party is sick.

This theme is carried forward in Overcoming Obstacles, another set of assorted short stories, a good one being 'The Fragrance of Rice' by Nonda Chatterjee.

Coping with Death sounds like a collection of macabre stories, but a lot of them have cheerful endings, ending with new hope. Ba Bapujee and A Touch of Love are especially good examples.

The last section The Fire Never Dies is an assortment of stories that showcase stories of relationships over time, some sad, some happy. A mixed bag, like life itself.

Given the range of personalities and situations, this is the kind of book that offers enough situations or emotional settings that everyone can identify with at some point. This, and the simple prose, make it a good read for people looking for light inspirational reading.


This review is a part of the Book Reviews Program at Participate now to get free books!


Sunday, 22 April 2012

13 Trekking Tips You Might Not Have Heard Elsewhere

1. Trek at your own pace. It's not a race. You're not here to compete with the rest of the group.

2. Do not leave the group and wander off alone. If you find you're lagging behind, try to pair up with a buddy.

3. Trek with meat eaters. They carry better food.

4. Trek with pros. They know what they're doing.

5. Never be the first person in a line of trekkers. You will also be the first person to walk into spider webs.

6. Always trek behind girls. In case of backdrafts, they smell better.

7. Never wear flat soled shoes.

8. Always wear a hat.

9. While walking up or down a steep curving bend, it's less effort to walk around the outer edge of the bend, but also longer. It's a trade-off.

10. While walking down a slippery slope, either take long confident strides, or slow measured steps. In the former, you might fall down less, but fall hard. In the latter, you might fall down more often, but lighter. It's a trade-off.

11. While trekking, wear anti-perspirant, not deodorant.

12. It's preferable to trek with girls. Girls talk less while trekking. Guys always have irritating trekking stories. They can't shut up.

13. If you're not a smoker, never trek with smokers.

14. Avoid trekking on Sundays.

15. If you have to trek on a Sunday, trek to a place that doesn't have an approach road for vehicles.

16. If in a group, stay away from overconfident people or know-it-all's.


Wednesday, 18 April 2012

12 Types Of People That Turn Up For Every Live Music Event, And How To Spot Them

The Expert

He knows more about music than any other person on the planet. He can provide you with a short description of every music genre, the name of every musician, every group that they played in, every album they released, and the middle names of their stalkers, without being asked. He tends to make people around him feel inadequate.

How to spot him: He’s usually standing off to one side of a club, carefully observing, analysing and memorising every detail of a live performance.

The Entitled One

He was a frequent visitor here when the paint on the walls of this club was still wet. He thinks he knows more about this venue than anyone else, and has a connection to it that no one else does. On a first name basis with both the owners and service staff, he’s proud to have been the first person to see a certain band play at this venue, even though they play here every month.

How to spot him: He has a really smug look on his face when something goes wrong, the expression on his face being “I knew that was going to happen.”

The Wide Eyed Noob

She has spent her whole clueless, protected life hanging out with close friends at pubs around her home, listening to remixes on loop. She doesn’t really know what type of music she likes, but she thinks The Black Eyed Peas are ‘kind of cool’. She doesn’t really care about the band playing tonight. She’s only here because a friend thought it would be a good idea for them to come, and she didn’t have any other plans.

How to spot her: She’s restless; her eyes keep wandering around, looking for interesting things to discuss with her girlfriend, who’s side she doesn’t plan on leaving for the next 2 hours.

The Event-Goer

He doesn’t really care about who’s playing. He’s only here because he’s starved for live entertainment. He’s from out-of-town, earns a respectable income at an IT firm, working long 6 day weeks. He spends Saturday nights at home with his 3 flatmates, eating Indian-Chinese take-out and drinking Fosters, wondering when something interesting is going to happen. He’s usually the first one to buy those Iron Maiden/Bryan Adams tickets.

How to spot him: He’s usually jumping up and down in the middle of the crowd at a live gig, high-fiving strangers.

The Corporate Guy

He doesn’t really get this type of music. Never did. Not even when batch mates tried introducing him to Pink Floyd back in engineering college. He’s been brought up to appreciate a very different kind of music, and this stuff is just noise. He’s only here for appearances sake.

His company just won a major contract, and all the senior executives have decided to come here tonight to celebrate. He can’t say no, though he’d have preferred a more prestigious venue, like a 5 star hotel.

How to spot him: He’s usually sharing a table with other corporate types, laughing a little too loudly at their jokes, and trying to ignore the music.

The Spouse

She’s pushing 40, and is only here because her husband brought her. He said he’d take her someplace nice. She thinks they might have done better, but she’s willing to give this place a try. 

She doesn’t really follow music, or anything else for that matter. She’d never come here on her own, and doesn’t have any friends who’d come with her if she wanted to. She sneaks glances at the other people around her, wondering what their lives are like.

How to spot her: She’s usually in a private VIP booth, sipping a drink, a glazed look on her face.

The Headbanger

He lives to rock, has been waiting weeks for this gig, and plans to start a mosh pit at some point tonight. He has come prepared, and is even wearing a cup. He doesn’t need to eat, but will tank up on alcohol or weed or both, by the end of the night, even though he has little or no money. He wants to immerse himself in the music, and shows disdain for anyone not taking this as seriously as he does, branding them pseudo fans.

How to spot him: The one near the stage, wearing a black rock tee and denims or khaki 3/4ths, along with 500 other people who look just like him.

The Photographer

He’s spent half his annual salary on his photography equipment - camera, lenses and accessories, and is constantly worried that someone may damage them. He’s gotten used to the weird self conscious poses that he gets into for each shot. He checks out other photographers’ equipment to see if it’s better than his.

He has no idea how he’s going to make a living off of this, but he consoles himself with the fact that the perks are good.

How to spot him: He’s the only one closer to the stage than the headbangers.

The Music Journalist

He’s trying to find a balance between working and enjoying the performance. He’s done his research. He knows a bit about this band already. And he can write well. He’s attended gigs before, and he recognises a few familiar faces here - other regulars, fans of the band, people who like his articles, suck-ups who want his job. But for now, he’s more interested in the freebies.

How to spot him: He’s busy taking notes and talking to ‘The Expert’.

The Networker

Some people just want to be where all the popular people are. The Networker will scan the city’s event’s websites, Facebook walls, and Twitter timelines, for upcoming gigs. He was planning to organise a tweetup, but realised attending this gig would be a better idea, since everyone he wants to meet is going to be here. The live music is just incidental.

How to spot him: He’s busy handing out business cards, exchanging numbers, & trying to be funny during breaks in a set.

The Old-timer

Someone who’s clearly in the wrong place. He hoped he’d get a dose of some old school music, something he enjoyed when he was younger, but he can’t understand the music being played in front of him, and realises with a jolt that he doesn’t really belong here. This place is for his kids. So much for that nostalgia trip.

How to spot him: He’s the old guy who leaves after the first song.

The Observer

He appreciates good music, even though he doesn’t always get it. He likes listening to new types of music, but isn’t a fanboy. He’s here to experience something new, so he can cross it off his list. He feels the need to record everything he sees around him, for an invisible audience to appreciate.

He likes making lists, and uses what he thinks is dry, disassociative humour. Other people irritate him, so he doesn’t bother engaging in pointless conversation with them. That doesn’t stop him from hoping they read his tweets anyway.

How to spot him: He’s continually tweeting his feelings about the gig. He might even blog about it later.


Wednesday, 25 January 2012

IT guys, Snobbishness & Competencies

A lot of IT guys, particularly the ones that just hit the job scene, seem to have a sort of snobbish complex about their jobs, looking down on people with fewer technical skills and more business administration skills. They laugh at terms like Prioritization, Time Management, Change Management, Lean Fundamentals & Project Management, thinking these 'made up terms' that don't really have any value and don't really do anything. 

Perhaps, when your work involves technical expertise, you tend to work within a bubble, respecting only those people around you with similar skills & objectives, and mentally demeaning or devaluing those within administration, management, etc.

However, techies would do well to remember that the companies they work for wouldn't be around for long without these kinds of folk. We’re not talking about start-ups. We're talking about a large IT company, with 5,000 to 50,000 employees. Companies like these run on processes.

Your brilliant scientific mind and those of your colleagues might develop a software product that changes the way we live, but it takes a whole team of costing specialists to number crunch, deciding how much value they should attach to the end product and its various stages of development, including the value of your time spent developing it. Without the cost managers, how would your company know what to charge for anything, or the ideal time a project should take till completion, or how much to bill a client, or how much to pay you? It probably wouldn't even have financially mapped deadlines.

Then there’s the business development guys, the ones who reach out to create clients to begin with. You wouldn't have any work without them, since they’re the ones who’re out there in the field pimping you. And they need the latest analytical tools (that you deem useless) to help sell your services.

Once a contract’s been signed, you need to have client relationship people to keep the client informed and happy. You can’t expect the clients to talk to you techies and get a straight answer to a query about a project update, in English, in less that 20 seconds. And the client relationship guys need a whole host of soft business skills to be good at what they do.

And of course you need real business experts, operations and process experts to ensure the human conveyor belt keep functioning smoothly and efficiently. And they can't be using outdated project management tools now, can they?

There's simply no room for snobbishness in a large organisation, and with such specific job roles as yours, it's understandable to come across competencies you don't understand. But remember, every competency is valuable.


Sunday, 15 January 2012

God probably loves Non-Believers

If there is a God, chances are he'd probably respect his creations more if they used the intelligence he gave them, to the best of their ability. The only way to effectively use our brains to the best of their ability is to be as rational as we can. And rational thinking shows us that Belief is pointless. Therefore, using our God given intelligence to the best of its ability results in us not believing in God. This is logical.

Do you see what I'm getting at? If God created us to not believe in him, he's probably going to welcome atheists into Heaven, and reject religious folk. If he exists, he probably looks down in disappointment at people who rely on Belief or Faith instead of Reason.


Monday, 2 January 2012

Movies Seen - MI4, 200 MPH, Apollo 18, I Am Number 4, Another Earth, Little Fockers, The Mechanic, Faster

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Terrific action movie. Recommended. That scene at the hotel......epic.

200 MPH (2011)

Badly edited film about illegal street racing. Like The Fast and the Furious with no story, script and effects. A waste of time. Avoid.

Apollo 18 (2011)

An OK documentary thriller. Like Paranormal Activity. A bit too slow for my tastes.

I Am Number Four (2011)

An average teenage alien action film. A lot like Twilight.

Another Earth (2011)

Deep, emotional drama with a sci-fi edge. A backstory about an alternate Earth is weaved into a tale of loss and guilt. Not bad.

Little Fockers (2010)

A star cast can't save this film from mediocrity. Not terrible, but not as good as the original. Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson need to spend less time together.

The Mechanic (2011), Faster (2010)

Average, timepass, action films.

The Mechanic is a terrible 'assassins buddy' film with more forgettable action stuff from Jason Statham.

Faster is a terrible 'Dwayne Johnson out of jail and on a rampage of revenge while an assassin chases him' film.