Evgueni Naverniouk

The process of getting my Bachelor's degree taught me many lessons - few of which, unfortunately, had anything to do with what I wanted to learn. Perhaps the biggest of these lessons was the importance of recognizing jargon and various forms of babble in instructional manuals, textbooks and most importantly in the lectures given by my instructors. As a student of the arts, the jargon I was most afflicted with was psychobabble, and the amount of it that I encountered during my 4 years was astounding. I wanted to take a moment now to write down my experiences and struggles with dealing with this non-sense, and hopefully forewarn future students of this serious problem with our education system.

In simple terms, psychobabble, similarly to technobabble, is a way of speaking that sounds intelligent and complicated, but contains no actual importance or value behind what is being said. Usually this way of speaking (or writing) is very esoteric - in other words, it uses words that are loosely defined, or very specific to the subject that they are describing, and more often than not, these words contain double-meanings that allow them to be interpreted in different ways. A great example of technobabble, which is the scientific counterpart to philosophy's psychobabble is the Turbo-Encabulator - a fake instrument with an extremely complicated functionality involving funny terms such as 'dingle-arm' and 'lunar wane-shaft'. When used in a comedic skit on YouTube or as just about on every Star Trek episode, technobabble can be really quite funny. However, when this garbage is discussed in a classroom setting as a serious form of discourse - I believe it's a serious issue and it devalues the entire discussion.



The problem is that when students come out of a fairly simple-minded, high school classroom entering this environment can be very daunting and misleading. As a 1st year student in university, I was naturally inclined to take anything our instructors told us at face value. After-all, they were put into those positions of power and authority for a reason. The big lecture halls, auditoriums, podiums and (often) aged and (less often) wise teachers gave me a feeling of importance. Everything about this environment made me think that, "these people look, act and talk important - and I should listen and try to understand what they're talking about." By the 3rd year, I questioned (and usually rejected) just about every lecture and every reading we were assigned, in just about every one of my classes. In fact by the time I was in my last year I didn't read any of the assigned readings because I was completely overwhelmed and fed-up with the psychobabble contained there in. Now, it's quite possible this attitude made me miss out on some interesting works of literature, but I began to focus more on the classroom discussions than on the readings themselves. I was more interested in being able to participate in an open discussion about the topics, than having to read one opinion on the subject by one ego-tripping writer.

I turned my attention to the opinions of students and instructors during seminars where we discussed the readings, and what I found was truly disappointing. The majority of students refused to participate in the discussions entirely - and I strongly believe that this wasn't because of their character, but because they were afraid of the language used in these discussions. Certainly, every person in that classroom had an opinion on the topics we were discussing (they were usually really fascinating and complicated subjects). The topics were curious, the questions asked were insightful but the only people who participated in the discussions were either people fluent in psychobabble, the instructors, or me. There were of course extremely rare cases who simply used very complicated language to express their intelligent ideas, but the majority of people had really weak, unintelligent, and vague remarks.

Most upsetting of all was that a lot of instructors (although, not all) would reward and encourage this form of discussion as if it was the crux of the entire seminar. It seemed to me like the more vague and psychoanalytical you were able to sound - the more interesting you were to the rest of the students and teachers, and this to me is completely baffling and unacceptable. If I had only one criticism of the entire education system it would be the blatant bombardment of psychobabble that misleads students into believing that using complicated esoteric language renders their opinion and points more valid. We need to stop perpetuating this misconduct and I believe the first step in achieving this is to simply stop using psychobabble in your own discourse.

So please, young post-secondary students of 2010 - have an actual interesting point of view and a simple way of expressing it instead of trying to sound intelligent. Most of us are pretty stupid, and that's okay. What makes people interesting isn't how they speak - it's what they say and what they mean by it. Expand Entry

My grad film Megapolitan is now available in full online at: http://www.megapolitanmovie.com/

Let me know what you think. Expand Entry

After a long year (and a half) of production, my 3D animated short film Megapolitan will be premiering at the 48 Short Films show tomorrow night. I hope to see you all there. For more information about the show visit: http://www.48shortfilms.com/

The film will be available for screening in full on the official website on June 1.

For more information about the film visit: http://www.megapolitanmovie.com/ Expand Entry

Google Wave's inception has been slow and generally filled with confusion. It doesn't seem to make much sense and the features it offers aren't really all that revolutionary. Sure, the ability to see people type is cool, but why is it useful.

LifeHacker was able to compile an article for successful uses for Google Wave and the list seems to be limited to companies and business settings.

I have personally been using Google Wave for doing tech support for my company's product - Google Redesigned. A few users have opted to contact me via Google Wave and I must admit, when they do - it's excellent. The hyper-instant messaging of Gwave makes perfect sense in this environment. By the time the user finishes his question, I'm already halfway through answering it. Gwave also allows them to quickly post a screenshot of the issue they're experiencing.

The reason why most people don't see the advantage of Google Wave is because it's still and a closed and limited preview. If all of a sudden GWave were to replace everyone's email, I believe the result would be extraordinary. The main issue is that we can't email with Google Wave yet. We can communicate with non-Gwave adopters, and that this lack of backwards compatibility is what prevents Google Wave from taking off.

We need to get more people to jump on the Gwave bandwagon. That's the only way it's going to make sense, and it makes perfect sense once you're there and using it. Expand Entry

Apple has recently been on the move, but although the technology and innovation that the company has put out has been quite good, they are constantly making assumptions about what their users want. I believe their entire philosophy about what people want and how the product should be delivered has been horribly wrong. And that's not so good.

The MacBook Pro, one of Apple's latest releases, is a 2.4GHz laptop with the capacity for 4GB of RAM. This is unbelievable power from a 17-inch notebook and the technology that's been packed inside the case is quite a remarkable achievement. So why wouldn't I buy it?

1. The Operating System - Leopard sounds great, but it's still a Mac OS, and nobody wants to be running a Mac OS. At least in my opinion, there's no reason to be running it (this is the part where Apple fans begin getting angry with me... but please read on). Gamers don't want it because it can't run all their games (Blizzard has been doing a good job supporting their games for the Mac, but most other gaming companies don't). Developers don't want it because it's loaded with a whole bunch of extra junk and huge aqua icons and all sorts of fancy gadgetry, and it can't run a lot of necessary software. A Mac OS system does not provide a developer anything that a Linux system doesn't already have. And I believe, the average person wouldn't want it either because of all the limitations on what programs it can run, usability, the highly annoying inability to configure the GUI, as well as the fact that all sorts of stuff already comes pre-packaged with it.

The only people I can imagine who might consider the using the Mac OS are designers/artists/photographers, older people and perhaps the average developer who wants a Mac to test stuff on. But still, all that said, the Mac OS doesn't offer anything that a Windows or Linux platform doesn't already have. If anything, it offers less. And why would you ever want to settle for less?

And at one point, I think, Apple realized this. The ability to boot Windows on the new Macs was, in my opinion, the best feature that Apple has ever put on their computers. But what does that say about the Mac OS if Apple feels it needs make this change? The way I see it, the only reason to buy a Macbook Pro is because of its powerful hardware. But if it came with Mac OS only, with no ability to use any other OS - I wouldn't buy it (and I'm a designer/artist that falls under the category of people who might consider it in the first place). I also wouldn't buy it because I can't stand the semi-translucent, dingy, plastic, sissy, toy-like, 1960's casing, but that's really just a personal preference... and I guess I could get one in black... and then strip the casing and make it myself out of some nice aluminum and chunky bolts... sigh... looks like I'm going to have a lot of work on my hands.

Let me be honest now - yes - developers can in fact make use of the fact that Mac OS is built on Unix. And yes - the average person might actually like the fact that a whole bunch of software already comes pre-packaged with the Mac. But I would take "choice" over all those things any day. It's always better to have a selection to choose from. Even if you are that particular person that can make use of all the features the Mac comes with, that still doesn't make the Mac superior. Chances are, you can get a better version of the same PC equivalent, for cheaper and still have more options available to you.

2. The Closed Case - My biggest problem with Apple to date is the fact that they've completely shut themselves off from the rest of the world. They've been getting better at this recently with the switch to Intel chips and the ability to run Windows, but it's still a major factor. If I had to pick one reason why I wouldn't get a Mac, it's because as soon as I do, I lose way too much freedom and ability to improve, upgrade and enhance my system.

This is all part of Apple's continuous philosophy that they know what's right for their users. How could they? Everyone uses their computer for completely different reasons and in completely different ways. Why would a developer need to have a computer with a webcam built-in? Or a whole bunch of photo-album creation software? Why would my grandfather need a computer with GarageBand pre-installed? People should have the ability to select and customize their computer to their specific needs, not choose a package that someone else put together for them. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to pay for all those unnecessary features if I'm not going to use them. If I want a webcam, I'll buy it when I need it. If I want an audio editing program, I'll take a few minutes out of my day and run to the store and choose one that I like. I don't want somebody else to make these decisions for me, unless what they're giving me is the absolute best. And in Apple's case, it's not even close to "the best".

This is not only a problem with Apple's computers, but the iPod, the iPhone and all their other products as well. And, coming from the perspective of a company, I don't see why Apple would do this at all? Isn't it cheaper and faster to put out products that don't have all these features included already? Isn't it easier to just provide this software, hardware, add-ons, etc. as individual products? It allows users to purchase the items they want without the unnecessary garbage (and at a cheaper price too) and it makes life easier for the company because they don't have to pre-load all this junk. This is what all other companies have been doing for years with their PCs. Why does Apple all of a sudden think that they know what's right for users? It doesn't make any sense.

One other great example of this, is the latest release of Safari for Windows. The very first thing I noticed when I opened a website in it was, "Dear lord, what the heck is going on with the fonts?". At first I thought the website itself has some sort of strange thing where it turned all the text into anti-aliased images, but then I realized that it was probably Safari and Apple's obsession with smooth fonts. So, like a lot of others, I went into the settings to turn it off so that I could actually read the text. What do you know... you can't turn it off. This one simple, tiny feature, was enough for me take the browser off my computer and never put it back again. All that Apple had to do was give users a choice to turn it off completely. That's it. In fact, this is already too late. What they should have done in the first place is not have it turned on by default like everyone else, and IF someone in fact wants it on, they can go into their settings and enable it. Not the other way around. Which brings me to...

3. Customization - Now this may be not a big deal to a lot of people (in fact I know that it's not), but it's a huge deal to me and I think it's worth mentioning. I like (in fact, I must) have the ability to fully customize the look of my desktop and computer in general. If I can't have an environment which works for me, it really slows down my ability to work quickly an efficiently. I like my font sizes and icons as small as possible so I can fit more stuff on my screen. I like my menus bright and clear, and if my windows look nice and pretty - I'll be in a happier mood.

For Windows and Linux, there are tons of options - WindowsBlinds, and LiteStep and all sorts of stuff. Surely there are customization options for Mac OS as well (at least, a quick Google search seems to find a few), but they are no where near the same in terms of ability and options. Let's say I want to get rid of the Finder application all together and replace it with my own shell. At the present time, this is impossible and I can't seem to figure out why.

The same applies to Apple's hardware. Up until recently if I wanted to, say, replace my motherboard, the only way to do it is to ship the whole thing to Apple and ask for a replacement. It's impossible to build your own Mac. Why?! Why is Apple so concerned about keeping all their hardware to themselves? Why can't I buy my own case, my own motherboard, my own CPU, my own RAM, choose my own version of Mac OS to install and ... have an Apple PC? Is this not the most logical, and rational approach to building a computer? Or am I simply... an outcast... This is very frustrating since I don't want to buy a whole new computer when we want to upgrade my gear.

For me, if I'm in a gaming phase and I need a better video card, I'll go out and buy the best one out there. If in a few months I find that I'm not having enough RAM to record my music - I'll go and add some. If a couple of months after that my motherboard seems to be behaving strangely, or if I find that it's too small for what I need, I can run to the store and grab a new one. I have complete control over my computer. But if I'm using an Apple PC, each time I want a hardware upgrade or replacement, I basically have to get a whole new computer. It's absurd.

4. The iPhone - This is a great device. I won't deny it, it really is. But I won't buy it. I won't buy it for the following reasons:

1. It's not an unlocked GSM device. Now, some people think it's not Apple's fault (it's the phone companies'), but that's not true. It's Apple's device, and they should stop striking deals with phone companies and just release it as a solo device to let people do with as they please. This is how most other companies handle their products. However, Apple lives in a closed little universe of their own, and surely enough they aren't going to let people run around with a device that can be used anywhere by anyone. To Apple, if everyone could do as they please and if everyone had choices, why... it would be anarchy!

2. It's running yet another Mac OS with no ability to put anything else on it. Why can't I put Linux on it and do with it as I please? Why can't I write my own software for it? What's it to Apple? This is very frustrating.

3. And since I can't put any other OS, I'm stuck with terrible software like Safari and whatever the iPhone uses as its Calendar/Contact manager (some version of iCal I'm assuming). If I want to, say, put Firefox or Sunbird on it - I can't.

4. It's an iPod. This partly ties in to the other points, but it's a major point on its own. We all know that the iPod is surely not the best MP3 in the world (far behind Cowon, Toshiba and even Creative) and we all know that iTunes is quite simply the worst music manager that has ever been created. And if you don't know this, you clearly haven't done a simple Google search for MP3 player comparisons. Again, we have no choice and no selection. We simply have to accept what Apple gives us - or we can choose to not buy the iPhone at all. That's a choice I've made.

5. I'm also a little worried about the touchscreen Qwerty keyboard. I'd probably get used to it pretty quick, and seeing videos on YouTube of people using it quickly and effectively is reassuring, but then again, watching the guy on Apple's iPhone feature tour using one finger to type stuff was quite scary. I'm really interested in seeing how this new double-touch screen technology plays out in the next few years.

And there we have it. So far, Apple hasn't convinced me that their way is the right way. I don't even see this as a Mac vs PC war. I see it as a battle between Apple and the free world. While we are out in the free world we have all the choices in the world. We can do whatever we want, wherever we want and as much as we want. But if we dare venture into the world of Apple, we are immediately locked in Apple's cage where the only thing we can use and buy and touch is Apple's products.

Instead of approaching the IT world with an alternative, "Hey guys, looks what we here at Apple have done. You should try it in comparison with your other stuff, " Apple has decided to approach it like an invasion, "Hey guys, our way is the right way and the only way. 'Make the switch to Apple' and you'll never go back." This is simply unfair and I don't understand why this is happening. Expand Entry

According to the American Religious Identification Survey, non-believers now make up 15% of Americans, and I believe this is a wonderful achievement.

There are some who believe it's a waste of time trying to educate the public about religious dogma and ignorance. Who are we (atheists) to tell others what to believe in, or more accurately, what not to believe in. Why should we ruin a good thing for the believers?

Daniel C. Dennett put it best in his book Breaking the Spell:

The problem is that there are good spells and then there are bad spells. If only some timely phone call could have interrupted the proceedings at Jonestown in Guyana in 1978, when the lunatic Jim Jones was ordering his hundreds of spellbound followers to commit suicide! If only we could have broken the spell that enticed the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo to release sarin gas in a Tokyo subway, killing a dozen people and injuring thousands more! If only we could figure out some way today to break the spell that lured thousands of poor young Muslim boys into fanatical madrassahs where they are prepared for a life of murderous martyrdom instead of being taught about the modern world, about democracy and history and science! If only we could break the spell that convinces some of our fellow citizens that they are commanded by God to bomb abortion clinics!"

We could try to stop these events from happening by punishing the radicals, but that's not going to be the solution to the massive problem of ignorance. Ignorance is bliss until somebody gets hurt, and in the case of religion it happens much too often to ignore. It's not enough to punish the radicals, by then it's too late. We need to ensure that religion does not escape the scrutiny of scientific investigation and question. If we can get a Christian to even read an atheist book - that is a massive achievement. Regardless of whether he chooses to accept its facts or not.

We're on our way to making good progress. Expand Entry

Why buy game consoles when you already own a PC? Am I missing something?

Edit: Thanks for all the comments I've received on YouTube. There have been a lot of people who agree with me, and just as many people who think I'm a total idiot.

I guess it's not that simple to convince the console defenders :)

Expand Entry

As I got on the bus today, it was fairly empty. People usually like to leave various newsletters on vacant seats as they leave. I find this quite convenient because then I can pick one up and read while on my way to school. I'm able to re-use the newsletter, thus save some trees, and I save myself the time of having to go to a newspaper stand.

However today, instead of the typic daily newsletter I found an Awake! magazine on one of the seats with the front page title called "Is there Life Beyond the Grave?". As I flipped over the cover I realized that it was a Watchtower magazine (a huge Jehovah's Witness publication here in Canada, and I believe in the US as well).

I've always wanted to read one of these and tackle some of the issues inside and today seemed like an excellent opportunity, especially because the title was so straightforward. I was curious to see how they were going to explain life after death in a way that made sense to the general population. Unfortunately, their approach was quite poor - a standard, inverse-thinking approach that preachers often use.

I'm going to take the article part by part and look closely at the problems in the way they arrive to their conclusions.

Death: Is it really the end?

The first section begins by telling the story of an 85-year-old skeptic who get converted by his son as he finds out he is terminally ill and decides to discontinue using the dialysis machine that has been keeping him alive. It's the infamous death bed conversion.

"That final time together provided an opportunity for the two to reflect on a subject they had discussed before: Is life possible beyond the grave? The father, a college-educated man, was a skeptic. He had been influenced by the teaching of evolution and was repelled by the hypocrisy of religion. He called himself an agnostic -- believing that the existence of God is unknowable."

Right off the bat my hope that the article would remain fairly neutral was shot out of the park. Just a few sentences in, the author is already setting up evolution, and hence college-education, to be the villain.

"The son, desiring to provide comfort and hope, shower his father why life beyond the grave is a real possibility. As death approached, the father acknowledged that living again, enjoying another life with renewed vigor and health, would be desirable."

The entire article's main argument for why there is life after death is set up right at the beginning. Life after death is desirable, therefore it exists. This is all possible because God wants us to be happy and he can do everything. Just because we want to live forever, we can. It's that simple. Miracles are possible.

However, at this point, the author starts telling us that there is a price to pay and there are certain rules. So it's not all that easy.

"Most people, if not all, would want to live again if they could do so with restored health and vigor in a world where peace prevails. Humans are unlike animals, which are described in the Bible as "unreasoning," or as "Creatures of instinct." (2 Peter 2:12; New International Version) We bury our dead. We contemplate the future. We do not want to grow old, get sick, and die. Yet, these are realities of human experience."

This paragraph begins to emphasize the heightened status of the human over animals. The author completely avoids the fact that humans are animals as well. There are several major issues with this paragraph and I will briefly go through them.

1. Humans are not unlike animals. Humans are animals. We are no different, except that we have a bigger and better brain. Like giraffe's have bigger necks, anteaters have longer tongues, falcons have better eyes, and dogs have better noses - we have a better brain. The reason is simple. It's because we use our brain to survive, and thus natural selection used that as the driving force. If we relied on sheer force and power to stalk and kill our pray, we would probably have huge muscles. Instead, our ancestors were fox-like, clever inventors who found cunning ways of survival. This requires brain power. The smarter humans were favored because they survived and therefore our brain and its power grew. There's no reason to favor a better brain, anymore than a better neck or tongue. Who's to say that thoughts and brain power are better than good eye-sight, or really strong muscles?

2. We have no way to prove that other animals are "unreasoning". Consciousness science is still in its infancy, and we still don't understand our own consciousness, much less the consciousness (or lack thereof) of other animals. To claim that other animals are unreasoning is to make a blind guess. This is not a good way to approach an argument or to convince people to join your side. We simply don't know if it's true or not. Now certainly, it could be true, and the author could have a point, but until we know for sure this statement has to be completely rejected as myth.

3. Now although we can't prove that animals can reason, we can certainly observe animals behaving in ways that go beyond natural "instinct". There are tons of stories of animals behaving in incredible ways that defy our common preconceptions. Things like eye-seeing dogs, and dogs that have rescued their owners (risking their own lives in the process) are the first examples that come to mind. Animals certainly do not rely purely on instinct. They adapt to environments in the same way that we do. Or if you want to think about it in reverse, you could also make the argument that humans behave purely on instinct too. It all depends on what the author means by "instinct". Again, we don't really know how much they reason, but to say that animals behave solely on instinct is not true. The fact that we bury our dead and contemplate the future does not separate us from animals. There are plenty of things other animals do that we don't. Why are the things we do so special?

4. "We do not want to grow old, get sick, and die." And who says that animals do? That's why they hunt, eat, sleep, drink and reproduce. This is not "human" experience. It's the experience experienced by all life forms. The inherent nature of life is that it wants to go on. It wants to survive. All life, not just human life. Even plants don't want to die. They spread their seeds, and sprout in new places. They evolve bigger leaves and longer roots.

5. Finally, this paragraph raises quite a bit of concern for animal and pet lovers. Do you not get to see your beloved pet in the afterlife? What if your entire life you've lived with an animal, and they have been your loyal companion? I would imagine that your "paradise" land after life would be to be with them again. Even if we admit that animals are not worthy of God's love, are they not worthy of our love? And if God loves us, how could he not allow animals amongst us? Why is there this favoritism for humans?

Next the article explains exactly why we don't want to die.

"For one reason, we have an inborn desire to live and enjoy life in peace and security. Death -- nonexistence -- is inherently repulsive. It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to accept. The Bible explain why: "[God] has put eternity into man's mind," or "in their heart." *(Ecclesiastes 3:11; Revised Standard Version) We want to live -- no die. think about it: Would that desire be so strong if it were not our Creator's original purpose for us to live forever? Is another life in endless health and happiness possible?"

Why yes -- yes -- the desire would be so strong if it were not our Creator's original purpose for us to live forever. This argument doesn't make any sense. We don't need a creator to want to live forever, all we need is a reason to live... Not even that. All we need is to be alive. Love, simple pleasures, entertainment... all these things are a reason to live. We don't need a creator to plant desires into our mind. Doesn't this violate some sort of freewill rule that Christians are always so concerned about?

Also, what about those people that no longer have the desire to live? The people with no love, no simple pleasures, no entertainment, no Creator - only suffering, pain and heartache? Are people who commit suicide not created by the Creator, since they have no desire implanted in their heart? What about those people who attempted suicide and then later found some desire to live? Were they first created by the devil and then reincarnated by God?

The answer is that the desire to live comes from how we live our lives. There are times when things are so hard that our desire to live may fade.

"Last year, AARP The Magazine, published by the American Association of Retired Persons, featured the article "Life After Death." Interview of scores of people who were over 50 years of age revealed that "nearly three quarters (73 percent) agree with the statement 'I believe in life after death.'" On the other hand, the magazine reported that nearly one quarter agreed with the statement "I believe that when I die, that's the end." But is that what people really want to believe?"

What people "want" to believe has no importance. Certainly, when things are going well we want to live. Most of us want to live forever. This is not a valid point for an argument. Some of us want to believe that we can fly. Some of us want to believe that we are rich. Wanting to believe doesn't make things so and false hope is often more harmful than realism.

Giving people, especially dying patients false hope is a terrible thing, and a crime. A crime blatantly disregarded by Christian Science practitioners.

"... many are skeptical -- as was the father mentioned at the outset, who would often say to his son, "Belief in religion is OK for those who can't handle the reality of death." yet, as he and other skeptics have had to acknowledge, belief in an all-powerful Creator provides an answer to otherwise incomprehensible miracles."

The authors decides not to mention any such "incomprehensible miracles". Instead he uses the following example,

"For example, just three weeks after conception, the human embryo begins to form brain cells. These cells multiply in spurts, at times up to a quarter of a million of them a minute! Nine months later a baby is born with a brain that has a miraculous capacity to learn. Molecular biologist James Watson called the human brain "the most complex thing we have yet discovered in our universe. When considering marvels like this, are you -- as most are -- filled with awe? Have such reflections helped you arrive at an answer to the question raised by a man long ago: "If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?""

The author's example is what Richard Dawkins refers to as the 'Argument from Beauty' in his book The God Delusion. It is quite possibly the most common argument religious people use in defense of creation and quite possibly the weakest.

I am not going to delve very deeply in explaining all of its problems, but will simply quote Dawkins, "If there is a logical argument linking the existence of great art to the existence of God, it is not spelled out by its proponents. It is simply assumed to be self-evident, which it most certainly is not. Maybe it is to be seen as yet another version of the argument from design: Schubert's musical brain is a wonder of improbability, even more so than the vertebrate's eye. Or, more ignobly, perhaps it's a sort of jealousy of genius. How dare another human being make such beautiful music/poetry/art, when I can't? It must be God that did it."

Life Beyond the Grave - It is Possible!

In this section the author tries to give us "evidence that provides reason for us to believe that life after death is possible." The way this is achieved is by explaining exactly why we die,

"Regarding Jehovah God, our Creator the Bible says: "Perfect is his activity." (Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 83:18) The first man, Adam was created perfect, and he had the potential of living forever in Eden, the earthly Paradise garden in which God placed him. (Genesis 2:7-9) Why did Adam lose that Paradise home and grow old and die? Simply stated: Adam failed to obey the command not to eat fruit from a particular tree. God had clearly warned Adam of the penalty for doing so, saying: "You will positively die." (Genesis 2:16, 17) Adam joined his wife, Even, in disobeying that command, so God evicted them from Eden. The reason for God's prompt action is significant. The Bible states: "That [Adam] may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also from the [garden's] tree of life and eat and live [forever]." -- Genesis 3:1-6,22. Adam and Even died for their disobedience, but why do all their descendants grow old and die? Because they inherited sin from Adam, and sin has resulted in the imperfection and death of every one of his offspring. The Bible explains: "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." -- Romans 5:12."

Alright, so let's tackle the problems of the story of Genesis, and some of the questions that get ignored.

1. We've seem favoritism towards humans above, but why the sudden favortism towards Adam? Simply because he's the first one, does that really justify the sin to be passed down to all mankind? I mean, it's God and He can do as He wants, but you have to wonder about His motives and reasons, right?

2. Next I'll throw in the whole feminism problem, being why should Eve pay for Adam's sin? Christianity in general has a lot of sexist statements all over the place, so I won't say much more about it.

3. Now, lets question the whole scenario for a second. So let's say you are God, all-powerful and all-knowing. Why would you create a tree of fruit that cannot be eaten? There are really only two reasons; 1, you're evil and you want to cause your human creations pain and 2, you're purposely setting up a situation for Adam to fail and then feel bad - which again doesn't make you look very good either. There is no reason for that tree to be there. There is no reason create a trap for Adam. Since God is all-knowing, He must have known that Adam would eat from the tree. So firstly, why bother with the whole charade at all and why not just create humans as creatures that eventually get old and die, instead of doing the whole sin thing? And secondly, why does God care so deeply about fruit? If it's an "earthly Paradise garden" then certainly we should be able to do as we please and have an abundance of fruit and freedom?

The reason why the Bible contains this passage is to instill fear into its worshipers to do as God says. It's a means to demonstrate that if you do something that God doesn't like you'll be punished, and to set up a situation which states that your actions will reflected upon others. In principle this isn't all bad, you should always be aware of your actions, but in this particular case the concept of sin and fear and doing as you're told needs to be taken lightly and questioned.

Had I been Adam I would have asked God, "Well what is so special about this tree? Why can't I eat from it?" I'm curious as to what God would have said. "Because I say so?" seems like the only possible response, and if that's the case - then perhaps God really isn't very nice at all.

My point is backed up when the author continues with,

"What is it that makes possible a righteous standing with God and the enjoying of everlasting life?"

It's all about serving God and doing as He says. It's about pleasing Him. Which we know from studying history is a terrible way to go about life. Life should be about being in a righteous standing with your fellow human beings (and animals), not some omnipotent being.

"Why, though, is Jesus the only human who could "give his soul [as] a ransom" for us and thereby save us from the deadly consequences of sin? -- Matthew 20:28. Jesus is the only one who could give his soul as a ransom because he is the only human who did not inherit sin from the first man, Adam. Why so? Because the life of Jesus was miraculously transferred from heaven to the womb of Mary, who was a virgin. So, as an angel told Mary, her son was "holy, God's Son." (Luke 1:34, 35) That is why Jesus is called "the last Adam" and why he did not inherit sin from "the first man Adam" and why he did not inherit sin from "the first man Adam." (1 Corinthians 15:45) As a sinless human, Jesus could thus give himself as "a corresponding random" -- his life corresponded to or was the once perfect, sinless, first man. -- 1 Timothy 2:6."

It seems like mankind's existence and our whole lives are based on a single event - a virgin birth 2000 years ago. It seems like the entire Christian faith would fall apart without this event occurring.

We have to blindly believe in so many things in order for this story to be true. We have to believe to God impregnated a random woman in Jerusalem, we have to believe that there are angels and that one of them spoke to Mary. We have to believe that God cares only about sinless people. We have to believe that no man (aside from Adam and Jesus) are even sinless. We have believe so many things, a lot of them relying on us believing in more things. What's worse is that a lot of the things we are required to believe in have to support other than the story of the Bible. A few have other references (like the existence of Jesus). But none of these things can be tested in the modern day.

So in the end, if you really want there to be an afterlife it seems easier to just believe in an afterlife rather than believe in the story of the Bible. If you're at the stage where you're about to die and you don't want it to be the end, believe in anything you want. It's likely that what you want is more plausible than the Biblical story. Expand Entry

Still not convinced?

Here's one more article to prove my points:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1 Expand Entry