JRRZZ Blog

During the coming elections in the Netherlands, the Pirate Party will participate as a true political party for the very first time. These are exciting times for the Netherlands. We’ve got a grave right-wing extremist threat, a financial crisis and increasing social unrest. These elections will be key for the direction Dutch politics will take during the next decade. Will it be the continuation of the (failing) Christian conservative policies, or will the people choose a different route? And if so, will it be left or right wing oriented?

This may come as a surprise from a long-time FSFE, EFF and FFII supporter. I really don’t think the Pirate Party is a good idea. As a matter of fact, I think it’s a very bad idea to be honest. There are a few things wrong with it, which I’ll try to explain one by one.

It’s a one-issue party. I absolutely detest one-issue parties. They contaminate the democracy by ignoring important issues that just have to be dealt with by the government. The worst thing you can do with a problem is ignoring it. Voting for a one-issue party makes sure your vote only counts for that single issue. For all of the other issues, some of which even more important than your favorite subject of debate, your vote contributes to the group of representatives abstaining. In other words, your vote keeps a larger part of the people’s representation in government from doing it’s job. You can’t just assume all of the other governmental problems will be dealt with in a proper way. It’s your duty as a citizen to make sure your vote actually represents you. If you don’t care about anything, don’t vote. One-issue parties are, in my opinion, even worse than not voting at all. It’s okay to kick the status quo every now and then, but utterly destroying a perfectly functional system is one step too far.

So let’s see what the Pirate Party thinks about health care. Nothing. Or what about education? Not much. The economic crisis? The Pirate Party couldn’t care less. This is the proper way to look at the party. Just imagine a government run by the Pirate Party. It would be absolute chaos. Nobody would care a hoot about you. Just the safety of your personal information. Nobody would care about job security, just the intellectual property it generates. Infrastructure? Yes, some fiber optic cabling maybe. But they can’t be bothered with roads or plumbing. The entire government would cease to function, cease to exist. This is not how democracy was intended.

All bashing and gnashing of teeth aside, I do agree with every single point the Pirate Party stands for. I completely support their efforts. I’m quite the proponent of privacy and open innovation. Ask my boss. I just don’t think a political party is the proper way to complete their goals.

So how should they, you might ask? I’d suggest joining a political party closest to your ideals and trying to use it’s internal democratic structure to promote your agenda. I think, hell, I know, many of the people within the Dutch Socialist Party will agree with most, if not all of the points^{[citation (dutch)]}. I’m not trying to lead a half-assed slander campaign against the Pirate Party in favor of my own political background. Quite the contrary. I’m trying to save the democracy the Pirate Party upholds as one of it’s core ideals. And, maybe more importantly, we need their help! All of the “main stream” political parties have less and less interest in upholding citizen’s rights. And I have to admit, even my own. Raising public awareness will make privacy, open innovation and strengthened citizen’s rights part of the political agenda again. As it should be.

So in short, I think there’s a lot an organization like the Pirate Party can achieve. They’re just using the wrong tool for the job. I wish them the best of luck.

Aaaaaaah! I’m meeeelting! Slashdot has been slashdotted!

So I received my degree. Whoop-the-fucking-doo. Now I’m fully qualified to do something, although nobody seems to know for sure what exactly. The only thing I have to do now is to actually go and collect the physical representation of this achievement. There’s a ceremony planned in a few weeks, and I guess people expect me to be there. I’ve paid for it, so I might just as well go.

People who have read this blog before (yes, all three of you!) might know where I’m going with this post. I’ll try to keep this as neutral as possible, and I’ll try to refrain from any biased negative comments towards the educational system. I initially wanted to list all of the useful things I’ve learned during my time, but that would make this post awfully short. I’ll just make this some kind of chronological report of all of the things I remember of the past four and a half years.

Back in the day I knew exactly what I wanted to do. I wanted to combine computer science with a bit of engineering and electronics. Luckily for me, the Dutch educational system offered a four year course teaching exactly that. Although, in hindsight they didn’t, but that’s beside the point. I visited the school a few times to make sure my cash ended up somewhere worth while. A few teachers seemed to be quite competent, so I decided to enroll.

The first two years were a breeze. Most of the stuff was actually quite easy. None of it was interesting, compelling or even slightly useful. There might have been a few exceptions to this rule. I remember learning C++. It’s an odd choice for a programming language. You have to keep in mind most people attending these classes haven’t written a single line of code in their entire life. Throwing C++ at them won’t make much of a difference. So all of the people who didn’t already know how to code automatically left. After the first two years, more than half of the students had left. Which was a shame, because some of them were quite smart and clearly possessed the required talent. But the educational system didn’t motivate these people at all, so they dropped out. Anyway, back to C++. It’s a great language, once you get the hang of it. It has a huge learning curve, which makes it absolutely useless as an educational language. If your goal is to teach people some programming basics, grab a language that’s accessible to novice programmers. In that respect, almost any language would be better than C++. I’d suggest Lua, Ruby or Python. Pascal used to be a good choice, although the world has passed that era a few eras ago. It got even worse by the way. Students initially started out using Borland C++, creating nifty win32 GUI point-and-click applications. That’s no way to learn a language. Only afterwards people learned an application didn’t necessarily come with a GUI. After C++, and if you were able to write C++ on paper during a test, you could go on to the advanced course. C. Yes, you’ve read that correctly. C. It’s like learning how to construct a roof before you’ve learned how the foundation works. Instead of teaching that C++ offers methods to easily work with strings, you learned that C lacks those and works with character arrays. Throw some pointer magic in there while most people didn’t even grasp the difference between for- and while-loops, and you end up with total chaos. The very basics of software engineering, e.g. writing software, were neglected to a degree of absolute shamefulness. If I didn’t have years of experience writing software, I think I also would’ve dropped out.

Next to writing software, we also learned useful things like teamwork. Teamwork usually translates in one of two things. Or you work your ass off to get the project finished in time, or you just make it seem you do all the work, while you’re actually just relying on your teammates to finish the job for you. The second kind of people tend to be more successful, since they actually have the time to study for all of those other things the educational system tries to shove down the student’s throats. During the first two years this system has made some of the best people leave out of pure frustration. I didn’t, but I did have trouble finding the motivation to be the one doing all the work all the time.

The rest of the curriculum during the first two years wasn’t that interesting. Most courses needed a whole semester to teach something that can be taught equally well by reading some relevant Wikipedia articles for an hour or so. That’s what I ended up doing, too. It’s amazing how much nonsense some of these courses try to teach, ranging from extremely dated theories to outright lies. Too bad the educational system doesn’t approve of people pointing out the absurdities during tests. To pass the test, you’re expected to copy over the same things you’ve been taught in class. You’re not, I repeat, not allowed to think for yourself. On the other hand, some things were quite lacking. I’ve already covered programming basics, but things like maths and logic were completely non-existent during the entire four and a half years. How do people expect students to create decent solutions if they’re not even told how some of the most basic principles in engineering work?

The other two years were interesting in their own right. Now the students (the ones who were left) grasped the basics, or that’s what they were being told anyway, the fun stuff could begin. It turned out to be quite a challenge. During these two years two semesters were dedicated to internships, and the other two to “regular” education. The educational semesters seem to have been designed to test the student’s ability to cope with vast amounts of stress. First off, they managed to cram 100 hours worth of work in a single week, for five months straight. During these semesters students had to follow all kinds of weird courses, some of which even had dependency problems by scheduling a course parallel to it’s predecessor. Next to these courses a project was organized, which in itself cost more than 40 hours a week. Again, it was mostly one or two people doing all the work, while others were idly slacking along. The worst thing is, these projects were actually fun. I especially invested lots of time into these projects to make the best out of the end result. Playing around with Embedded Linux, networking and electronics is way too much fun to sacrifice for a few of these lame courses. I ended up doing another semester worth of overtime because of this decision. All of that while the slackers graduated before me. I still don’t understand why there are companies actually hiring these people. These people end up automating banks, public transport and other sensitive areas. It’s a horrifying idea. Anyway, the two projects I’ve done have been quite successful. I’ve learned most of what I know today about X11 and Embedded Linux during these two semester projects. I’m actually putting that knowledge to good use right now. The sad thing is though, there’s not a single teacher who understands what I’ve built. They ended up hiring post-graduates to teach the students about the technology we’ve been playing around with. Luckily these guys know what they’re talking about, and I admire them for their effort. I sure as hell couldn’t function as a teacher within that educational system, let alone actually bring my message across.

During the same two projects, the educational system had to introduce something which most engineers hate the most. Paperwork and bureaucracy. And lots of it. Every feature needed it’s own set of documents, seals of approval and meetings. Writing these documents took way more time than actually developing the damn thing in the first place. For every line of code there were 60 lines of documentation. I’m not even counting comments here, it’s 60 lines of bullshit for every line of actual code. I’ve still got the source tree of those projects, and it’s awful. We ended up with almost 300 pages of text, and a product lacking features. All of those features had been documented though, and that has to count for something, right? Right?

The other two semesters were internships. No courses, just a full-time project to invest your time in. Most of the students called these internships vacation, because of the sheer contrast of a normal 40 hour week to the 100 hour week we were used to. Of course we had to write a report, but that’s it. We were expected to show up after 100 work days with a report, a presentation and a happy employer. Some of us even managed to get a contract out of these internships. I already had a contract at my first internship, so that doesn’t really count. I’ve had a wonderful time hacking on Linux-HA, OpenBSD, VLC, X11 and way more cool stuff. If I replaced all of the educational mumbo-jumbo with internships, I could’ve been a full time kernel developer at one of the big sponsors or something. I could’ve learned so much more in those four and a half years.

So, while everybody went to work at their new employers after graduation, I had to endure another semester worth of education. I had a few courses left, all of them having something to do with drawing pictures and schematics instead of actually writing the damn software. Coincidence? I think not. Luckily I was given the chance to participate in a new Embedded Linux project for a group a companies, headed by my university. This way I didn’t have to do all of the courses again, but only a small subset of them. I don’t know how I did it, but I have pulled through. The Embedded Linux project is starting to look quite promising, and all of the courses have been dealt with. I’ve got a final meeting with the project members tomorrow. After that, I’m a free man. I’m actually quoting one of my teachers here.

So, looking back on these years. What have I learned? Most of the things I’ve learned, I’ve taught myself. I don’t believe having all of those teachers around has made that much of a difference. I’ve only met a few teachers who were actually interesting, and managed to teach me new things I’m able to use in my job as a software and network engineer. Don’t get me wrong, most of them are great people, but they just can’t keep up with what has happened in the last, say, 20 years. The educational system hasn’t entirely wasted my time, but it’s gotten damn close. I think I could’ve achieved way more in less time under a much lower budget. There’s something wrong with this system, and it should be fixed.

It may be old, but it’s still valid.

user@box:~/kitchen$ make
Make what?
user@box:~/kitchen$ make sandwich
What? Make it yourself.
user@box:~/kitchen$ sudo make sandwich
Okay.

Okay, as I’ve ranted before, I want to go ahead and ignore everybody’s advise and get myself a two wheeled life shortening device next year. I didn’t know it could be this captivating. It’s okay to covet things, but this is getting ridiculous. Granted, it’s potentially the most expensive toy I’ll ever buy, but that doesn’t make it that important. I can’t get my mind off of these machines. Even new Sun hardware hardly excites me anymore. How did it ever come this far?

It all started with several friends and family members owning motorcycles. The standard guy reaction became a fact. “I want one of those.” But when I was sixteen years old, it didn’t even occur to me to get a moped or something. I was buying computers instead. Even when I turned eighteen, I didn’t get the urge to get a driver’s license. Somehow this youth dream of owning a motorcycle of my own got buried under years of dusty geekery.

All of that changed when I saw, about a year ago, the motorcycle a friend’s neighbor bought himself. It was a Moto Guzzi Griso, probably the 850. It still is, without a doubt, the most beautiful motorcycle ever built by man. This thing removed all the electronics and computers from my want-to-have list in one clean sweep, and restored “motorcycle” to the #1 position on this list, where it belongs.

For a very long time, I couldn’t be bothered with any other bike than the Griso. Especially because the beefed-up version, the Griso 1200 8V I wrote about earlier, has received nothing but good reviews. In my mind, there was no bike that could beat the Griso. A few weeks ago, I came to the conclusion I’ve been crossing every border I’ve come to respect during my years as a skeptic. I haven’t talked with a single opponent, just with people who already share my positive disposition towards the Griso. I didn’t even properly analyze my requirements for a motorcycle.

So, I decided to start from scratch. Forget the Griso for the moment, even if it’s hard. I knew I was going to use the machine for commuting back and forth between home and work. I’m also thinking of exploring Europe instead of flying across half the globe next holiday. So it has to be able to carry me (and my camera equipment) to far away places and back. I want to cut costs where ever I can during these economic questionable times, so it shouldn’t guzzle fuel like a Harley. Roads in the far east and north of Europe aren’t that great, so my new toy should have the ability to handle that. The final real challenge are my legs. They’re pretty long for motorcycle standards. If I’m going to ride the motorcycle for days on end, I need to sit comfortably. Of course things like looks, performance, durability, availability, accessories and price are pretty important as well.

People, whom I trust to be knowledgeable in the field of motorcycles, explained I’m looking for an adventure-touring type of motorcycle. It’s basically a touring machine, standard riding position, lots of power, luggage capacity and tank range. The thing making it an adventure-touring machine is it’s ability to be controllable on bad roads like gravel or dirt. This type of motorcycles has become immensely popular, so availability won’t be that much of a problem. Remember the Long Way Round with Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman? Those were adventure-touring machines. Now everybody thinks they need off road capability in the suburbs. Including me, it seems.

So there are a few bikes to choose from. Let’s just start with Ewan and Charley’s choice. The BMW R1200GS Adventure. Every man, woman, child and dog in Europe seems to have one. It’s the best selling bike ever. It’s not selling by it’s looks. Oh my, it’s ugly. When you’ve got a R1200GS in your mirrors it’s like looking at a retarded man child, questioning the validity of your license plate. It isn’t that great off road either, mostly because of it’s weight. It can manage, but that’s about it. It’s a lot happier on the tarmac. Yes, it does have a great engine, gearbox and transmission and comes with all the bells and whistles you could think of, but it’s still ugly. Besides, I don’t want anything everybody already has. I don’t want the motorcycle equivalent of an iPod, for Satan’s sake. There are also a myriad of technical problems reported about this bike. Since everything is built by BMW, who like to electronically manage everything, lots of electronics ended up in this bike. It’s great when it works, but it adds so much more potential breakdowns I’m not looking forward to fixing at the side of the road in Bosnia. So to sum things up, I simply don’t want to be seen with this monstrosity.

Surprisingly, the big contender comes from Moto Guzzi. The Stelvio NTX. It’s not that bad looking for an adventure bike. I actually like it. There’s so much nice stuff to choose from to bolt onto the bike, like panniers and crash bars. It’s being marketed as the big R1200GS contender, so Guzzi has to compensate for all of the accessories made by BMW. This includes ABS, which is really handy with a bike this big. Just like the BMW, the Stelvio isn’t light and nimble. But on the other hand, I don’t expect it to be. It comes equipped with roughly the Griso’s engine, delivering enough power to be able to cruise around comfortably. That’s also it’s biggest weakness. The Guzzi V-twin lacks torque in the mid range, which is okay for a sports bike like the Griso, but pretty annoying on difficult terrain. It’s not that fuel efficient either, with 1151cc of displacement and rudimentary motor management this thing is a bit thirsty. Combine this engine with an extremely heavy clutch leaver, road-going suspension and tires and you’ll end up with an awful off road experience. I’m sure some people manage to get this thing across a dirt road, but I wouldn’t want to try. But on the other hand, as long as there’s some tarmac left, this motorcycle will stand it’s own. The nicest aspect of this bike must be the logo by the way. It’s a Guzzi. That must count for something, right?

The third contender is the KTM 990 Adventure. I had almost made up my mind and chose the Stelvio, until I did some research about this machine. What a bike. It’s built by KTM, renowned for the quality and durability of it’s creations. You can take this thing across any terrain, and it’ll keep going. Not that I’m really looking for an all-roader, but this thing shouldn’t give me problems with the worst tracks Europe’s back country can throw at me. Sure, it’s a bit of overkill to take a landrover when my neighbor’s ford will do just fine. But that hasn’t stopped anyone from doing so anyway. Apart from being durable, it has enough oompf to impress those furry big eared rodents along the freeway just enough to not kill themselves. It has a tried and tested V-twin, a smooth 6-speed and a friendly clutch. After this power plant accelerates you beyond the limits of what’s considered safe, you’ll be looking for brakes of some sort. Just like the GS (if you pay even more) and NTX, the 990 has ABS, helping a hand in your efforts stopping this orange thing. Especially because I’m a bit of a novice, ABS does come in handy during the first few months. This bike is fairly complete on it’s own. There are many things you can add to this bike to make it even more useful. It’s pretty much the entire collection of accessories you’d expect in the adventure touring market, with a few neat extras. It’s all colored in KTM’s distinctive orange, of course. There’s even a KTM tent for you and your bike, for those people wo’d rather sleep with a KTM than another toy. Fuel efficiency is okay, with a range of roughly 330km on it’s 19.5L tank. It’s not as good as the theoretical figures of the GS, but it seems not a single tester has been able to completely drain the fuel supply on that German oil tanker. The 990 surely looks better than the GS, but doesn’t cut it when compared to the Stelvio. Granted, it’s radical design is KTM’s trademark. It just breathes durability and functionality. One thing that immediately struck gold in my eyes is it’s size. It’s a huge bike, both in length and height. I’m sure I’ll have no trouble at all touring around on this motorcycle. Now I fully understand why Charley Boorman wanted this thing so badly instead of the German competition. There’s one little problem though, and that’s it’s price. I’m sure it’s fully justified by the quality, so it’ll be cheaper down the lane. Still, an initial investment of 15.251 euros for just the standard bike is a bit steep.

There’s one other competitor though, which just might meet my expectations. The Buell XB12X. It definitely looks (and sounds) better than both the GS and 990, but it’s more road oriented as well. It’s not as expensive either, at 13.795 euros. In design, it’s the GS done right. The big American V-twin underneath does the job, and quite well at that. Even though it’s not that advanced as the competition. It’s a four valve air cooled engine, with a helper fan on the front. Personally, I don’t like the sound of my Sun Ultra 27 coming from my motorcycle. Luckily it only runs for a few minutes after you’ve parked the thing. Of course, being an adventure tourer, some cases and toys can be bolted on. Fuel efficiency is okay, actually quite impressive for such a big V-twin, at the almost same level as the KTM 990. The XB12X can handle gravel, but it’s completely rubbish on anything worse than that. At least it doesn’t really look like it can manage, like the Guzzi. I like this bike, although it would limit my possibilities a bit. It’s obviously a lesser option than the KTM, but it’s a real alternative when I’m short in cash in 2010.

To summarize this, I’m looking for the BMW R1200GS without it’s hideous looks. I think I’m going for the KTM 990 Adventure, unless it’s unaffordable for me next year. The Buell XB12X would make a nice cheaper alternative.

Edit: I just found out Buell is no more, so I guess I’ve just got make sure I can afford the KTM. And no, the V-Strom is no alternative.

Okay, everybody has got plans. Right? Not everybody fingers for them anymore, though. It used to be such a nice method of finding out what someone was up to. Just fingering around, you know. “Hey! How’s your holiday been?” “How did you know?” “I fingered you for it last week.”

Enough with the geek humor. I’ve got quite a nice list of activities lined up for this year.

At e-Viela!, the office if you will, I’ve got some programming work to finish. After that’s done I can join a great project to create a Debian GNU/Linux powered terminal server cluster. It’s going to be huge, hugely awesome and equally fun to operate. Several hundred people will be able to experience the fastest desktop experience ever experienced by man. Maybe I’m overrating it a bit. Anyway, it could incorporate toys like HTTP booting thin clients, dynamically distributed KVM instances, ZFS and much more.

Unfortunately I’m not finished with my education just yet. In the next semester I’ll work for the Embedded Linux lectureship, advising companies about using Linux in embedded environments. It’s going to be lots and lots of research, some electronics and a bit of coding. I hope I’m allowed to share my research with the rest of the world this time. All I know about the projects at hand right now is that it’s going to involve the ARM architecture, hardware I/O interfacing and “standard” procedures I’m not all too happy with. But hey, we can’t have it all.

I’m going to jump on the Rails bandwagon. It’s a bit late, I know. I’ve still got the Barrato web shop to maintain, and it’s getting really nasty with a 5 year old PHP code base. Since I’ve already met Ruby and fell in love ever since, Rails would be the logical platform to create v3 of the web shop with. I’ve bought a book, a server and loads of Dr. Foots and peperkoek. I’m sure I can manage with having made this preparation.

Now I’m looking at semi-permanent employment at e-Viela!, banks will take me seriously. This opens a shitload of financial possibilities and accompanied death traps. I’m looking for a nice little apartment of my own. Nothing crazy, just the necessary luxuries. I’ve never felt like living in a student apartment, sharing and caring with everybody, spending heaps of rent for sub-par living comfort. No, just give me a modern compact kitchen and bathroom, a living room for me and my guests and a bedroom where no magic will ever happen. Oh, and a little corner for Lucifer’s shrine of course. I’m afraid no apartments come with complimentary CAT-6 cabling and wall sockets.

Oh, I almost forgot, I promised myself a Guzzi for my Bachelor’s degree. My motivation was running low, so this is my way of compensating for that loss. I’ve got to bribe an instructor for a driver’s license first of course, but that won’t be that much of a problem. The Guzzi I’m talking about is the coolest bike ever built. The Moto Guzzi Griso 1200 8V. The Italians have done the impossible. Making a loud, powerful bike look sexy. Just listen to that v-twin, it’s like speed metal on a Sunday. This is an Epic Want.

This is a bunch of Czech people playing around with an older (1100?) orange Griso. I mean, even in orange it’s beatiful.

The last i686 I had, blaasvis, died today. The trusty old VIA Nehemiah C3 “CentaurHauls” has ceased to exist. It has met it’s maker. His last words will be remembered.

But not to worry! An AMD X2 Turion TL-50 machine has replaced it, thoughtfully christened tweevis. The Dutch translation of blowfish’s successor, of which blaasvis was the translation.

I’m sorry, but all of blaasvis’s content has been lost. Permanently. The files are fucking gone. For the people who miss blaasvis, you can use this book of remembrance to show you condolences.

It’s Awesome!

Okay, I’ll join the hype.

I’ve written a little Ruby script that “tweets” my whereabouts automatically every morning. It even detects who I’m with and what I’m doing. Damn, I like Ruby.

Following up on the recent discussions around the post from Scott Pruett on LifeWay and the Antichristian Phenomenon’s rebuttal, here’s my input. I’m very sorry for the late reaction, I have been busy lately.

The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past. All of our observations, equations, and physical laws testify to a point of origin for this universe.
In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Where did it all come from?”

I’m sorry, but I can’t match your findings with those of the scientific communities. The only thing most of the scientists agree on is that we can’t determine what has happened before the big bang, based on our current evidence. The conclusion that this must be the beginning of time and space is premature. The only conclusion valid at this point might be that the big bang is the beginning of time and space that we know of. As long as there is no insurmountable evidence in support of the claim, there is no consensus.

The past several decades have added profoundly to our knowledge of chemistry, physics, and cosmology. It has become increasingly clear that we live in a universe finely tuned for the support of complex life. This fact is so universally acknowledged that even secular scientists have coined the term “Anthropic Principle” to describe it.
How is it that we live in such an exquisitely fine-tuned universe? Even assuming that the universe could have popped out of nothingness, why should it have been such an orderly and hospitable one? Is there a scientific, testable answer for this question that does not simply appeal to imagination?

No, this is not universally acknowledged at all. The very assumption that this universe exists to support human life is ridiculous. You are confusing cause and effect. Human life is merely a link in the vast universal process of causality. Carbon based life forms have been adapting to their surroundings for billions of years on this planet. The process of evolution simply made them more adept to their surroundings. Now, after all these years, mankind is the result. We’re not perfect just yet. There are many potentially lethal things we encounter every day. People die every day during these encounters. This universe isn’t finely tuned, we are in the process of tuning ourselves to better fit this universe.

The problem of abiogenesis (the origin of the first lifeform) is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry. Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained. The simplest life is equivalent to modern bacteria, which is loaded with complex activity, information, and molecular “machines.” The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a “prebiotic soup,” or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared. Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they’d rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention. However, for the atheist there is no escaping this issue; they are obliged to seek out some purely natural explanation.
What hope for an explanation do you have? Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?
In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word “miracle” for the appearance of the first organisms.

Indeed, this is a hard one. At this moment, everything is possible. Something isn’t immediately true when someone says so. Until there’s proof of what happened at the very first stages of life, all we have is conjecture. Every theory, including divine intervention, is still in the competition. Most theories are way more plausible than an improvable event, but until there’s real proof everyone gets the benefit of the doubt. Nobody gets to claim the truth just yet. So the theistic stance of “I’m right until proven wrong” doesn’t have any merit in this intellectual arena.

This is one of many riddles we still have to solve. Riddles like these make life interesting, don’t you think?

What kind of evidence is needed before we are to actually accept that something like this really is a miracle?

Come on, please re-read your question. A miracle is an event without a scientific explanation, without real evidence. A scientist would never accept such nonsense.

Logic and mathematics are abstract principles that have been discovered rather than invented. We cannot do science, communicate, or navigate this world without them. They appear to stand outside of nature to describe and measure it. As Albert Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”
What is the source of math and logic? The existence of this remarkably fine-tuned universe aside, how is it that we have these “languages of reality” to so elegantly describe and interact with it?

This question is exactly the same as your first question. These methods for describing our surroundings are merely abstractions from our highly developed pattern recognition skills. We can observe, discover patterns and reproduce these discoveries. Even ants can do this, for example.

Another transcendent entity that is a problem for atheism is morality. With no divine author or judge there is no reason to think that there should be any moral laws that we are obliged to recognize and keep, except for self-serving reasons. And yet, morality aligns with our deepest intuitions: we expect others to recognize it; we urge our kids to exercise it; therapists get rich repairing the effects of its abuse; we judge criminals insane if they do not recognize it; and all cultures affirm it in common principle if not in individual application.
Do you deny objective morality; that the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is not just a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? If not, then how do you ground morality; how do you explain where it came from and why we ought to be moral tomorrow?
Skeptics often bring up the “problem of evil” as evidence against God, i.e., if there is a good and all-powerful God, then why is there evil in the world.
Do you think that this is a valid objection? If so, are you admitting that there is evil in the world? What is “evil,” and do you not admit its opposite: “good?”
The problem of evil objection only makes sense if such things as good and evil are objectively real, not just preference statements.

Good and evil are purely subjective. So yes, Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler can bot serve as moral guidelines. Morality is a complex matter, constructed out of our primal instincts, subconscious and higher cognitive skills. During the course of our evolution, species that grouped together had a better chance of survival. Groups needed extra skills to be effective, from which social interaction is a crucial one. Of course groups operate better when the group members agree not to kill each other. This is also exactly the difference between your theistic explanation and that from evolution. If objective morality is indeed divine, why is it limited to one’s group?

But I said morality is purely subjective. The conscious mind eventually gets to decide the meaning of good and evil. In other words, you decide. Most people adhere to group instincts with little real individuality. Some people are exactly the opposite and naturally become outcasts. The balance of influences on you morality eventually defines your personality.

In the atheist worldview we are products of time, chance, and blind forces – there is no objective meaning and value to our human existence. Yet our deepest longing is for our lives to count for something. We intuitively know that humans have rights and dignity.
Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake? Will you say, like atheist philosopher Albert Camus, that the only serious question is “suicide?” What values and purpose will you instill in your children? Will you be honest with them, or will you borrow ideas from some non-atheistic belief system so as not to disappoint?

This is not something I can answer for all atheists. It’s a personal thing, this meaning of life. I live by the words of two bright people, Anton Szandor LaVey and Arjen A. Lucassen. Arjen is a musician and a fellow Dutchman. He once wrote in one of his songs “the meaning of life is to give life meaning”. It’s not the spoils that count, it’s the hunt I’m living for. Seeking for the right thing to do for me is the right thing to do. When I’m (old and) dying, I’d like to look back at my life with a smile. That’s where what LaVey has taught me comes in handy. He wrote about gaining immortality in the memories of others. In other words, if I make a positive attribution to people’s lives and when I’m remembered for it, my life has had meaning.

In the world of atheism, where there is no soul or transcendent “self,” humans are simply biological machines, and our minds are just computers made out of meat. With this in view there is really no room for something like freewill, since we are all just operating according to our “programming” and our environmental influences. And there are great difficulties in conceding that chemistry can produce something as abstract as “consciousness,” or at least anything qualitatively different from what we ourselves might ultimately produce using computer technology.
Are you prepared to accept the idea that no one is really morally responsible for their bad behavior and, conversely, that virtuous behavior is not commendable? In what way will you seek to convince me that I am really not a conscious and self-aware being; that it is just a complex biochemical illusion? Can you accept that computer programs may one day be just as much “persons” as you, yourself?

I believe I’ve answered your question in this post and this post on the ACP website.

Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings. While some of these are certainly spurious or not well documented, others have reasonable experimental support. In addition to this, humans seem to be incurably religious; the idea of God and the spiritual is deeply entrenched in the human psyche, if not in its actual experience.
What are we to make of all this? If man is simply an adapted biological organism, then how is it that we did not manage to adapt to our natural environment in this area – why are we not “naturalists” rather than theists? Can’t any of this be a hint toward reality, or must we think that the bulk of humanity flirts with insanity?

I honestly don’t know why people believe such irrational an illogical things. I’m still puzzled how seemingly perfectly sane people can find intellectual comfort in fairytales and conjecture. And frankly, yes, I believe this is a mental illness. The vaccine is readily available too. It’s called education. Maybe you’ve heard about it. It isn’t that popular in the theistic nations around the world.

The case for the Jesus of Scripture is extremely compelling. There is good evidence that the New Testament was written in the generation of the Apostles. We have thousands of copies of these documents in their source language, some of which go back inside of 100 years after Jesus’ death. There is no evidence of significant corruption in the known manuscripts. There is no motivation and evidence for fraud among the apostles and church fathers – most died martyr’s deaths. The trend of archaeology is toward validation, not denial, of what it is possible to confirm in Scripture. Even non-biblical manuscripts support various key details of Christian theology.
The burden of proof is generally on the one seeking to deny historical records.
What alternative explanation do you offer to the New Testament documentation and the tradition of the church, and what support do you have for your theory?
Is it because of the miracles that you doubt the Scriptures? If Jesus really were God in the flesh, how would you expect Him to confirm that fact?

The bible is a collection of fairytales, nothing more. The Jesus character in the new testament is a copy of Horus, an Egyptian fairytale’s character. The biblical texts are not historical records. The amount of contradictions and lies is simply too staggering to deny. There’s no evidence of corruption, but there’s no evidence of the opposite either. The literal texts have never been found, only fragments that vaguely resemble some of the stories. There’s just no hard evidence of Jesus ever being alive, only of some so-called saviors through the years. There are two people in Amsterdam I know of who both claim to be the savior, but that doesn’t prove the second coming of Christ. The burden of proof is still with the Christians, since there’s just no hard evidence to refute. If that Jesus character really is a god, he can strike me down right now. The fact that you’re reading this proves that he isn’t.

Christians are often accused of being simple-minded, superstitious, or irrational.
Is it so unreasonable for us to believe that the universe had a beginning because it actually was created; the laws of physics are so fine-tuned because it had a designer; people are preoccupied with good and evil because they are real things; we long for purpose and meaning because they exist to be had; life from non-life really is miraculous; consciousness and freewill seem real because they are; people are incurably religious because there is actually something real in religion; and the historical case for Jesus is so tenacious because it is actually true?
If there really is no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of “truth” itself is open to debate, by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians?

By my own standards. They’re the only standards I know and the only standards I can judge by. In this last question you’ve simply stated that you’re right because you think your right, and that you question my right to refute that. Yes, I’d call that simple-minded, superstitious and irrational.