Book Discussion

Any thoughts?

1,952 Responses to “Book Discussion”

  1. Emmy says:

    Beautiful, for we must teach these heretics of our peaceful ways…

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      The problem is, Emmy, peaceful people do not wish to take land, create armaments jobs or dominate resources. It’s why the US government tried to destroy the hippy movement: they do not want a peaceful population.

  2. Kevin Miller says:

    What evidence is there that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is male?

    • Keith says:

      None whatever that I am aware of. It is just a title of convenience.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Why would any god have a sex? If the Christian god created male and female after his own image, why is He not hermaphrodite?

        • Excelsior says:

          Since all men were created in the image of the God of the Bible, then God would have to have all the characteristics of man, not only male and female, but also the whole rainbow of LGBTQ! Evidently God was shy of this, so he ordered us to murder them (see Leviticus 20:13 etc.). But the Ten Commandments tells us not to murder, so God will have to do it himself!
          Also, if God wasn’t a racist, then all the races of man are his image too. So God’s skin would have patches of every color from ebony black to snow white!
          That’s not all. There are at least sextillion Earths in the Cosmos. Even the Chief Astronomer of the Vatican admits that there would have to be innumerable sentient races out there. We can’t even imagine what they would look like. But they would all have to look like God! If you took all the animals in a zoo and put them together into one then you can get an idea of what God would look like!

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Excelsior, most fundies assert that, in the entire Universe, only Earth has life; and that ‘aliens’ are in fact demons or angels. Your scholarly Biblical exegesis of their god being like Carpenter’s The Thing is far more likely and believable.

        • Keith says:

          Excelsior, On the subject of murdering LGBTQs, , their death would not be classed as murder since the Abrahamic god, as is typical of him, has appointed humans to do his dirty work with his blessing. As far as aliens go, I would credit the pronouncements of George Adamski as much as I would credit the pronouncements of the Chief Astronomer of the Vatican, as both based their outlook on mysticism.

        • basicdesign says:

          Captain Birdseye: “If the Christian god created male and female after his own image, why is He not hermaphrodite?”
          You’ve never seen its backside hav’ya, they never show it. It likely goes like heads and tails, since it is everything and all things in one.

        • Keith says:

          basicdesign . In Exodus 33:17-23 god ends up showing Moses his backside. Perhaps we should ask Moses.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, obviously, fundies know of God’s little LGBTQ secret. That would also mean that the bushy beard conceals a divine pair of tits.

        • basicdesign says:

          Huh, rrright. I shall Not investigate. You can have it all to yourselves, back and front.

  3. Captain Birdseye says:

    Mystics will turn their back to an ocean, hold a shell to their ear and claim to have discovered a Greater Sea.

    • basicdesign says:

      Plumbers do that every day.

      • basicdesign says:

        Bar the shell, possibly. They don’t need a decoy for it.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, I was being a bit obscure, quoting a line from “The Greater Sea”, in Kahlil Gibran’s slim book, The Prophet, warning people about mystics. His work is highly relevant to fundyism and well worth a read. The following extract, “On Children”, may be his most famous work:

          THE ARCHER
          Your children are not your children.
          They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
          They come through you but not from you,
          And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

          You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
          For they have their own thoughts.
          You may house their bodies but not their souls,
          For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
          You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
          For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

          You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
          The Archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
          Let your bending in the Archer’s hand be for gladness;
          For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

          Kahlil Gibran

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          …I missed the opportunity to insert ‘mystical plumbers’ as Gibran’s warning.
          Also, changing The FSM for The Archer was what Gibran really meant.

        • basicdesign says:

          Thanks for these lines. First read them long ago, always great pleasure meeting them again. Even though from experience the bits about not visiting tomorrows and life not going backwards may not be as relevant as they look, and no great wonder – think time loops, quantics and such. Even so, that piece is darn beautiful and mighty useful.

        • basicdesign says:

          Still, you may be using the word ‘mystic’ when in truth I believe that you mean ‘prophet’. Mystics tell you how they see things, nothing wrong with that, it’s true diversity; whereas prophets tell you what to do, and that ranks mighty high in my Book Of What To Not Do Nor To Take In.
          I do have a funny story re. that topic, involving the then-newly installed archbishop of York and one of my numerous local “churches”. Enacted it in 2005, on the basis of this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/01/religion.race. Note in the 6th paragraph that he said in substance: “our religion is moribund because christians have become a bunch of self-righteous twats. I’m ordering you to put down your goddamn books and to go out and make friends with everyone, not for preaching but for friendship. And now let’s play drums and dance.”, and so they did and it was good. Shame that he does not include gays and such in his “everyone” but hey, can’t have it all when belonging to any sort of institution. Still, that comes ô So Useful when aggressed by pesky door-to-door preachers. The speech goes so: Oi you, haven’t you heard your boss?!! He told you to fucking shut up your shit preaching and to just make friends with everyone so let’s be good christians and do just that, shall we. First you put down your (stupid) books like your boss said, c’mon hurry up will ya, I’m waiting, chop chop! Usually you gotta help them a bit there coz these ppl don’t know how to stand with no paperwork, so while saying this you just gently take their books and put them down yourself. As soon as the books are on the ground you take them by the arm and lead them to a sitting place: “Right, now we can make friends and you don’t give me bullshit, hey, I want to hear about You yourself,pre. So, what’s your name?” -“er, I’m (xxx)…” -Great, (xxx), I’m (yyy), and d’ya have kids? How many? etc… I have x kids, they are xxx, yyy and zzz, and blablabla.

        • basicdesign says:

          Still, you may be using the word ‘mystic’ when in truth I trust that you mean ‘prophet’. Mystics tell you how they see things, nothing wrong with that, it’s true diversity; whereas prophets tell you what to do, and that ranks mighty high in my Book Of What To Not Do Nor To Take In.

          I do have a funny (and useful) story re. that topic, dating back to 2005, involving the then-newly installed archbishop of York. See this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/01/religion.race (he’s got a great costume, very colourful and nice). Note in the 6th paragraph that that day he said in substance: “our religion is moribund because christians have become a “judgmental and moralising” congregation of “pew-fillers, hymn-singers, sermon-tasters, Bible readers, even born-again believers and Spirit-filled charismatics” (isn’t that music to the ears). I’m ordering you to put down your goddamn books (= “no trying to convert”) and to go out and make friends with everyone. So be it, and now let’s play drums and dance.”, and so they did (play drums) and it was good. Shame that he does not include gays and such in his “everyone” but hey, can’t have it all from one that belongs to any sort of institution. Also, the bloke is black; say what they want, tolerance is not their most remarkable trademark; let it be reminded that the slavery business as we know it, would never have existed as it did if it had not been for them selling each other to the highest bidder in the first place, even though white suckers sure were not far behind.
          Still, that luvly 2005 speech still comes ever so useful when boarded by pesky door-to-door preachers. Firstly, you bother them instead of them bothering you. Second, you preach/enact the right gospel instead of submitting to hearing bullshit. Third, they never come back as preachers. Winners all round.

        • basicdesign says:

          Sh**, that went double, sorry. Moreover it went to pick the first doublon in a closed file that I thought I had lost long back. Another time loop…

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          basicdesign, the future (because of the past) seems very likely to include many ‘loops’, but, said loops can never be identical (every atom in the Universe?), cannot prevent random events and do not remove individual free-will. In other words, there is still an unbroken chain of preceding events, including ‘loops’, leading back to the origin of the Universe.
          If you will consider changing the word ‘loops’ to iterations and do not to imply Pre-determination, I am in complete agreement. Annoying loops!
          Perhaps Gibran’s Archer knew ‘loops’ were normal and allowed for them?

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, by ‘mystic’ I mean someone who believes that knowledge about the Universe can be learned by ‘looking inward’.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, oh for the day when Christians behave like Jesus (apart from the slavery, misogyny, messiah claims, favouritism miracles, gay-bashing etc.)

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          St. Paul is the problem with his so-called Great Commission = ‘Have you heard the good news?’

        • basicdesign says:

          Birdseye, I have no doubt that Gibran’s Archer knew loops. There’s nothing transcendingly beautiful without them.

        • basicdesign says:

          “oh for the day when Christians behave like Jesus (apart from…): So we get to keep the birth’s feast, the ‘kicking greedy bastards out of the temple’ (always liked that one except they’ll have to kick themselves out of it too), the cloud of bread and fish and the crucifixion grand final? Tope là, I’m with you there too. I don’t mind the ‘being beamed back up by an ET ship’ either, esp. as it makes up for another feast, but this time I want the ship to be a full part of the show. Fed up with damn lies. And although I don’t drink anything else than homemade alcools, let there be a beer volcano too along the way coz it makes so many ppl happy.

        • basicdesign says:

          “St. Paul’s Great Commission”: thankfully I ain’t been brainwashed in English, so all I can envision from that one is a literal great pile of shit. Thus the truth reveals itself.

        • basicdesign says:

          “By ‘mystic’ I mean someone who believes that knowledge about the Universe can be learned by ‘looking inward’”:
          C’mon Birdseye, that’s only half of what a mystic does, and because there’s also the other half then that half you say is transcended. Of course only mystics know that; the best part about it is, they don’t care one iota about what ppl think or say about them. Just like described here: https://www.venganza.org/2008/01/i-came-across-your-site/comment-page-18/#comment-5690085. I just hope you’re not gonna prove yourself impious by thinking I lied in the cited post – if you do, may FSM forgive you. I shall if He does.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          So, basicdesgn, what’s the other half of what mystics do?
          As a good pirate, everything I say is a lie (including that). Surely, my opinion is worthless?
          Loops (what I want to call iterations) are intrinsically natural. Every iteration begins where the last one ended, but, is always slightly different; hence fractals, brain function, walking, parabolas etc.
          I’m not really sure what you mean by ‘transcend’. If an event has occured, its probability of occuring is 100%; what has it transcended? (apart from one’s imagination)

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, beer is for the crew’s breakfast on my ship; brewed in the bilges as ballast. Only the Captain has ale.

        • basicdesign says:

          the other half of what mystics do, is best described in the story recounted in the above link :)

        • basicdesign says:

          “Surely, my opinion is worthless?”: that looks like a trap, with many loops. I’ve got a fridge magnet that says, “If your dog thinks you’re the best, don’t seek a second opinion.” I’ll stick to that one…

        • basicdesign says:

          Good lord FSM, beer and ale for breakfast… No way. I’ll stick to nettle tea if you don’t mind.

        • Keith says:

          There is always nettle beer. i think I may have posted a recipe for it on this site a while ago.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          A trap, basicdesign? Paranoia is normal; your dog knows that.

        • basicdesign says:

          Keith, turning that innocent & highly medicinal herb into alcohol… sobsobsob…

        • basicdesign says:

          Birdseye, lol presenting lucidity as paranoia is just another aspect of the same scam based on words vs. reality. There’s strictly nothing real about words but most humans live on it and create their own bubbles – the worst of it is, them donkeys are proud of it, they think it makes them special!!! Talk about illusions. If that’s not belief at its strongest, then the concept of belief doesn’t even exist. Of course my dog knows the difference, else he wouldn’t be my dog and I wouldn’t be his human. One ambition of mine is that one day, one day, I can stop using words if they don’t make poetry. I’ll allow for parables too, they’re another kind of poetry. Til then, I’m just a humble sinner and humour is my only salvation. Ramen.

  4. uareahmar says:

    this theory is not only obviously an example of an irrelevant correlation that was made between some spaghetti fag and the universe.
    but a magical example of how easy it is to innovate stupid theories in an attempt to distract and mislead humans from our true creator, similar the vague and easily refutable evolution theory.

    i have one question
    how can something come from nothing
    furthermore, as time and scientific discoveries/findings pass atheism and the evolutionary theory are being smashed and proven wrong, i.e scientific data/ research has proven without a reasonable doubt that all humans come from one man and one female- so yeah, we are all literally brothers and sisters. also, at the time of the “big bang” had the world expanded at a rate of 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 faster or slower- earth would have collapsed in on itself or exploded, that kind of precision is not possible to put into odds and left for “evolution” to explain.

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      I’m just going to cut to the chase here:

      You’re an idiot.

    • Keith says:

      Where did you get your assertions? From Ken Hamster’s site? What evidence do you have that atheism and evolution are being proven wrong? Are you saying that because genetic research can pinpoint a hypothetical single person as the progenitor of a whole population that the existence of Adam and Eve are proven? What makes you think that the Earth was in existence at the time of the big bang? Why do you think that evolution has anything to do with the big bang?

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Uareahmar, how many times do you fundies have to be told that the Theory of Evolution says [b]nothing[/b] about the origins of life, matter, or the Universe: these are completely different subjects. That life evolves is as much a fact as gravity exists.
      Also, it is utterly pointless to use the axioms of science (such as uniformitarianism), attempting to conclude something supernatural, which breaks that axiom. Further, 0 = -1 +1. Do you notice the plus one? It’s arguable that -1 is also ‘something’.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        …. my attempt to make ‘nothing’ bold failed.

        • Excelsior says:

          We, the people of the Black Caucus, declare that the Bible is racist. Why are all the people of the Bible pale-faced? We demand that the Bible be corrected to be PC! God, Adam and Eve, etc. were black Africans. The Garden of Eden was in Africa! When God wiped out the whole human race in a Great Flood he took 8 Africans onto the Ark to repopulate the Earth! All the non Africans we see on Earth today are mutant descendents of these 8 Black Africans! All the statues of Jesus, Mary etc. must be replaced by Black ones. If you don’t heed my PC advice then beware! We will go on a Bible burning binge!!!!

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Excelsior, so, Mary was a blue-eyed, blonde, mutant, black woman? Seems reasonable to me.

        • Keith says:

          So Noah’s ark was a huge dugout canoe or a big woven basket? That make sense to me.

        • Captain Birds says:

          Dug out canoe? That would be big tree. Basket is the only other choice and thus logical.

        • basicdesign says:

          Excelsior, true PC would be a mix of extremes, i.e. of black and white. In terms of skin colour(s), that brings in tan. No need to repaint all statues, a smudge of foundation make-up’ll do it.

  5. Excelsior says:

    Capt. Birdseye,
    How do you know that Mary was “blue-eyed, and blonde”? Did you have “immaculate conception” with her too? Tell us about it. Is it anal or oral?

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Excelsior, I have seen many Christian pictures of Mary which revealed that she was in fact a blue-eyed blonde, just like Jesus. The only explanation I can think of is that she was in fact a black mutant. According to some, she also had big tits. ;)

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        …also, Excelsior, I prefer the ‘immaculate contraption’, but, on my ship, one needs Catholic connections.

        • Excelsior says:

          Capt. Birdseye,
          According to the Bible Mary was a Jew. How could a Jewish virgin be a blue-eyed blond? Obviously it is those white racists corrupting our PC religion.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Excelsior, do you mean that all of those Christians who created pictures and painted sculptures didn’t read their Bible??

        • basicdesign says:

          Birdseye, of course they read their bible, ’twas compulsory in those times lest one be burnt at the stake. They just did not read other ppl’s bibles: not-reading them was also compulsory.

  6. Excelsior says:

    Capt. Birdseye,
    I have personally questioned many Christians and at least 99% of them admit that they don’t read the Bible except for a few Iconic verses like “The Lord is my shepherd”. They aren’t like the “Religion of Peace” where they have to postrate themselves with nose on the ground five times a day and recite the Koran from beginning to end! That’s why Christians are all phonies like the scientist Pascal who only went to Church to buy “Fire Insurance”! I am going to put out a new version of the Bible where God, Adam, Moses, Noah, etc. are all Black Africans, and anyone who doesn’t buy a copy is a racist!

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Excelsior, don’t forget lots of brimstone, which begins in Genesis, though, ANFO may be the modern equivalent.
      Unfortunately, Pascal picked the wrong god for his insurance policy.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Excelsior, any chance that you may call it ‘Wholly Babble: Authorised Version’?

      • Excelsior says:

        C. B.
        I think I’ll call it “Wholly Babble: PC Version”.
        Next on the agenda: Since all the signers of the Declaration of Independance were slave owners. hence we declare it invalid. That means that the USA is illegitimate! We will have to write a new Declaration of Independance and only the descendents of black slaves will be allowed to sign. Only then will the USA be legal!

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I know that the Bible was used to justify slavery, but, did any of the Founding Fathers (mostly deists) buck the system, by, for instance, buying slaves in order to set them free? Perhaps the legal doctrine of Fruit of the Poisoned Tree can be argued.
          Anyway, may I suggest Snoop Dog appropriate to rewrite Leviticus and Revelations, Stephen Hawking for Genesis and a bit of bodice-ripping porn by Barbara Cartland could easily replace Song of Solomon. I think she’s dead but you could probably find someone to ‘channel’ her.
          I would like to see a Broadway production by Mel Brooks, who would somehow manage to fit a black Hitler singing ‘Oh, Mammy’ into it. Or, is that not PC?

        • basicdesign says:

          I’d prefer “Wooly Babble”, as in “pulling the wool over one’s eyes”. And possibly even “Wolly Bubble” coz it’s full of air as hot as PC is these days. Going for the very essence of PC, there… Pfffff, just pass me the parmesan dish, thanks.

  7. James says:

    The satirical Spaghetti Monster “religion” is the product of people who refuse to accept the numerous overwhelming, irrefutable scientific proofs for God’s existence.

    They do this for various reasons, including:

    1. They want to be free to sin without accountability, so they deliberately and actively seek to deny all possibility of a righteous Judge who will punish all wrongdoing.

    2. Or, their pride does not allow for the possibility that they could be wrong, so they cling to their beliefs.

    3. Or, they are hateful and arrogant people, interested only in arguing, attacking, and slandering other people, rather than actually discovering the truth. (Atheism goes hand-in-hand with bigotry and hatred.)

    4. Gullibly, they accept the consensus views of a scientific community that is intrinsically biased towards naturalism, founded on atheistic principles, and openly admits that it holds the foregone conclusion that God cannot exist.

    5. There is also a great deal of scientific ignorance of many different scientific disciplines. Far from understanding evolutionary science, most atheists know almost nothing about it whatsoever, and have almost no grasp of the “science” behind it, which, in fact, is so wildly irrational and unscientific that it makes the Spaghetti Monster look downright credible.

    Thus, for various combinations of all these reasons, they find the truth of the Bible offensive, and seek to console themselves by actively mocking anyone who believes the truth. This mockery usually involves misrepresenting the Christian faith with ridiculous strawman arguments (eg “The Bible says sex is bad”) or focusing on the actions of certain Christians who clearly do not represent the Bible in any way (eg “churches” who murder, attack, or start wars: when the Bible says not to murder, and to treat your enemies with kindness).

    It is to be noted that the many pagan religions such as Wicca do not suffer such mockery. This is because pagan religions are not true and thus are not a threat. It is only the threat of the truth of the Bible which is attacked.

    There is hard scientific proof of God. But if you only want to sin without impunity, and take offense to the idea of bad people being judged, then you’re never going to be interested in either finding the Truth, or even investigating it. You will only seek to mock others.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      James, ‘proof’ is singular: only a single piece of evidence is required, which, you did not provide. Anyway, the word is never used in science, demonstrating your ignorance.
      You also use the word ‘science’ without realising what you are doing. An axiom of science is Uniformitarianism, which means that, whenever, wherever, however, without exception, the Laws of science are uniform, consistent and repeatable. Anything supposedly ‘supernatural’ breaks this axiom, rendering all science worthless.

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      I mock you not because you’re religious but because you’re a dick.

      I mock your religion because it’s preposterous.

      You have obviously listened to your youth pastor (I’m assuming you are a yank from the south or a flyover state) but not entertained for a second that he’s an indoctrinated individual, seeking to make more of the same.

      Yarrgh

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        When the god of the Bible lies, tortures, “creates evil”, endorses incest, murder, genocide and “dashing babies against rocks”, promotes the sickening injustice of substitutionary atonement, apparently, it’s ‘righteous’ and nothing to do with moral relativism.
        It’s very strange that all cultures, for several thousands of years, had laws against kiliing, stealing and lying. Who would have guessed that ‘seething a kid in it’s mother’s milk’ (one of the Twenty Commandments) should really have been a universal law.
        Knowing beforehand that Eve knew nothing of right or wrong, and that, later, he was going to sacrifice himself (for a whole three days) to himself to ‘save’ mankind, indicates a sadistic psychopath, unworthy of belief.
        Fundies just love the Galileo Gambit, but, the irony escapes them.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          …. a few typos but can’t edit.

    • Keith says:

      James:
      You are doing what so many other fundies do. You are making a bundle of assertions without backing them up. You are flinging shit against the wall and hoping that some of it sticks.

    • Alphy says:

      The very idea of the existance a “supernatural” ‘supreme’ being is rediculous. What a bunch of blarney and fairy dust! Such a being would have to violate his very own laws of existance . He, it, would be the ‘living’,’walking’, counter thesis of his very own reality. He would be the ultimate unreality of himself, you fuckin fool! Are you another one of these so called “born again:” shit heads who is having a “personal relationship” with a figment of you imagination you call “God”? You ,like all the other fundies haven’t one iota of crediblility. There’s no end to your self indulgent religious delusions. Our God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ultimate, the one and only true and living reality. He sets on my plate with Holy Marinara right in front of me and nourishes my soul everyday. He has boiled for your sins! Repent of your heressy now and receive his noodley touch or go to Hell for your blasphemy!

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Alphy, I’m sure you’re aware that some fundies now claim that Christianity is not a religion, but, atheism is. I suspect that means I have a ‘personal relationship’ with not believing in their god. Because they were simply persuaded to believe, they think that adjectives and sophistry are types of evidence.

  8. The Pastologist says:

    Please – give me ONE “Irrefutable Scientific Proof” for God’s existence.

    Define sin without mentioning your particular god.

    Religion – with the exception of CFSM- goes hand in hand with bigotry and hatred – it doesn’t even have to be inter religious bigotry – just look at the extremist muppets on both sides of the Christian divide in Northern Ireland and the equally idiotic schisms in Islam.

    Gullible ??? Take a look in the mirror

    Scientific ignorance – well you’ve got that in spades.

    Have a beer, eat the pasta of your choice, in the loving company of the partner of your choice, chill out and stop trying to ram your particular version of the “Truth” down other peoples throats.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      James, an empirical rationalist (Scientist) works on the assumption that anything unproven does not exist (the Null Hypothesis), for the simple reason that it is impossible to prove non-existence; the only consistent alternative would be to assume that everything unproven does exist, which is impossible. Rational evidence is defined as significant statistical data that are consistent with, and confirm, predictions made by a plausible, self consistent, underlying model of the system generating the observational data.

      There are the usual axioms (‘articles of faith’ if you insist on putting it that way) that the universe is naturalistic, that it is deterministic, that it is consistent, that logic and mathematics hold, and so on. I contend, though, that any sane person must implicitly accept all of these axioms; indeed, many definitions of insanity seem to hinge upon the subject’s rejection of any or all of them.

      The existence of any god, however, has not, indeed, by many definitions cannot, be deduced from any of the axioms of empirical rationality, and is thus axiomatic in itself; it therefore does take more faith, one more axiom, for a sane person to believe in the existence of god than for a sane, rational atheist to assert the nonexistence of god.

      Some religions try to sidestep this by claiming god is outside the jurisdiction of the rationalistic axioms and thus believing in god is not contradictory to empirical rationalism; I personally contend that an inconsistent system is no system at all, and that a system that is only partially rational is entirely irrational. It is certainly ludicrous to try to explain a god outside the bounds of naturalism in natural terms; those theists who claim they can prove god to exist without resorting to naturalism, invariably fail to grasp just how widely the scientific, naturalistic, axioms apply.

      An excellent example are the incredibly frequent attempts people make to prove the historicity of Noah’s flood; they write pages and pages of fundamentally naturalistic arguments trying to prove an unnatural event. People suggest many sources and sinks for the colossal amount of water that must have been conserved, failing to realise that as soon as one invokes gods and miracles, one can no longer rely on Conservation of Mass. They do tortuous calculations to try and prove the ark was big enough to hold all the creatures, implicitly making the naturalistic assumptions of the consistency of space and time, that the ark didn’t somehow warp space to contain a volume far greater than its external boundary, never once realising that their own fucking insane tenets of god being unbounded by naturalistic laws nullify the naturalistic axioms they don’t even realise they’re relying on and make such arguments meaningless.

      To believe that such an unnatural creature as god could exist should make everyday life impossible; you couldn’t rely on a nuclear reactor to work predictably for fear that god might take it into his head to suddenly make all uranium atoms emit twice as many neutrons upon fission; you couldn’t drive to work for fear that time might suddenly be distorted and it would suddenly be evening and time to drive home; you couldn’t make a cup of tea for fear that, being in a universe where the unnatural can exist, the teapot might suddenly turn into a hippo. Is it a natural teapot and incapable of ever doing that, or, an unnatural one that just happened to act natural up to now? Start believing in the unnatural, in the supernatural, and you just can’t trust anything any more. It should be noted that certain cultists, like those who believe in the rapture, practically do think like this; they live in constant fear of an arbitrary apocalypse. Yet even they implicitly reject the notion of supernatural gods and random apocalypses every time they type a letter of some end-times prophesy on their computer and expect the same letter to appear on the screen as did the last time they pressed that particular key. Naturalism is too deeply embedded in the human mind even for their insane fairytales to completely smother.
      Brain_in_a_Jar

      • Excelsior says:

        The Fundies say that the “Ten Commandments” is the basis of all morality. They probably never read it. In the very beginning of the “Ten Commandments” God says: “I am a jealous God and anyone who doesn’t worship me will go to Hell to burn for eternity! Moreover, their descendents to the 4th generation all go to Hell Too!” God is the only one who makes laws to punish someone for something their ancesters did! That is God’s morality!
        Jesus said if you want to go to Heaven then you have to worship him. Since the Jews don’t worship Jesus, they will all go to hell to burn for eternity!
        Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. God sends them all to Hell. You see, God and Hitler work hand in glove! Since all the Jews past and present go to Hell, there are probably at least 100 million Jews going to Hell! God gets the Gold medal for antisemitism! Hitler, at the very most, just gets a bronze medal!

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Excelsior, pour a stiff drink and Google ‘The Twenty Commandments’. AiG provides a mind-numbing explanation.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          May He Rest In Quantum Pesto: Stephen Hawking, 1942-2018.

        • Keith says:

          Yes Cap’n. A genius has died and an idiot has just sacked his secretary of state.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Seems a fitting moment to dust down my copy of A Brief History of Time to read again. Hopefully, I will grasp more of it this time and understand why he changed his mind on a few things. I thought the Monty Python sketch that featured him with Brian Cox was brilliant.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Keith, Vlad the Impaler was very successful at solving his Muslim imigrant problem. Kim Jong-un seems to recognise a kindred spirit.
          Trump should have spikes set up around the White House, to stick the heads on.

        • basicdesign says:

          R.I.F.S.M.P, Stephen Hawking, you’re leaving a big black hole down here.

      • basicdesign says:

        “anything unproven does not exist”: isn’t that a hypothesis (= somthng that hasn’t been proven yet – and may or may not be proven) rather than an assumption (smthng accepted as true, no question)?
        Beside any definition, huge amounts of my first-hand experiences prove beyond doubt that that “anything unproven does not exist” is utterly daft and a stark denial of reality. Not being able to prove smthng’s existence can indeed mean that it does not exist, but can also mean that whoever is doing the thinking is too stupid to find out about that thing’s existence; and the latter wins my vote for quite a lot of things, given the reality of parallel worlds (among other as yet unknown realities) in addition to what I’ve seen. As for the “everything unproven does exist”, I don’t see that as “impossible (full stop)”. I just see that as impossible in our 3-dimensinal world, but who can say what goes on in (all other) multi-dimensional worlds? So, as for it being “the only consistent alternative”, I wouldn’t bet on that either. We (humans) do not know enough to make such assumptions.
        Binary thinking is not thinking, it’s just counting. What has that got to do with life? Evolution is not based on counting, let alone binary counting; only our understanding of it is based on that (and that says a lot about human sciences’ stupidity).
        What really pisses me off is that this that what precedes is packed with loops of all sorts and therefore can easily be misinterpreted/distorted into a pseudojustification for creationism and similar stupidities, when in fact said stupidities sprout only from the fear of the unknown (linked with the fear of death). If them ratty cowards weren’t so afraid of the unknown and of their own death they wouldn’t come up with such cretinous ideas. But because they are scared, they can’t fess up / face up / accept that they don’t know; at the bottom line that’s all there is as basis for their waffles. And when I say ‘ratty cowards’, it’s sheer insult to rats.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science and rational thought. Hypotheses are always framed in the negative. The alternative, that any claim exists unless falsified, is a logical fallacy and the stuff of superstition and madness.
          Scientists are comfortable with saying they don’t know, whereas, religionists want to fill the gaps, possibly out of fear of the unknown and a desire to gain power over the gullible.
          Nothing is impossible, but, one should distinguish between wishful imagination and making a claim of existance. When odds against need more zeros than there are electrons in the Universe, without evidence, it is meaningless speculation or religious sophistry.
          Individual neurons only click to each other. That is a binary system. What is extraordinary is how intelligence emerges when 40-billion are rigged in a network (see Emergent Properties).

        • basicdesign says:

          Ah yes, networks, something to ponder about indeed, much intelligence locked in there. Didn’t know it was called ’emergent properties’, when I first looked at it it didn’t have a name. Came to it via the idea of quorum sensing (in P. aeruginosa, of all things :), which is another interesting factor of the same vein.
          Trees communicate via bacteria…

        • basicdesign says:

          Beside that remarkable, er let’s simplify with calling it network-based intelligence, there’s that which you mention elsewhere :
          “I once lost my keyboard and got the insoluble startup message: ‘You seem to have no keyboard. Press any key to continue’”. Brilliant demonstration for the stupidity of binary so-called thinking, well done :DDD

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, Emergent Properties exist in all sorts of places. A fern, for example, does not have a blueprint for the whole plant; it has a few tiny algorithms that are endlessly iterated (looped) and the fern ’emerges’. Play with a fractal generator for the general idea.
          A colony of bacteria behave differently to individual bacteria; something emerges that is greater than the component parts, which is tempting to call ‘intelligence’. Before you suggest that information cannot be created, it’s not, it’s not a closed system.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, the keyboard problem had me cursing the programmer; my washing machine has more ‘intelligence’. If an organism had a similar problem, it would be the end of its line.
          By ‘binary thinking’ do you mean black/white, either/or, with no fuzzy shades of grey?
          I did a few years of post-grad study of Artificial Intelligence (neural networks). I particularly enjoyed ‘torturing’ them until they became dyslexic.

        • basicdesign says:

          Birdseye, here is an either/or: the programmer is “either/or brainwashed”, altern. he’s having a laugh. I’m hoping it’s the latter: just think of the pending horror movie if be the first proposition.

          Thinking in terms of “binary anything” is not thinking, it’s merely counting. There is no intelligence in it whatsoever, would it only be because there is no imagination in it and that’s just one of the reasons for it. My chicken do better than that, no contest. Never seen a bunch of volatiles as them, that spends so much time inventing new stuff. Might be the contagion: I make toys for them.

          neural networks: had to have a look, thought it was something organic. Good thing it ain’t. It may try to look like it but it won’t make it for lack of endogenous imagination. As long as there be ppl like you to take the piss at them, we’re +/- safe from the shenanigans that these may come up with. Only humour (added to ‘looking at things straight on’) will save the world: it’s the one and only thing that can counteract evil. If it does not do so, it means it’s not true evil.

        • basicdesign says:

          “A colony of bacteria behave differently to individual bacteria; something emerges that is greater than the component parts”: exactly, except that I’d rather call it ” ‘other’ than the component parts” lest we may get locked again in religious concept/conceit. Apart from sheer physical size, it’s got strictly nothing greater if it cannot survive without sacrificing some of its parts. It would be/is different if it sacrifices itself entirely, = every component dies, for the sake of becoming something else again. But that requires full consciousness from all component parts so holocausts supporters are out.

          Same for humans as for bacterial colonies: it’s a funding principle of all societies that these behave differently to their individuals. In that regard, it is true that only consciousness (= “co.n-science” = shared knowledge/perception) of it can prevent evil/lies/etc. Only, ‘knowledge of perception’ has to be equally balanced with ‘perception of knowledge’ so as to not make a mess (= so as to not kill one’s own environment along with oneselves in the bargain). That’s something that self-called civilized human groups haven’t got sorted, and nothing says they’ll get it right. The odds for that one are staggeringly small, it’ll take a real effort to get there, more like a miracle really, something akin to the alliance of all past and present gods (in which case there be no future gods, they’ll have been outranked). Time-space travel is a kiddie’s doodle beside that one.

        • basicdesign says:

          “Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science and rational thought.”: falsification being the root of madness, it’s as much saying that science and rational thought are mad. As consolation prize, madness as “abnormal mental or behavioural patterns” is not necessarily bad. There would be no evolution without it.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, I said that the ‘opposite’ of falsification is the stuff of madness. That would mean abandoning the Negative Proof Falacy, believing anything, including contradictions and one’s own thoughts, as true. It suggests omniscience. It’s a question of degrees, but, if acted on, the results could be disastrous. One nibbles a new food to falsify the possibility that it is poisonous; one tests the temperature of bath water before jumping in; one risks rejection by being friendly to strangers: all are experiments that falsify a possibility.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, personal ‘proof’ may be true for you but is not synonymous with other people’s truths or objective facts. Also, I said that a claim without evidence may be ‘assumed’ to not exist, which is quite different to saying ‘does not exist’. The former is reasonable; the latter is impossible.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, if you would like to be a fly-on-the-wall to an argument about falsifyabilty and negative proof, read this thread.
          http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14428.0
          It degenerates to an argument about whether ‘NOT believing in something’ is a POSITIVE assertion, thus creating a burdon of proof on atheists to prove that ‘god’ does not exist (and thus he does exist).

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, you have certainly given me some enjoyable thinking. Returning to your suggestion that ‘binary anything is not thinking’. We know that a neurone is a binary/digital device where neurones only click to each other (and then moderate the click at synapses). I agree, that cannot be regarded as ‘thinking’.

        • basicdesign says:

          Birdseye, I did try to pay attention while reading that link in “to be a fly-on-the-wall to an argument about falsifyabilty and negative proof…”. I had serious trouble doing that :
          1) very early in the reading, the thought came that “it’s all just paper”.
          2) At the same time as the “it’s all just paper”, an image kept superimposing itself to the piece read : that mother-of-all-mothers 15ft-long spiderweb as wide as my body, coming down o so gracefully from the top of the spire in the church and right on the altar, on Xmas midnight mass in 1967, at the moment of ‘elevation’ (when the so-called holy spirit is supposed to come down on/in the piece of chewable cardboard that the priest presents up to it with his eyes closed). The priest’ reaction was so ridiculous, the roar of laughter that came off from all the ppl packing the church was so mighty that the 6ft-wide stone pillar that I was touching shook in laughter too (it sure takes SomeThing to make such a stone beast laugh). All because I had looked up and asked in utter respectful innocence, ‘so what is it that comes down then?’ (I had turned 5 that year and thought it was my duty to be responsible so I had to know because one can’t be responsible while being ignorant).
          Not That, is not just paper : all that penicillin coming down (so very appropriate) ; all that healing laughter (the priest was one condescending priest-for-rich hypocrite, spent his time humiliating people when he wasn’t ass-kissing me dad who didn’t even like him either, ’twas only fair enough that the building itself would laugh at the creeping bastard along with the whole village) ; and, not least, the lesson that being responsible may well be not as simple as I had thought it to be. Eventually came out of it convinced that god as it is said by any Church, cannot exist coz if he was to do its job properly, killing would never be necessary: truth would be systematically revealed and the nasties would die by laughter.

          Just as well the christian, muslim, etc all other gods are just about never so appropriate : I might end up believing in them.
          Hence the only god that’s worth making up/taking in is the FSM and HURRAY! for all pastafarians.
          Râmen.

        • basicdesign says:

          Shld be “Now That, is not just paper”…

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Basicdesign, I have always tried to be responsibly ignorant.

Leave a Reply