If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Only An Agnostic Part 3

The Mechanics

In the first two posts in this short series(1,2) I looked over agnosticism in relation to its academic definitions, history and philosophical position within society. In this post I’m going to play with what I’m going to call the mechanics of agnosticism.

I think we(humanity) inherently understand probability. We live in a universe where comprehending probability really matters, so our brains, which I’ve always assumed to be electro-bio-chemical probability engines, have developed with the ability to properly interpret physical reality from our, more or less, accurate model of the physical world. A model which is based on a hundred thousand years of witnessing what happens if a human does X, Y or Z’s
In the hostile environment of 50,000 years ago, if you didn’t have some understanding of probability, you wouldn’t have survived long enough to have children. I’m not saying primitive peoples or even most modern humans had a schooled grasp of probability calculations (I certainly don’t) but rather that by having the ability to properly assess the probable outcomes of a dangerous situation that situation can be survived; an innate biological comprehension of probability is necessary for survival. We have traditionally termed this ability ‘common sense’.
e.g.
A creature, never-seen-before, eats a village's goats in the night.
Next morning the 1st person to approach the ‘lion’, to shoo it away, gets eaten.
2nd person now knows there's a probability of getting eaten and approaches from a different direction.
3rd person realises there’s a high probability of getting eaten, so collects the tribe together with weapons and all chase the lion away from the settlement.

I feel this inherent understanding of probability is why our entire genetic databank tells us “a fall from below height ‘A’ does not result in death, falling from above height ‘A’ does”. But we also know that if we add in other factors this simple rule becomes ‘bendy’; a fall onto a bunch of cardboard boxes, into trees, deep snow and countless other factors change our assessment of what the safe, ‘probably survivable’ height of “A” would be; all factors inform and transform the bio-physical probability equation.
However, we are only willing to suspend disbelief for so long; set height “A” as “Summit of Everest” and most people would say… “Splat is highly likely, no matter what array of comfy cushions you land on!”

So, as with all good paradigms (I don’t know if that’s true but it sounds great), let’s crank it up a notch…
Would you consider someone surviving, say, 42 consecutive falls from the summit of Mount Everest, to be more or less probable than surviving one?

I think we’d all say less probable - would many bet on it?

Now consider "a god": The Universal Overlord in question, the Judeo-Christian Big Papa, is supposed to be the most powerful, complex and beneficent being ever and is supposed to have popped into existence first(3), before even the simplest atom, so, taking into account that one could, with equal evidentiary validity, claim the universe(s) was created by a super intelligent armadillo after it invented an infinite improbability engine and deliberately selected ‘maximum random un-likeliness’, is the existence of a god more probable than someone surviving that series of Everest falls?
I think any reasonable person would have to consider an answer of “Yes, god’s existence is more probable than someone surviving 42 consecutive falls from the summit of mount Everest”, as merely the responder’s hope; a wish for god’s existence to be more probable.

Now, as falling from Everest and surviving even once is improbable, falling and surviving 42 times is, obviously, 42 times as improbable, which is an order of magnitude of improbability which would bring the answer of “No” to the question “is this series of fall survivable?” And, I suggest, most would agree the Judeo-Christian god’s reputed attributes are, by a much greater order of magnitude*, way more improbable still.
* To set an order of magnitude for the ‘probability of god’, I’d suggest an initial figure somewhere in the region of SCND to 1 against any god existing.
SCND = Stars in the universe multiplied by Cells in human body multiplied by Neurons in human brain multiplied by number of letters in human DNA.
That is, if I've got my sums right,... 300 septendicillion to 1
Which I think is 3 X 1056 to 1
Or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1
(It’s as good a guess as any - as is this one - The God of Insufficient Statistics?)

So, if an answer of ‘Yes, surviving a series of Everest falls is obviously negligible’ is perceived as the ‘right’ answer by ‘all’ and thereby ‘easy’ for any human to state then why is there a disconnect from saying ‘No; a ‘god’ is just too improbable’? Why is that such a difficult statement to make?
I think there maybe something of the answer in Only An Agnostic Part 2
To any rational assessor, the probability engine which quantifies the world’s implications for us, keeping us safe and helping us to survive, is delivering the supremely improbable answer of ‘a god’ into the ‘things that are likely to exist’ ball-park, so what is fouling up the mechanism? Why do agnostics feel that in this single, virtually exclusive instance, ‘negligible’ does not warrant a ‘No’?
How does the agnostic manage to feel that they are making an honest statement in “I don’t know?”; is it really honest to claim agnosticism?
I reckon there are probably almost as many answers as there are true agnostics; a complex mix of lack of knowledge or perspective, not caring either way, Pascal’s wager, an inherent fear of death and the ever present religious oppression, which makes it clear that unbelievers will be at best ostracised from family & community and at worst persecuted to death.
The most confusing is honesty; it feels inherently dishonest to say ‘there is no chance whatever of a person surviving 42 falls’ because our probability engine tells us there is ‘always’ an outside chance, however negligible, that a single faller will survive the series. We may consider it a ‘sure thing’ that if you ran the series of falls a trillion times, 999,999,999.9 of them would end in splat. (I added the .9 because if anyone did survive 42 falls from Everest they’d probably be mashed up and in a coma for the rest of their life). That is 99.99999999% sure, almost a sure as one can be, but further, on hearing that someone was going to run the trillion series, we would likely state with confidence “You should probably buy a trillion coffins.” We ‘know’ how unbelievably improbable surviving the fall series would be; there’d likely be protests against such folly, people would write to their Member of Parliament to get it stopped etc but for the honest person, a single survivor, can’t be ‘ruled out’. And, for the unsure believer, the purely philosophical proposal that is ‘a god’, even though it is such a low probability, fits the bill of ‘outside chance’.
Unfortunately the dishonest religious grasp the outside-chance straw and deliberately misinterpret the honest description of 'negligibly probable' as a vote for the existence of their personal 'Ming the Merciless'.
But if an agnostic was told by her friend “I’m going to attempt 42 consecutive falls from Everest”, would the agnostic say “I’ll get my video camera coz there’s a 50-50 chance you’ll survive”? I think not because however honest the actual answer may be, the useful answer is “Don’t! You’ll likely die before you’ve finished the first fall”.

For me ‘a god’ remains merely an unsubstantiated philosophical muse; unless there is evidence to reassess that position, one may only legitimately accept the facts as they stand and conclude, there is nothing to be agnostic about.

1 Only An Agnostic Part 1
2 Only An Agnostic Part 2
3 The Impossible Six
This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

God For All That Ails You

You may have read my tweet
"Religions should be compelled to prove humans have a 'soul' before getting a licence to preach."
but I don't think I've ever told anyone the reason for the statement and from where that notion sprang.

My Grandfather was a great fan of Westerns and, as my father died when I was eight, we, my granddad and I, watched many hours of the wild-west morality tales. In quite a few of them, it seems from my distant blurry memory, there were depicted shonky travelling salesmen, stopping in every town then pulling a lever or two on their wagon which caused its conversion into a stage and sales booth, selling the latest discovery in medicinal health products.
Those snake-oil salesmen and sideshow charlatan's selling ultimate panaceas, quack elixirs & wonder tonics that could "heal every illness" or "cure any physical ailment known to humankind", came under the scrutiny of government trading standards legislation decades, if not a century or more ago and there are now laws to prevent those unscrupulous fraudsters making false claims for their wares. And this ethos has permeated so thoroughly that we now test 'all' medicines for years to make sure they do 'exactly' what it says on the box.

Now, a long time ago, in an age of ignorance and fear, some very scared proto-human had a hunch that the human body has a lifeforce, that which we call 'soul' but, thus far, in the very long time since our first terrified ancestor made the claim, there has been no evidence whatever for this ancient hypothesis.
As almost all of the religious / spiritual beliefs trade on this wish, should they not also be compelled to prove it is more that mere fantasy before they are allowed to collect funds from and minister to those who have been hoodwinked into thinking it is a body part everyone owns?
Why do the "spiritual elixirs" peddled by the religious purveyors who claim their wares can even 'cure death' remain immune from regulation?
It's not merely that their wares are less stringently tested or less well examined, it is that the claims are immune.
As far as I'm concerned, unless some evidence is forthcoming, the idea of humans having a soul remains no more than a wish but when it comes to the efficacy of the claims of those flogging spiritual products(soul etc), the general populous is abandoned to the whim of confidence tricksters and cults without so much as a 'government advisory warning' or even a mention of caveat emptor.
Why the privilege for these magical-medicine men?
If one does not think it 'right & proper' for untested cancer promises to be foisted upon the public's bodies then why think it right & proper for untested psychological promises to be foisted upon their brains?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

The Impossible Six

Plenty of Evidence for God?

What we know:
1. There is a universe(s).
2. Life grew in the universe(s).
3. All else is conjecture.
The religious seem to think and like to imply that the theological and philosophical 'evidence' proffered for a creator god is sufficient to conclude God "is". While I don't think anyone could legitimately suggest that these 'evidences' can be claimed as any more than logical conjecture, does the conjecture actually amount to evidence for a god's existence?
I've been looking at the arguments for a while now and while there are many facets to the discourse, Ontological1, Teleological2, Cosmological3 etc4, nearly all arguments depict a similar being; all are logical deductions toward a single goal of a 'necessary god', which most often delivers a being with the properties of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Beneficence, Immortality and Eternity.
However, do these properties constitute evidence for any god? Or are they ONLY a list of properties which any god MUST possess in order to be the creator of a/the universe(s)? Are they not merely a description of the only god there may be IF there were to be an actual creator god?
Don't ALL the logical conjectures, that the likes of Craig5, Naik6, Tzortzis7 and other misguided disciples of some great, but equally misguided, minds of the past offer in support of a creator god's existence amount no more than a list of properties by which we would recognise such a being, if such a being existed?
This is not valueless information, it's valid, and very human, to attempt to prepare for the unknown via deduction from the variables available, no matter what the subject. And, in this instance, the philosophical conclusions that theologians have so earnestly revealed, would seem to be a fairly complete theory for recognising a creator god; if such a creator god was ever discovered. They, the theologians and philosophers, have provided for humanity a perfectly logical set of parameters via which 'we' could identify such a creature as legitimate.
Now, that's a very handy thing, a boon document you might say and kudos to all the great thinkers who have deduced such specifics from such flimsy data but, is knowing the attributes a god must posses even close to having evidence that such an entity exists?
I think not.
And I think not partly because each entry in this list of properties that we have come to through conjecture is itself merely a conjectural ideal. These properties of god, no matter which religion you choose interrogate, are "The Impossible Six"

God:
A Being that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Beneficent, Immortal and Eternal

I've called them the impossible six because, as far as I'm aware, not one human has ever actually encountered even one of these properties, and it's way more catchy than calling them the "So improbable it's negligible six"....

Omnipotent:
Have you ever met anyone who was powerful enough to control everything in a house? Yeah? What about with their mind? Nor me. Ever met anyone who came close to this, or ever heard of anyone do more than bend a spoon or move object a few microns? I think we can reasonably concede that omnipotence is a good distance from factual and must be considered to be a  conjecture about an ideal.

Omniscient:
While psychics and clairvoyants do a great impression of having a minuscule portion of omniscience their ability is, as we all know, just a carnival trick called cold reading. Further, I think we'd all agree that even the President of the most powerful country on Earth could not be considered "all-knowing", even in his own country, in his own office sometimes.
Just in those simple human terms, the claim of any being's omniscience is hard to defend but when we look at it through scientific eyes the omniscience claim becomes utterly implausible and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to justify...
We know, from physics, that it's impossible to fully measure both the velocity and vector of a subatomic particle. It's possible to learn how fast it's moving or it's direction of travel but cannot be sure of both at once and that this is not 'our' problem, we cannot lay the blame at "primitive measuring devices", but rather it's a property of the subatomic particle itself, which we've named the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle". It seems that the terms velocity and vector only apply in the macro universe, to atoms or larger, and that subatomic particles do not possess these properties but rather are described by the term "state function" which I've heard defined as a "mish-mash of possible positions and momenta".
We know that just one human consists of 146 Octillion(ish) subatomic particles.(That's a USA Octillion of 146 followed by 29 zeros)1
We know that the universe is "way bigger"(technical term) than a mere human. As an extremely rough guess, it's bigger by a factor of about a googolplex to the power of a googolplex.1
For any creature to be considered omniscient, it must be, provably, fully aware of the "state function" of each and every individual subatomic particle at once, before it can be said to know the velocity and vector of all atoms in the entire universe (and itself, should it consist of any) for each and every nanosecond of the universe's entire existence (and beyond, should the being continue on). We know that there may well be more than one universe.(Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory)
The chances of achieving the ability to know the state function of all subatomic particles in every universe in every nanosecond must be considered, at best, negligible and, most likely, impossible. As achieving this ability cannot be considered "likely", it must also similarly be considered "unlikely" that a single being with this capability could exist and, further, it must be considered to be extremely negligible, or as close to impossible as one could get, for a being with this capability to have existed "first", before even the simplest subatomic particle acquired mass.
Whichever way one thinks about it, 'all-knowing' is not a thing that we can say exists in a real sense and we may only be conclude, therefore, that it is a conjectural ideal.
1Check out Shaving God with Occam for an explanation of the numbers mentioned.

Omnipresent:
Have you ever met anyone who was even in all the places they themselves wanted or needed to be? Ever met anyone who came close to this, or ever heard of anyone knowing even one instance of this property? No? Then it's conjecture about an ideal.

Beneficent:
While there are amongst us those with seemingly limitless benevolence to our fellow human, even the best efforts of the best of us can not hope to equal the immensity of malevolence in the struggle for survival. It's a slaughterhouse out there people, everything eats everything else, it's all about struggling to survive. Beneficence is not in evidence on any grand scale and so this property must be seen the same way, as conjecture of an ideal.

Immortal:
Think of your oldest relative, not necessarily living but the longest lived, not very long, eh? Some turtles live a long time, Crocs and a few Jelly Fish are supposed to be a bit immortal or something like it. However, all of that is here on Earth, inside this kindly biosphere. Ever hear of anything living in space? Not on an asteroid but floating free? And not in Star Trek or anything? Nope? Nor me. Now, as the Earth will eventually be swallowed up in the death of our, by cosmological standards, minuscule sun, all living things here will succumb to mortality, no matter what their genes have to say about it, so immortality of any kind in the creatures of which we are aware, is ultimately not seen and we may only conclude this is conjecture of an ideal.

Eternal:
This is a bit of a non starter, eternal is tricky; too many variables and simultaneously not enough but I'll have a bash. Firstly, it stands to reason that the only way to determine whether someone/thing is Eternal, is if you are yourself Eternal and can observe its 'life' for the entirety of yours. However, you'd only know for sure that it was you who was eternal, if your were also omniscient, which, as I mused above, is just a conjectural ideal. So, we must assume that you could not know you were the last and only being in existence or always existing, unless you hung around on your own until you were the only thing left after universal heat death, in all the dimensions in existence.
Secondly, if it so comes to pass that you do end up 'the one and only, eternal, billy-no-mates' then there's know way to detect if 'it' all stops if you stop; you have the solipsism8 problem.
At that point, the 'eternal being' really IS the ONLY mind in existence, so can a single mind truly know it didn't just imagine it all? The answer is, it can't and would instantly be unable to confirm its own eternal nature, or even have any true sense of how much time has passed since it had its first thought, indeed if heat death has occurred everything has already stopped, so there are no 'events' between which one can measure an elapsed time, so no time. Eternity here may be described here as zero perception.
Thirdly, "How long is eternal?" is not really a question, no answer can there come, but "How much longer is eternity than the length of time the universe has existed?" is a valid question.
The universe it seems is not eternal but the Big Bang didn't just create the space, it created time along with it. So, before the universe there was no time and we may only concede what the religious promote; any creator of the universe was existing outside of time. With that, surely we may only say that prior to the matter of space-time there was "No time at all" and so it follows that the length of the 'eternity' prior to the big bang that any creator god 'spent' learning how to decide if women should be stoned or if gays should be persecuted is also "no time at all" and thereby perhaps conclude it to be of little moral value?
As 'Eternal' prior to the universe is exactly equal to zero, indeed even using the word 'prior' is meaningless, it means any creator god's existence was, at best, exceedingly short, as close to zero as negligible can get, and cannot be legitimately seen to imply 'older than the universe' because to do so would take the conjecture into a time of "no time" where the descriptors like 'older' cannot apply in any comprehensible sense.
The religious may say, "Forget about time, god just exists 'always'!" but any attempt to quantify the word 'always' without implying the qualities of some scale of time and some scale for space eludes me, it becomes another meaningless word, like 'prior' or 'older'. How does one define "always" without these concepts?
Have a go; if you crack it, let me know.
Seems to me, the actual parameters of eternal are unmeasurable and therefore indistinguishable from ideological conjecture.

So, there you go, as far as I can fathom, the theological/philosophical 'evidence' for a creator god is set of conjectures based firmly in a list of conjectural 'impossible' ideals or, as I prefer to call it, pretendsies.

And, can pretendsies be legitimately claimed as evidence for anything?
Other than pretending, I mean.


Apologies for the 'booobie' immaturity - couldn't resist :)

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Dogma Advisory Warning

Shouldn't ALL religious works carry a United Nations Human Rights Advisory Warning?

Human Rights Advisory Warning
Important:
Possibly psychologically damaging content.

Before you start reading this book, please be aware, if you think you might be a human who has a soul it is strongly advised that you read and fully comprehend this warning first.
There has never been any proof, or even evidence, that humans have an invisible component, a 'spiritual core', which is commonly known as soul.
The content of this book suggests a package of rewards and punishments which may be available to or forced upon any who think they have a soul.

Caution:
If you do think you have a soul and continue to read this book you will instantly be bound by its laws. There is no choice, this book and others of its kind, contains within it clauses which state, loosely...
"If you read this book you will be considered to be aware of its message. Should you read then choose to deny that which this book contends or defy its laws, at the end of your life your 'soul' component will be forced", by the god it contends exists, "into a giant concentration camp and tortured forever."
This book and others like it also clearly state, again loosely, that...
"If you have never read this book, your 'soul'", which it contends you own, "will be judged merely on how well or badly you have behaved to your fellow humans throughout your life."
So, whether or not you think you have a soul, regardless of any reward which may be offered, it's probably best to ignore such books with these types of clauses because this would put you in the more advantageous position of 1. Not having known the rules, and 2. Not offending any true god there might be, by reading and following the wrong god's rules.

Continue reading at your own risk or rather, if this book is to be believed, your eternal risk.

Final Advisory note:
If you do not understood any part of the warning above, you should read no further.
If you are an adult and are considering reading and explaining this book to a child in your care, it is further advised that if you should do so and then the child grows to resent the decision you took, he or she may have the right to prosecute you for infringing his or human right to SELF determination.

In the absence of a properly sanctioned and "printed by publisher" first page for these dangerous documents, here's a suggestion which any who wish to can apply themselves...

Advisory Content Warning Label
To shop for a sheet of these very reasonably priced labels at Zazzle click the image
actual size: 2.375 inches X 1.25 inches.


Humanity - Higher Morals Than God since 1948
To shop for this very reasonably priced Bumper Sticker at Zazzle click the image
actual size: 11 inches X 3 inches.


This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Crucify This Catholic Nightmare

Dear members of the Roman Catholic Church,
If you do not make it through this post, I will not be surprised; sticking you fingers in your ears and screaming la-la-la at the facts of reality that you would prefer to avoid knowing is the sort of head in the sand thinking you fable promotes.

First, The Roman Catholic Church persecuted the majority of Europe with the inquisition, putting all opposing The Roman Catholic Church to the 'question'.

Then Roman Catholic Church held high the policy "Despise the Jews, they betrayed our lord!" ramping up hatred against the Jews for, y'know centuries, up until about 1940. Then that Adolf Hitler, good son of The Roman Catholic Church's childhood indoctrination scheme and patently soldier for god, in his and his army's minds at least, destroyed all those, Jews. Hmmm? Might there be a link?

Then, because of The Roman Catholic Church's hideous self-serving condom policy many more babies are delivered into already struggling communities than can be sufficiently provided for; the first natural disaster, famine etc. and there are million, who didn't need to be born, lining up to starve to death. And the same rank-swelling condom policy simultaneously assists the spread of any and all STD, including HIV. Millions of mums and dads lost easily preventable disease to add to The Roman Catholic Church's vast global death tally.

And what do we have as a result? Oh yes, orphanages full of children, millions of babies for whom there was no one left to care, all left in the care of what we know learn has been an organisation willing and able to harbour and assist those only it knows to be Paedophiles; transferring them from one unsuspecting orphanage to unsuspecting group of parish children, and which has done so merely to protect The Roman Catholic Church's 'good' name for, it seems, centuries. This hideous Papal evil-machine has been the ducking stool of humanity; our torturer, judge and executioner since they wrote that vile misogynistic supremacist doctrine, The Bible.
Throughout The Roman Catholic Church's, and unfortunately our, history The Roman Catholic Church's doctrine has facilitated the wholesale slaughter of so many millions one might be forgiven for wondering if the Papacy's mission to 'deliver souls unto god's care' may have been taken to too great a level of efficiency.
Have a word with yourselves, chaps!
It's not turnover that counts! You don't get, I suspect, more kudos from Super-Gramps for shovelling them upstairs with a mechanical digger!

Why is this distasteful boil(The Roman Catholic Church) still with us? Why must we suffer news of it's atrocities on an, often, hourly basis? Given the record of this wretched organisation, how is the Vatican even still standing?
Why have its followers not long since razed the Vatican and it's occupants to the ground?
Shouldn't irate groups of villagers with torches and clubs have been bashing the doors in centuries ago?
Why have they, at the very least, not left the organisation?

Dearest humans who are also called Catholic,
This vile organisation has wrought havoc across the our centuries and behaved, it must be said, for their own ends, with measures and practises which, I'm sure, any good human today would abhor and certainly not the way any benign god in which you may believe would have chosen for his church's representatives most high to behave.
Please draw yourselves up from the swamp they've made you stand in and rise to the heights of the absolute morality to which you say you aspire and put an final end to The Roman Catholic Church's continued offensive against our Humanity. You can still believe in your god and all the doctrine but punish the Vatican for the crimes they've collectively either allowed or perpetrated on humanity, turn your backs them leave that den of Vipers. If each Roman Catholic Church's congregation chose to take ownership of the building in which they worship and run their own decentralised New Catholic Church, would anybody really care; I mean, even the Pope couldn't argue that they are the houses your god, so doesn't he own them?
If you are offended by what you've read here, please remember, you are not even close to how offended I am about the atrocities your weekly donations have long supported and will continue, whilst you continue your support.



This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

His Blood On Your Hands

Witchcraft murder: Couple guilty of Kristy Bamu killing
A couple have been found guilty of murdering a teenager they had accused of using witchcraft.

The defence had argued Bikubi was mentally ill when he carried out the killing, with a scan of his brain showing lesions which "probably contributed to an abnormal mental state".

Article


Hmmm... "probably contributed"? Not a phrase that has the ring of "solely responsible", is it?
If the lesions were ONLY a contribution, there must be another another reason, a MAIN reason, for the horrific torture and murder, eh?
Can you tell what it is yet?
Yes folks, once again it's the supernatural bollox spawned by the pretendsies of absolute evil to which all the religious show their support, merely by believing in their own personal brand of the voodoo.
If nobody believed this bollox, Bikubi would not have had the fables to fuel his delusion and 15-year-old Kristy Bamu would still have the ONLY life he was ever going to have.
Yeah, you can say "something else may have caused a nutter to go pop", implying that even if the murderer hadn't believed there was actual real magic like ghosties, ghoulies, gods, and dirty, dirty demons, as so many pretend are true, he could have still killed.
Soothing isn't it, when you can abdicate responsibility; it's what your god's novel teaches, eh, "put your troubles in the cloud".
Well here's a prime example of what happens when you mistakenly think your supernatural stupor does no harm, Kristy and millions of others continue to pay the price of your irresponsibility.
At Christmas time our, I'm sad to say, Prime Minister, David Cameron claimed that the UK is "a Christian Nation." Recently Baroness Warsi added her own ingredients to the current bake-off in the Zealot Pie competition and Eric Pickles displayed a frighteningly supremacist and non-inclusive theocratic attitude for a cardigan Christian. All three of you should be ashamed. This boy died because you all suckle at the teat of the same pretendsies magic lunacy that this fucking idiot murderer bought.
And yes, agnostics, I'm talking not only to the zealots, fundies and cardigan Christians, you agnostics are not without blame. Even saying 'I don't know' adds weight to the overall faith fog, the magic, myths and moronic mysticism, 'I don't know' is an admission that you too feel actual magic is likely!
All of you who believe in things utterly stupid, the stuff of childhood stories, all who believe in spite of the evidence, whether you think a psychic can actually deliver pigeon-post from long mouldy Uncle Pete or you're a full-on supremacist Jew, Christian or Muslim, all you who like crystal balls, tarot and horoscopes, every last one of all of you selfish faithful, all bear a token of responsibility for this boys tortuous death because you all facilitate his murderer's belief in magic.

If it crossed your mind, even for a moment....
"Maybe he was a witch! I mean, you never know, do you? Satan gets everywhere!"
...can you really consider that you do not believe in the same magic as the murderer?

If it did cross your mind....
He is one of your team.
You ALL make me puke.


More harm by religion...
This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Share

If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May


Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

My new blog:
Left of Sinister
It's kind of political.

Blogroll

Lijit Ad Wijit