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!

Humanity and Religion - Recipe for Disaster?

I was surfing recently, looking for suitable fodder upon which to blog.
It was a dry day for stories of the religious nonsense, a surprise, as usually the news is replete with the faithful displaying their deluded wares.
Anyway, I was sitting staring at the no news, pondering on the components of religion, and hit upon the title you saw above.
What comes next is what came next. LOL. I hope you enjoy.

Recipe for Human disaster

First take any standard human and marinate in a million years of fear and darkness.
Then take a bowl of an exceedingly specific size and pour in a goodly measure of 'the desperate need to be more than you were born'. Add your marinated human, a good dash of 'guilt' and stir in a spoonful of 'pomposity'.
Grate in more 'self-delusion' than you'd expect then whisk in the zeal of two Gestapo officers until the mixture takes on a mousse like quality.
Set it on a stand, higher than the surrounding bowls, while you grease a large saucepan with scripture, tenet or dogma (the choice and brand is unimportant as all do much the same thing.)
Transfer the mousse to the saucepan and place reverently on stove, turn heat up to full stupidity.
Boil out logic and reason, then grind on some 'self-righteousness' and simmer in the 'myth of eternity', until a thin crust forms. This is known as the 'Religious Delusion Cocoon' or RDC.
At this point the centre has been transformed to pulp; a soft, pliable and easily manipulated substance called a 'soul'
Remove from Pan and hand unclothed to chosen witchdoctor for his little 'welcome to the world' dance. Again, here the brand is irrelevant. If possible, ensure the chosen witchdoctor injects as much 'essence of insignificance' as the RDC can accommodate at this point, it'll save questions later.
Take back from witchdoctor and, praying the whole time, raise in an ignorance-oven, stupidity mark 6, until the word Darwin is meaningless and sounds the same as Satan.

Particularly suited to situations which call for intolerance, misunderstanding, pride, snobbishness, and any number of obnoxious character traits born of the misplaced confidence in pseudo-eternity.

Extra Notes:-
To preserve - Add a sprig of prudishness, a ladle of judgmental intolerance and store in a stupor pot covered in a sheet of reasonproof paper.
Also, for a truly 'viral' religious human add roller skates, a dash of blissful ignorance, some dehydrated arrogance and a soupcon of thinly veiled threats and, taking care to cover it's eyes with wool, send it on its way with a copy of this recipe.

This recipe is not a toy, it's powerful evil magic for the creation of a deadly weapon. A weapon of last resort. It should not be entrusted to any sorcerer under five centuries of age.
Because of the likely dire consequences if even one
of these dangerous beings got amongst the general population, any magic-user intending to conjure this recipe must
log his magic-plan with the magic users commission BEFORE he commences.

Crispy Sea

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Divine Evidence Laws

As you might expect if you've read my previous posts, I have conversed with many Theists, sometimes quite passionately, during my third of a century as an Atheist, but this week's post wasn't something I'd thought of until first came online.
You see, this one was more of a revelation than an epiphany, it's been bubbling under in my subconscious for a good while, you know, one of those things that you know you know, but you don't know what it is yet! Anyway, after a recent conversation my muddy ponderings turned into a crystal spring and the nugget of a notion turned into a full blown blog, and my friends, what a whopper!
It struck me that were I to have some sort of brain lapse and suddenly feel the need to believe in the 'wishes and wants machine';
How would one choose a religion to follow?

After a while pondering the dilemma, I thought the sensible thing to do would be to start by discerning,

Which religion is most obviously the word of God/Gods??

Unfortunately, there are many Gospels, Creeds, Doctrines, Dogmas, and Tenets around the world, how would one choose between them?

By what criteria should one judge the divinity of each work???

I searched, but the only information I could find had been written by the already confused or convinced - neither of which, I am sure you'll agree, could be described as a reputable or reliable source of information!
So, I decided to write my own!

It's taken a few weeks but I think it's been worth it because what I now have is a clearly defined set of pointers and, even though I say so myself, what I think you'll agree is a 'top entry' into the list of Too Many Questions. So with a smiley face and relaxed attitude I give you

Crispy Sea's

Divine Evidence Laws

(for discerning the divinity of a written work.)
Law 1.
No Doubt.
Upon completion of reading the perfect book, one should be left with no doubt or misunderstanding, but a complete comprehension of the meaning of the texts main message.

This one is arguable I know; many believers would probably suggest that's what they have - fair point but this is only the first criteria, here comes number 2.
Law 2.
No Explanation.
No external human interpretation should be required for comprehension of the text, it should be easily understood by all ages and intellects.

This point is much harder for a religious text to fulfill.
It seems that regardless of which tenet you choose to read, the work is not instantly comprehensible, there are reams of external works purporting to explain what each 'good book' means by this or that sentence, paragraph, chapter etc.
Indeed, is there any religious text out there that doesn't have at least one "this is what it means" book to accompany it?
Could we have ruled out all current religions already? We are only at rule 2, now, here comes the eliminator.
Law 3.
No Translation.
The perfect book should be written in a language that every human, past, present, and future of every race, creed and colour could instantly read.

I don't know what that would be, or how it could be achieved; I can't really get my head around it, but some sort of 'divine ethereal multi-language' (Polyglotics maybe?) that everyone would instantly understand without the need for translation; A truly divine script could be read by anybody because it is 'magically' readable by multiple people at the same time, like the 'comprehend languages spell' used in the old DnD games. Exactly the sort of thing that should be well within the reach of even a minor deity and would have completely obviated all this stupid tribal rivalry. Any God would know that humanity would have many languages; why would a god who wants the worship of all, write in the mono-language of a single 'tribe'? HE would know this to be finest way to cause arguments for eternity!
Way to shoot your-divine-self in your divine foot!

If you know of a book that fulfills
Crispy Sea's
Divine Evidence Laws

please leave its title or isbn number below.

Of course, if a book were discovered, which could fulfill the criteria, it would instantly fall foul of Arthur C. Clarke's third law...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology
is indistinguishable from magic.

In this instance magic equates with divinity.

            ...and evidence, that it was not merely advanced technology, would then be required.

Addendum illustrating stupid tribal rivalry - "No Divine Evidence So No Benevolent God".

In a similar vein as the Divine Evidence Laws but with a wider remit check out Dr. Michael Shermer's Baloney Detection Kit...

This is one of the Too many questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

The Most Probable Thing in the Omniverse?

In many discussions and with greater regularity, I have heard theists suggest that the existence of god is proved by the laws of thermodynamics.
It bothered me since I first heard it, not because it directly opposed my world view (atheist you know) but because it sounded intrinsically 'shonky' to me, though I didn't know why. It was no more than a hunch until I started researching thermodynamics, nearly a month and many headaches later, I think I understand it enough explain what the science says and what the theists say about it, so brace yourselves,


1st Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation):

Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy):

All things inevitably decay; things tend to move toward a condition of disorder - called entropy. In any energy Conversion, some energy is lost in the form of heat Which cannot be Recovered.
Quote - Sir Arthur Eddington - '...if your pet theory about the universe is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope.'

Theists propose.

As there CANNOT be an infinite amount of energy in the universe (this would break the 2nd law) there must be a finite amount of energy in the universe. The definition of finite in this context would be a start and end point, but a start point (creation) would break the unbreakable 1st law. Because of this impossibility theist suggests there MUST be a 'creator' who converted the energy from himself into the universe.

Theists propose.

As evolution is the process of the single celled becoming multi-celled (opposite to decay), it goes against the 2nd Law.

Right, now we have a handle on what they think, Here's how I see it...
The anti-evolution argument seems to me to be a misappropriation of the 2nd Law, I think it's being improperly applied to 'evolution'.
Living things consume energy to grow and develop. Only after they stop consuming (death) does entropy apply to the individual. One could think of the generational line as a chain of entropy-defying bubbles; as the overlap of life between generations continues indefinitely, constantly adapting to it's environs, entropy is postponed until a species fails to adapt and begins to decline towards extinction.
The 'anti-evolution' stance is the only use of the 2nd law that I have heard theists state as evidence of the divine - this maybe because the 2nd law seems to outright deny the god posited in the tenets.
I'll try to explain...
ONLY a 'nothing' (non-existent entity) may have zero entropy (no energy loss) so
ONLY 'nothing' can be infinite.
Therefore, to abide by the 2nd law, it is only possible for God to be either, 'nothing' or, exist outside the laws of thermodynamics. But theists accept the 1st law, indeed they uphold it as proof of his existence, so they must also accept that
the 'energy that is God' cannot have popped into existence either
as this would also break the 1st law.

So, we have had the two major 'scientific' arguments for god up on the operating table for exploratory surgery and have found, god must be 'nothing';

thermodynamics is not their holy grail of proof.
Moreover, there are further pitfalls for the scientific theist; the whole use of physics to reveal god may be in question anyway.
This is what I think...

The universe is defined by it's physical properties, its physical laws - 'the laws of physics'(1) are the 'nature' of the universe.
BUT before the universe formed there was nothing, no galaxies, stars, planets, no physical elements of any kind. And as it is the interaction between physical elements that causes the laws of physics, that means there were no physical laws.
(1) My usage, here and hereafter in this post, of the phrase "laws of physics" is shorthand for "The actual parameters that exist, which the structures of the universe operate within or because of; the actual physical nature of the universe". I'm not attempting to imply that every condition or clause of "our" observations are identically perfect descriptors of the actual parameters but, rather, that there are unchanging, unchangeable, constants in the multiverse that we have identified and labelled "laws".
In that state where no laws of physics apply, there are no physical laws to defy, when there are no physical laws to defy all things are possible!
A first cause (defying the 1st law of thermodynamics) is thereby not impossible but merely improbable, matter could "pop into existence" or "emerge" from "nothing" because there are no laws of physics to prevent it happening. Highly improbable yes, astronomically so you might say (LOL) but that we are here, is proof that some sort of improbable event occurred.
It seems reasonable to conclude that it's much more likely that the highly improbable event was minuscule in nature, a primeval sub-atomic particle "popping into existence" or more properly "emerging from the quantum foam" and CAUSING, quite unexpectedly, a "Big-Bang" and the laws of physics, and much less likely that the first highly improbable emergence even brought forth a god
To believe that the fully formed 'all benevolent god', the 'omni-omni-omni-eterni' of the tenets, popped into existance first is, in my opinion, analogous to betting your nations wealth on a horse with an undisclosed number of legs that some bloke is attempting to flog back to life!
So there you go, that's what I think! Have at it, I'm going for a long lie down because my head really hurts!

But if you want to read more then check Entropy Explained by Richard Carrier

Almost a decade after I penned "The Most Probable Thing in the Omniverse?" scientific models suggest similar to my 'entropy bubbles' - IFL science: Life Is Inevitable Consequence Of Physics, According To New Research - http://www.iflscience.com/physics/life-inevitable-consequence-physics/
Always nice to discover some great thinkers are thinking similarly to oneself.
This is one of the Too many questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

God and the laws of Physics - All alone in the Multiverse?

God and the laws of Physics - All Alone in the Multiverse?
The concept of the Parallel dimensions is a theme well travelled by Science fiction writers. To name but five examples:-
  • Captain Kirk and crew met other versions of themselves in Star Trek.
  • The fantastically funny episode of Red Dwarf explored a parallel world where time ran 'Backwards'.
  • 'Sliders' entire concept was exploring alternate Earths via an inter-dimensional portal.
  • Samantha Carter gives various explanations of the 'multiverse' in Stargate, specifically in the 'Quantum mirror' episodes.
  • Dr Who's escapades with Rose Tyler.
The 'multiverse' comes in many guises with descriptions that combine the words 'Multiple, Alternate or Parellel' with 'worlds, earths, dimensions or realities', but all are born on the back of 'real' theoretical physics that's been around since the early twentieth century
As you'll know, if you've read my previous posts, my primary focus is on the supernatural landscape depicted in the earthly tenets, so this week I thought it would be fun to attempt a preliminary exploration of the concept of the multiverse as it may apply to that landscape.

Okay so it's my idea of fun! Snigger if you want...

As you probably have at least some childhood indoctrination of the landscape (you know the 'god' stuff) the start point, for those of you whom are not Sci-Fi aficionados, is a quick background to the relevant points of Quantum mechanics. So brace yourselves...


Form Wikipedia

"The idea of complementarity is critical in quantum mechanics. It says that light can be both a particle and a wave.
When the double slit experiment was performed, light acted in some cases as a wave, and some cases as a particle. Physicists had no convincing theory to explain this until Bohr and complementary came along. Quantum mechanics allows things that are completely opposite intuitively to each other to exist without problem."
Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics

"In layman's terms, this means that, in some sense, there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen in our universe (but doesn't) does happen in another universe."

What that means, for the purpose of this blog,
(just to make sure we're clear)
as Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests,
we live in a multiverse

(Many parallel universes super-imposed in our space and time)
where all possibilities play out
(Alternate realities, other possible outcomes of our reality)
then there must be -
  1. a universe where the god of the tenets (omni,omni,omni,eterni) exists.
  2. a universe where the god of the tenets (omni,omni,omni,eterni) exists but is what we would consider Satan.
  3. a universe where the god depicted in the tenets exists in not full but combination states (omni,omni)(omni, eterni)(etc.etc)
  4. a universe where the god of the tenets exists in single states (omni)(omni)(omni)(eterni)
  5. a universe where the god of the tenets exists as anything you'd like to think of
  6. a universe where the NO god exists.
  7. (a explanation of my shorthand 'omni, omni, omni, eterni' is listed here)
Now. We are led to believe that the deity of which the various tenets speak is a perfect being; this means that

Improvement is not required, not necessary or impossible.
BUT as each universe ONLY exists because of a 'difference', a 'god' that exists in all universes simultaneously, DIRECTLY opposes the theory - that means that
No god can be considered omnipresent!
The moment that the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was proved true, it would negate the god concept outright, because it suggests ALL possibilities are played out in some universe or other anyway. MWI would make the concept of "god's will" irrelevant because
NO ONE'S will is being served
Even if one were to concede that a god made the multiverse, then 'his will' after that conception point would again amount to irrelevance because,

To make the point more personally relevant; If as the tenets suggest the human form has a soul, then every human in the multiverse must have either, one soul in each universe, or each body in each universe contains a fraction of single soul which is infinitely spread between universes - making a multi-dimensional 'ubersoul'!
( I think the latter is more likely, however, as we are philosophising on 'bleeding edge' of realities other possibilities may be equally likely. I'm a philosopher not a scientist! )
So we'll say, an ubersoul is spread across all its multiverse bodies.
What does that mean to the concept of the soul paying for the misdemeanours of life in an afterlife?
Well, if your soul-fraction in this universe is peace loving, then your soul-fraction in another universe is war loving.
If you don't stab that annoying person at work with a fork 400 times, another version of your soul does! (she probably deserved it anyway!)

But it's worse than that! EVERY possibility gets played out, so there are parallel realities where the victim gets stabbed 399 times, 1399 times, infinite times and in a range of circumstances that add up to everything from 'complete accident' to 'premeditated murder' or worse still to mass murder, if one extends the paradigm to include 'stabbing 400 people with a fork' instead of 'one person 400 times!!

Sorry! I wish I'd chosen better at the start of that example,
then there wouldn't have been quite so much of the stabbing and the killing.
Hey, I've just thought though, in some universes I did!! LOL.
Anyway, where was I?

The concept of the multiverse clearly prevents
ANYONE fulfilling ANY laws, let alone a god's!
Further, as no soul-fraction would be aware of it's ubersoul's ongoing tally of good or bad, no adjustments can be attempted, and any and all attempts would be instantly counteracted by the multiverse, making them irrelevant anyway! So NO ubersoul would be able to achieve a balanced quantity of moral and immoral events!

The more you believe in god in this dimension
the more atheist you become in another!

Which, I feel brings us to an end with a conclusion that as always isn't, but at least this time it brings with it a delightfully apt new perspective to a trite proverb

You're not damned if you do
and you're not damned if you don't!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Honour your father and Mother?

For this blog to be received in the spirit from whence it comes, I feel I should tell you some stuff; so that you know, I know whereof I speak.
I am 43 and have been lustfully (OH YES!) married for coming up to half my life and have two children, 20 female at Uni, 18 male at Tech-College now, Uni next year.

It says in various ways in the earthly tenets,

"Honour thy father and mother"

but it would be more egalitarian to say honour thy father and mother,

if they deserve it.

In an angry moment we have all heard a child say,

"I didn't ask to be born!"

Kinda rude that on first hearing, makes you a bit cross; that coming out of a child you've cared for, for X years! You wanna rant at the impertinent whipper-snapper -

"How dare you, I gave you life!"

But on the closer inspection it hurts because it's totally true! We all know that for any child to have been produced

two 'adults'

must have felt the passion rise and

got-it-on with gusto!

And, I would suggest, for the great majority of the world's population, that's me and you included (probably), in those very special all engulfing orgasmic events
cast your mind back to your most recent 'event'...................... ......................and we're back!
the idea of a baby and 18 years of care is not in your head (or any other part of your body! smirk!)

So, not only is the child's statement completely true from their perspective, it's also true from the parents. The kid did not ask for life,

the kid is the ADULT'S consequence!!

The kid should not have to feel thankful for being born, EVER. Why?
I think it sets the kid up to be 'unconditionally' subservient to a parental figure, leaving open a psychological 'door' through which 'THE MAN' later inserts Socio-religious structure - EVIL!

Whether your children honour you or not
should rest entirely on who and how YOU are!
NOT with the threat of eternal damnation!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Let us think about God

What do we know about him? - there's a ponder right there! - HIM? Do we know that? Anyway, we know what they say in the tenets about his works but what about 'him'; we don't seem to have any real details!
Most of the stuff we know seems to add up to merely a list of adjectives, loving, kind, caring, benevolent, forgiving etc. the list of his good and godly points is almost endless and all pointing (because of the lack of bad points) to a 'perfectly' nice being, but I guess the real persuasive power of this myth comes from four words in particular;
OmniscientInfinitely wise, All-knowing
OmnipresentBeing present everywhere at once
OmnipotentHaving unlimited power
EternalContinuing forever
Okay, so a fair compound of those four would give us:-
An infinitely wise all-knowing being of unlimited power
whom is at all places at all times.

If you think that's an unfair assessment let me know below.
Right, now we have something to work with -
Sounds great that doesn't it? At first glance, infinitely wise and all-knowing seems a stunning thing to be! You'd think so wouldn't you, but when you break it down into the reality of it, it's not so crash hot!
When you look at it in practical terms, 'total knowledge' means only one thing...
add into the mix the 'Eternal' nature of the beast and you get
He's supposed to exist in a permanent state of knowing everything that's going to happen in every tedious, uninspiring nanosecond of eternity!
The poor chap must be going 'off his tree'
with boredom of divine proportions!
Hang on a minute though, the 'going' suggests a linear aspect to God's life and if he's supposed to exist 'in all times at once' then he must be either stationary within time, or existing outside of time and, since a thing without time can only be in the state of being or not being, for the purposes of this muse, he may only be 'off his tree' or not.)
So, God's off his tree with incurable eternal divine boredom! Glad we got that sorted out!
Okay right, so, God decides to make a creature to break the monotony, which I'm sure you've guessed, is us. (YAY!) He gives us limited free will, winds us up and sends us off. NICE - All going well so far and the free will he has given us has given him the ability to?
Break the monotony?
OMNIPRESENT - everywhere at once!
He cannot be surprised, EVER!
He knows what is going to happen

in EVERY nanosecond.
And our perceived Free will crumbles into irrelevance; he knows which baby is going to HELL before it's conceived! He knew before he created Adam that the Babel tower would be raised, that Herod would slaughter in the search for his 'son', that Genghis Khan would ransack Asia, the Vikings would be known for Rape and Pillage, that the Nazis would wreak havoc and Witch-hunts in his name would see thousands of wise-women, midwives and herbalists slaughtered!!
Sorry to all the faithful here but he knew all that (and more) and he still set the ball rolling!

!!!*#@! What a callous BASTARD !@#*!!!
For all those of you whom are offended, I use the term 'bastard' in it's 'proper' sense - Unknown Father. I wonder why that's never in the list of things we know about him? Oh well it is now!! Hey we've learned something!!!
And don't give me that 'God moves in mysterious ways' crud! Take a look through history - his mysterious ways are wholly indistinguishable from...
No help whatsoever!
Anyway, we'll move on to his great sweetener; the place where all the 'good little boys and girls' get to spend eternity!


Even the greatest examples of humanity that we have ever produced would not have ANYTHING to offer to this guy. Take your pick of any top human from any field who has ever existed and imagine them performing for God. Michaelangelo could paint heaven, Shakespeare could write bespoke performances, Bach could compose something divine, and the The Beatles could play out of their skins, and GOD would remain unimpressed.
Worse! All the skills we value would be less than equal to anything he could produce himself - Michaelangelo would be no more than a painter and decorator, Shakespeare just a hack etc.

What would be the point?

NO surprises see; he ALWAYS knows exactly EVERYTHING!

Bearing that in mind, if you take it a step further:-
A huge proportion of the 'great' humans have been 'out-there', not part of the mainstream general populous; in fact, almost all greats could be considered ungodly, whether through drugs, alcohol, women, men, women and men, gambling, lying, cheating etc. All the sins no less!
Inevitably, those who follow rules are predictable so, for the kind of guy whose, you know, a know it all with all the T-shirts to prove it. What possible reason could there be for him to surround himself with what amounts to, for the most part, those in society whom are average; when a rebel, a 'not-so-great' example of his laws, is much more likely to come up with something new to brighten eternity for a guy who is immune to surprises!
So, not really any closer to defining what we know about him, still no facts see, just conjecture but it's not looking good for the old bastard.
I can't see any benevolent reason for wanting souls, and after this pondering the only conclusion I've really found is, Any god as described in the tenets would have no use for any member of the human race's skills or talents!
He must have another reason for wanting your soul?
This is one of the Too many questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

God - Vengeful? Unbelievably Spiteful more like!

For ease of typing I am going to use man/ him. There is nothing misogynistic here, this applies equally to women.

When you meet a man for the first time, you don't immediately tell him your life story, it takes time to figure out if you can trust him.
After some period you may get so far as to call him friend, trust grows over time until maybe one day you may call him brother.
But even then it may be that you don't completely trust him, there may be some part of his personality that gives you, shall we say, pause for thought.

Much rarer you may find that a man is charismatic enough to lead a nation or wise enough to advise. This is not a man you know; you may trust him to do the work he excels at but you would still not automatically choose to call him friend or let him babysit your 14 yr old daughter.

Greater still a man may be so outstandingly clever that his thought changes the opinion of the whole planet, he may be the wisest person ever, but again, this does not mean you would be compatible as friends, you may choose to not tell him the most personal details of your past misdemeanours or victories etc.

And all of that is under the conditions of direct contact, where one can judge his merit directly and decide to accept him as a friend or not based on your own judgment of his compatibility with you. BUT

What do the supernatural tenets tell us?

Ignore your natural instinct, throw away everything you have spent years learning and

  • Accept GOD (a completely anonymous stranger) as friend, mentor and master!
  • Accept that some sort of prostration is required for him to accept you as friend!
  • Accept that if you don't want to 'play the way he says', you get to spend eternity - that's ETERNITY mind you, IN TORMENT! That's just SPITE!
  • Accept that there will be no chance of appeal, tribunal or parole from that torment!
  • Accept that you are not allowed to meet him face to face until after you're dead! (if you're lucky)
  • And finally
  • Accept it all merely from what is written by some other people you have never met and cannot meet.

And you didn't ask to be his 'friend' in the first place!
And the evidence to convince you is....?


And the reason they keep getting away with it?

Firstly It's so unbelievable it must be true - I mean you couldn't make it up could you; it's OBVIOUSLY a stretch of the imagination beyond human capabilities!!

And secondly, See my blog Religion - Refuge of the Weak and Powerless?

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Humble - Why?

Some time ago I was forwarded an email which included a set of pictures showing the our comparative size in the universe, of our sun to various stars etc.
This brilliant video does the same but much better and in scrummy HD too!

"That's a bit of an eye-opener about the scale of it all", I was thinking as I scrolled down the email's list of pictures, gob-smacked wouldn't have been too strong a description.
I was happily enjoying thoughts of the science and scientific heroes who had brought us this wondrous vision of reality as I came to the message that ended the email. It had heavy religious overtones!! It said...

"Humbling isn't it."


'humbling' troubled me.

Grrrrrr!!!! I thought, "Can't these bloody religious nut-jobs leave anything unsullied? Why must they scrawl 'God was here' on everything?" 
Does a child feel humble before a playground?
Before anything?


Humble means 'Having or showing low estimate of one's own importance.'(the little Oxford dictionary) I thought Why should we be teaching that? So I checked out Humility on Wikipedia for a broader grounding and discovered very similar humility clauses in many tenets.

Why is it so important to society to teach children to cow-tow before they are even aware that they have the option to not?

I, as you know if you've read my previous posts, am fervently against the concept of a god, but this diminishing of humanity at infancy is wholly abhorrent to me; it's an evil that goes far beyond any of the tenets made-up creatures.

This is SOLELY about control.

WE are born 'not humble'1. yet within weeks of birth, the child's right of INDEPENDENT self-determination, which should be inalienable to all humans, is SOLD to the IDEA of being humble to something!1. I cannot say proud, which would be the correct antonym because that would, as surely as 'humble', suggest the each baby is born 'already in a condition' or, 'aware of a condition', that is more than merely alive!
This, as far as I am aware, is not possible without genetically encoded memory.

And at present, we have no PROOF that there is anything
other than ourselves in the universe.

(that's PROOF mind you, NOT mere evidence!)
What is there to be humble of? A bunch of rocks? Some gas?

So far all we know for sure is that on this planet a remarkable creature has become, a creature which has a currently unique feature, not seen in any other known location.

Thinking is the highest function in the universe; you cannot get any better than thinking, it's the best, the all-there-is, it is the ability beyond all abilities, a truly remarkable condition.

We should be proud that in the known and recognisable limits of existence we are the ONLY thinking being. BUT instead all the religious tenets teach 'humble, cow-tow, bow down, prostrate your smallness, you're unworthy'

Don't sign your or your innocent child's birthright away to the notion of humility.

THINKING is the most important development in the universe.

 We should be teaching that we are
 THE BEST THING IN EXISTENCE until the universe PROVES otherwise.

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Religion - Refuge of the Weak and Powerless?

There are many reasons why the god mythos prevails, not least of which is indoctrination, but a very important factor is that we all have people we've lost, many of whom have left us with things unspoken, loose ends we wish we could tie up. Or worse, our life-partner or child is lost to us before it was right for them to go,

we feel injustice!

But to make sense of the hard life we endure whilst others around us prosper and, to maintain the fragile balance we call society, we must each CHOOSE to see the social structure or random disasters that happen to us as somehow fair and just; that

  • the rich man will get his poverty in the end
  • the invalid will somehow be granted a sportsman's strength.
  • those whom have broken the social conventions (murderer/rapists etc.) will be properly punished for the hurt they've caused.

That someone somewhere is keeping score of

all the times the world was mean to me!!!

All of us who were brought up in the clutches of religion but now call ourselves atheist, once struggled with the fact that to give up the god-fairy story, one must also give up the hope of seeing loved ones and friends again.

But then enlightenment strikes
and you realise that you are not giving anything up, the chance to see those missed was never there, it was merely a state of mind, a sociological construct; a way to help humans continue through their grief, 'They've gone to a better place', 'Grandad's with god now', 'Little jenny is playing with the angels' etc. etc. All merely ways in which well intentioned people put a plaster on the grief of a mourner. And in a weakened state, which mourner would not grasp that straw and take solace in the thought that the lost will be seen again?

In that moment when one first faces the terrifying proposition of

letting go of the ancestral security blanket
, one becomes a born again atheist, for we are all born unpolluted by socioreligious doctrine, one becomes aware that whatever else maybe true, one is alone in the universe, self reliant and mindful that
ALL actions taken from that point are down to you.
You are solely responsible, there is no forgiveness by an overseer, no sanctified reason behind your choice, no tenet to guide your options.

Whether you are GOOD or EVIL is in your hands.

For those who have broken the socioreligious brainwashing there is man made conscience
and only one philosophy

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, accept it and live up to it.


Have you the balls to stand against the tide of unfounded wishes?
Or, will you take refuge in the houses of the weak and powerless?

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Meanwhile... in Jerusalem - AGAIN!

Day 666,666
of the BIG BROTHER special
from the Church of the holy sepulchre,
and the brothers are at it again!

Violence errupted when 'John Doe monk A' wanted to put his dolly in the crib and 'Jon Doe Monk B' said that wasn't fair and it was his turn!

Well, within moments the handbags and incense orbs were flying!

And, unfortunately, we can only expect these incidents and childish displays will increase as we approach the christmas silly season. With tensions running this high, the choice of who will get to play Mary in the cross-religion-panto, will be to say the least, politically delicate.
However, worse I think, the panto may have to be cancelled; it may be completely impossible
to find three wise men in any of the factions.

Can we say
Ludicrous Global Laughing Stock?

They should all be banished
and made to raise money for charity for a year,
the group that raised the most gets control.

I put this together, made me chuckle

Monks brawl at Jerusalem shrine - Sunday, 9 November 2008 Article Here

Fighting erupted between Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Christ's crucifixion. Israeli police have had to restore order at one of Christianity's holiest sites after a mass brawl broke out between monks in Jerusalem's Old City.

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Coexistence, Tolerance and Understanding

Coexistence, Tolerance and Understanding

I was going to have a day off today, but no, more religious nonsense drags me to my keyboard.
This time it's the Jews and Muslims! Who'd have thought it.

Row over Jerusalem Muslim cemetery
Saturday, 8 November 2008 - By Wyre Davies Article Here

Religious leaders in Jerusalem are warning of dangerous consequences after a decision by Israel's Supreme Court to allow the destruction of part of an ancient Muslim cemetery.
The graveyard has not been used for more than 50 years, but contains the bodies of some important Islamic figures.
Many of those bodies will now be disturbed to make way for a new Jewish "Museum of Tolerance".
Mohammed al-Dejani says the cemetery is older than the US

but that only means

The stunningly beautiful complex designed by Frank Gehry for the proposed $250m 'Museum of Tolerance' (Image: Wiesenthal Center)
Click Here for interactive tour.

My overarching opinion is, far too much respect is afforded to those whose life is over,

dead people no longer care where they lie.
Go ahead and move them, I bet not one word of complaint will be heard from the graveyard's occupants! (too flippant - oh well, it's said now!)
On this point, I have to agree with the statement by Rabbi Marvin Hier

"Jerusalem is a city built on top of thousands of bones - Jewish and Muslim," he said. "If we declared the whole of Jerusalem one huge cemetery, we'd never be able to build anything."

but not just about Jerusalem, dig anywhere on earth where people have previously occupied the location and you find bones. However he shows his true colours of intolerance and misunderstanding in an article by Jonathan Cook

'Rabbi Marvin Hier, initiator of the project, dismissed objections last week as cover for "a land grab by Islamic fundamentalists, who are in cooperation with Hamas".'

The land in question
is part of the waqf properties
seized by Israel after 1948!

Hark at the Pot calling the Kettle sooty arse!
Doesn't that mean that it was Muslim land to start with? How can they land grab their own land?

It's clear that neither of these religions are going away any time soon, so my overarching opinion above is clearly too radical for those whom put so much energy into perpetuating the past.
I suggest tolerance and respect from both sides; take a step towards each other!
If the Israeli authorities have it in their heads to allow the construction of what has been described as a 'centre for coexistence, tolerance and understanding' perhaps they should build it on the border between Israel and Palestine with a main entrance on each side of the divide!

Of course, the most obvious point is
When you are going to build a centre for tolerance and understanding,
and I hope you tolerate and understand my opinion here,
perhaps you should show some tolerance and understanding
of the people whose ancestors will mingle with the foundations
of your museum for tolerance and understanding


The 'Museum of Tolerance Online' is replete with tales of Jewish suffering, so, as today is Donate to the poppy appeal
Remembrance Sunday

(the 90th anniversary of the end of the first world war)

I give my respects to those
who kept and keep us free
at the cost of their own future

and ask a single question if you are Jewish

If, in the future, Poland became an Islamic state
and decided to found a 'Museum for Tolerance' on top of
the sites of the Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, or Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps,
how would you feel?

Please if you are Jewish, talk to the Israeli government
and berate them for their unbelievable intolerance!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Rename the Seat of US Government?

Rename the Seat of US Government?

You've read my blogs, you know my style,

I am a egalitarian secular humanist democratic socialist

and I think that Barack Obama may just be America's saviour,
but Sometimes, Some things
are just too curious to leave un-blogged;

regardless of how 'edgy' they seem.

On the morning after the President elect Obama's historic victory as the first black American President, I was travelling to town and overheard a young girl at a bus stop ask her mother something, which made me smirk and at first, dismiss out of hand but as I walked and the mother shushed the child, I realised, as preposterous as it originally seemed

I could not shake the notion.

What did she ask?
Will they call it The Black House now?

So, I ask you my American friends, is there anything constitutionally, or otherwise, that sets in stone the name of the seat of your government or could it, for this term at least, be referred to, as the girl asked her mother, as The Black House?

And should it?
Would it be considered a mark of respect or derision?

I'm not US Citizen, so am unable to judge, but it begs a further question, should 'The White House' be renamed to reflect this historic occasion?

My personal opinion? If there is the slightest chance that the name of the US seat of government could be considered to be, even subconsciously, inhibiting those of a race that could not be described by the same label, it should be changed to remove that potential psychological barrier.

A more egalitarian description could be found,
there could be a vote by schoolchildren or something.

I've set up a poll if you want to vote

"Should 'The White House' be renamed
to reflect this historic occasion?"

Free Vote Caster from Bravenet.com

I hope no offence was taken as no offence was meant


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Free Vote Caster from Bravenet.com

The Religious in a Nutshell?

The Religious in a Nutshell?

Have you heard about 'Ladder-gate'?
I was gobsmacked and dangly of chin. I'd be laughing out loud if it wasn't so embarrassing.

Adult humans who believe in fairy stories
acting like rival gangs of childish monkeys.

It made the BBC news so perhaps others think so also!
I'd say enjoy but I just can't.....

This Ladder has been above the entrance
to the Church of Holy Sepulchre

since 19th Century!

The Deir al-Sultan monastery was built on part of the main church roof more than 1,000 years ago.
The modest collection of small rooms has been occupied by monks from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church since 1808.
But a recent engineering report by an Israeli institute found that the monastery and part of the roof were "not in a good condition" and that parts of the structure "could collapse, endangering human life".
Ownership of the monastery, however, is hotly disputed between the Ethiopians and the Egyptian Coptic Church, and the dispute is holding up much-needed repair work.

Unholy row threatens Holy Sepulchre
Sunday, 19 October 2008 - By Wyre Davies

Article HERE

An unholy row is threatening one of the most sacred places in Christianity - the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
The centuries-old site, where many Christians believe Jesus was crucified, is visited by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and tourists every year.
A recent survey says that part of the complex, a rooftop monastery, is in urgent need of repair, but work is being held up by a long-running dispute between two Christian sects who claim ownership of the site.
Within the main building, dark-robed monks with long beards chant and swing incense as they conduct ceremonies in the many small chapels and shrines.
There has been a church on this site for 1,700 years. Over the centuries it has been destroyed and rebuilt several times - but some parts are very old indeed.

Collapse risk
Various Christian denominations - Greek Orthodox, Armenians, Catholics, among others - have always jealously defended and protected their own particular parts of the site.
Disputes are not uncommon, particularly over who has the authority to carry out repairs.
For example, a wooden ladder has remained on a ledge just above the main entrance since the 19th Century - because no-one can agree who has the right to take it down.
The latest row is potentially much more serious.

Fight erupts in Jerusalem church
Sunday, 20 April 2008

Article HERE

Israeli police had to break up a fist fight that erupted between Greek and Armenian Orthodox clergymen at one of Christianity's holiest sites.
The scuffles broke out at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Orthodox Palm Sunday.
Brawls are not uncommon at the church, which is uneasily shared by various Christian denominations.
In this case, witnesses say an Armenian priest forcibly ejected a Greek priest from an area near the tomb of Jesus.
They say the attacker felt the Greek priest had spent too long at the tomb.
When police arrived to break up the fight, some were reportedly beaten back by worshippers using palm fronds.
Two Armenians were detained by police, prompting supporters to stage a rally in protest outside the police station.
Rivalry between the six different churches which grudgingly share the Holy Sepulchre dates back to the aftermath of the crusades, and to the great schism between Eastern and Western Christianity in the 11th Century.
Each denomination controls, and jealously guards, its own section of the labyrinthine site.

Holy war over Jerusalem church
Tuesday, 30 July, 2002 - By Mark Duffy

Article HERE

One of Christianity's holiest sites has been the scene of an unseemly punch-up between rival monks.
Fists flew in a row over the position of a chair on the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in the heart of Jerusalem.
For Christians, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre marks the site of Christ's burial and resurrection.
As such, it is one of Christianity's holiest places.
But for centuries it has also been the scene of furious rivalry between different Christian churches.
The latest fracas involved monks from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church of Egypt, two groups which for years have been vying for control of the church's roof.
Things came to a head on Sunday when the Ethiopians objected to an Egyptian monk's decision to move his chair into the shade.
The Ethiopians said the move violated an agreement which defines the ownership of every chapel, lamp and flagstone in the church.
Eleven monks - seven of them Ethiopian, four Egyptian - were hurt in the violence which followed as the rivals hurled stones, iron bars and chairs at each other.

A microcosm of religious intolerance and misunderstanding
played out in 'The holiest city' by the high priests,
those 'most holy' proponents of tolerance on understanding.

What can you say but

There's a web page about the history of the ladder which includes any latest updates.
It's hosted by coastdaylight.com

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

God - Just stupid? Or in League with Satan?

This is one of the biggest 'Too Many Questions'.
I have spoken to many theists, and so far, none have been able to answer a 3-pronged problem that's bothered me for a while.

1. Why hasn't God just 'dealt' with the Devil?

God is hailed as the supreme being remember, creator with power over ALL things so, why can the Big-beardy-grandad-good-guy, not just scrub the pesky-pointy-red-guy?
Is he not up to the job somehow?
Has the sly-red-one got some sort of voodoo defense grid goin on or what? ( Answers in the 'comments' please - no really I'd like to know!!! ) Because you see for me, if a God can't just deal with a Devil,

that's pretty shoddy for a supreme being in my book!

(Added 19/01/11)

There have been some readers, admittedly only those lost within the haze of the Christian magic story but some, who have complained that their 'teachings' tell that god has dealt with the devil, quoting something akin to "but he did deal with the devil, on the cross."

Firstly, in this instance, as is indicated above, the usage of the word 'dealt' carries the implied meaning of permanently terminated, killed, destroyed,'life'-span ended, a Devil who has ceased to be. This, is an Ex-Satan... That sort of dealt.
By assuming that what the 'teachings' tell is true instead of accepting the reality of the situation, that in this instance dealt means 'destroyed', isn't the believer guilty of deliberate faulty thinking? So that the believer can continue to believe the story in which they've so much invested, the believer chooses to ignore the clearly implied 'death' meaning of deal.

Secondly, if we look at the 'cross scenario' as 'a full answer', that as the Christians suggest, god has dealt with the devil there, then we may only conclude that the indignant Christian must have chosen to replace the meaning with an alternative. And, as I see it, the only other connotation moves 'dealt' into the realm of transaction, as in dealt fairly, business dealings etc.
But doesn't this alternative usage spawn a new paradigm? Does it not posit that Christians are following a god who did a deal with a devil?
That they do not notice, or choose to ignore, this new paradigm is a clear evidence that the religious person's default choice is to disregard reality in favour of protecting their investment in their after-death fantasy, and I feel supports the subject of Trial by Jury on Trial but that's probably the topic of an entirely different, and way longer, post.

(Added 19/01/11)

Anyway, as I said, I've never had a convincing answer for point 1, but as believers make the case that the status quo, god/heaven satan/hell, is a current depiction of the supernatural situation, we are obliged to take as read that for whatever reason

God is cosmically prohibited from actually dealing with the Devil.

So, to consider the implications of the supernatural landscape, as set out in a number of 'good books'; the stories tell us that if you're 'bad' you go to hell; that seems fair enough, kind of karmic you might say, baddies get their comeuppance etc.

2. But hang on a minute, why does that occur? Why should it be karmic?

Satan and God are supposed to be on opposite sides, aren't they?

So why would those sent to hell get punished?

Those following God's rules expect to be rewarded, surely satan would reward equally, those flouting his opponents rules! If you were at war with someone, would you do EXACTLY what your opponent wanted you to do? I doubt it, more likely one would flaunt and parade the flouting of the opponents wishes! So why does Satan accept the soul? I can only guess they must sustain him, give him power and strength.

If that is the case, the only conclusion is another question

3. Is God plain stupid or in league with Satan?"

Why doesn't God just relax the 'getting in to heaven' rules for a few millennia and starve Old Nick into oblivion.
It's what you'd do, the moment you realised it would work, and God, apart from being omniscient has been at this game with old nick for a good long while; so why hasn't he thought of it?

Well, according to the various tenets, we can rule out that he's too stupid or incapable of the task (Omnipotent remember) so, we must conclude that he's happy with the status quo; he doesn't actually want to defeat satan!

"Super-Grandad makes deal
with Bad-boy McPointy!"

Makes sense really, god gets all the nice-shiny-posh souls, perfectly suited to his 'pearly gates' image and satan gets the bad asses. Nice neat mutually beneficial scheme; both have souls enough to continue existing and the fear of the one place keeps the flock clinging to the hope of heaven.

Best confidence trick ever!

This is one of the Too many questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Necrolysis on Authonomy

Hi Friends,

I have a request this time, looking for some assistance.

As the writers amongst you know, the publishers slush-pile is almost impossible to scale.
I know, I've been knocking on publishers doors so to speak for some time now, to no avail. Grrr!
Recently however, Harper Collins started a website called Authonomy, a sort of social network come slush-pile. Loosely, People sign up to Authonomy, read authors work, leave comments etc and at the end of the month
the five novels most read by the website members
are passed to the Harper Collins editors.

It's entirely possible that a book
could get a publishing deal out of this.

So, I said I needed a favour.
I've written a novel
and uploaded the first two chapters to Authonomy.com

Click to join Authonomy and support Necrolysis

I reckon I'll need about 200 people to join up to Authonomy (It's completely free) and place Necrolysis on their 'Authonomy bookshelf' for Necrolysis to be seen by the editors. If you consider yourself my friend, or at least have enjoyed some of my blog posts, then this would be a great way to show it. Thanks in advance.

Whether you like my first 2 chapters or not, tell your friends who read or write. This could be a real opportunity for budding authors. Also, if you have a novel of your own (or part of one - there minimun for consideration is only 10 thousand words) whack it up on Authonomy then leave a note here, so that those who view this page can support you.

For a further taster of the flavour of Necrolysis
Join the fight to save humanity
It might take a minute to load if you have a slow connection


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

The TRUE shape of your SOUL

To my knowledge, no one has ever seen a soul; we are replete with camp fire stories of it's poorly described and occasionally mischievous cousin, the ghost, but

an actual soul, I don't think so.

I started wondering, what one might look like.
My initial image was of a white glowing human shape but I instantly realised, that image was more ghost than soul. However, as an initial 'think' it was a good start because it highlighted my first real understanding; it occurred to me that the soul would have no need to be the same shape as the human container it previously inhabited. Indeed it would be kind of pointless for the soul to be the same,

the whole point of the soul seems to be the removal of the person from the constraints of the human body!

A logical extension of the realisation brings you rushing to the further enlightenment - the very characteristics by which we label each other, colour, race, creed, sex, gender, height, weight, intellect, physical ability or disability, are all things which you would be released from when you become a soul; they would become to you mere nostalgic notions of what was!!
Brilliant I thought, my physical disabilities would fall away.
Then I realised that if those human attributes fall away, how would one identify a possible partner, the old human limitations wouldn't apply. - You can't go for big boobs, long legs, a sixpack or nice bum, because the soul you 'fancy' doesn't display those items, come to that it wouldn't display, as I've said, any outward gender or sex,

how would you know you weren't
having a relationship with a soul
that was previously of the same sex?
Unless they told you, you may not. But homosexuality is prohibited by most if not all religions, how can this be, surely, when one falls in love, one is falling in love with the personality or soul, the physical appearance may even be completely irrelevant.
My personal labels are many but we can go with; Atheist Iconoclast, Speckled, Ginger, Gentle Giant, Straight, Athletic and Insatiable - As an Atheist, I cannot find any reason to expect that a soul exists within anybody but if there was -

what shaped soul would that list of attributes make?

So, no conclusions here just a question,

What do you imagine for the form of your soul?

This is one of the Too many questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

Which is MOST LIKELY? Evolution or Creation?

Crispy's half hour list
of the ways humanity
have arrived on Earth.

1. The scientists got it completely right and we evolved here - straight through from single cell to today we were always here, just differently shaped versions of homo sapiens sapiens.
2.The scientists got it mostly right and we evolved here but our leaps forward are because of genetic mutation/manipulation by freak solar activity.
3.The scientists got it right and we evolved here but our leaps forward are because of genetic mutation/manipulation by freak radioactivity changed an ordinary monkey into a thinking monkey.
4.The scientists got it right and we evolved here but our leaps forward are because of genetic mutation/manipulation by passing comet changed a sea going mammal into an amphib.
5.Sci fi Authors got it right and we were 'seeded' from a meteorite; some little piece of dna germ from a landfall meteor mixed with earth dna and we sprang up.
6.Sci fi Authors got it right and we were 'seeded' deliberately as the last gasp of a dying ancient alien race.
7.Sci fi Authors got it right and we were 'seeded' as food source for alien race.
8.The scientists got it right and we evolved here but our leaps forward are because of genetic mutation/manipulation by deliberate intelligent intervention for some reason.
9.The scientists got it right about evolution but we didn't evolve here and were 'flashed' here from a parallel universe.
10.Descartes got it right and we are Not actually here - just figments of the imagination of another being.
11.Plato got it right and we are Descendants of Atlantians ( And before anyone goes poo-pooing the Atlantis myth have you seen the 'Piri Reis' map?)
12.The religious tenets got it almost right and we were created by a being with huge power - one that is god-like but is just an ordinary being more advanced than us and purporting to be a good guy but whose true purpose is unknown.
Unlucky for some.
The religious tenets got it completely right; the god creator is a truly benevolent being who wants all the nice people to come live with him for some reason.

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"

How deep into Hell will you be going?

Dante's Inferno Test
banished Crispy Sea to
The Ninth Level of Hell - Cocytus!

Purgatory(Repenting Believers)Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)Very Low
Level 2 (Lustful)Extreme
Level 3 (Gluttonous)Moderate
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)High
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)High
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)Very High
Level 7 (Violent)Extreme
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)Extreme
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)Extreme

Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test here and leave your results in the comments.
Let's see if we can get a Cocytus Party going!!


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

There is NO God - Again

Hi friends,
My original blog - "There is no GOD - Official" - was a designed merely to show how the written word can be fake, that although the story may appear to deliver facts this is not necessarily the case.
The explanation of the aforementioned fake report is HERE

Anyway, to my surprise on the 20th April 2008, The Times reported on a survey carried out by the Joseph Rowntree foundation, the question asked of 3,500 people was what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society and was asked to update a list, 'the scourges of humanity', drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.
The overwhelming and resounding response?


I laughed out loud!
Who'd 'a' thunk it!
This is not the first time that art has predicted real life; I expect it won't be the last!
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

The Bible is in Bits?

This story on the BBC website should, I feel, really be entitled,

"The rival to Religion."

The rival to the Bible
Sunday October 5, 2008

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?
The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.
For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.
the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.
One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.
The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.
Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".
Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Surely IF this 'original' full version of the text on which all forms of Jewish and Christian sects base their faith clearly sets the records straight about who did what to who.
Will the Jews collectively apologise to the Christians for their part in the 'messiah's downfall? - Should they?
And for the Christians, (without even getting into the whole 'there was never a ressurection' argument) - two key Christian 'mottoes' Let anyone without sin cast etc. & Father forgive them for they etc.

If that doesn't put a crimp in their belief in the divine origin of their tenets words, I don't know what will!
It begs the question if Jesus didn't say them,

Who penned the embellishments and why?

And further, If those entries were man-made creative-flourishes,

how many others are?

Whether you believe in the big friendly grandad or not, this codex puts the biblical cat amongst the religious pigeons.
This is one of the Too many questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

The Bible - Not the word of God?

In the "good" book it says, and this is a modern day rendering you understand,

"One should not screw over one's kin but it's fine to screw over everyone else."
(Deuteronomy 23:19+20 - below)

How does that mesh with the Bible’s version of the "Golden rule" found in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31;
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

If one lives by both of these 'GOD'-given rules, it suggests you should screw over everyone bar kin and expect them to do the same to you!"
Disregarding the fact that these 'words of wisdom' bare a remarkable resemblance to the basic common sense of "buyer beware", how much peace can there be in the world if everyone is screwing everyone over and, expecting to be screwed over right back?
That's not conducive to trust and love; it can only lead to a suspicious, distrusting society!
How can that be the work of what is purported to be loving god?

Further it seems to me that those members of the religion who hold most dear to the Deutoronomy instruction, would likely become both the most distrusting, suspicious and most distrusted members of that religion, segregating them philosophically from those who believe it's more honourable to deal fairly with all.
How is that the way of peace?

The same 'good' book depicts the beginnings of humankind on this earth, you know, the Adam and eve thing, now if all human life came from these two beings, surely all humans are kin!
So how is one supposed to achieve the Deuteronomy instruction in the first place?

By this definition there are no unrelated people, all are kin, nobody therefore is eligible to be fleeced under the terms set out in deut'
So why make the statement?

The answer is a god wouldn't bother and the further implication presents itself automatically; a man wrote that particular entry in the 'good book'.
I wonder whom he was wangling a legal way to screw over, and whether his scripture gerrymandering worked in his favour, I guess its presence in the volume suggests he got away with it?
As final parting shot. Does anyone see more than a resemblance between quite a lot of Deuteronomy and the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition from Star Trek

This is one of the Too many questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"
Deuteronomy 23:19+20
"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."
Usury = The act of lending money at an exorbitant rate of interest

Too Many Souls on earth for God? Or, Not Enough?

July 2008
The world's population is estimated to be just over
6.692 billion.
If it all started like the tenets suggest
with just 2 people
ONLY 6000 years ago

How are there so many of us?
Estimated world population (at various dates)
Answersingenesis.org states:-

'We know from the Bible that around 2500 BC the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to 8 people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.'

If you look at the table for years 2000 and 1850 you see that

the earth's population DOES NOT double every 150 years

It is glaringly unclear whether or not their calculations include deaths by war, famine, disaster, etc. nevertheless, when compared to the collected census data, their information seems

clearly wrong.
Year  Global Population  
2000  6,070,581,000     6.0 billion  
1980  4,434,682,000     4.4 billion  
1960  2,981,659,000     2.9 billion  
1900  1,650,000,000     1.6 billion  
1850  1,262,000,000     1.2 billion  
1800  978,000,000     978 million  
1750  791,000,000     791 million  
1000  310,000,000     310 million  
1  200,000,000     200 million  
500 BCE  100,000,000     100 million  
1000 BCE  50,000,000     50 million  
2000 BCE  35,000,000     35 million  
3000 BCE  25,000,000     25 million  
4000 BCE   20,000,000     20 million  
5000 BCE  15,000,000     15 million  
6000 BCE  10,000,000     10 million  
7000 BCE  7,000,000     7 million  
8000 BCE  5,000,000     5 million  
9000 BCE  3,000,000     3 million  
10,000 BCE  1,000,000     1 million  
28,000 BCE       
The light you saw when you woke this morning was being created in the centre of our Sun 30 thousand years ago! That's 24,000 years before many of the tenets say the universe was created!!!
70,000 BCE  2,000     2 thousand  
Year  Global Population  

Once again, no conclusions
Just a Hmmmmm!
Someone's telling porky-pies!
Who do you think it is?
The scientists,
with nothing to gain?
The religions
with everything to lose?

You can probably guess what I think!
This is one of the Too many questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Back to the Core TMQ"


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