Friday, October 26, 2007

The Delusion of Delusion

Recently someone using the pseudonym 'brucev' left a couple of comments of one of my past blog entries, no doubt hoping that I wouldn't see them and that they'd be left to stand unchallenged.

Unfortunately 'brucev' was too pusillanimous to declare openly whether he was a theist, though it seems likely from his comments that he is - and forgive me if 'brucev' should be either feminine or androgynous, but allow that I use the pronoun 'he' simply for brevity. Nevertheless, irrespective of brucev's gender, it is quite clear that he is either duplicitous or disingenuous, given the tenor of his 'drive-by' comments, since he asserts that I would not accept any evidence that what he refers to as 'God the Father' exists, but notably fails to produce a single scintilla of evidence that this fabled entity does. Naturally, I have challenged brucev to do so, but I doubt that he will respond - unsurprising, really, since theists have failed this challenge completely over the millennia, which is why they can be accurately diagnosed as suffering from delusional psychosis; in simply terms, they are mentally ill or, in vulgar usage, 'mad'.

Presumably brucev is aware that there is no credible evidence that this so-called 'god' to which he refers so reverentially exists- but if not, then he is truly delusional - which is why he makes an appeal to authority, in the persona of Roger Primrose. Unfortunately, the claims which brucev attributes to Primrose do not have the authority which he would wish to confer on them, but even if they did, they are both irrelevant and nonsensical from a mathematical standpoint, as I have pointed out in my response to his moronic comments. Furthermore, even if Pemrose's estimates (to use his own words, not 'calculations' as brucev lies claims) of the probability of the cosmos coming into existence without some form of cognitive design and direction were correct, they would no more prove the existence of this 'god' to which brucev refers to than the existence of a pumpkin proves that birds were designed to fly, or some such equally irrelevant metaphor.

Brucev also fails to explain why this 'God the Father' to which he refers and credits with designing the cosmos is any more credible that the 4,397 other so-called 'gods' of creation that mankind has, at the last count, invented over the 12,000 years or so since relatively modern humanoids trod the earth. In short, where is his evidence that the cosmos was not created by Ctulthu, Negominod, Qu-D'a'athlon, Yug'th'lato, Tu-tal-em'pthon, or Pan himself - or even that its existence is simply a figment of his imagination?

In conclusion, as a mathematician of some small repute myself, I estimate that the probability of the existence of anyone by the name of brucelev is in the region of 1 to the exponential power of 287 trillion zeroes, but that if any such person does in fact exist, the probability of him being a delusional psychopath is 1.

In other words, brucelev, put up some real evidence that this 'god' you refer to exists, or accept that you are a sad, delusional, psychopathological moron.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Phoney Priest, Phoney Church

The arch-swindler, charlatan and mountebank Francesco Forgione, who preferred to be known as Padre Pio, has been finally exposed for what he was by a new book by the Italian historian, Sergio Luzzatto.

Forgione, you will remember, exhibited what he claimed to be the 'stigmata of Christ' on his own hands throughout his time in the priesthood, and it was for this reason alone that he rose to prominence and power within that totally corrupt organisation known as the Roman Catholic church, and was finally canonised to become Italy's most loved 'Saint'.

Luzzatto discovered evidence in the Vatican's own secret archives which included the testimony of a pharmacist that she had provided Forgione with the carbolic acid that he subsequently used to burn the phoney stigmata on his hands.

Naturally this proof of Forgione's deceit has not gone down well in Italy, where 'Saint Pio' is apparently prayed to more than 'Jesus' himself, but then that's only fitting since Forgione spent his life preying on the gullible mass of Italian morons who now hold his memory so dear.

Pietro Siffi, the President of the The Catholic Anti-Defamation League has responded with the allegation that Signor Luzzatto is a liar and is "spreading anti-Catholic libels". Siffi then offered complete exoneration for Forgione's swindling with this risible claim:
"We would like to remind Signor Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility."
Quite!

Siffi continued with this rather unwise exhortation from a so-called 'believer':
"We would like to suggest to Signor Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."
As anyone who studies religion will come to the ineluctable conclusion that the whole business, for it is a business, is nothing but a complete fraud visited on the ignorant, superstitious and psychopathological amongst us, but then what is the purpose of 'The Catholic Anti-Defamation League' if it is not to stop anyone questioning their stupid religion.

Those interested in more details on how Padre Pio faked his stigmata with acid can find the story here, in today's 'The Telegraph'.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

The Archbuffoon of Durovernum Ponders

There's an interesting, though not surprising, exposé in The Sunday Telegraph today confirming that child abuse has gone unchecked in the Church of England for decades amid a cover up by bishops.

According to that newspaper, information that could have prevented abuse has been "lost or damaged", concerns about individuals have been ignored and allegations have not been recorded. It means that the Church has no idea how many paedophiles are in its midst.

Lawyers warned last night that the Church faces a crisis as catastrophic as the one that engulfed the Roman Catholic Church and cost it millions of pounds in damages.

Richard Scorer, a solicitor who has specialised in child abuse cases, said that the Church of England's mistakes amounted to "an appalling, shocking level of negligence" that is likely to leave it open to claims from victims who have been too afraid to speak out in the past. The Church is to launch an urgent investigation on an unprecedented scale.

Nevertheless, the church proved once again that it is willing to ignore completely the evidence under it's collective noses when a spokesman claimed: "We would hope that in the majority of cases things have been dealt with, but we are realistic enough to admit that mistakes have been made and there may still be some risk attached to those cases."

Needless to say, the Archbuffoon of Durovernum has decided that he can no longer ignore the most egregious behaviour of his colleagues and has concluded that it is time to put up an appearance of doing something about it. Consequently, he said:
"Every parish has got to have a child protection policy and it needs to work properly."
Though if Williams was really serious about initiating a 'child protection policy' he would stop indoctrinating children with his delusional psychopathological beliefs that his so-called 'god' actually exists, but the chances of that happening are as likely as him rooting out all the 'sickos' in his church.

Not only is there no 'god' but there appears to be little morality in the church.

What a surprise.

But, hey, let's not pre-judge the issue; let's wait for the cover-up and whitewash report in a couple or so years time.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Sane People Do Not Believe In Imaginary Beings

Alan Sokel, that great physicist and brilliant exposer of humbugs, charlatans and frauds, once famously wrote in the journal Lingua Franca:
"...facts and evidence do matter. What sane person would contend otherwise?"
Whilst Sokel was mainly concerned with exposing the trendy post-modern gibberish spouters who infest the 'social sciences'/'humanities/'cultural studies' departments of academe for the frauds that they are, he could just as well have included theologians, clerics, (ad)ministers of religion, theists in general and all who pay lip-service to some so-called 'god' or other. For what credible evidence is there that there are any 'gods' at all, or even that the Abrahamic 'god' is the one above all the others?

Despite the fact that some leading Muslim clerics wrote a letter recently to their counterparts in the main Xtian denominations claiming that upward of 50% of the world's population believe in this common 'god' of theirs, no-one over the millennia has been able to produce a single scintilla of evidence supporting the existence of this fabled and fabulous creature. According to Alan Sokel's test, therefore, these people are not sane - but then anyone who is familiar with what Charles Mackay called 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' in his seminal book of that name, would be left in no doubt that was the case.

The laugh is, Mackay was himself a Reverend, but failed to appreciate that his so-called 'vocation' and religious beliefs were actually indistinguishable from the psychopathology of his other case-histories.

Or, to paraphrase Sokel: Sane people do not believe in imaginary beings, therefore all religionists are nutters.

But then we already knew that, didn't we.

PS. Anyone who is interested in Sokel's original paper, 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' , that exposed these charlatans for what they are, can find it here; believe me, it's worth the effort.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Mad Priest (Is There Any Other Kind) Attacks Atheists.

The madman on the left is none other than Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and titular head of the world-wide Anglican communion, who has been ranting and railing recently about and against people who criticise religion.

According to the BBC, Williams declared to an audience of over 1,000 fellow loons in Swansea yesterday that "...religion is [not] an eccentric survival strategy [n]or [an] irrational form of explanation."

The Archbishop Archbuffoon went on to declare that...
religion could not be viewed from a scientific point of view because belief in God was unconditional.
If that is not de facto proof that the man is completely and totally irrational, I don't know what is.

Some more of Williams' famed opaque and totally irrational language is quoted by the BBC:
'I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, subject to further explanation', is not a creed that's prevalent in the Christian world.
And
The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to.
Those amongst us who are not given over to Williams' brand of complete irrationality will recognise that he, and those who subscribe to his delusional fantasies about his invented sky-daddy, are absolutely indistinguishable, from a diagnostic standpoint, from delusional psychotics. Thus, in common parlance, it is true to say that Williams and his ilk are truly mad.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

The Rabbi's Conundrum

Recently, in The Times, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead, concluded an article with this rather incredible statement:
"To be a good Jew does not necessarily mean believing in God, just doing what He says."
However, if one does not believe in the existence of this so-called 'god', why would one pay any heed to the sayings that are attributed to it?

The Rabbi attempts to circumlocute his way around this fundamental flaw in his argument by claiming that all that is necessary [to be a Jew] is to follow what is considered to be their so-called god's most important command, viz: “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19) or, as Hillier reformulated it in the 1st century, "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” - sometimes referred to as 'the Golden Rule' - yet treating others in a way that one would like them to treat oneself almost certainly pre-dates the anthropomorphic entity that theists have invented and graced with the name of 'god'.

Nevertheless, the Rabbi's argument has some merit, in that it is a de facto an acknowledgement that it is not necessary to believe in 'god' to live a moral and decent life, something that many other theists have extreme difficulty in accepting and regularly accuse atheists of being incapable of morality, ethics, compassion, empathy,love, art, literature, aesthetics, or any of the other so-called 'higher' emotions that they arrogantly ascribe to themselves alone.

However, I must contradict the good Rabbi: someone who does not believe in your 'god' may still be a Jew in your opinion but they are, by definition, an atheist in anyone else's.

What I Have To Say To Theists...

Prove your 'god' exists, or accept that you're MAD!

Friday, October 12, 2007

How To Reduce Your Carbon Footprint.

The churches here have been jumping on the latest bandwagon by telling us that it is our Xtian duty to cut our carbon footprint and save the planet, which implies that:-

1. Atheists are under no obligation to curtail their customary activities and revert back to living in unheated hovels, walk everywhere and to refuse any of the embellishments of the 21st Century which make life more pleasant, comfortable, safer, healthier, or just downright entertaining and enjoyable.

2. That the efforts of man alone can 'save the planet' which means that the Xtian 'god' is unable to do so using his own endeavours - and if that is not evidence that their so-called 'god' is not omni-powerful, then I fail to see what is.

Nevertheless, the movement gathers apace, with the recent beatification of Al Gore for his fatally flawed propaganda movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' (which was graced recently by the luvvies in La-La land with an Oscar, despite the fact that a UK Judge has declared subsequently that it contains not one inconveninet LIE, but ELEVEN of them!) and his award today of the Nobel Prize for Peace.

And to think I had thought that the Nobel Committee had sunk to a new low when it awarded Doris Lessing the Literature Prize yesterday.

PS. The foregoing was written on the strength of the Judge's interim verdict, which did indeed specify eleven falsehoods, but subsequently he published his final verdict which refers to only NINE of them - one having been dropped entirely and two others combined into the one point. Still, to paraphrase my friend Revenant, who blogged on this issue, the number of scientific errors in Gore's film exceed the number that one would find in a (very) bad sci-fi movie. Indeed they do.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Another Lying Priest


This piece of vile ordure is none other than the Roman Catholic priest, Father Christian Von Wernich, who has just been convicted in Argentina of participating in 7 murders, 42 abductions and 31 cases of torture.

According to the BBC, Von Wernich claimed that all his accusers were influenced by the devil because he said:
"False testimony is of the devil, because he is responsible for malice and is the father of evil and lies."

Well, he should know, since both he, and his master in Rome, have spent their entire lifetimes lying to people about the existence of their imaginary 'god'.

Still, taking part in murder, abductions and torture - not to mention breaching the confidences of the confessional - is going just a little too far, don't you think?

It's only a pity that the same fate which he visited on others doesn't await Von Wernich, but no doubt the Catholic church is doing all it can behind the scenes to ensure that he is treated far more leniently than his victims.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

What Really Goes On In The Heads Of Theists.

New breakthroughs in fMRI technology have allowed neuro-psychologists to study the brains of theists and to determine what goes on in them in amazing detail. As Professor Aaron T. Zuckerman, Head of Neuroscience at Beth-Immelman University, Haifa, says, "These images are absolutely astounding, and give us an accurate picture of the cognitive functioning of theists for the first time ever, and confirms what we have heretofore simply surmised."

Those who wish to see an example of Professor Zuckeman's findings can see an animated clip of the inter-cranial neuro-functioning of a devout 'god' believer here , which the Professor assures me is absolutely typical.

Apparently, the white areas represent theists' vacuity and the moving black object is that of their idée fixe that there is a supernatural sky-daddy who created their otherwise empty and meaningless little lives.

Sad bastards.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Loonie Rabbi Speaks Out Nonsense.

The figure on the left is non other than Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, and the words attributed to him are a fair rendition of the risible article he published in The Times recently.

Sacks seems to think that without the mystical and supernatural mumbo-jumbo that is religion that science, nay life, is arid, sterile and meaningless. Further, he opines that acts of artistic merit, human sacrifice and love are observable only in the human world as a result of us having a 'soul', and he quotes a number of examples to 'prove' his ridiculous contention - one of the most risible being that of Buddhist monks standing up to the junta in Burma (demonstrating that he is clearly unaware that Buddhists believe that we do not have a 'soul'). Undeterred, Sacks then declares that our possession of a 'soul' is directly attributable to this supernatural entity he calls 'god' having created us in 'His' image - no doubt whilst 'He' was busy creating the rest of 'His' creation.

What delusional nonsense.

I suggest that it is about time your medics up your dose of risperidone, Jonny-boy.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Are you a kafir? I am.

I met a South African of Boer descent recently. He went on about what the 'kafirs' were doing to his (the Boer's) county. His attitude though offensive was outclassed by his ignorance, since there are many amongst us who use the word 'kafir' without being aware that it is more than an offensive word for a black person. Few seem to appreciate that the etymology of the word derives from the Arabic word 'kaafir', meaning 'one who is aware of the message of Islam but refuses to worship Allah' (Arabic: "Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala").

Naturally, the early Arab conquerors of much of Northern Africa were delighted that many of the indigenous black tribes refused to worship Allah, because that gave their conquerors the excuse to enslave them and sell them for profit, and all in the name of serving their rather peculiar so-called 'god'. Arguably, this was a 'good thing' from the enslaved's point of view, since the only other alternative available to their allegedly 'devout' Muslim conquerors was to execute them in some horribly painful way.

Better to be enslaved than dead, eh?

This is not to suggest that the title of 'slaver' should be restricted only to those of Semitic origin, since many of the sons of Ham were equally guilty of the charge in their own right, as were many of the rest of us, though these facts tends to be omitted by those who choose to claim that slavery was exclusively the product of white racism. Ha ha.

Nevertheless, this abuse of language does show how a word can be distorted to imply something other that its original meaning - at least to non Arabic speakers, since its original meaning still pertains to them - and is why I am pleased to acknowledge that I am proud to be called a kafir.

When I advised my South African interlocutor of this, he nearly choked on his beer and suddenly remembered an appointment he had to keep elsewhere - probably with the local chapter of the Neo-Nazis.