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!

Making An Ass Out Of You And Me

When, as a child, you first hear that "babies’ skulls are in pieces to allow the birth", it's natural to think, well it was for me as a 7 year old in my first human biology class.
"How does the baby know that it needs to get out through a passageway that's too narrow for it?"
The apparently unanswerable nature of this question, the idea that it's 'too impossible' for the baby to 'know' that, I feel gives rise to and is followed by the incorrect assumption of "somebody must have made it to work like that."
This is a natural and seemingly logical progression, for a child; a conclusion without much evidence is often required in order to progress through the learning process. Indeed, our whole education system depends on children just accepting a lot of what they are taught without evidence. Logarithmic tables, for example, were presented to me age 14 or so with the message, "You'll need these to work out the answers to the 'sums' we are about to learn". Not a word, that I can remember, about where the tables came from, how they came about, why they were right etc. I was supposed to just accept I needed them and move on. I passed maths so I must have but it illustrates how assumptions must be made all the time, so children learn to make 'accept it and move on' assumptions from day one.
Incorrect assumptions about the physical world are corrected naturally with the odd bump or scrape but incorrect psychological ones can linger and fester unchecked for, sometimes, one's entire life.
To continue the thought from the beginning, had I the awareness and understanding of genetics that we have available today, the answer, "Over millions of years of reproduction, only the babies with the genes to make the necessary skull shape have survived and those that did not have them died as a result, probably taking the mother with them", I may have realised that the baby doesn't 'know' it must squeeze out, natural selection has furnished it with the necessary 'sliding roof panels' because it's mother inherited the proper genes to make babies with sliding roof panels.
Wouldn't that knowledge of the natural then have obviated the incorrect super-natural assumption "somebody must have designed it to happen that way", thereby and consequentially removing a pillar of support for a supernatural cause (the 'god' notion)?
And so the question arises, if information can be delivered free of supernatural implication should it not be? As my post Oxford University Shame discusses it has been found that most humans have a genetic propensity to be dazzled by fantasy explanations so, I'd suggest, it's easy for 'us' to take inference that a super-natural cause may apply if there is implication for such in the teaching material.
So shouldn’t educators take this genetic propensity into account and assume the mantle of delivering information that's been vetted for supernatural implication?

If we are ever going to crawl out of this Bronze Age swamp, surely we need the newest of us, our next iteration, to be free of those ancient primitive superstitions. And, as far as I can see, the only way to achieve that is by properly furnishing them with the best facts we do have. And then, when they are standing firmly on the shoulders of 'our' knowledge, perhaps they will be able to see the solutions to questions we have not yet even considered or ones which religions have shrouded in 'god'; maybe even find a way to evolve towards what is, as all our 'good books' reflect, 'our' greatest wish of immortality.

Or, we could just stick with lovin de baby Jebus or suckin' up to ol' Mo' and watch medieval mediocrity and witchcraft gobble up our fabulous advances.

"Here's your chastity belt & shut the fuck up!" - Any takers, ladies?

I didn't really know what I was writing when I started this, I just happened to be thinking about babies heads but now I've got to the end, I find I've lined up alongside a what appears, to me at least, to be a simple truism;
Proper education diminishes the need for us to make unnecessary incorrect assumptions.


With this post in mind, check out what the ignorant are up to in the University College London.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066795/Muslim-students-walking-lectures-Darwinism-clashes-Koran.html
 
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 It Is Not What You think

Whilst I was out running some errands the other day, I had a version of Genesis 3:9 lurking in my head, like a line from a bad tune you can’t shake. I didn’t know it was 3:9, I’m not a doctrine addict, but some part of my head was pondering on God calling to Adam and asking “where are you?”. Then, as I was dropping a bag of things into the charity shop, I heard an old dear in the back of the shop shout the same query to her colleague and I instantly realised what was troubling me about it. Would it not be entirely unthinkable for an omnipresent and omniscient supreme authoritarian despot(god) to think or utter such a phrase? It’s fair enough for an old dear, or any human, who has limited faculties but wouldn’t an omniscient god know, not only exactly where every molecule of Adam is, in every moment, but as this deity is also considered omnipresent wouldn’t the god also BE in every location where Adam’s molecules are?
Anyway, whilst I was looking up the Gen 3:9 line so I could quote it here, I thought I’d cast an opened eye across the rest of the creation fable to see if we can discern anything more about ‘Super-magic cloud-guy’ and d'you know what, there's quite a bit more...

BookObservations on deity
Genesis 1 
Gen 1:3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.Not an Omnipotent act: On November 17th 2011 Pysorg.com reported that Scientists of Chalmers University of Technology had succeeded in creating light from vacuum. Clearly, omnipotence is not required to create light.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
Gen 1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.Not omniscient; didn’t know light would be good before creating it.
   
Gen 1:10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.Not omniscient; didn’t know what the earth was going to look like before forming it.
   
Gen 1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.Not omniscient; again with the ‘not knowing beforehand’ theme!!
Gen 1:14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Not omniscient; No understanding of Cosmology. The entire cosmos is ONLY for prophecy, timekeeping and lovely evening twinklage?!
Gen 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.Not omniscient; No understanding of reflected light?
Gen 1:17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,Not omniscient; No understanding of Cosmology. A very small proportion of the sun’s emitted power sheds light on the earth!
Gen 1:18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.Not omniscient; once again with the ‘no precognition’ theme!!
   
Gen 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.God ‘brings forth’(euphemism for 'pixie dust') all fish & fowl on Earth but Adam he must model from dirt (Gen 2:7) and Eve’s a clone; like Dolly the sheep (Gen 2:21)? Did he run out of pixie dust?
Gen 1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Either this is more of the now predictable absence of omniscience or evidence of pride in his work, yes I know pride! Disgraceful!
   
Gen 1:25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.Not omniscient; no precognition.
   
Genesis 2 
Gen 2:3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.Tiredness is not really an option for an eternally omnipotent being, it’s just possible. So why would that god conceive of a need for rest? Or create a being in that needs to rest? Especially when that being is reputedly created in the god’s own image?
   
Gen 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 
   
Gen 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Dishonest; this is an outright lie.
Gen 2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.Not omniscient; deity does not have prior knowledge that it ‘is not good’?
   
Gen 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Adam was supposed to pick a life partner from the beasts?
Gen 2:21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;Not omnipotent; ran out of pixie dust?
   
Gen 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.Adam instructed to leave father (Only father he knew is...?) and cleave to Eve.
   
Genesis 3 
Gen 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?Not omniscient or omnipresent; wasn’t where Eve was and didn’t hear or see the serpent.
May one venture to suggest this passage displays that the deity had NO knowledge of the event?
   
Gen 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.Not omniscient; The deity states this factual knowledge, which anyone could learn by taking a bite. Wouldn't omnisicence give the deity the ability to know that they will eat?
Gen 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.1. God is, at least, dishonest, at worst, a direct liar.
2. Isn’t Adam following the earlier ‘cleave to eve’ instruction here?
Gen 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.Not Omniscient; did not know they had done so. Not omnipresent; was not in the space they or the fig leaves occupied when event occurred.
Gen 3:8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.Not omniscient; if one 'knows all' nothing can be hidden. Not omnipresent; is not where they are hiding
Gen 3:9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?Not omnipresent; is not existing where Adam is. Either not omniscient; obviously doesn’t know where Adam is or is Dishonest; does know but is manipulating for a response.
   
Gen 3:11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Not omniscient; doesn’t know who caused the event and doesn’t know if the event happened. Are these not the questions of one who merely suspects?
Gen 3:12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.Now, for me, Adam, who is no more than an ‘primitive savage’ does his best here to try to mitigate his actions and remind god of god’s earlier ‘cleaving’ instruction but is unclear and, to be fair, which it appears from this that god is not, the poor idiot infant has only been alive a matter of hours, has had no education etc. so it’s understandable.
Gen 3:13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Not omniscient; doesn’t know what Eve’s done and so again, isn’t this is a question by one who only suspects?
Gen 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:Not Omniscient; what level of ‘omniscience’ need one possess to be unaware that serpents do not have legs? Not omnipotent (to the extent of impotency); If he did know that serpents don’t have legs the punishment is, well, it’s just absent!
   
Gen 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. This is not really a point for this post but something I’ve wondered about. Was she not built to ‘bring forth children’? I mean did god rearrange her internals in a flash or was she always supposed to have kids? And if so, hello, punishment absent again!!
   
Gen 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:Not omniscient; does he not know that Adam will or won’t?
Also - “Let’s knobble Adam before he show’s the same initiative as his woman and we’re stuck with him forever; I won’t be able to have all my own way if someone else lives forever!” Isn’t this just spiteful?

Genesis one through three breaks down into this…
75% of the verses are groundless assertions about a god’s creation of ‘all things’, all of which science has proved to have come about in ways otherwise, through entirely natural selection. The remaining 25% is above, with my stated problems, which I feel display the Genesis authors as not understanding the concepts of Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, which have been attributed to the book’s authoritarian despot enforcer. The 25% of Genesis above, which is not rendered myth by scientific comprehension, seems to me to display a god with abilities which I proffer are woefully short of what one could consider to be prerequisite attributes for any being to be capable of creation.

As far as I see it, that’s 100% of the first three chapters of the Bible discounted and, if we can discount the first three, can we not also discount all other fables which follow? They all draw their authority from the deity that is manufactured in the first three, so do they have any authority? And further, as the concept of ‘a soul going to the heaven that is ruled by the deity, or being punished in a hell’ springs from these three chapters, should we not also discount these notions?

You can probably guess what I think.


Gen3:9 = God called "Where are u Adam?" => An unthinkable phrase for an omnipresent & omniscient #God. http://bit.ly/vEVMpw #Bible #Atheism
Click it to tweet it


Dear creationists,
As you well know, there’s way too much crap information in the world already, the last thing I want to do is add to it so please feel free to contradict any of my points you think isn't so.

As a parting shot, as I was revisiting Genesis some other little thing struck me, it wasn’t big enough for a blog on it’s own so…( Click ‘em to tweet ‘em)
Name: Adam.
Psych Eval: Exceedingly Servile.
Known Facts: Created in God's image.
http://bit.ly/vEVMpw #atheism
Name: Eve.
Psych Eval: Effortlessly corrupted to debauchery.
Known Facts: Clone of Adam. Sucker for a Snake with a good line. #Atheism
Name: God.
Psych Eval: Exceedingly servile & effortlessly corrupted to debauchery.
Source: Created Adam & Eve in his own image. #Atheism


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!

When The Speed Of Light Was Quick

Dear religious people, it would probably be very educational to watch how science handles this new neutrino data.

A cornerstone of physics is crumbling(?).
It used to be that nothing bested the speed of light.
Now, if the experiments in CERN - The Large Hadron Collider play out and it's not just a timing error, a key component of physics core knowledge is about to be wiped out; the speed of light will always remain the speed of light but perhaps that it is the limit of speed, may be usurped and replaced with new data.

To put it in religious language this change is so huge it would be like Chrstians finding out Jesus was a woman which, I'm sure you knee-benders would admit, might just cause a bit of a stir in the ranks of the believers, maybe even split the church into Man jesus worshippers and Woman jesus worshippers.

With science, however, there'll likely be no wailing and weeping, no schisms, forming of factions etc; whatever the data reveals to be the truth will be accepted and embraced as the facts of the matter.
It may even usher in a new golden age of physics, an opportunity to refine our knowledge and who knows maybe even eliminate some of the vaious string theory versions.

So, once again,
nothing has really changed,
we just know more.




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