'The Kalam Kalamity' - Or God Exists Because I Say So Part 2.

The concept of Infinity is no longer represented by this hypothetical manufacturer

From: - Kalam Cosmological Argument

The basic argument of the Kalam is as follows:1. Everything that begins to exists has a cause for its existence2. The universe began to exist (i.e. it is not infinite)Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.

Craig's Mistaken Concept of Infinity

We will look at the second premise of the argument first. It is strange that Craig is trying to prove infinity is impossible by pointing out oddities which are already well known to mathematicians and logicians. Just because a feature is odd does not mean it involves a contradiction.First in his example of the infinite library of books. His argument is flawed because we can simply remove the books from the library, add the new books together with the ones in it and then reassign natural numbers to each book. No problem, no absurdity.

With respect to the problem of successive addition. You can get infinity if you construct a successive addition that has no beginning, i.e. it already reaches out into infinity.

The Universe Being Finite in Time:

Craig's use of science is really a double edged sword. He claims that science supports the finiteness of the universe. Actually it does not do that at all. All it shows is that our current state of the universe had a beginning about fifteen billion years ago. It does not show that it was the absolute beginning. For instance Stephen Hawking has proposed a four dimensional universe. In this model the universe goes through a period of increasing entropy during an expansionary phase and a period of reducing entropy during the contractionary phase. Furthermore the jury is still out as to whether the universe will end in a contraction (a "big crunch") or whether it will continue to expand forever. If the former is the case, there is every possibility that ours is merely a cycle (of big bangs and big crunches) within an infinite series of cycles.

The Concept of Causation

With this we go to the first premise. Is causation an a priori necessity? In other words, can it be shown that it is logically contradictory to speak of ubncaused things, the way it is logically contradictory when we speak of husbands as unmarried spouses? The answer is no. We can conceive of something as being uncaused, it involved no contradiction. As proof, theist conceive of God as being uncaused. Is causation an inductive principle? In other words, is it something which science can show to be true? If it is something which can be resolved inductively, the answers seems to be causation is not a universal principle of science. We note first and foremost cosmologists seem very comfortable with the idea that the universe could have come into existence uncaused. In fact some scientists have suggested that the Big Bang began with a quantum fluctuation. The principle of quantum mechanics allow virtual pairs of quantum particles to appear and exist for a short time before annihilating. In December 1973, in an article for Nature, Edward Tryon of the City University of New York proposed the idea that the universe is "a fluctuation of the vacuum". He showed that such a fluctuation does not violate the conservation of energy. When Tryon's hypothesis is combined with the inflationary theory of the big bang a viable model of creation literally ex nihilo can be constructed. [4] Secondly causation is not a universally observed fact. In the realm of subatomic particles, quantum mechanics dominate. Yet quantum mechanics lead to many non-causational observations that are probabilistic in nature.

As Timothy Ferris explains:
The radioactive isotope radium-224 has a half life of 3.64 days. So if we study an atom of radium-224 for 3.64 days we will have an even chance of witnessing its decay. But we cannot know just when it will decay-this particular atom might wait for years-nor can we, in principle or in practice, assign a causeto its decay. All we can know are probabilities.

Note that he mentioned it is not even possible in principle. In other words quantum mechanics, one of the most widely confirmed scientific theories known, says that it is simply not possible to do, not that our equipment or knowledge is incomplete. Thus causation seems to break down in the subatomic realm. Yet this is exactly the condition the universe was in at the beginning. The universe, was in the domain of quantum mechanics at the beginning, the domain where causality breaks down.

Conclusions:

Thus in conclusion, the basic premises of the Kalam cosmological argument are either invalid or not proven:

Craig's concept of infinity is mistaken.

The universe may or may not have a beginning in time.

The verdict is still out, thus it cannot be used as a premise to prove his argument.

Causation is not an a priori principle.

Causation is not a universally valid empirical principle, as quantum mechanics have shown.

See Also:

The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Temporal Series

Normal Forms and Infinite Surreals

Degrees and Exponents of Infinities in the Surreal Numbers

Bigger and Bigger Infinities

The Principle Underlying Quantum Mechanics

The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics: An overview

History and Development of Science and Scientific Naturalism

"So Long and Thanks for all the Fish"

kalam kalam cosmological kalam cosmological argument cosmological argument uncaused cause infinity causation

Pascal's Wager: The Empty Wager

The Empty Wager

~*~

Pascal's wager is betting on the existence of god. It suggests that belief in god has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Blaise Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists, because the expected value to be gained from believing that God exists is greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.

This argument has some major flaws. Some of them are:
1. It assumes that god (if it exists) rewards belief and punishes non-belief.
2. It assumes that the individual has chosen the right god.
3. It assumes that the individual is a member of the right religion or sect of that religion.
4. It requires that any person who is believing in a god to avoid punishment or gain reward would need to believe in all the religions which consider non-belief punishable.
5. It assumes that god/gods would not know that you are believing in order to avoid punishment or to gain reward.

So, if you claim that we should believe in Christianity just because of the possibility of being punished for not believing in it, then what are you going to say about other religions which also make such a claim? Based on Pascal's wager, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism cannot all be correct as they do not worship the same god/gods in the same way. So, to escape punishment, for Pascal's Wager to work, you would need to believe in all 3. Or some unknown non-Christian gods might exist, and punish Christian believers for their failure to believe in them. Or some powerful entity might decide to punish those who believe in a god while rewarding non-believers. To avoid punishment from believing in the wrong god, one would need to believe in all of them. This is bound to upset at least one of them, if any of them exist in the first place.

Also, if the belief is basely solely on the expectation of reward and the fear of punishment, instead of other things as well, such as the desire to do good, it is not belief with pure intent, which, if any of the gods exist, is bound to piss off at least one of them. I am not sure that "pretending to believe just in case" would score many "god brownie points." This is apart from a lifetime spent in worshipping which my turn out to be the wrong god, or a non-existent god. Thus a life spent on either a wilful delusion or a lie. So it is a fallacy that those who believe have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

"Men never do evil so completely or cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal

~*~

(Pascal's Wager always reminds me of the part in "The Mummy" where Benny is confronted by the mummy as it is hunting for body parts from which to reconstitute its own body. Benny is trapped against the wall inside the burial chamber with the egyptian mummy advancing towards him. Benny begins to pull out a dozen or so religious amulets from around his neck, and tries to use them as religious talismans to warn off the advances of the mummy. What saves him from the mummy, according to the story, is not his belief in any of the religions, but the fact that he can speak ancient hebrew. The moral of the story seems to be that it isn't belief that is going to save you from a dangerous situation, but knowledge. Specifically in Benny's case, it is the knowledge of another language which makes him useful - even if it was only on a temporay basis. Nonetheless, that part in the movie always makes me laugh as Benny is in effect, pretending to believe in all the gods, in the hope that none of the others, should they exist, be offended.)

Some of Benny's antics from "The Mummy."

LINK: The Empty Wager by Sam Harris

pascal's wager pascal blaise pascal bet wager sam harris letter to a christian nation religion god gods

"And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda"

Anzac Cove - Gallipoli

It's Anzac Day in Australia. (25th April) The ANZACs were the combined forces of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. ANZAC Day in Australia is when Australians remember those who have fought in war. The ANZAC legend started during WW1 when Australia and New Zealand combined their forces under British Command to attack the Turks at Gallipoli. Unfortunately, there was a right royal stuff-up and the ANZACs landed at Suvla Bay and were faced with a small beach landing and thousands of well-armed Turks manning the cliff faces above the beach. The ANZACS were blown to hell - "almost blew us right back to Australia."

From the words which accompany this video:

On 25 April 1915, the Anzacs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) landed at a difficult and desolate spot on the Gallipoli peninsula and the Turks appeared to be ready for them, a defeat was inevitable, Gallipoli was the plan thought up by Winston Churchill to end the war early by creating a new war front that the Central Powers could not cope with. The Gallipoli campaign was a debacle, Military censorship prevented the true story being told but a young Australian journalist, Keith Murdoch (father of Australian newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch) smuggled the story about the scale of the Dardanelles disaster back to the Australian Prime Minister who sent it on to the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who was no friend of the British military establishment. It led directly to the dismissal of the British commander, Sir Ian Hamilton who never again was to hold a senior military position. The British Government ordered an evacuation. By day, the ANZACs kept up their attacks with more ANZACs observed to be landing - by night the force was withdrawn, broken only by sporadic rifle and gunfire. On 20 December 1915, the Anzac retreat was complete.

A British Royal Commission into Gallipoli concluded that from the outset the risk of failure outweighed Its chances of success. The British had contributed 468,000 in the battle for Gallipoli with 33,512 killed. 7,636 missing and 78,000 wounded.The ANZACs lost 8,000 men in Gallipoli and a further 18,000 were wounded. Australia had a population of five million - 330,000 served in the war, 59,000 were killed. New Zealand with a population of one million lost 18,000 men out of 110,000 and had 55000 wounded.

This video is for my grandfather who was one of those who landed at Gallipoli in 1915. The song "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" always makes me shed a tear or two around this time of year. So many brave, innocent, young men were led "like lambs to the slaughter."

"And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda"

This video extract is from the movie "Gallipoli" which was made in 1981 by Peter Weir. It shows the common occurrence in the Gallipoli Campaign where the young ANZACS were ordered out of their trenches at the bottom of the hill to push forward over the dead bodies of those who had gone before, to try and gain distance up the cliffs. The turks, sitting at the top, picked them off like flies with machine gun fire. They knew they ran towards their certain death.

anzac anzacs anzac day gallipoli suvla bay and the band played waltzing matilda

"They Seek Him Here, They Seek Him There.."

"They seek him here, they seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive Pimpernel." - The Scarlet Pimpernel - Sir Percy Blakeney

I would like to share with you today some of the search parameters which have been typed in search engines and have lead people to my blog. It's amazing what people type into search engines and expect as a result, to find information specific to their search requirements. I have absolutely no idea what some of these people were actually searching for when their search enquiries lead them to my blog. But, I would like to suggest a few examples. The moral of this story, is to define your search, or you will be lead to places which exist in parallel universes which require the use of a babelfish in at least one ear in order to make sense of your surroundings. By the way, if you see one of your searches listed, "DON'T PANIC" as the "Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy" never reveals its sources.

LIST OF SEARCHES AND SUGGESTED REASONS AS TO WHY THEY WERE DIRECTED TO MY BLOG.

1. mark of the beast for atheists
(This must refer to the oversized Darwinfish which I had tattooed on my left bum cheek. Word of advice: The beast always prefers that you tattoo the left bum cheek rather than the right as the right is for the hand of god. Smacks god's hand off my right bum cheek. )

2. itch in butt
(This search had me slightly bewildered until I realized that they meant to search for "pain in butt" rather than "itch in butt." Nonetheless, my expansive metatag source directed the search here anyway.)

3. mary had a little lamb
(What the!! How did you know my name was Mary? And I deny the lamb thing... Anyway Aries said that he used protection. Damn those randy male constellations.)

4. nude male
(Where?)

5. invisible egg
(Once again "where?" It is invisible, no good searching for it here.)

6. most billionaires are atheists
(But not this atheist.)

7. little engine that could
(Obviously related to: - The little search engine that couldn't find the "little engine that could" on this blog.)

8. understanding pulp fiction
(Success. They obviously came to the right place. Passes them a babelfish.)

9. Amen-Ra golden showers
(Excuse me but I think that a god's sex life should remain private. I am not a conservative busybody after all.)

10. William Lamb the psychic
(Uh oh - Looks like Aries is back and he is demanding that I pay him for that astrology session.)

11. benny hinn enema
(Yes, I recommend an enema for him too. You gotta pass those poop demons somehow.)

12. babel babel bitch bitch marilyn manson lyrics
(Yes, I do babble on a bit but it is Ms Bitch to you and Marilyn sends his love.)

13. hijacker guide through the galaxy
(That's right, your search has been hijacked here. Mwwahaahahah.)

14. keep your jesus off my penis
(I insist that jesus do that. I also insist that if jesus loves me, that he wears a condom.)

15. gay music
(I demand happy music at all times. La la la la la :) )

16. Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me
(How many devils has the dude got? And are any of them rich and cute?)

17. Homosexuality in the Ancient Near East, beyond Egypt semen in lettuce
(Semen in lettuce? Is this the egyptian vegetarian version of "American Pie?")

18. shakira's objection tango video is shit
(Hahahaha. I know.)

19. women who worship the penis
(Keep searching... )

20. quran unintelligible bernard shaw
( I agree and Bernard agrees with me.)

Hitchhiker's Guide - Don't Panic!

search search words search engine blog weblog internet google blogging blogs don't panic hitchhikers guide to the galaxy hitchhikers guide satire comedy

Does This Make Me Famous, Infamous or Almost Famous?

Quote from the movie 'The Three Amigos': - "In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous."

~*~

Recently I entered the information concerning my blog at One Blog A Day. This is a blog which features blogs from across the internet. In the words from 'One Blog A Day': -

~*~

'One Blog A Day' will feature an Enterview with a blogger, who has made a significant contribution to the online community, every day. Our goal is to let bloggers share their stories with you and get invaluable feedbacks on their hard work. Please contribute to our efforts by sharing your thoughts and comments. Also, if you are a blogger, share your story with others by Submitting Your Blog Information.

~*~

So, being the shrinking violet that I am, I entered the information concerning my blog and the posting of my blog on the site can be viewed here. If you too want to be famous, infamous or almost famous, you also can enter your blog details. Good luck and may the 15 minutes of fame be with you.

"In the future, everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes." Andy Warhol.

(And yes, that is Adam Savage from 'Mythbusters' playing Van Gogh.)

famous infamous the three amigos almost famous andy warhol 15 minutes fame

"Let Me Not To The Marriage of Knowledge and Shakespeare's Sonnet 116"

Click on image to enlarge

~*~

According to Plato, knowledge is a subset of that which is both true and believed. It is easy for people to discuss what they believe, but how do we ascertain that which is true? From my experiences with theists, they seem to imagine that believing something to be true, makes it true. Atheists are more likely to suggest that believing something to be true may have little impact on whether or not something actually is true. What does this mean for how we view the world and the potential knowledge within it? It may mean that for a theist knowledge is precisely that which they believe to be true. So, I would suggest that a theist believes that a god represents all knowledge known, or believed, and therefore what is true. Implicit in this is the belief that as they believe in god, that there is no knowledge outside what they believe they know about god.

Therefore knowledge which is inconstant, or inconsistent with that which is ascribed to the god, or to the god belief, is not considered knowledge. It is not considered knowledge because if the premise is that knowledge is only knowledge if it is expressed through a specific modality of god belief, then any information which is inconstant with the premise, cannot by definition, be considered knowledge. This theistic concept of what knowledge can be expressed like this: "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments." That is, the supposed mind of god, which contains all knowledge (omniscience) and the theistic mind which has faith that an omniscient god exists, CANNOT countenance the idea that knowledge exists which is contrary to: -

• 1. God exists
• 2. God is omniscient and as
• 3. God is omniscient, god defines what knowledge is.

To explore this thought further, this theistic concept could be expressed in this way. "Knowledge is not knowledge which alters when its alteration finds, nor bends with its remover to remove." Analogous to this is that if god is all knowledge, there is nothing outside of the word of god which can be considered to be knowledge. That is, if you believe that the concepts of love or knowledge can ONLY be explored and explained within the context of your god belief, you have hindered your ability to intellectually assess information with any degree of neutrality. This applies to all theists who have chosen a particular god to represent what they believe to be the embodiment of these concepts.

shakespeare sonnet sonnet 116 knowledge belief truth faith plato theist atheist all I need to know I can find in shakespeare

Book of Knowledge

Religious Presuppositionalism in a Nutshell - Or, "God Exists Because I Say So."

The concept of religious presuppositionalism goes like this. Presuppose that something exists and then pretend to go through some argumentation. The result of this argumentation will NEVER impact negatively upon the premise and will always show, regardless of what information or argument is presented, that the premise is true. In other words, it is the most explicit example of blind faith that I can imagine.

1. Premise: - God exists.
2. Insert whatever words, opinions, arguments or would like here.
3. Conclusion: - God exists.

(Religious people go away as happy little campers.)


Let's try this religious modus operandi just for fun.

1. God exists.
2. My cat's poop is stinky.
3. Therefore God exists.

1. God exists.
2. %^%$#$#@
3. Therefore God exists.

1. God exists.
2.
3. Therefore God exists.

1. God wants me for a sunbeam.
2. Sunbeams exist.
3. Therefore God wants me for a sunbeam.

See how easy it is? Let’s try presuppositionalism on some other topics.

1. My cat created the universe with its poop.
2. Poo exists.
3. Therefore my cat created the universe with its poop.

1. Life is but a song.
2. La la la la la la
3. Therefore life is but a song.

1. My computer hates me.
2. Fatal error! Fatal Error!
3.Therefore my computer hates me.

1. Atoms are the breath of 2-headed lizards from Alpha Centauri.
2. Lizards are sometimes born with 2 heads.
3. Therefore atoms are the breath of 2-headed lizards from Alpha Centauri.

1. The kangaroo has a pouch so it doesn't need to purchase a handbag.
2. I have never seen a kangaroo with an oroton handbag.
3. Therefore the kangaroo has a pouch so it doesn't need to purchase a handbag.

1. The stars are little holes in the heavens.
2. I have a little hole in my jeans and when I shine a flashlight through the hole a pinprick of light is displayed on the wall.
3. Therefore the stars are little holes in the heavens.

1. Belly button lint is evidence of satan.
2. Belly buttons exist.
3. Therefore belly button lint is evidence of satan.

Anyway, most of us could go on and on with this nonsense but for a bit more fun in a similar vein have a lookie here. Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

Beware the nut and the nutshell.

nutshell presuppositionalism presuppositional presupposition argument philosophy religion satire parody

My Chance To Be An "Intelligent Designer"

My contribution to the competition - 'DarwinFish Burp' by Ms Beep

From: - Your Chance to Be an Intelligent Designer

"We’re having a competition to see who can come up with the next best Darwin fish design. So long as it cleverly incorporates that telltale fish profile, all ideas are game. Send us doodles, polished Illustrator files, graffiti art, whatever. We don’t care as long as it’s got an almond-shaped body, a tail and a certain wittiness."

~*~

Other entries in the competition can be found here.

A hotly contested debate like this can obviously only be settled with a ritual such as "The Fish Slapping Dance" by Monty Python.

fish christian fish jesus fish darwin fish monty python satire parody beepbeepitsme

Personal Revelation

Exodus 20:18

~*~

It has been personally revealed to me that the bible, is in fact, referring to Australia in many of the verses and passages. It may be referring to Australia as the Promised Land. Of course, one must read the bible in the spirit of HOPS to be able to ascertain the true meaning of its passages. Here is a list of the passages and their true meaning as revealed to me.

Job 37:9 "The tempest comes out from its chamber, the cold from the driving winds."
(This is an apt description of an Australian Beer fridge hard at work during the Xmas Holidays.)

Ezekiel 24:11 "Then set the empty pot on the coals till it becomes hot and its copper glows so its impurities may be melted and its deposit burned away."
(This passage describes how those poor people who live in the remote and cold southern areas of Australia must use central heating in order to avoid having their gonads frozen off.)

Daniel 4:5 "I had a dream that made me afraid. As I was lying in my bed, the images and visions that passed through my mind terrified me."
(An observant description of an Australian watching a satellite transmission of Faux News.)

1 Chronicles 21:27 "And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof."
(Those who wish to be considered angelic, need to wear condoms.)

Genesis 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."
(This one is pretty self-explanatory. It describes God's personal pot plantation in Byron Bay.)

Nahum 3:2 "The noise of a whip, and the noise of the rattling of the wheels, and of the pransing horses, and of the jumping chariots." (Most Australians recognize this immediately as a reference to chasing kangaroos through the bush in a four-wheel drive. That they consider that they are "jumping chariots" adds to their ability to out manoeuvre their pursuers.

Job 41:14 "Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about."
(Tourists to Australia should take particular notice of this passage. Many a gullible tourist has fallen prey to saltwater crocodiles. Most of those taken by saltwater crocodiles have been new earth creationists trying to cuddle them and take them back to the US as evidence that dinosaurs and humans can co-exist peacefully.)

Acts 28:3 "And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand."
(This is also a warning about what should be used as fuel for a fire. The spiny anteater (echidna) which can resemble a bundle of sticks on a cold night, doesn't take kindly to being chucked on a fire. It is likely to rise out of the fire like a snake and bite or scratch you either on the hand or any other organ which is not well protected.)

Exodus 20:18 "And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off."
(Anyone who has been to Ayer's Rock (Uluru) is familiar with this sight. An afternoon thunderstorm, the noise of drunken Australians blowing trumpets in the background and a glorious sunset with Uluru in the foreground. All the people are standing a long way off as if they get too close, someone will suggest they climb the damn thing, so as a precautionary measure, they stand a distance away.

Jeremiah 51:32 "And that the passages are stopped, and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted."
(This verse describes the Australian precaution of burning firebreaks in the bush during drought to halt the progression of bushfires. Therefore the passages of the fires were stopped by the burning of the long grass. The men who are doing this are somewhat anxious in case they set fire to themselves in the process.)

Joshua 11:4 "And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many."
(This verse is obviously describing the annual pilgrimage to Fraser Island where thousands of tourists and their mates speed up and down the long sandy sea shore of Fraser Island in their Suvs and four wheel drives.)

These are just some of the revelations which have been personally revealed to me. If you do not accept these revelations as true, you will not be going to hell. It will be something far worse. You will be forced to live in Sydney.

This information is brought to you by HOPS, the 'Holy Order of Perpetual Smartarses'.

Goanna - Solid Rock

bible christianity religion christian australia true christian real christian revelation personal revelation satire comedy parody

BIBLICAL CREATION OR "THE SEED AND POTTING MIX SAGA."

Having mentioned previously that many early religions were fertility cults, that is worship of gods, goddesses, natural processes, the stars moon and primarily the sun which were revered in order to enure the fertility of the soil, crops, livestock and humans; I am now going to discuss the origins of the Abrahamic religions in the context of this knowledge. I have also discussed previously, the origins of circumcision and how it was a ritual performed in Ancient Egypt for specifically the purposes mentioned above.

Ever wondered why god is male? Yes, I know there are the new agey types out there who carry on like a pork chop how god isn't male or female, but those of us who were or are a member of one of the Abrahamic religions, should be left in no doubt that the monotheistic god of these religions is male. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are basically patriarchal religions. Anyone who knows a little of their history is aware of this. The word "patriarchy" derives from the word "patriarch" and the ancient books of the jews and consequently the christians are full of the deeds of the patriarchs. They were supposedly the male leaders of their clan or tribe. In other words, the head male honcho of each group.

So, there are patriarchs all over the Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures. The same story applies to the Islamic holy book the Quran, though I am not sure if they call their male leaders patriarchs, but the idea is the same. The guys supposedly get to rule, the guys are supposedly chosen by god, (who is inevitably male), to lead their people, the guys supposedly get the conversations with the male god which are then written into holy scriptures and women get to obey those words if they behave well enough so that they are not raped, sold into slavery or stoned to death. That's pretty well the gist of it. And I say fuck that shit. I don't think that the guys had a handle on what was going on at all. I think that they were basically ignorant, primitive tribesmen who concocted ideas as a means to explain the natural world. I mean, there were god stories all over the place, as the invention of a god was the common artifice used in order to explain anything they didn't understand. One more god didn't make much difference and probably seemed like the necessary thing to do if you wanted to galvanize the tribe into a common purpose.

The interesting thing to me is how and why religions became so obsessed with maleness. I have mentioned before the origins of circumcision and in this article I am going to discuss the mentality of these ancient people, why circumcision became a religious ritual and why the people of that time period created the concept of one male god who was the creator of all things and all life. As an interested observer of the bible I am struck by the language used to express concepts. One that is especially noticeable is the use of agricultural terms to express fertility and reproduction. If you do a search of the bible, you will see that the words "seed", "fruit" and "soil" are used in many occasions to describe human reproductive processes. This is understandable as these ancient people used words which were applicable to their time. There is no use of the words, sperm, ova, penis, uterus, foetus or embryo in the bible because those words were unknown. They were unknown to ancient people. The word "womb" is mentioned in the modern versions of the bible, but as the word originates from the old english word "wamb" (mid 5thC), one can assume that it wasn't the word used in the original text.

Need I add that in an agrarian mentality or culture that "tools that tilled the soil" were especially prized, and so fertility rituals were created which spoke of their importance. After all, if you have the belief that seed is produced exclusively by males and that women do not contribute genetic material in order to create new life, then you most probably create a ritual which symbolises the importance of this belief. If women and men were made from seed which man produced, then the male penis would take on special religious significance. I suggest that the ritual which was created to symbolize this male power was circumcision.

I am sure that ancient human beings understood the process of conception but nothing like the way we understand it now. So they probably twigged that they had to do the "wild thing" alright, but they didn't know that women produced half the biological material to create life. They had a common name for sperm which was "seed" and they had a common name for the finished product which was "fruit" but they had no common word for "ova". Why? Because the existence of ova wasn't considered until Reinier de Graaf. (1641-1673) That is approximately two thousand years after the creation of their penis cults. Reinier de Graaf was the first one to describe follicles, which he called "kleine bollekens", in the ovary which he called 'the female testicles' and he realized that a follicle contained an oocyte, which he called 'ovum'. Although he has never seen an oocyte; he deduced its presence from the observation of an ectopic pregnancy. Let that sink in for a moment. He considered the ovary to be "female testicles." This language explicitly demonstrates how little of the female reproductive system was known in the sixteen hundreds, let alone a couple of thousand years previously. But, as I am in the mood for being as matriarchal as the previous language was patriarchal, I shall henceforth refer to testicles as male ovaries.

Ova themselves were not EVIDENCED until 1827 by Prussian-Estonian embryologist Dr. Karl Ernst von Baer. See, I kind of go by what people DIDN'T know. I figure that people's beliefs are more than likely based on what they DON'T know, not so much on what they actually know. It's obvious that ancient man knew that his penis contained sperm which he called "seed". It is NOT obvious that they knew that women produced eggs which we now call ova. As it is NOT obvious that they knew these things it is extremely doubtful that they knew that women contributed 1/2 the biological material to create life. If they didn't know that women contributed half the biological material required to produce new life, then it is more than probable that they made some glaringly false assumptions. That they based their religions around these false assumptions is of no surprise to me either.

The bible uses the kind of "sexual language" that one would expect from an ancient agrarian society that associates male sperm with "seed", the woman's womb with "the soil" and the result as "fruit". I think that ancient men believed, because of a LACK of knowledge about human reproduction and a lack of knowledge about ova, that they were the instigators of life through their "seed" and that women were the "soil" which bore their "fruit." I am sure that men viewed themselves to be powerful because of this. Powerful men sired powerful sons. Weak men sired women, who were necessary, but not as important as males who exclusively produced seed. In an agrarian mentality, seed is the focus of life. No seed equals no crops. Even if you have no soil, you can always take your seed with you and fight for new soil. This works from an agricultural point of view and also a human reproductive point of view.


Now, this is where it gets even more interesting. From an agrarian point of view, if men were responsible for holding the seed to life in their penis, then a more powerful man must be responsible for the creation of all life. This is working from the agrarian mentality based on false assumptions. It had to be a male who was responsible for life because human males considered themselves to be the responsible for sowing seed to create new life. But how would this mysterious all-powerful male create all life? Well, if he was all-powerful, he wouldn't need a penis to transfer seed and he wouldn't need a woman's body to act as soil. (I suppose he might have had an invisible penis, but the ancients seem to have steered away from this concept, except for the offering of thousands of bits of penis skin to their male super deity. Perhaps it was a form of sympathetic magic whereby they hoped that by giving their male entity lots of bits of their "powerful organ" that he would bless them with fertile sperm and multitudinous fruit. Anyway, this all-powerful invisible dick in the sky didn't seem to need a woman's womb in order to create children, nor did he need visible sperm. He was all-powerful after all.)

But who created the first male? Seed is needed to create another male, or, a male is needed to create a male. So it must have been a superdooper male who created the first human male. This is where the agricultural mentality kicks in again. The powerful supernatural male creates life in the way that an ancient male would expect him to. He doesn't use his seed to impregnate a female; he uses his breath as an invisible being would use something invisible. Genesis 2:7- " the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." He doesn't need a woman; he uses the soil of the earth in exactly the same way that women were considered to be soil in which seed could be planted. So, the soil, clay, dirt is the symbol of the female and the almighty male god only has to breathe into it to create a male. This is the explanation that ancient men came up with to explain not only why they believed that they were biologically more important, but also to explain how a male was produced without the need of a female. So what came first in the chicken and the egg story? In the case of ancient man and his knowledge, or lack of knowledge, the male and his seed came first, (pardon the double entendre) and the female or human potting mix was created secondly.

So it must have been a superdooper male who created the first human male. And amazingly, to match the ancient agrarian thinking, this superdooper male made a man out of dust, clay or soil. Seed goes into soil you see. But the superdooper male god didn't have to use "seed" like an ordinary human male. Oh no, he was SO powerful and so invisible that his invisible breath was enough to fertilize the soil. Then having created a man out of dirt, he went on to create a woman FROM man, because that is what the ancients believed, that women originated from men, from their seed. “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.”1 Corinthians, 11:8 They believed that all humans came from a man's seed and where no visible seed was available that it was invisible seed in the form of a male's breath.. And that has been the fairytale for a few thousand years. Groan.


Thomas Acquinis (1225–1274CE) does not recognize the existence of any biological material suppled by the female. "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power." - Thomas Aquinas, 'Summa Theological', Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1 They didn't KNOW that women contributed half the biological material required to create life. They saw THEMSELVES as the ones who provided all the biological material that was necessary. They believed that they held the spark of creation. Little wonder that they went on to create religions which put them and their seed at the top of the pyramid and the soil or the potting mix at the bottom.

I consider these religions to be basically penis cults. They chop a bit off here and there and offer it up to their male god as a token of their esteem for him. Perhaps the supposed coat of many colours is actually made up of dried out old foreskins. Who knows? It wouldn't surprise me at all. They are just political organizations based on guys having an excuse to worship their own pee pees and the invisible pee pee who lives in the sky and who apparently watches them while they have sex with their pee pees. It appears to be basically a voyeuristic male entity who, at least from its inception, required foreskin sacrifice and who nodded approvingly at the snip of each organ..

Now, I know that men are basically fascinated with their penis from birth. Let's face it, it is a dangly toy a little like the mobiles which we dutifully hang above their cribs. They hold it when they sleep, unless they have been traumatized into thinking it is dirty, and they hold it when they are in danger and when they die. I don't have a major problem with the fact that they find their penis to be endlessly fascinating, except to say that I do not feel compelled to worship their penis with them, nor to worship their almighty invisible penis which has magic breath and lives in the sky. I am sure they find it absolutely enthralling but they really should move onto to other pursuits like being able to multi task or being able to count their golf scores honestly. After all, their penis isn't all-powerful no matter to which religious myth they ascribe. I intend to remind the more penis cult minded among them of that often.

Grease 2: 'Reproduction Song'

reproduction science fertility religion circumcision foreskin penis penis cult cult bible creation genesis agrarian agriculture soil seed fruit biblical creation satire comedy

Blog Against Theocracy

Dominionism: ~ Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism, primarily, though not exclusively, in the United States, that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs. The dominionist interpretation sees adherents as heeding a command from God to all mankind to subject the world to the rule of the Word of God.

The terminology of dominionism, and the broad concept of the trend described by critics, has been taken from the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 1:26. Some influences on the Christian Right acknowledge looking to the New Testament to justify theocracy. In Matthew 28:18, for example, Jesus is reported to have said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. This verse is seen as an announcement by Jesus that he has assumed authority over all earthly authority.

In that light, some theologians interpret the Great Commission as a command to exercise that authority in his name, bringing all things (including societies and cultures) into subjection under his commands.

What differentiates Christian Dominionism from Islamic Dominionism? Not much in my opinion. Both strive for the absolute authority of a theocratic government. Both may reserve the right to punish "evil doers"according to the repressive dogma of their "holy books". Both seek the destruction of secularism in favour of an autocratic religious state.

Whereas secularism protects the right of citizens to be of any religion of their choosing, or no religion at all, theocratic governments demand civilian adherence to the scriptures of ONE religion. That religion and the beliefs of that religion, would be enshrined in all law.

Both of these religions seek to oppress and deny individual rights in favour of the tenets of their religion. Both religions are imperialistic by nature. They each seek to be a religious monopoly. They do NOT ascribe to a pluralistic society. They each prescribe a monotheistic society. In their identical mantras, "There can be only one."

Blog Against Theocracy

For details about "Blog Against Theocracy" see: -

• Blog Against Theocracy
• Blog with the best. Blog Against Theocracy.

blog against theocracy theocracy christian theocracy islamic theocracy dominionism secular secularism secular state monotheism pluralism religious pluralism

The Thinking Blogger Award

Bruce from The Thinker's Podium has tagged me with a Thinking Blogger Award. (I just knew that liking Monty Python would score me some bonus points one day.)

The Thinking Blogger awards have rules as follows:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with 5 blogs that make you think
2. Link to this post so that people can find the exact origin of the meme.
3. Optional: Proudly display the “Thinking Blogger Award” with a link to the post that you wrote (there is a silver version if gold doesn’t fit your blog).
4. Your chosen blogs cannot have been previously awarded.

"Cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I think, therefore I am" ) or "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am") - Descartes.

These people think and therefore they are as well. (If you have been tagged before, please let me know so that I can tag someone else.)

KA from Biblioblography - (An atheist's viewpoints on religion, government, culture, adding friction to the fray. Will be talking about books occasionally, hence the title. Blunt, mocking (gently & otherwise), shootin' straight from the hip (hopefully), a dash of humor w/liberal doses of cynicism.)

PZ Myers from Pharyngula - (Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.)

Ted from Plonka's Blog - (A cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured, then quietly strangled.)

BEAJ from The Atheist Jew - (If you want BS or Political Correctness you have come to the wrong place.)

Steve G from The Philosopher's Playground - (One Part Sandbox, One Part Soapbox -- An on-going game of intellectual tag concerning ethics, science, politics, and all topics philosophical.)

The Ditty Bops- Wishful Thinking

thinking blogger award thinking blogger award blog descartes rene descartes Cogito, ergo sum Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum I think, therefore I am I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am

When The Easter Bunny Goes Feral

'The Origin of Easter Eggs'

Many of you are aware of the pagan origins of Easter, and I am sure there will be other blogs which will be expressing those origins around this time. So, I am going to basically leave that up to them this year. For anyone interested in a previous Easter post, it can be found here. Now, sit back and relax and watch what happens when the Easter Bunny goes feral.

"When the Easter Bunny Goes Feral" or an extract from Monty Python's "Holy Grail."

easter easter bunny easter rabbit easter eggs christianity christian easter pagan pagan easter vernal equinox spring equinox satire

TEN WARNING SIGNS THAT YOU MIGHT BE IN A CULT

IMAGE from: Why Fundamentalist Churches are often Cults

1. The group claims to have received special instructions from one or more "messengers from the sky."
2. The group uses a special set of rules that you must obey or be cast out.
3. The group promises eternal life in a paradise if you obey its set of rules, and threatens eternal suffering if you do not obey its set of rules.
4. The group demands that you give up as much of your assests and your yearly income to it as possible.
5. The members of the group call each other "brother" and "sister," even when they aren't related at all.
6. The group is led by a group of enlightened masters who wear strange clothes and speak in esoteric parables.
7. The group demands that you accept its teachings without reservation, even when those teachings are in direct conflict with your understanding of basic scientific knowledge.
8. The group demands that you select your spouse and your closest friends from its membership.
9. The group demands that you place your children in its training program.
10. The group teaches that giving up your life for the sake of the spiritual group may become necessary sometime in the future.

"One man's cult is another man's religion and one man's religion is another man's cult." - Me

Mind Control Cults

cult cults religion religions ten signs cultist cultists