Skip to main content

No God, No Insult

Why would you want to follow an omnipotent superbeing who gets annoyed about a badly made Youtube video? (If he lived in a Surrey village, he couldn't watch it anyway). In fact he's so upset he commands his followers to kill the ambassador of the very country who launched rockets to kill soldiers who were trying to stop his followers from taking over a country that was merrily going about its business until some jerks in Washington and London decided that a word called democracy would bring order to a country of tribes wanting to kill each other over which book their prophet would have liked best if a) he could read, and b) he had lived at least another 50 years to have read them. Hasn't their god got a galaxy or two to collide together (wiping out aliens who no doubt deserved to be wiped out - more shitty videos probably), or another Higgs Boson or two to squeeze into an atom somewhere, without getting his divine knickers in a twist about this video - that nobody's actually seen, and certainly not the people who claim to be offended.

They are killing people because they believe their faith has been insulted. If they believe their faith is strong and makes sense, why can't it be questioned and even insulted? Who decided that it must never be questioned? Aha, it was god! But surely.... don't bother. They've been told it's a crime to question 'The Word'. Why oh why can't they see this is such a circular argument? 'Don't question it, 'cos god told the prophet what to say'.

If 'followers' asked themselves the simplest of all questions 'what if there's no such thing as a deity?'... or at the very least, 'what if our deity is not the right one out of the myriad that our species has invented since we began to question the world we live in', then they would see such 'teachings' or ideas might in fact be a human construct based on that circular argument - "God exists because he told someone he exists. We believe what that person says because god talks to him. We know that's true because he told us it was true." Take out the supercomputer in the sky bit, and we end up with nothing more than ideas - that are apparently worth murdering someone's children for.

It's very hard to be charitable to these people, even though from birth they have been indoctrinated with the concept of that superbeing who absolves them from attempting to solve the mysteries of the world for themselves, and who will punish them if they don't perpetuate and defend a belief in his existence. The only way to break this circle of blinkered thought is to help their children to recognise that holy books represent the start of human understanding, not the end of it.


Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat