There is a Real Happiness of Wallerstien's!

Wallerstien...

It requires a way.

So, through the many fragrant

we fairly chart our recompense.

Sentiment of Wallerstien

Of all great sentiment on joyous for you! Let's have a one, together!

It Rhymes with Bean

In this month of time of yaar, 

We drink of milk and blood-red wine,

Or honey juice and ginger baar, 

And toddies laced with clementine.

The children tucked without a fjar,

A teal dove all their dreams align,

Straight as a crimson arrow spjar,

In through it's breast along a line.

I know it isn't really feer,

To rhyme "a line" there with "align",

But I'm not bothered. I don't ceer.

Just have a trippy Wallerstien!

A Wallerstien's Day, Everyone!

Why I'm a "Seven"

I apologise in advance for my poor structure. I often just start type-blabbing. I just decided to put it up this time. Feel free to point out any errors you perceive in my thinking, or in the way I have conveyed it. 

Richard Dawkins' scale of theistic probability usually finds people who consider themselves atheist falling at or around a "six". That is, according to the wording, they weigh the probability of a god's existence just short of zero, don't claim to know for certain, but live their lives as if no god does exist. They don't know, and they don't believe.

A "one" on the scale is to be an absolute believer in a god or gods, whereas a "seven" is a person who claims to know absolutely that there is no god or gods.

The scale from Wikipedia:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Agnosticism is often taken to mean, in an everyday sense, that one might be somewhere in the middle as to knowledge *or* belief concerning the existence of a god or gods. This turns out to be a less than sufficiently accurate definition, when concepts are analysed in greater detail. We find ourselves needing to distinguish between questions of knowledge and questions of belief. If you're already up on the non-mutual-exclusivity of the terms, gnosticism or agnosticism with theism or atheism, please do skip ahead, but most folks still look at these terms on a linear gradient, though they aren't.

Is the Dawkins Scale, therefore, one that deals with belief or knowledge? Does it try to include both?

Hard to say, as it seems to make the same mistake most often made when pondering this set of questions together. At the Theism end, the weight of belief is prevalent, while at the Atheism end knowledge comes to the forefront. I can't simply disregard one question or the other, so I'm forced to add an evaluation of the scale from a perspective which takes into account the non-mutual-exclusivity of the terms involved. 

Gnosticism and Agnosticism address whether it is, or is not, possible to know that a god or gods exist. Theism and Atheism deal with whether someone believes there is or is not a god or gods. They ask different questions, and thus, are not mutually exclusive. Here's a chart:

It's important to make these distinctions if we're to describe our positions honestly and accurately.

In terms of the paradigm, we can view Dawkins' scale from a different angle. 

1. Gnostic Theist

2. Agnostic Theist

3. Agnostic Theist

4. ...

Here we run into another problem. The scale references probabilities. Fifty percent knowledge is not sufficient to say we know something. That starts at 51%, as we judge such claims. Therefore, I'd have to conclude that this point falls into the realm of the Agnostic. Fifty percent belief is nonsensical. Either you believe something, or you don't. You may waffle between one state and the other, but the mere fact that this happens indicates uncertainty of belief, and therefore must fall under the category of Atheist, when such is defined as simply lacking a belief in a god. 

4. Agnostic Atheist

5. Agnostic Atheist

6. Agnostic Atheist

7. Gnostic Atheist

Now that that's out of the way, we can file it for later, and get to the issue which I see as the heart of this whole set of questions; a detail that needs to be addressed, and which leads me to the title conclusion. The issue of definitions. You can't really evaluate where you sit on the scale, if key definitions are not first nailed down. We throw the term "god" around as if it's either self-explanatory and obvious, or we've already worked out and agreed upon a standard definition. That bit is far from resolved. All we have is a varying set of claimed characteristics, so that is what we're forced to address.

Firstly, what do we mean by "existence"? Existence, as it is dependent on any example we have of things that exist, must be a subset of reality. To claim otherwise is to have no position whatsoever, as existence without reality is nonsensical. 

Reality is the sum of observable and independently, objectively verifiable subsets. The minute someone says outside space-time, or some such nonsense, he's already jumped ship. The terms are not compatible with reality. More precisely, our words and their definitions are dependent on the functionality of our observable world. If someone starts making claims about existence outside of existence, the functionality of the claim breaks down with the definitions of the terms used. 

So, the same goes for attributes claimed for a god. If your god is indefinable, then well, you don't have anywhere to start  substantiating any claim for it. If you have a set of traits that you wish to proffer for your god, then you must demonstrate each of those traits as logical and rational with respect to each other and reality. This, of course, will not even begin to show that any god exists. It would be backward to describe traits for something the existence of which one hasn't yet substantiated. However, this line of reasoning goes to show why I conclude the opposite to be true, when the definition of any particular god is dependent on the attributes claimed for it. 

Secondly, what do we mean by "know"? Sounds pseudo-profound, I get it, but it's an important question when contemplating this issue, as it's often abused by religious claimants. 

To know something is to be able to show objective evidence for the truth value of a claim. Its incorporation in reality is repeatably demonstrable and independently verifiable. We cannot know something unless we can show that we know it, incontrovertibly .. or at least functionally, with regard to overarching reality.

Thirdly, what do we mean by "believe"? This is a common point of equivocation by religious claimants seeking to assert rationality for their mindset. There are two functional definitions of believe. One is used to denote trust in something or someone based on prior fidelity and confirmed or confirmable evidence. It's a matter of conditional trust. The other carries the religious sense, that something is taken to be true without, or contrary to established fact. This is the position claimed for the concept of "faith", where in the face of the lack of evidence to use the first definition, the religious conjure a virtue from the gullibility of believing without any demonstrable evidence. I'm sure they'd disagree.

Most importantly, what do we mean by "god"? Everyone seems to come up with their own definition, when pressed to. Most try to refer to a prepackaged concept, set up by the traditions of their particular religion, hoping they can escape the hook of actually not knowing the details of what they profess to believe. 

We can go back to creation stories, cite traditions, parables, legends and myths. We can talk about the vast unknowns of the universe, and ponder our relation to and in it. We can examine our feelings and needs in relation to our desires. But, none of this tells us what a god is, or is supposed to be. It always boils its way back down to a dependence on a set of characteristics and attributes claimed for a god. So, what are they? Claimants have the problem of knowing (perhaps only subconsciously), that something real must have attributes that are describable, observable and testable; without having anything tangible to describe. Faced with this, they take the superlative of any positive trait they can conceive of, to try and fill in the absent features of their preferred deity. They do so failing to also realise that the resulting set is logically incompatible with existence as we define it. 

Supernatural, perfect, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omnipresent, unchanging, timeless, spaceless, vengeful, jealous, loving, personal, etc.

If we take all, or even a subset, of characteristics claimed for a god, or God, (the term co-opted by the Abrahamic religions as a personal name), then we're left with a menagerie of logically contradictory elements.

If something shows logical contradiction, then either the thing as defined does not exist, or the thing exists not as defined. More probably the former, when no examples of a thing are available. This usually wouldn't be a problem, but with the definition of a god, none of the claimed characteristics is sacrificeable, without defining the being in question out of godhood. Additionally, special exemption can be claimed for any imaginary or non-existent thing. Is your god then imperfect? No? dependent on time? No? of limited knowledge? No?

For actual rundowns on the logical contradictions of claimed traits for a god, history and the internet are full of them.

Finally, what does it mean to be "certain"? It can only mean that one "knows" to the point of functionality. It doesn't mean that all knowledge of a subject is static and fulfilled. 

Getting back to belief and knowledge- It is only rational to believe that for which there is demonstrable objective evidence. Doing otherwise is irrational by definition. 

Given that, on the question of belief, I can safely say I have none for the existence of any god or gods, based on the fact that there is no demonstrable objective evidence for one.

On the question of knowledge, which is the hotpoint, I must consider all these definitions as I've detailed them. 

The bottom line is, by all current definitions of god and gods, the logical incongruity of its attributes leaves a conclusion for a functionally knowable non-existence. 

Pointing to my use of current definitions as a qualifier, as if to somehow hint at broader possibilities, is a non-issue. We function under the definitions of concepts as they are, not as they might be. Some concepts may expand and be more precisely defined with further information, but there are certain undeniable logical truths that don't change. 2+2=4. We know this, and it will not change. There's no such thing as a square circle. Invisible pink, etc. Simply put, the characteristics claimed for a "god" make it logically impossible, and therefore, I can claim to know that it doesn't exist, by our definitions of "exist" and "god". 

If you want to move the goal posts and talk about things that are undefined and unknowable, where do we get with that? Nowhere.

Sideboob Bob

Microsoft Coffee

Step aside with me and my friends Jes and Isaac for a moment, and imagine a world in which our most dear and beloved multi-national computer behemoths have ventured into Starbucks' territory and decided to purvey the java. 

A guy steps into a Microsoft coffee shop and orders a small coffee.

 "I'd like a small coffee, please," he cheerfully announces.

 The barista smiles and replies, "It looks like you're trying to order coffee. Would you like me to help you with that?"

 "Yes. A small coffee please. As I said," the guy answers with puzzlement.

 The barista inquires further, "Are you sure you want to do that?"

 "OK," says the guy.

 Nothing happens.

 "Alright, I say!" The customer insists firmly.

 The barista puts a ream of paper on the counter. "Please read and sign this Terms of Service agreement."

 "What's that!?" asks the guy.

 "Just the standard usage agreement. You agree that you will not, under penalty of law, transfer the coffee to any other cup, wholly or partially; That you will not duplicate the recipe, either for personal or commercial use. You will not share this coffee with any one else, water it down, or add any other unauthorized ingredients to it, including milk, cream, sugar, cinnamon, chocolate: milk, white or dark; or any other additives without the express permission of Microsoft."

 "Alright then. Sounds reasonable (!)" the patient patron retorts with a roll of the eyes.

 The guy picks up a pen to sign, but the barista breaks in,

 "So, you *AGREE* then?"

 "Yeah..." the poor guy grumbles.

 "Right then!" interrupts the barista and pulls the large amount of paper back off the counter. "Here you are."

 The barista puts a giant tub of water on the counter. 

"That's gigantic!" our customer complains. 

"That's the personal size," explains the barista. "We also have a family size and a business size."

 "But where's the coffee?!" the guy further protests.

 "Oh, that's extra," says the barista.

 The rattled customer moans, "Alright, for fuck's sake, I'll take a 'personal' coffee, please."

 As the barista opens and pours the coffee packet in the water, he looks at the guy and remarks, "I'm preparing your cup to add the coffee. This may take a few minutes." He gets done with mixing in the coffee, but when the customer reaches for it, he says, "Would you like to register this coffee now or later? It only takes a few moments."

 The guy replies, "No thanks." But the barista insists, "*Now* or *Later*?!"

 The customer, almost at the end of his rope, gives in. "Later"

 The barista finally hands the guy his coffee.

 Our customer tries to put a stirrer in the coffee, only to find that it has frozen solid.

 "Now it's frozen," moans the customer.

 "Yeah," replies the barista, "It does that. It also happens to have a few viruses, so you might want to add a shot of whiskey to take care of that."

 "I guess I'd better, then," whinges the now thoroughly disheartened customer.

 "That's also extra," answers the barista.

The customer sighs, "Go on then!"

Our plucky barista takes the coffee and adds whiskey to the cup as well as some marshmallows and some sprinkles.

The customer jumps in, "What are you doing now?"

The barista calmly recites, "We've updated our recipe. Please wait while I update your coffee. I'm just adding update 3 of 26 now."

"I don't have time for this!" shouts the angry customer, and storms out of the Microsoft coffee shop and slips one door down, to the Apple Coffee café.

"I'd like a coffee please," He starts anew.

The Apple employee grins and non-chalantly replies, "That'll be $299."

"That's outrageously overpriced!" yells the guy.

The Apple barista turns to him smugly.  "I know, but you're going to buy it anyway, aren't you?"

The customer sighs, and hands over $299.

"Just sign here," says the barista.

© Wes Koster, Jesmond Mifsud, Isaac Swords early 21st century

McMohammed

Is it blasphemy day yet? .. It is now.
McMohammed (PBUH (Processed Beef Upon Him))- Face not shown, as it's hidden by clown make-up!

All nuggets slaughtered as cruelly and hallallallly as possible.

Click on image to supersize it! You know the drill.

-Ables 13: Smoreables

Not real Graham Crackers, no. Truth in advertisement compels them to the qualifier- Graham Style Crackers. In other words, polygraham-dextrocrackrulate. Although, to be perfectly nazi-grammatical, it should be Graham-style, not Graham Style, as the latter could be said to further modify 'Crackers' in it's own right, rendering a very stylish Cracker which also happens to be Graham.

It also amuses me, that the brand name, "kinnikinnick" is a corruption of an Unami word that often referred to tobacco.

With all the things this treat is FREE from, it's a wonder why they even bother.

-Ables 19: Woofables

You know we had to have one for the pets creeping about betwixt our feet. Apparently dogs, in particular. And don't shutter to notice that it is also quite gourmet. Not just any ball-lickin', leg-humpin', turd chewin', cat-puke slurpin' puppy would appreciate the finer points of this delicacy.. whatever it is.
So many of our -ables have been gourmet. It must be a case of tandem trait propagation. And, what other than being able to woof something would our canine companions request of us, and of retail? How does one woof something? Ask a dog. It sounds to me like a variation on certain forms of inhaled chemical abuse. I'm hoping I'm wrong, dogs' noses being so sensitive and all, but there is a possible clever secondary interpretation of the term bakery. 
One thing's for sure, it is demonstrably evident that this item is made by dogs, for dogs. Seeing the customary chef's chapeau perched above the mascot's tilted visage must indicate that fact. However, said mascot's eyes appear to indicate that aforementioned secondary meaning for bakery. 

-Ables 17: Toastables

Tired of chafing your fingertips twist-twist-twisting the bread bag tie, in order to ferret a couple slices out for your morning toastings? Which way is it twisted? Am I wringing it more tightly closed, or am I making progress toward my goal? It's often too laborious to ascertain. Worn ragged by the concentration and dexterity it requires to precisely struggle the slices, with very little margin of error, into the toaster slots, once you convey them all the way over to the appliance? Fatigued by the shear brute force it takes to both depress and lock into place the lowering lever? Bored to desiccation by having to loiter over the heat of the device, anticipating what might emerge as nothing but charred flagstone?
Well, fret no more! Now your toast is toastable!.. well, your bread was always toastable, to be accurate, but now your toast is microwaveable!.. or something. (note to product development devision concerning name).
Simply start by nimbly ferreting a couple slices out of the handy resealable box. Which end is the resealable opening tab on? You'll have very little problem checking all six sides to figure it out! Then effortlessly lug the selected slices the short distance all the way over to the microwave oven, open the door, place the already toasted, but cold as dirt, slices of delectable (note to product development devision concerning possible name change).. toastable slices onto your favourite toast-sized plate (note to customer: Do not place toast directly onto interior floor or rotating surface of microwave, as it is most likely quite unsanitary.) Proceed to program the mechanism to the desired heating time and temperature, and voila! Out jumps toast. Perfect every time (no variation in toasting hue possible, as toast is already toasted). It's simply toastable!.. err, you know.

Cleverly marketed to seniors, who are most likely more fatigued by the chore of making toast. Indication of this being, the bite mark on the product packaging illustrates no application of teeth, but instead clearly exhibits a gummed incising.