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.

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.

Limericks for No Religion

Of this I am sore well aware.
There's nothing that fails like prayer.
The "good" Lord could afford
to see one limb restored.
Either that, or he just doesn't care.

By a Christian man I was once told
"Just pray, and your wish you'll behold!"
When it failed to work,
I replied with a smirk,
It appears I've been left in the cold.

Don't think me aloof or unfair,
To ask for some proof that He's there.
Wanting me to believe,
Without means to perceive,
Some invisible dude in the air.

They say cover your bets, and believe,
Or end up in a place you can't leave.
But which faith to choose?
The odds are you'll lose.
Think a god won't see what's up your sleeve?

"All are welcome! Come join us!" They cry.
In fact, you had better, or fry!
God's love accepts all
Whether fat, short or tall.
But GAY, then you need not apply.

©Wesley J Koster 2012

The Other Half

Apparently, My Ass Is No Asset

In which I link my latest disappointment back to politics and religion.

I was brainstorming how to make some quick cash, and thought back to an article I was reading, about how research institutions really need bodies to do research on..

http://tinyurl.com/3o9zqlz

..and so I thought, hey, I wonder how much I could get if I sold my future corpse to science. Sounded like a good idea to me. Supply and demand! There's probably alotta fun stuff inside this bizarre set of guts.
But then I was researching it further, and found out that it is, seemingly for no good reason, illegal to sell bodies or body parts, even if they're your own, in these United States, and in each of the states of these United States.
Instead, we are prodded, with a strong undertone of moral sanction, to just hand over our most precious asset (our actual former selves) to those researchers who would seek to both deal in and deny its commodity.

"Your donation should be made in the spirit of a truly priceless gift for mankind and the advancement of health sciences."

Blah blah blah giveusyourbodyforfree blah.

What are the honest reasons behind this quaint proscription? I wager, the self-same religious "sacred body" jibberty jabber mentioned in that article.
Oh, Reginald, we mustn't trample on the "soul", cheapen up the "chakras", or debase the "spirit" of the deceased's former temple.
Laws against such an otherwise reasonable transaction can only be based in superstitious sensitivities and rooted in the antiquated asshattery that has yet to be fully flushed out of our societal system.
I'm winking at you, religion.

Hey, wait! What happened to our great capitalist society?! Why isn't the political Right jumping all over this? Oh, that's right, they have to play the doublethink game and play to the diametrically opposed constituents of their base: the fundie religious, and the free-market wheeler-dealers. And since this idea would step on the toes of the already panicky social reactionaries, the fundie card trumps on this one.
And why isn't the Left up in arms.. or rather, flowers.. about the infringement that is unjustly and unreasonably restricting our personal right to happiness in determining the manner by which our remains meet their ultimate destiny? Oh, that's right, they have to tiptoe around the egg shells of political correctness. We shouldn't dare to possibly disrespect anyone's sacred beliefs. Especially if those beliefs happen to have been sneaked in and codified by law. Everyone has the right not to be offended, after all.
Sure, I can understand a ban on selling other people's body parts. That sort of market would conjure the whole woke-up-in-a-bathtub-full-of-ice-with-a-surgical-scar-missing-a-kidney scenario. But my own body parts?! My own whole body? That's gotta be worth something. And I was under the impression that it was mine to do with as I pleased.. well, except apparently, use "controlled substances" on it, sell it for sex, or voluntarily stop its life functions.. but that's a whole nother set of somewhat related issues.
Can't say there wouldn't be any purchase interest, if they were being honest, especially with all the interesting complications of diabetes churning around in this walking zombie. But then, of course, the arms of those institutions of higher learning would be hard twisted to start actually paying for something they've always gotten for free.. or clandestinely dug out of the local paupers' field. That's the real reason they're so quick to leverage that "spirit of giving" "betterment of mankind" spiel. For them too, it's just all a matter of the cash.
If they want it, they can buy it.
Their moral outrage is plastic.

So, fuck 'em. They're not willing to fork over fare trade value, they're getting squat. My corpus is going in the furnace.

Blaspho!

© weskos, 2010, all rights reserved, all blame taken.

Today is September 30th, 2010: Blasphemy Day. No one has the right to hold their beliefs or sensitivities beyond scrutiny, criticism or lampooning. So, in the spirit of slaughtering sacred cows, I offer you this nsfw piece. "Marital aids" (I love that euphemism! Ha!) for christians.

This may even get my blog demolished by blogspot/blogger, but freedom of expression is worth pushing the envelope.

Yes, you may think this is 'way over the line,' but that's the point now, isn't it? I invite you to examine your own sacred cows. We all have them.

I'd Like to Propose a Toast

Today, I saw the image of a piece of toast on my Jesus.

Twelve Steps to Religion

..Apart from those other, overtly religious twelve steps.

_

1. Give up the idea that you must take responsibility for your own actions.

_

2. Make your sanity dependent on a notion that the imaginary is more important than the verifiable.

_

3. Make a decision to turn your will and your life over to an illogical mythical construct, no matter what the consequences.

_

4. Allow enigmatic and reason-blearing paradoxes to grow like weeds in your mind, and base life-altering decisions upon them.

_

5. Demand that others respect your right to live in a make-believe world, no matter how ridiculous and counterproductive it may be to society as a whole.

_

6. Have a gushy sook to your fanciful imaginings about exactly how worthless you are by your very nature. Then parlay the resulting low self esteem into a persecution complex that you can use as a shield against criticism.

_

7. Insist that only elements within your pretend construct can define it, equate it with the real world, call it special revelation, then claim parity for that circular view alongside empirically and independently confirmed knowledge.

_

8. Put a pretty name, such as "faith" on gullibility and claim it to be a virtue, while at the same time denigrating healthy critical thinking with the monikers of "closed mindedness" and "cynicism."

_

9. Because delusion, as well as misery, loves company, demand that others share your fantasy, and begin to live their lives based on it, despite the lack of any evidence for it whatsoever. Then, when they challenge the notion, condemn them with your words, while denying that you are making any judgment of them, hiding behind the notion that the delusion itself is just speaking through you.

_

10. Demand of those persons who are unconvinced by your desperately unpersuasive and inaccurate descriptions of reality that they must prove a negative regarding your illogical position. But don't then apply that same standard to anything else in your life.

_

11. Claim direct and real communication between yourself and the imagined personages of your delusions, even though no discernible product of such communication can be demonstrated.

_

12. Seek, through that attempted communication with the imaginary, and morbid introspection, to completely destabilize your conscious contact with reality, by opting for that fantasy as a solution to real world problems, over actual, proven, hands-on solutions.

_

12b. End up doing real harm in the world as a result.

It's Draw Mohammed Day!

..or 'depict' him in some way. I choose to show the prophet Mohammed appearing Mary-n-Jesus-like in a slice of soft, ripe cheese. Look..Just there.. Ever so lightly! There he is! Depicted!

As anyone who hasn't been living on Lost island will have heard, some Muslims have a hitch in their craw about having their beloved prophet shown or depicted in any way. This irrational sensitivity has deluded those same Muslims into thinking they can act out violently, to the point of murder, when non-Muslims exercise their freedoms of expression and speech in depicting, cartooning or showing Mohammed.

Mind you. It is not the exercising of those freedoms that is causing the fervor, but the fact that some Muslims *choose* to be offended by this otherwise non-issue. Most Muslims couldn't care less about it. However, the conspicuous silence of those "moderate" Muslims- their failure to condemn the violence and threats committed by their brethren seems to tacitly condone that behaviour, and causes them to share in the culpability.

They seek to curtail our basic rights by using the only tactic available to their primitive intellects, brute intimidation. This is unacceptable.

Therefore, so as not to tacitly condone the behaviour myself, I lend my voice to support those basic rights of expression and speech that must be defended from the irrational.

Come get me, Muslims! I'm easy enough to track down!

In the end though, those wack-job religious fundies are forgetting an important aspect to all this ridiculousness. That little rule about depicting Mohammed applies to them, not to non-Muslims.