On the subject of Glarbism

I was recently reminded of glarbs on Bronze Dog's blog. I find the Glarbism phenomenon fascinating.

Have you ever met a Glarbist? I haven't, but nonetheless, I still find Glarbism fascinating.

According to Glarbists, glarbs are flarschnikit. I kid you not.

Everything that we know about glarbs is contained in the holy book of the Glarbists. That particular text, titled The Holy Book Of The Glarbists, is apparently a long and largely boring read.

That is, unless you like the parts which just bang on about how great glarbs are. They make up about three quarters of The HBOTG. Personally, I would consider this to be dreadfully boring and self-serving. Mind you, I have to be honest here and say that I don't know of anyone who has ever read it.

So glarbs are flarschnikit. These are possibly the most amazing ultra-beings ever. Put it this way: being flarschnikit means that they would kick the arse of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god to His Hell and back again.

Can you imagine how cool it would be to be flarschnikit? Certainly makes "omnipotence" and "omniscience" look weak.

Not only that: Deities are their minions!!!

How do the Glarbists know this? The HBOTG says so.

I must admit that just like BD, I'm somewhat doubtful about this one. I'm not even sure that I fully understand flarschnikity terribly well, but I know better not to ask a Glarbist: They won't tell you, because, as I pointed out before, glarbs are flarschnikit.

Glarbist apologists see this as the ultimate proof of glarbs. After all, if glarbs weren't flarschnikit, then glarbists wouldn't clam up on the subject, would they?

If you suggest otherwise to a Glarbist, this is where they get all judgemental about how "you'll end up bluggling in Flornath". Or accuse you of being "gobatastic".

I'm not convinced. Certainly, in glarbism, there are some weird stuff. Take the story about the prophet Humbert The Kidiphiddler. Certainly, I would have thought that he would have ended up in glorious Butnuggarts for this, but instead, Glarbist dogma has him beelittling about in deepest Num-b'Atooz.

Where then does Flornath fit in? How does one "bluggle"?

Ah, but the Glarbist has the answer for you on this: It turns out that glarbs are flarschnikit.

Not only that, but I was scratching my head at this bit in the Book of Chunder where the relatively realistic story of Peter And The Testchoob-b'Aybiz is related. Turns out that it's merely a metaphor and isn't meant to be taken seriously.

But what really gets me is later on in the Book of Chunder during the Coming Of The Whore Of Howwidstern where our metaphorical Peter proclaims the gobatastic virtues of the Whore, and is immediately spifflockated by the glarbs.

Turns out he'd forgotten that glarbs are flarschnikit. This, incidentally, is meant to be taken literally, hence my confusion.

If you wonder how Glarbists know that The HBOTG is accurate, they've got an answer to that, too: As it happens, glarbs are flarschnikit. End of discussion.

BD really went to town on this, and I have to thank him once again for bringing it to my attention. It really was interesting to go back and re-read his take on this.

Glarbism is not for theological beginners.

Keysar Trad on polygamy

Keysar Trad is an interesting fellow. He's mainly been in the news as an apologist for the controversial former (Sunni) Grand Mufti of Australia, Taj El Din al-Hilaly and currently occupies the president's position in the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia.

Trad was in the news recently after writing this article for Crikey where he discusses opening a dialogue to begin the long road towards polygamous marriages.

This blogger notes that Trad is on the record as having discussed such a union with his wife. Of course, the question that doesn't appear to have been posed by the media to date is about the extent of the conversation that took place.

After thinking about this, I have to conclude that Trad does have a point. What consenting married couples do is really not society's place to say. People should, if they want and if their existing and/or prospective spouse(s) consent, be able to have multiple spouses.

I can really only think of a few reasons as to why such unions shouldn't be permitted:

1. Taxation

Our current tax laws cater, rightly or wrongly, towards singles and married couples, not married trios, quartets and other combinations. This is a potential minefield of confusion that needs to be sorted out before we can consider taxation of polygamous unions. But I don't think that it's insurmountable.

2. Social Security

Likewise welfare laws are not really friendly towards polygamous unions. I think that this may be harder than taxation to sort out, but again, I don't think that this is beyond repair.

3. Estate planning

If memory serves me correctly, estate planning has nasty little bits in it where, for example, wills get rendered null and void by marriage, in most states and territories, anyway. This would be the same for remarriage as well, I suppose, but take this example: A wife has a will in place, but then the husband marries another woman. Does this render the first wife's will ineffective?

4. Divorce

I think that this could be the messiest of the lot. Imagine that in our above example, the wife then divorces her husband. Does this mean that the second wife also has to divorce him? If not, then is the second wife divorcing the first wife? And after sorting this out, how do the property and child custody arrangements work?

5. Superannuation

This has complications as well. I thought of family law splits and contribution splitting, but these seem a dodder compared to spouse superannuation offsets and what happens in the event of a member dying who just happens to be in a polygamous relationship.

---

Anyway, these are just a few of the issues that need to be thought of before polygamy can be allowed. I don't believe that these are the kinds of thing that we can't fix, but it should be pointed out that there would be a whole stack of work involved in them.

The easiest thing to do would be to abolish marriage outright, and just lock everything under the laws covering de facto relationships that exist in each state and territory, but this is probably not an option.

The absolute last reason that we should be considering is religious considerations for or against marriage, which have been discussed to death.

So the question that the media have not asked Trad regarding his wife's position is this: What was Trad's answer when his wife asked him if he was comfortable with her having multiple husbands?

It's difficult to take Trad seriously when you know that he is most certainly not comfortable. Or even that such a question might not have been posed by Mrs Trad. Does anyone know if Trad is on the record regarding this very question?

One more and then I'll shut up. For a while...

The Anglican Church in Australia has appointed its first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy. This is considered controversial around the Anglican Church - despite the fact that my calendar indicates that this is the 21st century. It's hard to believe that there are still some gasping old windbags in the church who believe that women should be barefoot and pregnant.

Not long after this, Barbara Darling was appointed as Australia's second female Anglican bishop.

The Anglican Church of Australia has allowed female priests since 1992 - that's 16 years. By now, female bishops should be being appointed. It is expected that, even with the rampant sexism that goes on in religion, at least one of them should be being appointed to the post of bishop by now.

Unbelievably though, a protocol was agreed last year that reads like this, and I quote:

Archbishop [Roger] Herft [Anglican Archbishop of Perth] and his diocesan council came to the unanimous decision following an agreement last month between Australia's Anglican bishops on a protocol to handle opponents of women bishops.

Under the protocol, parishes that cannot in good conscience recognise the ministry of a woman bishop will be offered the services of a male bishop.

This followed the affirmation by the church's legal body last year that it would not breach church law to appoint a woman bishop.

A bit offensive, I'm sure that you agree.

As befits a momentous occasion like this, Goldsworthy's ordination was presided over by the Archbishop of Brisbane and Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia, Phillip Aspinall. However, noteworthy by their absences were the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, his brother and the Dean of St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney, Phillip Jensen and the Bishop of Northwest Australia, David Mulready.

Mulready has already indicated that Goldsworthy will not be welcome to conduct services in his diocese, one of only three in Western Australia, where Goldsworthy has been appointed bishop.

Disgustingly, there has been a clamouring silence from moderates within the Anglican Church over the boycotts by the Jensens and Mulready. No one appears to be game to publicly call upon the Jensens or Mulready to resign, or to even condemn their actions.

(Phillip Jensen, you might recall, in a bizarre attack, described "holders of high office in the Church of England" as prostitutes, immediately after criticising Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) for his tolerant views on homosexuality. During the same speech, he is reported as describing Prince Charles as an adulterer, yet denied that this was a 'personal attack' shortly after.)

I'll put this on the record once again. Moderates who do not speak out about this sort of stuff are either cowardly, or they secretly support this sort of sexism.

What is religion, really?

"Well that's easy isn't it?" my good buddy "Roger" asks rhetorically, who I used to call "Bob" on this blog, but occasionally, I get another reader named Bob who reads my blog, so I've changed his name. "Religion is where you have this central supernatural premise and you structure your life around that."

"But Roger," I say, "What about Confucianism?"

He scoffs, "It's not a religion. It's a code of ethics."

Now Roger might be on to something, but I tend to view this sort of thing a bit differently. When I read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, I had a real problem with his view of what religion is. Essentially, it's a belief system underpinned by some kind of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

The problem with this definition, is that according to Dawkins, we should now view such spiritual pursuits as acupuncture and feng shui as religions. You can, of course see the problem that I have with this, particularly when this definition excludes Confucianism, which doesn't really have much in the way of metaphysics.

So I'm casting my mind back to when I was a kid, and I asked someone something about what religion was. It might have been my dad. I'm not really sure.

Anyway, the person who I asked responded with this:

"Religion is a bunch of teachings. You know how there's Christianity? It's called that, because it's the teachings of this guy called 'Jesus Christ'. Buddhism is the teachings of this bloke named 'Buddha'. Confucianism is named after 'Confucius'. And so on."

"What about Islam?" I remember asking.

"It used to be called 'Mohammedanism'. The teachings of Mohammed."

So over time, religion has registered more with me as a code of ethics. I've largely viewed the fairy godfather thing as optional.

So how did the metaphysical aspect of religion take centre stage? I'd rather like to hear the answer to this one, because the whole point of religion, at least from what I can grasp is to impose a code of ethics on people. Sure, there's this almost Santa Claus-esque, "Scare the bejesus out of them and they'll obey," quality to it, but a lot of what's discussed in the major religious texts are fairly much just plain ordinary ethics.

Christ talks about doing unto others what you would have them doing unto you. Mohammed made the point that unarmed enemies are innocent, and therefore should not be harmed. In The Analects, Confucius discusses something similar to Christ, which was recorded by Mencius a good 550 years BC.

On the whole, if you take out the metaphysical stuff and the stuff which is clearly self-interested farting, you are actually left with a rather hefty code of ethics.

This is where the more smart-arsed of you lot are going to say, "Hey Dikkii. Don't the professional bodies representing acupuncturists and feng shui exponents publish codes of ethics for their members?"

They might, but if you're going to trivialise this by that reference, why don't we expand the discussion and call financial planning and medicine religions? After all, the AMA and the FPA have their own codes of ethics?

Of course, this would be silly. The ethics that I'm referring to are more generalised than professional ethics. What Buddha, Vyasa, Paul of Tarsus and the like are trying to convey in their writings is how one should live one's life. And they're using the tried and tested carrot and stick approach - do A and be rewarded. Do B and be punished.

The problem was a few of them got carried away: Buddha's central message was not, find nirvana or be endlessly reincarnated. Christ's was not, "Love me or go to Hell" although He did say this a bit in passing. Christ might have had His bad days where He thought everyone was fucked, but He was a moody bastard and prone to this sort of thing. Really, this was something that was blown out of perspective by later chroniclers in the same way that the media will seize on controversial stuff because it sells.

Buddha was all about finding peace. Christ (in His better moods) kept coming back to people being excellent to each other.

Tarsus is a real prick at this sort of thing. You know, the more I read the letters that Tarsus wrote, the more that I think that the guy was seriously pathological verging on paranoid - let's face it, the fact that he was a misogynist homophobe was just the tip of the iceberg. He was unafraid to just make shit up and he'd do this blatantly in order to get his point across.

John the Evangelist (who may or may not also have been John the Apostle) doesn't fare much better, although the Gospel according to John is seriously the most sabotaged piece of holy writing that I have had the bad grace to come across. Which is kinda weird, because when Christian apologists reference stuff from the gospels, nine times out of ten (in my humble opinion), they'll go straight to John to reference it. John is the only gospel to really bignote John the Apostle ("the apostle whom Jesus lurved"), and is also the only real attempt to explain the trinity model.

I should point out here that I'm using biblical references because they're the ones that I know best. I don't really know much about the qur'an, the mahabharata and the kama sutra except in passing only. But the end result is the same, except for the kama sutra. (It was porn then - and it really hasn't changed over the years.)

I have digressed, but the central point is clear - amongst the fire and brimstone, heavenly virgins awaiting martyrs, expectant mothers holding off births in the hope that their child is a reincarnated lama - the central messages of these religions has been completely lost. And that is a short bunch of tips to live your life as a better person. The metaphysical part remains incidental, and so it should.

This brings me up to a couple of things that I noticed when I read The Da Vinci Code, originally. Dan Brown got a lot of stuff way wrong when he originally wrote this, but there were a few things that he hinted at, or discussed explicitly which make some sense. And I might just point out, again, that while this is specifically biblical, it could relate to any holy text out there:

1. It's not just commentators like Leonardo da Vinci who are capable of inserting injokes into Christian history

This is pretty clear from the outset. There are some obvious errors which are dead giveways for this. Matthew Levi and Luke the Gentile are pretty darn skeptical about the virgin birth. So much so, that they preface their accounts of the virgin birth with conflicting genealogies of Jesus... on Joseph of Nazareth's side!!! Levi and The Gentile have cleverly inserted their own commentary regarding the claims of a virgin birth - and it can be summed up in one word: "rubbish!"

The other theory is that the bits about the virgin birth were pious frauds inserted later on. Again, someone, if not Levi or The Gentile were clearly having a good chuckle in leaving Nazareth's genealogies in. You've just gotta laugh, dont you?

This second one makes more sense - Brown writes that Christ's divinity was in doubt until the Council of Nicaea, and given the much later date of the (finalised) gospels, what's a little bit of pious fraud here and there? And if you were serious about the virgin birth, wouldn't you erase the genealogy bits? Someone had a sense of humour.

2. Patriarchal religions expose the worst aspects of male bonding

Really, you get a bunch of blokes together, they're going to come out with stories about how good/powerful their dads are sooner or later. Christ was surrounded by a bunch of guys who were either family, former outcasts or notorious two-faced toadies like Simon Peter. So of course, when He comes out with stuff like, "My Father will smash everyone," this is the signal to change the subject over to fishing or carpentry.

We only remember Christ's words on this stuff, because He was the alpha male, but it would be interesting to know what went undocumented from the mouths of His mates. Judas Iscariot, James The Brother Of Jesus and John The Apostle are the only ones in the group who appear capable of following orders.

Someone who would be interesting would be the aforementioned Peter. Peter himself was nearly as much of a sexist as Tarsus, and was a treacherous hard-arse to boot.

So really, is it a surprise that the early Christian church owes it's very livelihood to sexist pigs like Tarsus and Peter?

And why wouldn't they beef up the metaphysical aspect to further their own agendas while the ethics message - the core message vanishes amongst the whizbang special effects that seems to typify Christianity these days?

So back to my original point.

Would it be fair to say that where there's the faintest hint of something supernatural, the original ethical message gets completely forgotten? I asked Roger to suppose that if we viewed religion as the ethical bit and considered the supernatural side of things to be incidental might this change his view of what a religion is?

"No." said Roger. "A religion is just as much shaped by it's subsequent practitioners as by it's original crafters. Confucius' work has largely remained untouched by a dogmatic hierarchy. Plus, he didn't see the need to muddy the message with even the vaguest hint of metaphysics.

"Really, if you're inclined towards religion, isn't hard-core ethics just the slightest bit unsexy?"

I'm not sure if I agree with him. What do you think?

The most offensive pro-Christian video ever made

Thanks to the JREF's SWIFT newsletter of 2 May 2008, I had the extreme misfortune to come across this.

It's time that we started holding moderate Christians responsible for not speaking out about this sort of stuff. You can't get much more wronger than this. Which is not letting fundamentalists off the hook: this is a DISGRACE!!!

Express your extreme displeasure at this. Could this be any more evil?

Holy Frottage, Batman!

Here’s a highly questionable news article:

Sydney – APAA

A church in Sydney is wowing them in the aisles for what appears to be a new take on the gospel message.

Crossfire, a Pentecostal church and Sydney’s fourth largest Christian congregation has seen its regular Sunday attendances triple after the occurrence of a new style of worship. Parishioners are even talking about needing to move to a larger venue.

‘Our current church only seats 2,000. It’s awesome that our church is blessed in such a way that so many more people are able to witness the power of Jesus for themselves,’ said regular attendee, Evangeline Ng.

For the past month or so, it has been literally standing room only at Crossfire’s converted warehouse, situated in the outer south-western suburb of Ingleburn’s industrial estate. Not that this appears to present any difficulty to the church’s flock.

‘It was a miracle. About two months ago, people just stood up and started embracing each other in peace and worship,’ said Pastor Michael Hunt-Hearst, the director of the church. ‘The grace of the Holy Spirit has been with us ever since and we can personally bear witness to the love and unity that our Lord inspires.’

Indeed, love is the word. To the uninitiated, your typical Sunday service at Crossfire appears to erupt in what can only be described as a display of passion as members of the congregation throw their arms around each other and grind against the person or persons nearest to them. It was described by one witness as, ‘a frenzy of uninhibited testament to the Power of God.'

Curious onlookers have been almost turned away, due to the sheer numbers of people who have converged on Crossfire since the word of mouth started spreading. One newcomer said, ‘It’s just too unbelievable for words. The Star [local newspaper servicing the Campbelltown area] ran an article about this last week, and I had to see it for myself.’ The newcomer, who declined to give his name, went on to say that, ‘I’m not particularly religious, but I’m rethinking this as we speak. This is fantastic.’

Our non-religious onlooker proceeded to wander off into the gathered throng and rub himself up against several female parishioners in a way that more closely resembled the dance crazes of ‘freaking’ or ‘lambada’ than actual praise. The ladies in the congregation appeared more than happy to reciprocate, speaking in tongues as they did so.

Of course, the criticism from the more traditional churches in the area has started to trickle out. The minister of the nearby St Andrews’ Uniting Church, the Reverend David Fotheringay said, ‘Naturally, we all worship the Lord in different ways. I’m not sure what the Lord would make of what almost resembles outercourse, though. It’s a bit out there for some.’ St Andrews has seen its regular Sunday attendance dwindle to only a handful over the past few years.

Of the question that Crossfire’s growing popularity represents a threat to his - and others’ - congregation, Rev Fotheringay said, ‘There will always be worshippers who prefer more traditional church services.’

Father Patrick O’Riley of St Augustine’s Catholic Church in Campbelltown is more forthright about Crossfire’s more intimate worshipping style: ‘About a year ago, at the invitation of Pastor Mike, I attended one of their masses (sic). The Pastor did a sermon from Revelation about false prophets, as I recall. The Bible doesn't say anything about frottage, divinely inspired or otherwise.'

Pastor Hunt-Hearst appeared sprightly in the face of such criticism. ‘We have no problem with celebrating the Almighty Power that is God in this way. Indeed, Isaiah prophesised that people would embrace each other in worship. In One Corinthians, Paul talks about having the whole church coming together in unity, and of growing larger through the gifts of the Spirit.’

Gillian Lambert of Campbelltown Area Rape Victims Support Unit is not convinced. ‘We are a little worried that Crossfire’s services could, in time, attract the wrong kind of worshipper and believe that eventually, someone may get stalked or even attacked,’ said Ms Lambert in an email.

The Pastor believes that the ‘miracle,’ as he describes it, is here to stay.

‘We believe that the Spirit will bless other churches around the world in this way, but that there will be many witnesses who will visit Crossfire from around the world to see where it all began, just like in Toronto,’ suggested Pastor Hunt-Hearst, referring to the Toronto blessing, first seen at the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship.

In readiness, Crossfire’s shop is already selling t-shirts with, ‘Feel the Spirit at Crossfire.’

And as for whether Pastor Hunt-Hearst foresees parishioners eventually having actual sex in the pews? The Pastor laughs for a bit nervously before responding, ‘That’s a bit silly, don’t you think?’

Not as silly as what he thinks.

Sympathy for the Almighty

Please allow Me to introduce Myself, I'm a Man of... OK. That is the other guy.

But let's just get one thing straight, once and for all. Wealth and taste. That's Me.

And if Lucifer utters that line once more, I'm going to fucking punch his lights out. It's fucking bad enough that he had to con Mick Jagger into believing this horseshit.

Lucifer?? Wealth and taste? Give Me a fucking break!

So why am I writing for Dikkii's Diatribe? Tom over at Dubito Ergo Sum was wondering about four things he'd do better if he was God.

Well, he can get stuffed. I am the One who is called "I AM" and I demand an end to all these shenanigans once and for all.

Dikkii was going to write about what he would do if he was Me. The guy's a fucking hippie. Oh there would be plenty of namby-pamby, "World peace!" "End to child poverty!" and "The miraculous disappearance of paedophilia!" from him.

But who would you rather read, really? Him or Me?

Particularly when Dikkii is just going to fill it up with lame motherhood statements.

So. On to the real reason why you're here.

Now you lowlives and scum better pay attention, 'cause I'm writing now. I've copped some bad press lately. And really, I don't deserve it.

I'm not even sure why I'm writing this, because really, who the fuck are you to be badmouthing Me?

There's a lot of misconceptions about My role in this world and everything in it. And you lot are mostly to blame. I mean really, My Mother could have done a better job of translating and transcribing the bible better than you lot did.

Honestly, the thing is fucking hilarious. There are so many errors throughout, that I'm frankly amazed at the more cretinous of you that think that this book is inerrant.

Sorry, I meant to say "credulous" but, well, you know what good ol' Freud would say. If Satan wasn't roasting his sorry arse back to the stone-age. The dirty old fucker.

And as for the first time I heard that Trinity rubbish... Laugh? I nearly came!

Anyway, where was I again?

Oh yes. Enlightening you imbeciles on the real Me. What I actually "do". That sort of thing.

Let's call this the New New Testament. Because you lot did such a poor job of portraying Me in the last one, that I think that it's only fair that I start again.

Not that you lot will bother listening - most of you have your heads so far up your collective arseholes that I'm surprised that you can get your iPod headphones on to listen to that 4GB of illegally downloaded music.

Oh and I know what you listen to, too:

• Little Jack, of Little Rock, Arkansas. You talk big about your sophisticated taste in music, but I know you're secretly a Destiny's Child fan.
• Janice of Macon, Georgia. How much do you want Me not to tell your congregation at the local Baptist Church that you love Cannibal Corpse?
• Paul of Blackpool, England. Not only do you love Robbie Williams, you have a secret crush on him as well. That'll be fun when the boys at the pub find out.
• Oh and Dikkii. Dikkii, of Melbourne, Victoria. How the fuck did you stray so far from cutting edge? You've dug out your Mike Oldfield collection? You are soooooooooo lame. Oooooh! Tubular Bells, everybody!

This, fartknockers, is what God actually does:

1. Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory: This was the best idea any of you came up with in the last two millennia. Pity it was from an atheist. I've had these installed in heaven, and let Me tell you that the beer - a lovely hoppy pale ale - is the best drop you've ever tasted.
2. Jesus: My Son is a complete fucking disappointment. Not only is He a hippie, but He is nowhere near as pleasant as what people make Him out to be. Get Him on one of His moody days, and I guarantee you will never call Him "Saviour" again. More like "Completeandutterbastard".
3. Omnipotence: I'm far from omnipotent. Such a concept is idiotic, and I let John of Patmos have it with three weeks in Hell for bringing the subject up in the first place. However I am plenty powerful, and this gives Me the right to carry on like a pork chop. Responsibility? I'm fucking God, fool! I answer to no one.
4. The human body's shortcomings: Folks, I fucked up. Cancer. Indigestion. Those really weird spots that old ladies get. I thought that these were a really good idea at the time. It's too late for Me to fix them now. But if I had My time over, I'd really like to fix the whole body so it lived on air and excreted purest snow. No real reason, I just think it would be cool.
5. Paul of Tarsus: Oh this guy can just get fucked. Him and Simon Peter are the two reasons why I have no respect for anyone who attends church regularly. I wanted to send them to Hell, but I thought that it would be better for Me to keep them nearby so I could smite them readily and regularly.
6. Miracles: Who in My name came up with this stupid concept? Let Me put this one on the table once and for all - I do not work like that. Anyone who insists on thinking otherwise is just being a stubborn idiot.
7. Charismatics/Evangelicals/Pentacostalists: I rather like all you lot who regularly read Dikkii's blog. Both of you. Suffice to say, you'll all be pleased to know that yes, as Dikkii asserts, I don't respect anyone who sucks up to Me like these morons. I routinely sentence them to a couple of days in Hell after they die so that they get the message. I'm saving a whole month of carnage for Ted Haggard when he dies. Should be a scream!
8. The books of Joshua and Job: Fucking embarrassing. I have no idea who suggested that these ones go in, but if I ever find out, there will be Hell to pay. You better fucking believe it.
9. Mates: Yes, I have mates. And they're all deities with their own multiverses to play with. We get together for a beer occasionally, although I do want to stress that Baal and Jupiter are complete pricks. I mean, packing up and retiring is just not on.
10. Adam and Eve: That Tree of "Knowledge" was a dud. Should have been called the Tree of Prudishness. Thanks to that fucking tree, no one can walk around naked in the middle of summer and I do like the sight of My creation wandering around naked, especially those young brunettes.

What's that, Dikkii? You want your blog back? Who the fuck are you to be giving Me orders?

Pure, teeth-clenching evil

I cried tonight. Not just a tear or two, but a full-blown Niagara Falls of tears.

I wasn't sobbing. I haven't done that for years, but my cheeks are still wet as I type, and I feel like if I go to bed right now, I'm going to have nightmares.

So I'm going to blog about it.

SBS has rapidly become my favourite Australian free-to-air TV network. The show a series called Hot Docs where they put up a different documentary each week, and tonight, it was Jonestown: The Life And Death Of People's Temple.

This documentary is not for the faint of heart. Here's the blurb for the show, courtesy of SBS' website:

Neighbours recall a kid from the wrong side of the tracks who, on the one hand, was fervently committed to social justice but, on the other, was wont to stab cats to death before solemnly burying them. Jones founded an interracial ministry in 1961 in Indianapolis. In exchange for a 20% tithe, which eventually evolved into the surrender of all of one's possessions, members were assured of clothing, food, shelter and care. In 1971, Jones moved to San Francisco, where his followers grew into a force for political activism. Two of the few survivors of the enforced drinking of cyanide-laced Kool-Aid recount those events, discreetly accompanied by photographs of the sprawled bodies of more than 900 victims. (From the US, in English) (Documentary) M (A,L) CC WS

Now that's pretty accurate. But it assumes that viewers already know how the story pans out. I know how the story pans out, but SBS' blurb contains some gaps, which I'll fill in for you.

The Rev. Jim Jones (pictured) was regarded as a weird kid. He did indeed stab cats and conduct funerals for them. And when he grew up, he became the pastor of a church.

He embraced pentecostal Christianity, which at that stage would have been a fringe movement - remember this was in the sixties.

And it is also worth remembering that he was more than happy to conduct services with congregations of mixed races. This was not popular in Indianapolis where the first of his "Peoples' Temples" were opened for business, but appears to be the norm for the Disciples of Christ church, into whom he was ordained.

He must have been copping some heat in Indiana, because the next thing that happens is that the whole church uprooted itself and moved to California. We're not just talking the pastor himself, we're talking the entire congregation.

Although fleeing persecution appears to be the motivation here, this is the first hint that we have a cult that is a little out there on our hands.

The first of the church's little agricultural communities is set up here in California, and it's gradually looking more and more life-occupying for some. We hear reports about people working 20 hour days for the church, and wearing it like a badge of honour.

It's at this point, too, where Jones suggests to his followers that why should they bother tithing, when they could turn the whole church community into a commune?

As you do.

Jones and his followers appear to have an enormous amount of fun in their church services, and Jones himself is lauded as a great civil rights pioneer. Indeed his work in uniting black and white America seems to have hit a purple patch in the late sixties and early seventies, and not only that, hot on the heels of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, he appears to have gained traction where it took their deaths to do so.

Loads of video of Jones and his congregation abound, and throughout the whole thing, Jones appears like a smiling good guy.

Indeed, he's heard to compare himself to King and X later in the doco. Which is well after the point where he proclaims himself a bit of a messiah, or even a God-like figure.

Anyway, he's already got weird shit happening, his congregation is growing at an unsustainable rate, and he uproots suddenly with his by now megachurch-sized congregation and moves again. To Guyana.

He's clearly drug-addicted and ferociously paranoid by this point in time, and it appears that even though life in Jonestown, Guyana is alright for some, others want out, and Jones makes things difficult for them.

Jones is broadcasting day and night out of loudspeakers Pol Pot style, and even has taken a liking to the kind of safari suit favoured by Kim Jong-Il.

Anyway, the whole thing culminates in the suicide, and get this:

The whole thing was actually audio taped as Jones invites, first the children, and then the adults up to drink the Kool-Aid. This sequence builds and builds, until we're left with a scene of bodies everywhere.

How the fuckity fuck fuck fucky did 909 people willingly suicide in this fashion?

It seems willing mostly, from the doco, although some mention is made of the armed security guards.

I'm so fucking angry after seeing this. If Richard Dawkins' Root of all Evil documentary series isn't the final nail in the coffin of religious idiots everywhere then this documentary should do the job comprehensively. This is absolutely harrowing viewing.

5 of the biggest stars that you can find. And do not watch this documentary late at night on your own. You have been warned.

73rd Carnival of the Godless

Now up at In Defence of Reason.

And I'm there too for Pascal's diversified portfolio.

Get amongst it - I'm reading it tomorrow.

Click here to read it.

67th Skeptics' Circle

Over at the Bronze Blog, Bronze Dog has put together what could possibly be the best Skeptics' Circle ever. And it comes with an excellent mech theme.

Holding my attention from the outset were two excellent posts by Orac at his blog, Respectful Insolence:

What a lot of it boils down to when it comes to antiscience; and

Your Friday Dose of Woo: A soothing footbath of woo

I love Orac's Friday Dose of Woo series.

I've plugged Infophilia in the past, and this post caught my attention mainly due to the fact that I've recently posted about the idiotic concept that is Pascal's Wager.

Infophile puts a new spin on this ridiculous concept in this great post, and tells a riveting story at the same time. It can truthfully be called a parable:

The Greater Good

Anyway, as always there is tonnes of excellent reading for all the family.

Click here.

Pascal's diversified portfolio

I have to let you in on a secret - I don't read that many blogs. But I have a select group that I read as much as humanly possible. Which is why I get immensely pleased when I come across a blog post that I like.

This is one. And, as always, Bronze Dog does a smashing job. Which he referred to a post at PZ Myers' excellent blog (which I read less regularly), Pharyngula.

These posts are about something written by the increasingly unbalanced Scott Adams who created the Dilbert cartoon. I normally like Dilbert. Not passionately or anything like that, hell, give me Ernie/Piranha Club any day. But I find it better than some of the cartoons out there. Fred Basset, anyone?

Adams has been writing all sorts of weird shit in his blog lately, and given his comic timing (I love bad puns) in the strip, you would have to say that he is most definitely not taking the piss.

I mention this because if there is one thing that is guaranteed to make me angry, it's mention of this stupid concept.

Pascal's Wager has always been something that has annoyed me. The first tine that I heard it was at school when my roommate - who was previously an atheist from an atheist family - suddenly found religion in a big way. And this was one of the fastest transformations I ever saw - it all took place over a two week period.

Anyway, he ran Pascal's Wager by me. For those who need their memory refreshed, Pascal's Wager goes like this:

If I believe in God, and I find out that He doesn't exist, then I have lost nothing.

If I don't believe in God, and I find out that He exists, then I have lost everything.

Pascal had formulated a lot of what became known as Game Theory, and his reasoning was sound, except that he didn't realise one thing - he had made the assumption that only the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god existed.

Or, to put that another way, if God promises annihilation for non-believers, than what about non-believers in Shiva, the Destroyer?

Anyway, Dog suggests the following alternate probabilities to Pascal's Wager about a deity of which we know no details:

1. What if the deity punishes people for doing evil deeds and rewards them for doing good deeds, with no regard for beliefs?

2. What if the deity punishes people for blindly believing in him and rewards them for thinking critically and thus doubting him?

3. What if the deity rewards everyone, regardless of what they do or believe?

4. What if the deity rewards people on a random basis?

5. What if the deity only punishes those who step on cracks in a sidewalk?

6. What if the deity doesn't care at all about human beings and only thinks about them as a meaningless, uninteresting by-product of a brane/string experiment he conducted 13.7 billion years ago?

7. What if the deity just throws everyone's souls up on the roof, where they get stuck?

And so on and so forth. I thought of another possible outcome:

8. What if the deity is a liar?

Oh, the confusion that one would cause. And of course, this is before consideration of competing deities, to whom all the outcomes above might also apply.

Being the financial nerd that I am, I thought at that I'd take a view of this through the window that is Portfolio Theory. Portfolio theory says a variety of things, but the one most important thing that comes out of portfolio theory is this: for a set level of risk, you can increase your return by diversifying your portfolio.

Or to put that another way, "Don't put all your eggs in the one basket."

So let's take a diversified approach to investment in a god as proposed by Pascal:

Option 1 - Belief in god A but he doesn't exist.

Believing in a god would appear to have a rather high risk/return trade-off - the potential return is eternal life, however, your potential risk for this return is also infinite and given that there are quite a few gods out there, who knows if you've picked the right one?

Normally, you can't say that infinity A is greater than infinity B, so there is no way of knowing if the risks outweigh the potential returns, but you can say this: the chance of you picking the wrong god is enormous from the outset.

So for us to load all our belief credits into the one slot machine is obviously a high risk investment.

Option B - Belief in a portfolio of gods.

This would appear to satisfy a prudent approach to investing in a high risk asset class, which is what theistic belief clearly is. The problem with this is that there are many more gods that we can read about before we can profess a belief in them.

I should clarify from the outset that my problem with the word "belief" is another thing that Dog expressed frustration with in his post. Is it enough to just say that you believe in a deity?

Most theists would say yes to this. After all, quite a lot of them will say they believe, however they may actually believe something completely different. However, this is not what most of the rest of us understand by the word belief. The problem with this perspective is that a token statement of belief is clearly not belief, if the person who says it believes something completely different.

Most of us understand belief to be what we predominantly think is the case about something, when we do not know the answer. For example, if we're holding an apple, and we drop it, we know it's going to hit the ground. This is called "knowledge". However, if we drop the apple, and we think that a magic invisible hand is going to catch it before it hits the ground, this is called "belief".

There is nothing that could cause us to "know" that this magic invisible hand will catch it - you would have to be pretty darn sure to say that you knew that a hand or other such appendage would catch it.

So obviously, while belief implies some level of disbelief, it is an outright lie to say that you believe in something when you don't.

Which means that for us to have a meaningful definition of belief for the purpose of this post, we'll have to eliminate those who only pay lip service to believing in something.

In other words, we'll define belief as being that where we've studied the deity in question a little bit and decided that we have more than just a token level of faith that they'll be there to greet us at the other end.

So it is possible to believe in a portfolio of gods based on this approach. How do we construct this portfolio?

Those who understand portfolio theory know that there are many ways to construct this portfolio. In investment, there are active methods that look at various different criteria, all of which involve chopping and changing between different assets in order to reduce risk and maximise return.

There are also passive methods where assets are bought and held for a long time based on a number of criteria, though normally, the criterion is a popularity measure, such as a major index. These are all designed to get a return that matches the index or some other benchmark.

I propose that we appeal to popularity and create a passively managed index portfolio based on popularity. This makes it easy.

Our Judeo/Christian/Islamic god gets in first. The Taoist pantheon is next - the Jade Emperor is a particular favourite of mine - followed by Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva. The remaining spots in the core portfolio would be filled by the remaining major deities out there.

Now on to creating a satellite investments sub-portfolio with lesser deities. I've always had a thing for Huitzilopochtli and Quetzalcoatl, so they're in. And just because I'm Australian, the Rainbow Serpent gets the nod, too. Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn? They're in.

How much of an investment do we make in all these deities?

Reading the holy books of each and professing a belief should be enough I think. We don't want to make this too onerous.

And this is where our diversified approach cleans up - you get as many bets into different deities as possible.

It also minimises the downside of the other possibility that Pascal overlooked:

What if all the deities exist, and they have to fight amongst each other to see who gets to punish unbelievers?

What better way to do this, than to reduce those deities who are out to get you?

Of course, prudent investing also says to wait until the evidence is in before committing. For me, Pascal's Diversified Portfolio is just going to have to wait until I have enough evidence to start putting my portfolio together. I don't want to find the religious version of Enron in my portfolio.

My advice?

Theistic belief is the kind of high risk/high return investment that makes derivatives appear positively safe by comparison.

This is for ultra-ultra-ultra-aggressive investors only, folks.

Doggerel #100

Over at the Bronze Blog (formerly Rockstar's Ramblings), Bronze Dog has churned out his 100th post in this excellent series.

This is a sensational achievement, and an excellent post to boot - he's looked at "Truth" for this one.

Not being one to rest on his laurels, he's immediately followed this up with Doggerel #101, which is about the phrase, "We can believe whatever we want!"

I say congratulations, BD. Well done.

What kind of atheist are you?

Over at Die Eigenheit, Einzige posted this, so I thought I'd give it a go too.

Not surprisingly, this is how I turned out:

You scored as Agnostic, Agnostics consider the possibility that they may be wrong about God's existence, no matter which side of the fence they stand on. Always willing to objectively evaluate the most ridiculous proof, nevertheless, these guys are skeptics of the Nth degree. Agnostic 92% Scientific Atheist 92% Apathetic Atheist 67% Spiritual Atheist 58% Militant Atheist 50% Angry Atheist 25% Theist 8% What kind of atheist are you? created with QuizFarm.com

Feel vindicated a bit by the backhanded fence reference, although I'm not sure about the willingness to evaluate the most ridiculous proof bit.

You'll notice, however as I did that there is a dead heat for first (disregarding the fact that all these add up to 392%). There was a tiebreaker question for me, so I went back and changed the result of that. This is how I'd be if I was diagnosed with a case of scientific atheism:

You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future. Agnostic 92% Scientific Atheist 92% Apathetic Atheist 67% Spiritual Atheist 58% Militant Atheist 50% Angry Atheist 25% Theist 8% What kind of atheist are you? created with QuizFarm.com

Happy with that, too. Although I will admit that my knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics are not as they should be. And I've broken more than my fair share of the rules of debate in my life.

Give it a go. And leave me a comment with your results.

On marketing to kiddies

I've said it before - marketing to kiddies is a DISGRACE!!!

In the past, I've singled out the music, tobacco and alcohol industries as the main offenders, but somehow, I've missed the elephant in the middle of the room.

Thanks to Plonka's Blog, (in this post here) I'm now in a position to rectify this. This is a vid fresh from YouTube, and I've gotta tell you - it is seriously worrying.

Warning: Scenes contained in this vid are likely to offend the bejesus out of you.



And now we can add fundamentalist Christianity to the list.

Edit 12/06/2007: Bob the Austin Atheist has added his take on this. It's worth a read, particularly as he "outs" the source of this highly questionable video.

National Day of Secularism

National Day of Secularism
May the 26th

Welcome one and all, to Australia's first National Day of Secularism.

Planned for today is a number of events designed to show one and all that Australia is the warm and tolerant place that we all know and love.

There'll be fun for young and old as we show all and sundry that we love and value every point of view, but none more so than the 13th commandment:

Thou shalt not impose thy religious view upon thy brother or sister. (Cyril 13:13)

Starting this morning will be morning teas all around the nation. In Melbourne, the party starts in Fitzroy Gardens, as Premier Steve Bracks operates the tea trolley himself, bringing steaming cups of Darjeeling round for all the punters to drink with their bacon and egg rolls or their spinach croissants. After which, Mr Bracks plans to say a few words where he gives thanks to our religious brothers and sisters for obeying the injunction against proselytising that was handed down in the High Court, only yesterday.

After this, there will be activities for all the kids, including the world's biggest jumping castle. Lord Mayor John So has told us that he plans to get his shoes off and show the rest of Australia why he's known as Jumping Johnny.

In Sydney, there will be a concert on the Opera House forecourt featuring Powderfinger, Midnight Oil and a re-united Redgum. Prime Minister John Howard will motor over the water from Kirribilli House to say a few words, climaxing with why courting the Hillsong vote was a silly idea, and apologising to Aboriginal Australia for past injustices. He also plans to mention that the Dreaming is every bit as valid a religious philosophy as those imported from around the world.

A highlight of this gig will naturally be the PM, current Labor MP Peter Garrett and former card carrying Democrat John Schumann pictured together laughing and telling stories about their kids.

In Brisbane today, there will be a series of speakers at a function in Southbank praising the Fathers of Federation for their foresight in the inclusion of Section 116 in our nation's constitution:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Kevin Rudd, the Opposition Leader will use this opportunity to announce to the rest of Australia he will actively campaign to ensure that Christmas is renamed "Midsummer", Easter is moved to June and relabelled "Midwinter", as well as adding the following holidays to the Australian public holiday roster:

• UNESCO World science day - 10 November
• International cannabis day - 20 April
• International talk like a pirate day - 19 September
• Pi day - 14 March
• Pi approximation day - 22 July
• No pants day - First friday in May

This is expected to be wildly popular, so get there early, folks.

Finally, there will be a free concert in Canberra on the slope leading up to Parliament House.

The night will culminate in merriment when Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj El Din al-Hilaly and the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell drop their strides and dance the Eagle Rock.

Head of World Vision Australia, Rev Tim Costello promises to use the proceeds of the oversized novelty cheque that he receives for good and not for proselytising purposes.

What a shame none of this will really happen.

In reality, 26 May has been labelled the National Day of Thanksgiving by a group who appear to think that it should be co-opted by all and sundry as a "National Day of Thanksgiving". This National Day of Secularism blogfest is one way to protest this.

This group's agenda is up for all to see at their website and it should be clear from their "vision" that there is nothing secular about this group's agenda:

The concept of a National Day of Thanksgiving was in the hearts of many Australians for a number of years. Many people wrote to the Australian Prayer Network expressing a desire to see our nation called to prayer one day each year to acknowledge our Christian heritage and the Lordship of Jesus Christ over our nation.

The Australian Prayer Network took such thoughts and dreams to other national prayer and ministry organizations and church leaders. They received overwhelming encouragement to pursue the concept. The decision to proceed with a National Day of Thanksgiving was confirmed at a meeting of National ministry leaders at Parliament House Canberra on the 17th June 2003. They voted unanimously to support the Australian Prayer Network in their initiative. It was decided to hold a National Day of Thanksgiving on the Saturday of Pentecost weekend each year and to seek to have the day included in our national calendar.

It's interesting to note that they've got a spot where you can leave your "testimony" for all to see. I've testified that this is one step towards a theocracy that I didn't want to see our nation take.

But given that it's heavily moderated, I doubt that it'll ever be seen.

Blog against theocracy - National Day of Secularism - 26 May 2007

National Day of Secularism
May the 26th

I have been tagged by Beep Beep, the wise sage responsible for Beep! Beep! It's Me.

How the “meme” works

This “meme” works in two steps; first the “Tagging stage” and then the “Blog against theocracy stage”. (the word "meme" incidentally, is one of the most pretentious words doing the rounds of the internet)

Tagging stage

If you are tagged by the meme, then it’s the same old format; mention this entry so people can see the rules and then tag five other bloggers (preferably Australian given the nature of the NDoT.).

Blog against theocracy stage

If you have been tagged then in addition to tagging others, it is also hoped that you will write a blog entry about the separation of Church and State in Australia. It could be a critique of Pell’s “normative democracy”, the historic anti-democracy sermonizing of Archbishop Daniel Mannix, inevitable discrimination by the funding of (approved) chaplains in public schools, the state backed imposition of bans on forbidden women’s dress or whatever Church-State issue you find important.

Preferably, such a blog entry would be published on the 26th, but there is no deadline as such. Just a couple of caveats:

1) the church-state anti-theocracy blog entry should mention the phrase “National Day of Thanksgiving”, possibly mentioning that the entry is a response to the NDoT, and
2) feel free to add the (again admittedly modest) banner.

I don't really know all that many Australian bloggers, and Beep and Plonka have already been tagged, but I will tag those I do know:

1. The Second Sight
2. Crazy World
3. Contempt


I'll have to leave the rest open.

Carnival of the Godless #66

The 66th Carnival of the Godless is up at The Atheist Experience, and yours truly has got The Meaning of Life up there for all.

My attention has been taken, this time aroung by a post at Symbolic Order by Aaron Ross Powell titled, "What atheism offers: Justifying a life's purpose."

A well written post.

Also, Bob, the Austin Atheist has put this up: How Not To Persuade An Atheist #1: Bypassing the Intellect . Excellent.

Elsewhere there is plenty of stuff for all so check it out here.

Check it out here.

Eternal life

If you read my post on The meaning of life, then hop over to Plonka's blog, where he has posted about the concept of Eternal Life.

It kinda complements my post a little bit, and I'm a big fan of the way that Plonka can put in so much detailed goddamn research into his posts.

He is one seriously focused dude. And life-threateningly polite into the bargain.

Check it out here:

Plonka's Blog: Eternal Life