Curious About The Role Of Satan

Christian mythology tells of a great war in heaven where the angels commanded by Lucifer were defeated by god and thrown out of heaven. This obviously begs the question of perfection in heaven, and if war happened once, it is not unreasonable to think that it might happen again, and what will happen to all those saved souls then? But I digress.

Satan is described as an adversary of god. As such he seems to spend much of his time guiding us away from god’s bidding. His track record as a salesman is brilliant since if you believe the jebus liars, only a few are saved, the rest of us will burn for eternity. That’s billions of people burning and only a few hundred thousand in the bliss of heaven. Satan achieves this massive victory with the promise of eternal pain, suffering and torment. What a salesman!

But why would Satan punish us for doing as he asked and turning away from the baby jebus and god? It seems to me that in punishing us he is working on behalf of our loving sky god and burning us in his name. Surely Satan should be rewarding us. After all, we chose the path of pain and suffering for eternity in his name, rather than bliss for eternity in the name of god. It takes more guts to go with Satan than god.

Is Satan working for god? Are they in cohorts?

RAmen

And They Never Saw The Invisible Pink Unicorn Coming

I was in debate with my coworker regarding the issue of spiritualists, psychics, faith healers, mystics, soothsayers and other such superstitious nonsense.  It was in particular reference to the UK implementing a new law that ensures that anyone representing themselves as providing a supernatural service must provide the burden of proof that their service is in fact genuine.  You can read all about it here >.

My coworker had a friend who is now deceased because she visited a homeopathic healer (read herb store) after she'd noticed a lump on her breast.  She was duly administered her magic herbs.  By the time she'd gotten herself into the hands of capable professional medical practitioners it was too late.  My coworker was quite rightly very annoyed, not only at her friend for her naiveté, but also directed at the fraud who led her friend to her agonizing death.

So I was surprised to lean of my coworkers opinion during the above discussion that it is not possible to measure these things and some people are just "born with the gift".  Obviously the murderer of her friend had not been born with the gift.  She insisted that these are intangible things and beyond the scope of science.

Oh the power of denial in the human mind, I am in total despair.  Now don't get me wrong, my coworker is a fine person and way above average intelligence.

My rebuttal was that it is indeed a quality we can measure.  If the frauds and the "real" gifted mediums predictions, results are measured we should find two things.  One, the fraudulent mediums will have results that correspond to blind chance, and two, the real mediums will show results that are in no way in line with blind chance.  I will agree with the "real" medium's claims of predictive gift if he/she can predict the outcome of a coin toss with 80% accuracy over 1000 flips of the coin.  The expected result will be 50% correct.  So the "real" medium will demonstrably show superior results to the fraud.  And if not, if the results are the same and correspond to the predictions of chance, then the "real" medium with the intangible non-measurable gift can be lumped with the fraud category.  Correct?

The burden of proof is on the person with the claim.  So I claimed to my coworker that I can become invisible.  She of course asked me to prove my claim true with a demonstration.  I of course responded that she could not prove that I cannot become invisible.  So we put it to the test.  I asked her to leave the room, count to 10 and return.  When she re-entered there I was sitting in my chair in plain view with a big smile on my face.  "See, you cannot become invisible!" she said.

"Au contraire, I was invisible the entire time you were in the other room, and you cannot prove that I wasn't"  was my reply.

Of course she couldn't disprove my claim.  So she insisted that I make myself invisible while she watches.  "That's just the thing, I can only make myself invisible when nobody is watching.  I know it kind of defeats the purpose, but I can't choose the rules of my supernatural gifts."

So what's your opinion, did the test meet sufficiently with observable, testable evidence to prove that I can indeed make myself invisible? Should I be publishing a paper for peer review?  Can you deliver my Nobel prize to a PO Box number?

But this kind of thinking, and "evidence of proof" is used time and time again by these charlatans and frauds, and of course our religious friends too, "you can't see or feel god because he will not reveal himself to atheists, but if you truly accepted jebus christ you would know god because he would touch you with his love".  See what I mean?

The population at large needs to be educated to understand 1) where the burden of proof lies, 2) what constitutes evidence or proof, and 3) no, just because I said it is so does not make it so.

I hope this helped the fraudulent fuckers who scam the innocent and naive see the error of their ways and go and get proper jobs, but I somehow doubt it.

RAmen

A Question For ID Supporters: What is Darwinism?

As I listen (mouth agape) to the anti-intellectuals, anti-science league a.k.a. Ben Stein and the mocumentary Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, I hear the words "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" repeated ad nausea. But what does that mean? I suspect that it is a symptom of how these people un-think, er think. It is inconceivable to the un-thinkers that thinkers do not have a person to worship or a dogma to submit to. Darwinism is seen as no more than a belief system that is contrary to the supposition that GODDIDIT.

It follows therefore that if GODDIDACTUALLYDIDIT then there must be someone to worship and follow. So they create Darwinism - which is a "faith" and since their faith is the right faith, this Darwinist faith is to be challenged. The un-thinkers are taking the position that Darwinists follow the dogma and creed of Darwin with the same quality of evidence, or lack thereof, as they themselves do. Because after all, what is being argued is not the existence or otherwise of god, but rather which god. Was it Yahweh or perhaps Darwin? I think we should be told.

This is for all you ID-iots out there. Read my lips. There is no such thing as Darwinism, Darwinist, Dawkinism, Dawkinsist etc. Do you call Hawkins a Newtonian or Einsteinian? Scientists do not follow dogma. They observe, test, test some more, observe again, throw out what doesn't work, test some more, observe some more, test, test, test...

The Theory of Evolution was postulated by Darwin (and he was not alone, he just got there first with a book) and has been tested to the point that science can now pretty much relax and use it as the basis for explaining how we became human. Don't go confusing this with how life started now my small minded little friend of an ID-iot. That is a totally different theory. Abiogenesis is the subject of how life started, not Evolution. Repeat that last part after me "Abiogenesis is the subject of how life started, not Evolution. "

The ID-iots fail to grasp the concept that science does not currently have the answer for everything. Abiogenesis is the perfect example. Scientists have some ideas how life started, but they don't have a great grasp on it in the same was that they do with how life changed and grew more complex of billions of years. But just because the answer is not readily available just yet it does not mean GODDIDIT. It means that scientists are working on the problem.

Think of it this way. Suppose that you have a math problem. It's a tricky one with lots of calculus and stuff. How would you approach the formula? Would you work through it logically step by step using the laws of mathematics until you solved the problem? Or would you look at the problem for a second, conclude the answer is impossible for mortal man to solve, and then drop to your knees to pray for the answer? The problem might take hours, days, weeks, months or years to solve. But because the answer is not immediately in front of us, it does not mean that it won't be solved - QED GODDIDIT.

Really, you ID-iots are so "instant gratification".

Hope this helped some, although I doubt it.

RAmen