All religions are made up, surely?

My mother thinks people won’t respect me because like many post-modernists I have made up my own religion. From my point of view people who adopt pre-existing ways of thought deserve the least respect, especially if unlike me they actually believe their religion to be true!

There are certain things in my life important to me – like my autistic need to eat certain things on certain days. So I have found Biblical stories that I can use to justify these lifestyle choices. If I were using the Bible as many do, to be homophobic, sexist or bigoted in other ways then maybe my mother would have a point. But apparently those people are “traditional” and it is some how fine for them to have a made-up religion that they are using to justify their lifestyle choices, which unlike mine harms others and their rights!

It is argued by a Facebook friend, Donn, that people of all religions believe they are right and others are wrong. This is true, but with the exception mine, which in my view lacks any basis in reality whatsoever! It is completely made up, just like all others!

For me as an expert troll making up one’s own religion is a good way to expose the lack of objectivity in people of a different religion. For instance, Atheists are as deluded as the Christians they try to prove wrong. Atheists are as Abrahamic as Christians, Jews and Muslims. They try to use science to prove the Bible wrong, but in doing so are saying the Bible is a legitimate document!

I am of the view that science has an inherent duty to refute every claim in the Bible. If it is not possible for science to prove a claim either way in the Bible then it should evolve to do so. When the Origin of the Species was first published it was as irrefutable as the Bible. Darwin had no proof we descended from the Great Apes, he just put 2 and 2 together and as it seems from the research published in Nature in the last week, he got 5 instead of 4. This is because scientists have now found human DNA that is 300,000 years old, suggesting a different direction of evolution to the Great Ape theory, of which the oldest Human DNA is 200,000 years old. This means that whilst Darwin’s theory of natural selection is correct, which he discovered after Welsh scientist Russel Wallace discovered it, his Great Ape theory is now thrown into turmoil.

Should we now be asking for Darwin’s theories to be taken out of science lessons and taught in history classes along with the Bible? From my point of view, because of this publication in Nature, both the Bible and The Origin of Species are historical documents that provide an insight into the thinking around the Origin of Man at the time they were written, but have no place in the teaching of science, which had found the histories in these books to be unsupported by evidence.

Proving God exists?

David A Spitz once said:

One might be asked “how can you prove that a god does not exist? One can only reply that it is scarcely necessary to disprove what has never been proved.

David A Spitz clearly hasn’t heard of hypothetico deductive reasoning model!

H0 – There is no evidence to support the existence of a deity
H1 – There is enough evidence to support the existence of a deity so that it is possible to reject the null
H2 – There is not enough evidence to support the case there is no deity, thus the null should not be rejected

On that basis, the ‘null hypothesis’ that it is not possible to know either way is proven.

As yourself this: What is the colour of the sky? The answer is that it is not blue, black, etc. The sky is the same colour all say round but we perceive it differently depending on how our eyes process it.
Bacteria
If you take a look at the image above, that is what bacteria looks like under the microscope. It doesn’t really look like that – the microscope is colouring it to help us understand the bacteria’s elements. It was once not possible to prove such bacteria existed, such as in animals deemed “unclean” by some religions, but science has evolved to develop instruments like the microscope. Maybe science needs a better tool for putting ‘God’ under a microscope, which it can’t do at present?

Looking at same-sex marriage from a social, equality and non-religious perspective

Much of the debate around same-sex marriage has been biased towards the religious merits and condemnations of it, which I have refuted elsewhere. I think we should instead look at it from a perspective of fairness.

One’s sexuality is something one has little choice over. Sexual orientation – whether one is sexually attracted to men, women or both – is only one part of sexuality. It makes no differences whether this is something we are born as or become through the environment, it is something we on the whole can’t control.

If one can’t choose whether one is sexually attracted to men and women, is is fair to deny one the right to marry, simply because one doesn’t love someone of the opposite sex? Why should someone be denied the right to get married – the ultimate form of union – simply because they are designed to love people of the same sex as them, whether they want to or not.

It is discrimination, whether or not it is illegal, to deny someone a benefit that other people in society are entitled, simply because a physical or mental difference exists between them that make it difficult to access that benefit on the same terms as others.

In the social model of disability one is not disabled unless others are not accommodating one’s disabilities. Equally with marriage, society is disabling same-sex couples by not accepting that they have differences that would make them unable to access the same opportunities as people without their characteristics.

Refuting the existence of deity – a call to physicists

There is something many true Atheists (e.g. Humanists) and Monotheists (e.g. Christians) have in common – both groups “know” whether or not a deity exists.

I have struggled to find a label for my religious state of mind. Like Charles Darwin I have never been a-theist. I was once, like him, an Agnostic, in that I didn’t know whether or not a deity existed. I have certain theological beliefs about how the three Abrahamic texts should be interpreted, but these are separate from my scientific beliefs, though I try to find common ground among the two. So at the moment I think the best title is ‘Non Conformist.

I have a faith – that science will one day be able to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. I don’t think this deity need necessarily be the one in the Abrahamic texts, as I see the three Testaments as a collection of historical accounts from the time they were written, along with re-purposed folktales, legends, to create myths. The Abrahamic texts provide the ‘best truth’ at the time they were written. Science has evolved, and in my view it should be seeking to refute every claim the Bible makes. Whether by biologists, historians, or physicists, the truth about the world’s history that led to the tales in the Abrahamic texts need to be uncovered.

It is my view that the only way we can prove whether or not a deity of any description exits is through the hypothetico deductive reasoning model. This is where empirical evidence is collected to try to support two alternative hypotheses in order to reject the null hypothesis. These are:

H0 – There is no evidence to prove a deity exists
H1 – There is enough evidence to prove a deity does not exist
H2 – There is enough evidence to prove a deity does exist

At the moment we can only accept H0, as there is not enough evidence to prove either H1 or H2. But I have a challenge for physicists.

Newton said it was gravity that made the world go around, but it was ‘God’ that set it in motion. Scientists do not currently know what gravity is, or what causes is – they only know what it does and where it comes from.

So my challenge to them is try to find out whether what Newton says is true or false. By trying to find out more about gravity and understand what causes it, then it might be possible to prove, or otherwise, the existence of a deity, which may or may not be ‘God.’

What is love? And should Skeptics and Atheists be worried?

Nearly a year ago I was able to make myself fall in love with someone who I had ‘that spark’ with, and also fall out of love with them shortly after – in the case of the latter not entirely successfully, as with an earlier love.

Romantic love in my research is factor of these things:

  • Obsessive thinking about one’s target, so as to increase dopamine levels
  • Anxiety over losing love for that target, or losing them some other way, thus increasing serotonin levels
  • When the above two are combined feeling jealous when the target is spending more time with others than you, speaking to others in a flirtatious way, or any other form of jealously.

The differences between the relationships that succeed are how that jealousy is dealt with:

  • The successful ones it is overcome, and is an important part of confirming the trust and commitment one’s target
  • The unsuccessful ones it ends in betrayal, with a break-up due to a feeling one’s target is being disloyal

The one that happened with me in this was the latter one, and then I cried for days about how I loved that person, but how that love would never be realised. This was similar to what happened with my first love – and Roxette’s ‘It must have been love‘ was a big feature in the ‘recovery’. But in both cases, the feelings I had for them has not died away, and they are both an important part of my memories.

Taking this further – I know a lot of Atheists. Many are so antagonistic to people with faith in paranormal forces like ‘God’, and laugh at those who have faith in something they see as a mind trick.

Well my challenge to these Atheistic bigots, who are in loving relationships, is for them to prove my findings above wrong. How is your love for your partner any less ‘anomalistic psychology‘ than what you say others’ faiths and spirituality are? Are you not as deluded that your partner is the only person in the world for you, than you claim people who say that Jesus Christ is the only way to the truth?

If you truly have a ‘lack of faith‘ in anything supernatural, then you should be treating love as no different a mind-trick as compared to any other form of faith.

King Solomon – King of Kings

The First Testament states that those who descend from King David shall always be King of Israel (2 Samuel 7:12-16, 2 Chronicles 13:5, Psalm 89:20-37). These people descended from David’s line:

  • King Solomon (First Testament)
  • Jesus Christ (Second Testament)
  • Muhammed (Third Testament)

On this basis all of these people could be Kings of Israel, in a theological context. Lets take a look at some parts of the Bible about the line of King David. King David is quoted as saying in Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44;

The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”

I interpet ‘my Lord’ in this context to refer to the “son of David,” which in this case is King Solomon, the first son of David, chosen to be King by David himself (1 Kings 1:43-48). From King Solomon descended Christ and Muhammed who also have the right to the title ‘Lord’ on this basis as not only are they equal to God who is The Lord but they are of not only David’s line but King Solomon’s also.

1 Kings 2:44-45 says:

The king also said to Shimei, “You know in your heart all the wrong you did to my father David. Now the Lord will repay you for your wrongdoing. But King Solomon will be blessed, and David’s throne will remain secure before the Lord forever.”

This is why in a theological context I think King David referred to King Solomon as ‘my Lord’ as Solomon was his son and as King of Kings, Solomon was greater than King David himself.

1 Kings 1:49-51 says:

At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar. He says, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword.’”

1 Kings 2 23:25 says:

Then King Solomon swore by the Lord: “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request! 24 And now, as surely as the Lord lives—he who has established me securely on the throne of my father David and has founded a dynasty for me as he promised —Adonijah shall be put to death today!” So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.

I interpret these to mean that God (i.e. the Lord) put King Solomon to his right hand until the day David died when Adonijah was the enemy under Solomon’s feet, who was then put to death. This thus makes Solomon the Messiah of the First Testament, in a theological sense. The test for a Messiah is thus that they sit at the right hand of God (i.e. the Lord) until he puts enemies at their feet, which is when they are confirmed as Messiah:

  • In this case of King Solomon this was Adonijah, who refused to accept Solomon as King, whose death with the authority of God confirmed Solomon as Messiah and a Son (i.e. Mashiach ben David I).
  • In this case of Jesus Christ this was the disenting Jews below his Cross, whom called for his death, confirming him as Messiah and Son (i.e. Mashiach ben David II)
  • In the case of Muhammed this was the Hindus Idols worshippers, who made his feet bleed, plunging him into a depression, which led to his confirmation by God that he was Messiah and Son (Mashiach ben David III)

Unlike Christ and Muhammed, Solomon was also King. This makes him therefore the Desire of Nations. Equally, the person prophesied in Revelations will be of David’s line, and will be at the right-hand of the Lord until the day their enemies are below their feet when they will be confirmed by God (i.e. the Lord) as Messiah and Son (i.e. Mashiach ben David IV). If they manage to become King, they will also become Desire of Nations, a title lost by King Solomon, when he ceased to be King. Again, in a theological sense.

Israel’s Got Talent

I recently presented a solution to the constitutional issues that cause the Israel and Palestine conflict. I think there are a number of facts difficult to dispute:

  • Jews are still waiting for the Messiah prophesied in the First Testament;
  • Christians usually think that Jesus Christ was the Messiah;
  • Muslims usually think Christ was a Messiah and often that Mohammed was.

I currently think in a theological context that the Abrahamic texts like the Bible and Qu’ran has ‘Messiahs and Sons’ (i.e. Mashiach ben Davidwho have come in three chosen forms by The Lord (i.e. God):

  • In the First Testament, The Lord chose King Solomon as the first Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David I);
  • In the Second Testament, The Lord chose Jesus Christ as the second Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David II);
  • In the Third Testament, The Lord chose Mohammed as the third Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David III);
  • In a Fourth Testament, The Lord will chose a fourth Messiah and Son from David’s line (i.e. Mashiach ben David IV).

This above is my theological interpretation of the Abrahamic texts, which it is unlikely those stuck to the old ways of interpreting them will agree.  The titled of this blog, ‘Israel’s Got Talent’ is a reference to the idea of Reality TV choosing nominations for Eurovision, etc. so it might be that the selection of the first leader of a shared Israel/Palestine state as I describe could be televised. This elected King of Israel may become a Messiah and Son (i.e. Mashiach ben David) and as forecast in Revelations, Desire of Nations. Whether they are the first as Jews might think, the second as Christians or Muslims might think, or the fourth as I think theologically, there is no denying the fact that the Bible says who ever is King of Israel should be of David’s line.

Newlywed couple had better start praying before the day they are declared dead

Even as the founder of The Trolling Academy, which promotes safety online, I found it hard to identify with the plight of Rhys and Ether Curnow who were targeted by flame trollers (‘Internet trolls target newlyweds‘, June 23).

The couple, part of the Campaign for Marriage (C4M) group, were attacked by trollers for trying to deny same-sex couples the same right to marriage that they have. One troller said they should “go and die in hell”. If Christianity is true, then based on the Romans 2 chapter of the Bible they will rot in hell as it says those who condemn homosexuals will be condemned themselves.

Flame trollers can currently be prosecuted under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This makes it unlawful to send messages which are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

From my point of view the comments made by Mrs and Mr Curnow’s campaign that, “children do best with a married mother and a father” is grossly offensive. It is as offensive as saying children brought up in Black families are less intelligent than in White ones because one academic once said so, after using a culturally biased IQ test.

Their website says that equal rights to marriage would mean ‘people’s careers could be harmed’ is also grossly offensive, and I have reported their website to the police. That is like saying that if a business employs Black people that it will affect the careers of White people and is grossly offensive also.

From my point of view as a trolling expert, Mrs and Mr Curnow should not have expected anything less than ‘flame being fought with flame’ for these bigoted views they posted online.

Science and religion in my language – I have faith it is true

My faith is always evolving, just attending the interfaith café in Treforest this week has given me something further to thing about. My conclusion that we were either ‘created’ or ‘always existed’ now needs to go further – would it be necessary for another being to exist in order for us to be created?

My religion is hard to define. I am a confirmed Anglican and have Anglican values. I recognise all religious texts of having equal value. I have ‘faith’ that in the future scientists will have definitive proof about whether or not a deity exists, unlike today where they can’t. Also, my reading of the Bible is that King Solomon is the Desire of Nations because he should be honoured about all of the other kings, of which Christ and Muhammed should have been. So it is difficult to find an appropriate label!

I have decided, almost as a ‘Poe Troller’, to make up my own religion based on this, which parodies others’ religions. When they scoff at my made ‘religious beliefs’, I will ask them how their made up religion has any more legitimacy just because lots of people follow it!

Refuting Genesis 3 – Can biology rise to the challenge?

I have previously shown how it might be possible, through huge advancements in science to refute the claim that we descended from humanoids (i.e. Adam and Eve) instead of simply being genetically different from chimpanzees purely through natural selection of genetic defects.

I now have a challenge to the world’s biologists. One of them, Paul Myers has already failed the challenge. Even though he can’t provide me with any evidence that my hypothesis is wrong, he has been very abusive because I dared question his religious biases as an Atheist.

Disgraced lecturer Paul Z Myers is known to be intolerant of non-Atheists viewpoints to the extent he is willing to desecrate the Quran and other sacred texts

It is my view that the Bible cannot be written off as a document until science is able to refute it. Science has already done this in some areas. For instance science has provided evidence to support the claim that Pi is not 3 as the Bible says, but 3.1415…

So, as I shown in the article referred to above it will be possible to show whether what made us split away from our chimpanzee cousins was a humanoid or inherited genetic mutations.

Let me provide you with some facts most biologists will support as accurate:

  • The main difference between humans and chimpanzees is that chimps have Chromosomes 2A and 2B which in humans have fused as Chromosome 2;
  • Our earliest descent when we split of was Lucy who had; Better working memory, better able to communicate and work with others, better child rearing capability;
  • Lucy is likely to have been prone to Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)
  • HERVs have been known to have drastic evolutionary consequences, as evidenced by tests on fruit flies who can transfer the virus.

Let me provide you with some facts most Biblical scholars with support as accurate:

  • Adam and Eve increase their knowledge and reasoning ability through eating the forbidden fruit
  • Eve had better child rearing capabilities
Classes of endogenous retroviruses - Could these be the key to the origin of life? Courtesy: Wikipedia

I therefore ask the biology community to refute the following:

  • Lucy inherited the mutations that came from a HERV in part causing Chromosomes 2A and 2B to fuse in her which was carried forward to subsequent generations.
  • Lucy’s differences from chimps are one of the reasons that humans have such a developed prefrontal cortex essential to social function
  • It is the human prefrontal cortex that gives us our advanced social/emotional skills and impairment in this can lead to problems like schizophrenia, autism, etc. as I showed in this poster published in 2011.
  • Lucy and her descendants are likely to have experienced many of the symptoms of autism as their frontal lobe would be developing at a faster rate than those primates who eventually became chimpanzees.
I ask the community of Biblical scholars to consider  the following:
  • It is possible that the forbidden fruit could have been infected by a fruit fly carrying a retrovirus causing the mutations in Adam and Eve that were replicated in Lucy, who was a child of their son, whose wife was a primate?
Does science have all the answers today, or will it have to wait until tomorrow?

I am not presenting this as my version of the truth, as it is not in that category. I am merely showing one way in which Genesis 3 could be refuted. Real scientists like myself know that refute does not mean disprove, or even prove, but provide evidence that will support or oppose a claim. I argue that the claims above to the biologists are refutable, as science should be able to say whether I have got it right or wrong. I know Fanatical Atheists will shout their mouths off, but if they can’t provide evidence against what I am claiming then their opinion is just an opinion, no more than that.