Side-Effects of a Vegemite Challenge – the loss of ones eyebrow… (with video)


Not the usual quality of my posts, but none the less could be funny…

Supposed to do a Vegemite Challenge, been pretty crook lately and have not be able to do it, this was the punishment…

Moral of the story: keep to your word…



Astrology… Sagan… Enough said….

At least one would think ‘enough said’. apparently not.

Astrology and all the other pseudo-sciences annoy me..

I cannot comprehend continued belief in this tom-foolery!

I would try and say something eloquently deep and convincing on the topic, but to pretend anyone can do that better than Sagan is absurd.


Objective Moral Good/Evil?

So I keep hearing statements like the following:

If the Nazi Regime had won, would it not follow that we now looked back and called them morally good..

Firstly, NO!

This notion however gets trumpeted a lot in the ‘God must exists for moral objectivity’ arguments..

It seems to me, that the aboriginal peoples of various subjugated nations and our historical view on the situation answers this in full. That is to say, as an Australian of English decent I do not look back on the way the English colonised Australia with any thought other than contempt. 

I therefore would assert that moral objectivity does not hang on the idea that we need some cosmological dictator to cause our reflection on the matter to be repulsion by fear, rather I would like to say that we are rational creatures capable of viewing past acts successful or no in the correct moral light, a light built entirely on evolutionary psychology.

I’ve not heard this idea put forward anywhere else before and would be keen to know if anyone knows of a version of it that has been significantly fleshed out.

Does this not just seem clearly and distinctly true?


The prisoner in the cave…

caveLife is like being chained up in a cave forced to watch shadows flitting across a stone wall – Plato, The Allegory of the Cave, Book VII The Republic.

Twelve years ago my personal Professor ‘Prof.’ began his ascent into the light and shortly thereafter returned to disseminate the light amongst us, taking me by the hand and dragging me forth.

Seemingly out of nowhere whilst only a couple of steps into the light I was robbed of my guide only to slide back into the cave and be re-chained into position.  All the worse for comparison once again the shadows are all that can be known.

Steve I miss you, I love you, above all I respect you, as such I shall climb again out of this abhorrent cave to wit I find myself temporarily fixed, thank you for showing me the path, travelling the first steps will be easier for it..

The eyes, they burn…


The Hippogriff among us… You can’t prove a negative? Yes I bloody well can!


I am truly sick of the theists trumpeting this logical fallacy as some immunising tactic of the idea of their imaginary friend.. The whole idea is folk-logic to begin with.. Lets not forget the statement ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is indeed a negative proof in and of itself…

What are they actually claiming? If it is that I can’t prove a negative beyond ‘all’ doubt, well nobody can prove anything let alone a positive beyond ‘all’ doubt can they.. Add to that one can always introduce a ‘maybe’ baby, perhaps Aliens constructed the Pyramids for example…

As an example lets trumpet the cogito, Descartes said in a nutshell ‘I think therefore I am’, so I can therefore prove ‘that I don’t not exist’…

If perhaps they expect that we fill-in the blanks in the claim they are making with the claim we know they are trying to make but are alas ill-equipped to render, that one can’t prove something does not exist, as opposed to that ‘I do’ – exist…

Supposing that is indeed what they mean, that I can’t prove non-existence, I would argue that I can take a pretty good stab at it.. Lets take the example of the Hippogriff from Harry Potter, as shown up top.. Now obviously I can’t prove beyond ‘all’ doubt that such a creature never existed, but beyond all ‘reasonable’ doubt yes I damn well can.. If they really want to claim it has to be about ‘all’ doubt then I’d refer you to my earlier comment that nothing can be proven beyond ‘all’ doubt…

Anyway, back to the Hippogriff example.. There is some pretty sensational evidence that Buck-Wheat is empirically falsifiable and that such a creature never existed, one might say never will, I could rattle off Biological and Physical reasons but I have too high an opinion of my readers.. These types of example are brilliant as they require access to tracts of reality in time and space which are not accessible to humans, much the same as belief in God does 😉

One could argue they are inaccessible as they themselves do not exist, lets not go there however…


The Labelling of Children as XYZ Religion, abuse?

Why is it acceptable to label a child with its parents religion?

Jews, muslims, catholics, protestants etc..  Can you for one second imagine the idea of labeling a small child a marxist, leninist, labor, liberal, democratic, republican?  I should hope NOT!

For this purpose I shall loosely define a child as being less than voting age in whatever country they in, I do this because if we are not yet going to think that they have the mental capacity and decision making processes in place to be able to make what we call responsible political decisions then why on earth should we be under the misapprehension that they have they capacity to make religious, cosmological and moral choices!

It seems to me that if we had leninist or marxist schools opening around the place we would hit the roof, so why then do we permit these sectarian schools to operate when so far as I can see all the accomplish is to highlight and magnify the differences between us all and historically we know where this ends – bitter and bloody wars!



Atheists have higher IQs and self esteem than religious people…

a recent study shows… Atheists tend to have a higher IQ and fewer self esteem issues..

Psychologists from the University of Rochester define intelligence as ‘ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience’. They go on to define religion as some sort of involvement in part or all of the aspects of a belief process.

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. 53 from the 63 studies displayed a ‘reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity’, in 10 of the 63 studies that relationship positive.

Three possible interpretations were discussed.

First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.

Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence.

Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

In their conclusions, they said: ‘Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme – the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’. ‘Intelligent people typically spend more time in school – a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits. ‘More intelligent people getting higher level jobs and better employment and higher salary may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.’

Who knew…