ignorance is bliss

But that requires a below average IQ, as it means you can’t comprehend the world around you and the implications. It’s why the smarter you are, the less happy you can be.

Perhaps this is the heart of the battle between godbots and everyone else.

Few people will admit to being ignorant, so have to convince themselves that they have special knowledge (usually referred to as “revealed knowledge” – because they aren’t putting effort into actually learning and educating themselves, they have to claim knowledge from somewhere)

So, as possessors of revealed knowledge, they then insist that everyone who doesn’t share that “revealed” knowledge are the ignorant ones.

And ignore that if the knowledge that was revealed, would then be known by everyone. So the comeback is that you must accept Jesus and a whole store of “knowledge” will magically download into your brain

The response to this then is that free will isn’t possible despite the godbots insisting that we have it – of course, only so long as we don’t use it to not believe in the skydaddy.

So, in a way we’re being treated equal – godbots embrace revealed knowledge and consider that an expression of free will, but those of us who use our free will to embrace actual knowledge

Somehow have it wrong, because we reject the revealed knowledge that we could have if we gave up our free will.

Which shows that free will, like a free lunch, isn’t free

Giving up your free will costs your brain and using your free will costs your “soul”

On the balance, I’d rather have a brain in my head than two souls on a cloud.


If evil triumphs when good men do nothing, does that mean that evil men are less important than inactive good men or worse, unnecessary even for the cause of evil? Is evil the inaction of the good rather than any action on the part of evil men?

If evil is the inaction of good men, are there even evil men? Perhaps there are no actually evil men, in so much as  misguided or fanatical good men who are taking action with too narrow a focus or consideration in their pursuit of what they deem good?

Certainly in any person’s own code of good or evil, they are working for what they deem to be good; regardless of how others or history later judges them. Assuming anyone is left to perform a historical assessment.

It’s that “own code” that’s the rub. If there is no absolute external good or evil, then any action cannot be deemed as either until after the dust has settled and the survivors either support or regret the action and it’s outcome.

For there to be an absolute good and evil, these concepts could not be culturally dependent and would be reflected fairly universally in cultures throughout history and in all or most regions. There are no such universal norms or values, because every culture has embodied and codified a range of good and evil concepts, both regionally and historically dependent.

To further complicate the matter, evil or bad actions are often excused or deemed acceptable if they can be argued to have a good outcome. Torturing is as a generality, evil or bad, but when used to obtain information with the possibility of saving lives, becomes normal operating procedure at best or quasi-bad at worst.

Generally, what’s evil or bad is what’s done to the good guys and the evil or bad done by the good guys to the bad guys is justifiable. Even and especially when it’s the same action.

That evil actions can be justified demonstrates that they are not inherently evil actions, and are more dependent on the perception of the person performing them and the outcome in relationship to the person determining what is good or evil. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist, after all.

People will often resort to religion as a means of determining good and evil, however, this framework is limited, all religions have the same basis of authority – personal preference – and the same amount of evidence to support their claims – none at all. Religion muddies the good/evil divide further by being the mechanism by which great evils have been justified through history and are often the reason why good men do nothing.

Good and evil become almost childish concepts, unhelpful to base determinations on, given that they are interest based rather than being any means of objective measure.

By following a harm minimization model, which provides a clearer and objective framework to assess any action or outcome of an action, it is possible to determine in real time, whether an action will result in net good or net evil being created.

Harm minimization means that the action is judged by something other than a personal or cultural code of good or evil, and prevents a narrow focus of facts from leading to extreme action – since more interests and needs must be taken into account than narrow, fundamental or fanatical goals allow for.

Religion is a thin veneer

If you have health, wealth and happiness; what do you need religion for?

Religion is ‘s main social function appears to be to make the poor people stay poor and not rise up at night to slaughter the rich for a social revolution and reward now on the promise of a reward after death. And for extra incentive, we through in social niceties like being poor is noble and honest as well as resulting into an easier pass through the heavenly gates.

We’re not supposed to notice that the very rich are not exactly sharing the ignoble wealth to grease their own way in, I suppose we should be greatful that they hoard the wealth now, to make it easier for the rest of us.

Aside: Which is difficult to say, since merely living in a secular democratic nation means you’re in the top 10% of wealth people globally speaking.

In addition to religion keeping the poor poor on the promise of the afterlife reward, there’s also the brainwashing to think that the poor have somehow earned or deserve this low status from their previous life or actions/thoughts in this – depending on if the religion is reincarnation based or not.

Religion is a veneer that claims to provide proof of balance and fairness in the universe; but that veneer is spotty and worn very thin, given the amount of imbalance an unfairness that religion represents.

To claim that membership in a group means that your group is chosen or better than all other groups is not balance and is patently unfair – since religions are regionally based – so if there was a true religion, the chances of being born in a region where it is practised so that you can be exposed to it and join are fairly stacked against everyone.

You probably have a better chance of winning a lottery than being born to the correct religion – and if religion has any merit, there’s a lot more riding on the religion than the ticket.

What if the one true religion is one of the handful that you have to be born to to be included in?

Seriously, I don’t know how believers can live with the uncertainty of their certainty.

self worth


I have never really understood why someone else achieving or failing at a thing makes any different to someone else’s self worth.

There will always be people better or worse than yourself – and as a consequence, you are better or worse than others

You can only live the life that you have, so celebrate anyone doing something well and have compassion for those who don’t; but don’t measure yourself against other people, your only competition for your life’s worth is you.