Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Divine Revelation

Now let us talk for a few moments about those two incompatible ways of seeking truth - science and its emperical method and religion and its method of divine revelation. If something is revealed to us by means of some supposedly 'divine revelation' this does not exclude putting the matter to the test by means of the methods of science.

For example, we are told by religion through the means of 'divine revelation' that there is this goddess, the Queen of Heaven, who had an immaculately conceived pussy who then had intercourse with a ghost and then through her immaculate pussy gave birth to a divine god/human hybrid, doing so, we are told, without even busting her immactulate hymen. You see after giving birth to a god being you do want to get your pussy perfectly immaculate from that time forward as a sign of extreme holiness and this means that the Queen of Heaven remained forever a virgin and never ever allowed some hard dick to go where a divine god baby had gone before. The divine revelations concerning this goddess with an immaculate pussy do not begin and end with the Bible for we know that in the 19th century a Pope had another one of those divine revelations and announced to the world that after a lifetime of perfect pure pussyhood the virgin with the immaculate pussy was assumed bodily up into heaven where she now lives and hears peoples prayers and also occassionally shows up by manifesting herself on earth to warn European children about the dangers of communism of Russia.

Now either this divine revelation is a description of an objective reality, in which case it can be tested using the methods of science, or it is a pile of shit and a falsehood, in which case it cannot be tested by the methods of science since it is impossible to prove a negative.

It is interesting to note that all such divine revelations are not testable by science, there being nothing to test, which strongly suggests that divine revelation results in the creation of huge piles of completely made up worthless shit. The same cannot be said of the methods of science which produce results which can be verified and we can therefore have some assurance that the results produced by critical and objective observation of what really exists produces reasonably reliable descriptions of an objective reality that actually bears some resemblance to something that actually does exist in the real world.

I have noticed that while religion is doing one miracle after another on television, and while Pentecostal prophets are now becoming so spiritually powerful they are now raising the dead in places like Africa and Latin America, for some fucked up reason religious people quarrel with science and try to pull such stunts as introducing Creationism doctrine into schools. when really religious people should be doing rock solid science. After all, when you have a gazillion miracles going on it would be a simple matter to subject this evidence to rigorous scientific analysis, thus crushing science under a steam roller as the evidence mounts up in huge giant piles until finally it becomes irrefutable. The fact that this obviously excellent strategy is never pursued by religion is proof positive to me that religion is full of deciet, fraud, deception and is peddling a big pile of steaming bullshit, because for religion to back up its so called 'divine revelation' with rock solid science is after all the absolutely perfect and most excellent strategy. The obvious conclusion to be drawn here, owing to the excellence of the strategy, is that religion has only bullshit and thus wants to keep divine revelation and stay far far away from that ever so harmful science. From this we can conclude that divine revelation is simply a pile of bullshit and any claim that somehow a divine revelation has a status either equal to or greater than science is a worthless claim, for what could be better than a divine revelation which supposedly describes some form of objective existing reality that was further backed up by rock solid science.

As just one example of how science can result in good rock solid doctrine, I will remind people that in addition to being the Prophet of YAHWEH (preacher of the Garden of Eden) I am also a bit of a scientist myself, and really, when you stop to think about it, what could possibly be better when it comes to developing a theory of evolution than to actually have the rare opportunity to watch a bunch of bedbugs actually going through the process of evolution, thus demonstrating how that is really done. This creates problems for our scientists, since there is no evidence that I can see that bedbugs are 'randomly mutating' but rather they are systematically spreading around a specifically targeted set of dominant genes. This does not surprise me to much, because you see there is no such thing as 'theistic Darwinism', since Darwinism is an atheistic theory which therefore requires 'random mutations', whereas my theory is about what you would expect from someone such as myself, and since it turns out to be true that YAHWEH really is God, and that God does in fact exist, even though God never attends church or mosque or temple, then you would expect Darwinism to get the flush down the toilet sooner or later.

What would wind up giving that erroneous Darwinism the big flush would not be 'Divine Revelation' but rather good science, which it turns out also makes for good doctrine, unlike that divine revelation which only results in big piles of made up shit followed by thousands of years of ruthless merciless exile. After all, what half decent God would want to be seen as supporting in even the smallest way those great big piles of shit? It is for this reason that you are always safer to go with science than you are to go with something as prone to producing those giant sized piles of shit such as that 'divine revelation' and the always controversial and always unproven and unprovable results this method is certain to produce.

Link : Principles of Evolution : A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs