Category: Furiousity

I’ve spent a significant percentage of my life, firm in the understanding that: a supposition is a guess, perhaps an educated one which one thinks might be true; an hypothesis roughly equals a proposal, idea or a guess which you don’t yet believe to be true and a theory is an established, proven principle or body of principles that explain some natural phenomenon. I’ve been under the impression that testing a hypothesis – several times – and proving it to be correct, results in a theory. Which is to say, a supposition is something without evidence that one might believe anyway, a hypothesis is an idea which isn’t believed that is to be tested and a theory is empirically tested truth; facts.

Now, I have to tell you, I seriously hope I’m not wrong about this and haven’t been wrong about this for what essentially amounts to my entire life. I have never considered those three words to mean the same thing or even similar things. They are explicitly not the same thing.

And if that is true, then will somebody please explain to me what the actual fuck is going on here:


Google definition: Supposition

sup·po·si·tion: noun: “an uncertain belief.” | Synonyms: …theory, hypothesis…


Google definition: Hypothesis

hy·poth·e·sis: noun: “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” | Synonyms: …theory, supposition…


Google definition: Theory

the·o·ry: noun: “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” | Synonyms: …hypothesis, supposition…


syn·o·nym: noun: "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close."

syn·o·nym: noun: “a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close.”

I’ve used Google’s Search with a “define” many thousands of times to get the definition of words. And now I wonder…

Surely, supposition, hypothesis and theory are not synonyms. Surely they are not “exactly” nor “nearly” the same thing. Surely they are not interchangeable? Surely?

How do you explain to your average religionut that a theory is empirically supported fact, not a guess nor a supposition nor an idea without evidence when that same religionut can go and do a Google search and prove to you that a theory, hypothesis and supposition are, in fact, synonyms. Interchangeable. Nearly or exactly the same.

It’s either a disgrace or I am sadly mistaken. I hope I’m not sadly mistaken.

Religion, what’s the harm. Some people need a crutch. Let people believe what they want, it comforts them.

And what does it do for the child victims of religion? Girl of 8 married to a 40 year old man who rapes her to such a degree she fucking dies from the injuries? How many other good Muslim men rape little girls to death? And the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children abused by the Catholic church?

Religion. What’s the harm.


And this:

And this:

And this:

Oh, it doesn’t end there and you can’t tell me these are ‘fringe cases’. Four links above cover child abuse by Christians, Muslims and Jews.

But there is a god right? And he loves children right?

Religion. It’s a curious thing. I look at religion and religious people from time to time and wonder how anybody could be so stupid. Other times I look at religion and religious people and the depth and power of the stupidity is so appalling that I feel obligated to write about it. Or slap some fool till they snap out of it. Or at least fantasise about slapping some fool out of their religion induced reason-coma. This won’t be the first post I’ve written on the subject and god knows it won’t be the last. Which is really sad and mostly depressing considering the subject.

Religion claims the moral high ground. Religion claims knowledge where none exists. Religion lies to children. Religion tortures and kills babies.

Too far? Not quite. You see, in New Zealand we have secular laws based on reason – perhaps not always flawless but certainly better than the alternative – and we have religion, information apparently directly from the almighty creator of the universe. We have people in New Zealand. Judges who manage the application of secular laws through the legal system and we have other people who claim to follow the instructions of the loving almighty creator of the universe.

And we have stories like this one:

If you read that story I think you will find that a good Kiwi Judge is using secular law to try to save the life of a 10 month old baby whose parents have decided – based on instruction from their god himself – to let it die of cancer. That is correct. The secular legal system of New Zealand has to save little babies from their criminally delusional, religious parents.

The parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses, an especially delusional sect of Christianity, have at some point in their organisation’s past, pulled the profoundly idiotic notion out of their collective asses that blood transfusions are an abomination because… well god said so. Maybe. In a verse in the Bible that doesn’t actually say that.

In August, doctors found a large cancerous tumour in the right side of the 10-month-old’s chest and she was diagnosed with stage four cancer in her bones. She has been given a 90 per cent survival rate with treatment, but is likely to need a blood transfusion and her parents will not consent because they are Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is a high risk she would develop life-threatening complications if she was unable to have a transfusion. In a recent decision, the High Court granted the Auckland District Health Board’s application to place her in the guardianship of the court for nine months to allow her to receive transfusions.

The baby has an exceedingly good – 90% – chance of survival and a normal life with treatment but will need a blood transfusion. What do the parents do? The most detestable thing. They say no, let the child die. Horribly.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are unfit parents due to their religious beliefs. There no other way to put it. Their profoundly stupid and harmful belief, based on no evidence what so ever, is a danger to their children. They fail in the single most important duty of a parent: keep your child alive.

Religion is dangerous. It’s dangerous to the children of religious parents. It’s dangerous to the rest of us. To quote a great man: “religion poisons everything”. Between anti-vaccination crazies who are undermining societal herd immunity – hard-won at a terrible cost against disease over generations – with their anti-science idiocy to religion inspired wars to charter schools who insist on teaching creationism as factual science in science class, the rest of us reasonable people are under an assault with weapons grade idiocy.

The great irony is that, while the rest of us have to cope with the horrendous stupid of the religionuts, it’s their own children that suffer the most. And that from a group of people who claim to worship a deity who allegedly has a soft spot for children.

How can people be so goddamned stupid?

The question is a serious one. I would love for a Christian – Catholic preferably – to explain to me what precisely their god is good for.

What’s your god good for anyway?

Make a list. All the things god might be good for. I can imagine what a number of things in that list might be.

I started considering this after I saw something on TV last night, which started a train of thought. Let me get to the point. I would like to understand what Christians do in their heads to make what is clearly an untenable, indefensible situation acceptable and defensible.

The situation I am referring to is the abject apathy from the deity which Christians label as ‘all loving’ and ‘all good’ and ‘all powerful’. I realise that any given number of Christians will come up with a similar number of apologies on behalf of their deity, to justify the disturbing lack of action on its part but even unreasonable people have to draw the line at some point.

What I can’t wrap my head around is how, on god’s green earth, does anybody justify the abject apathy from their deity when it comes to the rape and abuse – on an absolutely epic scale – committed by priests in the Catholic church against children.

People might not appreciate what I mean by ‘an absolutely epic scale’ so let me clarify that phrase for you. What I mean by ‘epic scale’ is this:

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002:

  • Around 81% of these victims were male.
  • Female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, shows that the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that experienced by boys the same age.
  • 22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.
  • A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
  • 9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
  • More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated because diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.
  • For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
  • In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.


Consider that for a minute.  Then thousand victims. All younger than 18 years old. In 52 years. By only Catholic priests and in America alone. The Catholic church has been around for nigh on two thousand years and we know pretty damn well that for a thousand of those years – we call them the dark ages – some pretty heinous things were done in the name of that particular religion.

But wait, there’s more:

The Associated Press estimated the settlements of sex abuse cases from 1950 to 2007 totaled more than $2 billion. BishopAccountability puts the figure at more than $3 billion in 2012.


The Catholic church has, in the United States of America alone paid three billion dollars in settlements in 57 years for child abuse committed by its priests.

Let me sum up the problem that I’m having trouble wrapping my head around. You’re a Christian, a Catholic perhaps. You say things like ‘god is good’, ‘god is great’, ‘god is love’, ‘god is all powerful’ and ‘all things are possible in god’ while every second day of every year a priest in the service of that god is literally raping a different child in America. Let me put that another way. In 52 years there have been – according to one report – 10,667 different victims. Reported victims. That’s not counting all the possible victims, of which I’m sure there are many more. If each victim was molested by a priest just twice – and to be blunt, a significant percentage of victim suffered over many years – it means that every day of every year and twice on weekends for the last 50 years a child was molested by a representative of the almighty creator of the universe in America alone. While this god watches. And does nothing.

Can you even begin to appreciate the scale of the horror? Could you sit idle and do nothing as little children beg you for help, to be saved from abuse, molestation, anal rape, every day of every week of every year for decades and decades? Could you even have a response of pure apathy?

So I ask Christians, if your god cannot – or will not – stop the rampant abuse and rape of innocent children on a truly gigantic scale in his own organisation, what precisely is that god good for?

To paraphrase a cogent meme:

If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That is the difference between me and your god.

Disclaimer: All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

I’m dyin’ here, people. It’s like people trust me or something.

So I’ve been given this rather…explosive…information. It’s a direct report of unethical behavior by a big name in the skeptical community (yeah, like that hasn’t been happening a lot lately), and it’s straight from the victim’s mouth. And it’s bad. Really bad.

He’s torn up about it. It’s been a few years, so no law agency is going to do anything about it now; He reported it to an organization at the time, and it was dismissed. Swept under the rug. Ignored. I can imagine his sense of futility. He’s also afraid that the person who assaulted him before could try to hurt him again.

But at the same time, he doesn’t want this to happen to anyone else, so he’d like to get the word out there. So he hands the information to me. Oh, thanks.

Now I’ve been sitting here trying to resolve my dilemma — to reveal it or not — and goddamn it, what’s dominating my head isn’t the consequences, but the question of what is the right thing to do. Do I stand up for the one who has no recourse, no way out, no other option to help others, or do I shelter the powerful big name guy from an accusation I can’t personally vouch for, except to say that I know the author, and that he’s not trying to acquire notoriety (he wants his name kept out of it)?

I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do, I can do no other. I will again emphasize, though, that I have no personal, direct evidence that the event occurred as described; all I can say is that the author is known to me, and he has also been vouched for by one other person I trust. The author is not threatening his putative assailant with any action, but is solely concerned that other men be aware of her behavior. The only reason he has given me this information is that he has no other way to act.

With that, I cast this grenade away from me…

At a conference, Ms. Watson coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me. I can’t give more details than that, as it would reveal my identity, and I am very scared that she will come after me in some way. But I wanted to share this story in case it helps anyone else ward off a similar situation from happening. I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously. Ever since, I’ve heard stories about her doing things (5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them) and wanted to just say something and warn people, and I didn’t know how. I hope this protects someone.


Further corroboration: a witness has come forward. This person has asked to remain anonymous too, but I will say they’re someone who doesn’t particularly like me — so no accusations of fannishness, OK?

The anonymous man who wrote to you is known to me, and in fact I was in his presence immediately after said incident (he was extremely distraught), and when he told the management of the conference (some time later).

People are still writing into me with their personal stories. This one isn’t so awful, but it’s mainly illustrative of her tactics…there’s nothing here that would form the basis of any kind of serious complaint, but most importantly, I think, it tells you exactly what kind of behavior to watch out for with her.

Rebecca Watson was the guest of honor at an skeptics event I attended in Summer 2010; I was on the Board of the group who hosted it. It’s a very short story: I got my book signed, then at the post-speech party, Watson chatted with me at great length while refilling my wine glass repeatedly. I lost count of how many drinks I had. She was flirting with me and I am non-confrontational and unwilling to be rude, so I just laughed it off. She made sure my wine glass stayed full.

And that’s the entirety of my story: Rebecca Watson helped get me drunker than I normally get, and was a bit flirty. I can’t recall the details because I was intoxicated. I don’t remember how I left, but I am told that a friend took me away from the situation and home from the party. Note, I’d never gotten drunk at any atheist event before; I was humiliated by having gotten so drunk and even more ashamed that my friends had to cart me off before anything happened to me.

But I had a bad taste in my mouth about Watson’s flirtatiousness, because I’m married, and I thought she was kind of a pig. I didn’t even keep her signed book, I didn’t want it near me.

Over the years as rumors have flown about atheist men warning each other about a lecherous author/speaker, I thought of all the authors and speakers I had met during my time as an atheist activist, and I guessed that Watson was the one being warned against.

Now there are tweets and blogs about her sexually inappropriate behavior as well as her fondness for getting boys drunk, so I feel quite less alone. I don’t think she realizes he is doing anything wrong. Women who behave inappropriately sexually never think they are doing anything wrong.

I have mixed feelings about your grenade-dropping. I have heard arguments both for and against what you did. Whether or not I agree with it, I just want to say that the accusations against Watson match up with my personal experience with her, insofar as she seemed hellbent on helping me get drunk, and was very flirty with me. Take it for what you will. I believe the accusers.

And now, for some advice:

This post should never have been written, whether it’s true or not. Nor should the one that it was copied from.



And for the skeptic Cedric:

Edit 2:

I’ve basically ignored the ‘atheist community’ on the internet for a year now. Why? Because of the flaming idiocy that is Atheism+, professional victimhood, the crappy flavour of feminism being pushed and other unnecessary bullshit and drama. I stopped following a bunch of blogs, I’ve ignored YouTube channels, I cut myself off from that asshattery and everything was fine.

Then yesterday – at least, I became aware of it yesterday – PZ Myers took it upon himself to accuse Michael Shermer of rape on behalf of an unnamed – alleged – victim.

I have two thoughts on this:

  1. If the women was raped, why did she not go to the police to report the crime? If PZ Myers thought the claim credible, why did he not go to the police to report the crime?
  2. PZ Myers and Atheism+ are essentially attention whores; that is why nobody went to the police to report the crime and instead plastered it on the internet.

Well played PZ Myers. Your traffic generation marketing campaign is working. I’ve managed to ignore the disgusting fuckwittery in the atheist community quite effectively until now but you sort of can’t miss public rape accusations now can you?

I find myself hoping Michael Shermer is exonerated completely and PZ Myers is sued – and loses – for slander. And that fucks me off even more since I don’t know if Michael Shermer is guilty or not and because of the actions of PZ Myers I now essentially have an uninformed view simply because of his self serving dumfuckery.

You people disgust me.

God can be a real bastard when he wants to be. If we were to allow – for the sake of argument obviously – that the Christian God of the Bible exists, then we have to admit that a lot of the time He is an absolute bastard.

God’s plan is mysterious right? Poor humans just don’t get it. Whatever Gods plan is, it’s good and just and human beings just can’t understand it. Right? Right.

Start the hoop jumping and twisting so long and have a go at explaining this delightful part of the ‘divine’ plan:

Pastor Infects Boy, 14, With HIV

The pastor was said to have used some games on his laptop and mobile phone to entice the boy, after which he lured him into his bedroom where he had unprotected sex with him.

The father later realized that his son frequently fell ill after he had returned from the pastor’s house. The man sent his son to the hospital and after a series of medical tests, it was confirmed that the boy was HIV positive.

The parent were tested too by the same medical facility and were found to be negative, raising fears that the victim might have been infected by the ‘man of God’, especially after he mentioned to his parent that he had been sodomized five times by the pastor.

Read the whole story here.

So, help me out here since I’m having a hard time reconciling ‘good’, ‘loving’, ‘God’ and that story.

A man who represents God on earth, lures a child into his room where that man anally rapes the child – while God watches – and infects the child with HIV. Unless the parents of that child have some means, he’s not going to get the anti retrovirals he’s now going to need to survive until he’s 20.

I wonder of the good Lord provided the parents with enough money for anti retrovirals? I wonder if the child prayed to God to save him from the man ripping his anus apart?

Let’s say he did pray to God to stop the horror. God watches a man rape a child (maybe repeatedly) who begs to be saved and God’s response is: “No, fuck you, I’m trying to teach you something. Have some AIDS with that”.

That’s a bastard move in anybody’s book. Can a Christian or two do me a favour. Ask Jesus what the plan is with AIDS infected children since I can’t come up with a satisfactory reason to include the rape, suffering and murder of innocent children in any plan. I especially have a hard time with starving kids to death, with raping kids to death and with infecting kids with diseases that slowly kill them over years while suffering in the most terrible ways.

God doesn’t exist and people disgust me.

Random update writing.

I’ve been remiss in posting and I know that. I’m taking a bit of a break from the godless stuff for a while. This dumbfuckery with/from Freethought Blogs and Thundrerf00t have put me off. I’m surprised how much it’s affected me considering how I’ve essentially got nothing to do with the ‘community’.

I am ambivalent about Thunderf00t releasing info from a private mailing list that he was legitimately added. I’m disappointed by what was released. Maybe disgusted. I don’t know.

That Matt Dillahunty is chiming in as well disappoints me. I’m fucking over this shit. I’ve un-followed a bunch of people who’s opinions I used to enjoy. I’ve stopped reading blogs I previously read… religiously. I’m not watching the video’s I used to.

I’m a bit disillusioned about the atheist/skeptical community at the moment. Perhaps it was overdue; I probably had unreasonably high expectations of people to begin with.

As it turns out, everybody is the same. Most people are assholes, even godless liberals. The only thing this ongoing drama has taught me is this: be more sceptical of everybody – they are probably worse people than you think.

I’ll post again when some religionut pisses me off enough or if some awesome science inspires me.

Jesus fucking Christ, there are some things wrong with you people. In your heads. There are things wrong.

Watch this:

About this:

and this:

Really? It’s come to THIS? You people ARE as socially fucking inept and incompetent as you made yourselves out to be with the ‘policy’ drama. And I say ‘you’, because fucked if I’m ever going to include myself in anything this miserably stupid.

The flaming idiocy is too much for me.

People part of the wider atheist/skeptical ‘movement’, particularly conference goers will be aware of the misogyny inspired drama that’s been plaguing ‘the community’ for a while – maybe a year, I can’t remember and I can’t be bothered to check.

The incessant drama has finally worn me down.

I have several opinions, few facts, little physical interaction, possibly no clue. I have, however, had enough now.

Was (is, was, will be) Rebecca Watson harassed? Sure.

Were (will) other women be sexually harassed at conferences? Probably.

Did Rebecca Watson initially make a huge deal out of it? Perhaps not.

Was/is the harassment as bad as the brouhaha after some subsequent blog posts? Probably not.

Is sexual harassment as big an issue at skeptical/atheist conferences as some people have made it out to be? Probably not. I haven’t been to one so I can’t really say. I haven’t been to America – perhaps the country is packed to the brim with misogynistic assholes, I can’t say. Some people have certainly made it out to be like that.

Was (is) PZ Myers overly supportive of Rebecca Watson? Yes.

Was Richard Dawkins as wrong about the Rebecca Watson story as Rebecca Watson made out to be? No, I don’t think so any more.

Was Thunderf00t’s first take on the misogyny issue the way PZ Myers portrayed it? No.

Was Thunderfoot’s response to PZ’s posts ill-considered and sloppily done? For sure.

Was Thunderfoot’s response to the SkepchickCON harassment policy childish and silly? Yes.

Was Skepchick’s latest response childish and silly? Yes.

Are Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers and Thunderfoot and their legions of minions and supporters acting like a bunch of twats? Indeed.

I’ve never been to an atheist or skeptics conference. I used to want to go to them all pretty badly and came close to going to the one in Melbourne recently. Now, I’m not so sure. It’s clear that there is no ‘community’. It’s clear that there are a bunch of factions with different agendas and it is clear that ‘reason’ isn’t high up on any of those agendas.

Take this from here it comes: the huge freaking issue made about sexual harassment at conferences has put me off of going to them and I am a man. I used to want to go and now I do not. I am well aware that ‘the issue’ is probably not nearly as big as it’s been made out by some people to be but fuck it,  I don’t need that shit in my life.

I’m over Freethought Blogs. I’m over the people commenting on Freethought Blogs. If that is what the atheist/skeptical ‘community’ is, I want no part of it.

Yes, I realise I have this very insignificant blog in an insignificant corner of the world and I might very well be alone in feeling that I want nothing to do with the massive amount of idiocy the ‘community’ is currently drowning in but that’s the way it is. It makes me sad to say – I too would like to feel like I belong to something bigger than myself – but I do not want anything to do with this shit.

The bottom line is that atheism and scepticism are not uniting forces and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. Atheism does not a ‘community’ or ‘movement’ make. PZ Myers posted some time ago that atheism is more than just the non-belief in god. I used to agree with him. The last 12 months worth of drama has done nothing other than show that a great many atheists are dicks and atheism does nothing to unite people and atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity.

The realisation that is sadly dawning to my very un-skeptical mind is that just because somebody is an atheist does not make them a nice or good person. Or a person I would want to associate with. Somebody being an atheist does not in fact imply a damn thing about that person other than they do not believe in a God.

I like to think the best of people and these people that I used to look up to have made that impossible.

%d bloggers like this: