God does not exist. But in order to bring Him (god is a male) to life, Theologians — these people who gives themselves the authority to bring the idea of god into your gullible brains — have had to come with a concept as to why god allows your life to be shithouse. 

In order to sound knowledgeable, they call this contradiction — of a loving good-god making you suffer — Theodicy. In short these morons indulge into a grand philosophical discourse explaining why god is an idiot. 


Lovely.

It makes as much sense as explaining the relationship between your cactus on the table by the window and your dead goldfish because you forgot to clean the tank. It’s circular nonsense. Actually there is more relationship between a cactus and a goldfish at the first hour of evolution, than between why god is good and why god allows evil. But the idea of evolution is annoyingly nefarious to those who believe in god.

In order not to be left behind in the categorisation of your toothache, some other hippy idiots thought of a secular idea to theodicy. They came up with cosmodicy, to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe — an anthropodicy attempts to justify the goodness of humanity. It’s loony. Drink your kale juice…

Here we can say that the universe exists — unless we live in a matrix of stars painted on the ceiling. But we'd live in fairyland by trying to give the universe a value of goodness. The universe is made of particles and bits of bits that have no purpose, in which the possible relative fundamental question is: why is there more matter than anti-matter in it? And does it matter?

On the question of “evil”, there is no such thing. No evil, no devil, no satan, no, djinn, no beelzebub  no lucifer, no prince of darkness… Just you feeling crap on your own, when you wake up some mornings… though there could be some relationship with your genetic make-up.

We know through scientific observation (mostly calculations so far) that there is dark matter, which in itself isn’t in opposition of good or bad to what we call matter. There is anti-matter though. Same with our calculations of dark energy. Dark energy isn’t vicious. It’s just there. It seems to accelerate the expansion of the Universe, which we can observe. Wow! And anti-matter simply negates the existence of matter. No goodo, nor devil in this.
So there. So why do you suffer? Why do I suffer? Usually it’s because I have indulged in too much red-ned, something which was pleasant at the time, the night before and, getting old, I don’t recover as fast as before. Does this mean that pleasure is counterbalanced by pain and suffering? No. Not in your nelly. Pleasure and pain are parameters of our efficiency in survival with bio-processes, and in our acceptance of and resistance to some poisons, including caffeine, but to some extend, they are only related by what we feel on the sum of our state of mind. Hungry, angry in a mix of content… We could have a sore head but we're elated our footy team won the game last night. Hard to focus the radars, though...

Anyway, this is relative. Meanwhile, the self-appointed authorities on the matter, the theologians, still try to make sense of nonsense to this day, everyday… 

As the Pentecostal theatres push the boundaries of godly delusion into song and dance (give generously to pay for the music and strobe lighting), others dudes are seriously tackling the problem of your ineptitude at being rich: economic suffering — which for years was a Catholic tenet of being good (happy are the poor because they will inherit the earth). They now try to explain why god and his minions — the rich sinners with their own private jets — can be malevolent, while being good. Professor of Economics and Theology at Alphacrucis College, Paul Oslington, tells you why your life is crapolocity:

Philosophers and theologians have written a great deal on the problem of suffering – or the problem of evil as it becomes when suffering flows from human moral choices. When a God who is supposed to be both powerful and good is involved, we have the problem of theodicy. This problem received its canonical formulation in David Hume’s Dialogues on Natural Religion: “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” Answering Hume and many sensitive religious and non-religious thinkers who have asked similar questions is the task of theodicy.

Here we go again, thrown into the arms of illogical-idiocity… The sooner we get rid of this pseudo-valuation of god and gold, which is totally wonky — that we all need a richer understanding of economic suffering and evil, through a renewal of the discussion of economic theodicy initiated by Malthus, Smith and other early economists — the better we can live, even if it’s only in our own head. Oh and please do not talk of “balance” like the minister of education did yesterday at the media club… Balance is good for police to judge if you have been drinking too much before driving, by making you walk in a straight line, foot before foot. Balance has nothing to do with god and evil fighting for supremacy of the planet. Only idiots and US presidents do this.

Economic hocus-pocus through the eyes of god is grand imbecilicodicy… But in order to cling-on to the god value of delusion, we’re also pestered by the likes of religious Rod Dreher, who in his latest febrile instalment, devilishly aligns himself with the secular Mephistopheles of modern decadent shitty philosophy, Houellebecq — the French master of ‘materialistic horror’…

Regular readers know that I’m enamored, in a bittersweet way, with the novels of Michel Houellebecq. Bittersweet, because Houellebecq’s novels are extraordinarily bleak, but they are also extraordinarily insightful about the way we live now. I’d call them prophetic.

Houellebecq (pronounced “well-beck”) is not a religious believer — he has described himself as atheist, but more recently as agnostic — but according to Louis Betty, a scholar of French literature and a specialist on Houellebecq’s work, the misanthropic French novelist is “a deeply and unavoidably religious writer.”

Here we go again. Your red-ned should start to feel like old vinegar. Through this, Rod introduced more hate-your-guts misunderstandings because real scientific concepts are too hard to comprehend. 

This goofy godly/agnostic stuff is circular sophisticacamediocrity… It’s crap. In fact a lot of these neo-philosophering theodicists resent you, because you enjoy your meaningless materialism. Good for you.

In a perverse way, they want you to suffer their own angst of having asked questions which could have answers, but not the one they want. They want “god” ticked in all the boxes — ...

Philosophers like Houellebecq are misery guts. They don’t like you having a good time, enjoying your materialistic goodies. Most modern French philosophers  including the deconstructionists have tried to impose their neurosis onto the world, because of their inability to make sense of reality by “decorticating” — or peeling the layers of an onion, while they cry. They don’t want you to accept the relativity of feeling good, independently. 

Meanwhile the MegaHouses of Pentecostalism are selling salvation by encouraging you to become rich. The richer you become the more you can “give” back to the growing gigachurchismic movement. It makes you feel upright, even if you becoming rich is because you are riding on other people’s back. It’s these poor people own problem not to join in the fun of becoming rich. This is where economists are at the end of the line, with flags of various statistical values. 

But on the other side of the world of understanding, some scientists are devising experiments to discover the sterile neutrino. This could be seen at the forefront of masochistic materialism, but it’s massive fun — and far more accurate than a godly fiddle like dropping bombs on Bagdhad. 

Though hydrogen is the most abundant matter in the universe by a ratio of nearly 40,000 to one, the most abundant particle in this universe is the photon. Second to photons come the neutrinos. We can see photon, but we cannot see neutrinos. Bugger. Billions of neutrinos go through our body every second. Billions! And they do nothing much. Scientists call them neutrinos because they are basically uselessly neutral. While photons will give you electromagnetism and light, including all sorts of radio-transmissions like 5G, neutrinos are… neutral. So how do we know they are there? This is the tricky part. This keep many scientists awake at night. This is far more real than the illusion of sin, for which a human/god was crucified to protect us from sin, like zinc protect us from UVs.

Neutrinos are elementary subatomic particles with no electric charge, very little mass, and 1/2 unit of spin. Neutrinos belong to the family of leptons, which are not subject to the strong force. Neutrinos are subject to the weak force that underlies certain processes of radioactive decay. There are three types of neutrino, each associated with a charged lepton—i.e., the electron, the muon, and the tau—and therefore given the corresponding names electron-neutrino, muon-neutrino, and tau-neutrino. Each type of neutrino also has an antimatter component, called an antineutrino; the term neutrino is sometimes used in a general sense to refer to both the neutrino and its antiparticle.

Certain characteristics of neutrinos and antineutrinos make scientists wonder: Are they one and the same? Are neutrinos their own antiparticles? Gluons and even Higgs bosons are thought to be their own antiparticles. But if scientists discover neutrinos are their own antiparticles, it could be a clue as to where they get their tiny masses—and whether they played a part in the existence of our matter-dominated universe. 

One of the fourth possible one being searched for, is the "sterile neutrino”… It’s complicated. It's a transition theorised particle that can change the flavour (electron/muon/tau) of neutrinos to another flavour while travelling at near the speed of light, but not quite — because at the speed of light, no change of flavour is possible... because at this speed, time does not exist. One has to create extraordinary situations, such as huge chambers with 40,000 tonnes (or is it litres?) of liquid argon, to gauge the “existence" and mutations of these by abstraction, away from from a neutrino transmitter some 500 miles away. If this does not blow your godly socks off, then you’re dumber than you think...


Gus Leonisky
You local drunk.