Dissonant Discomfort

This is a very good video. It examines the psychological stages of deconversion within the framework of theoretical psychology.

Part 1 of the pair is here.

Resurrecting Discrepancies 101

Why Can't We Just Agree? The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and particularly John disagree significantly
Literalism is always a dangerous policy. Those who insist that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God are skating on melted ice. Their circular arguments for the Bible as "proof" of God's existence are wetter than the mythical flood.

Not, of course, that most of them will ever admit this. Instead, they repeat themselves ever more LOUDLY about Jesus' sacrifice, while they block their ears and close their eyes. Denial is a common coping strategy amongst those who cannot face scholarly facts.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling, and those who insist on believing refuted and falsified myths inevitably experience considerable discomfort. Blaming all dissonant information on the Devil is a popular fallacy.

Why so much discomfort?

The Old Testament has problems.

The New Testament has problems.

The Qur'an was based on flawed documents, some 6 centuries after the NT.

Speaking of Jesus' sacrifice, the Gospel accounts differ widely and have some famous alterations. Notably, Mark's was the first Gospel, written decades after Jesus' death (around 70 CE)*. The other synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke) were based upon Mark, with significant alterations. Infamously, the final twelve verses of Mark were added by a later scribe.

None of the original manuscripts have survived. We have only copies ... often copies of copies of copies. Biblical scholars have been aware of discrepancies in these hand-copied manuscripts since John Mill published a Greek New Testament in which he catalogued some 30,00 errors (1707). The total number of accidental and deliberate alterations in the surviving manuscript copies has been estimated at 200,000-400,00. Many alterations are minor, some are significant. Ignoring alterations, the Gospels still do not tell identical stories.

Crucifixion accounts contradict each other, as do resurrection accounts. Since so much wishful myth-making is based on the resurrection, let's compare. Don't take my word for it, check the on-line Bible references:

The Resurrection of Christ by Piero della Francesca (c.1420 - 1492).Who went to the tomb?
Matthew 28:1 Mark 16:1 Luke 24:1, 23:55 John 20:1

Where was the stone?
Matthew 28:2 Mark 16:4

Whom did whoever see at the tomb?
Matthew 28:5 Mark 16:5 Luke 24:4

What was whomever told?
Mark 16:7 Luke 24:7

What of this information did whoever pass along?
Matthew 28:8 Mark 16:8

To whom did whoever pass the information?
Matthew 28:8 Luke 24:8 John 20:2

How do the disciples respond?
Matthew 20:19 Luke 24:11 John 20:3

* The authenticity of 7Q5 is disputed by most papyrologists.

Goofballs of GooTube

A furor is raging at GooTube. The goofballs in charge are threatening to shove a new channel design upon users. The design has been around for months, and very few have voluntarily switched to beta. Some tried beta and quickly moved back to the original design. Tens of thousands of irate users are bitterly demanding continued choice of design. Not elimination of beta, merely continued choice.

Is choice so much to ask? Given Google's obstinate refusal to consider any requests from users, it appears that it is.

Just to test beta's features, I opened a new GreedTube channel.


Apologists for beta – some of whom I suspect of being on the payroll – are claiming that we hate the design because we can't figure out how to use it. These people appear to rank alongside creationists in the logic department.

Beta is cumbersome for visitors to a channel page. It is, however, easy to modify the page's design and modules.

I still hate it. Tens of thousands hate it.


It is cluttered, cramped, and singularly unattractive, that's why.

Easier channel set-up features are all well and good, but how much time and trouble is it to set up design on the more complicated alpha channels? Very little. Once one has worked out how to do it, a new alpha channel requires only about five minutes to design, particularly if one is familiar with the html codes for colours.

The ideal solution? Adapt the easier editing features to the original lay-out and icon sizes. Seems a simple solution. I have absolutely no confidence that the goofballs at GooTube are capable of coming up with a simple solution that keeps users and advertisers happy.

So, it looks as though boycotts and departures to other video streaming sites are absolutely inevitable.

It might be wise to sell your shares in Google. If they continue to perform at these levels, the company is doomed.