Smoky-Drinky night.

Going out a bit earlier than usual. I bought Talisker on the way home but decided it was too good for the bunch of drunken bums I am meeting up with. One of them doesn’t like the smoky whiskies anyway.

I’ll go past Tesco and pick up some Lochlan or similar.

Back to normal shortly – once I get a night of appalling drunkenness out of my system.

It has to be done. You can’t keep these things bottled up, it’s bad for you.

And I’m a Doctor so I should know.



35 thoughts on “Smoky-Drinky night.

  1. Indeed Sir, very civilised. My doctor berates me about my alcohol intake but grudgingly admits I’m very healthy for a man of my age. In truth, I rarely go to the docs and live by the dictum: ‘First sign of death, I’m off to the GP.’ You might as well enjoy yourself in this life as it is all you get. Contrary to Mr Cowan’s belief there is no heaven or hell, just oblivion.


    • Unfair, FS! You simply do not know. Our physical minds cannot possibly understand the idea of timelessness or bodylessness. Damn it! No one has yet been able to figure out what it means ‘to be conscious’! How can you claim to be ‘conscious’ and also deny the possibility of bodiless, non-physical consciousness? You cannot deny the possibility because you simply cannot know.
      It is not possible for humans to deny that other states of consciousness might exist. That is because we ourselves are ‘conscious’. There is no proof that ‘consciousness’ requires a physical body.


      • You raise a fair point Junican. But explain how consciousness can be divorced from a living organic brain. There is absolutely no data to support a ‘life’ after death. If you posit such a possibility then the onus of proof strictly lies with thee.


      • Good day, Flaxen. Junican is right. We know practically nothing, especially the ‘experts’ who deliberately fabricate evidence and make up ‘rules’ to avoid reaching conclusions they don’t want.

        On the other hand, we wouldn’t have science at all if it wasn’t for belief that God had created an orderly universe. That’s why many of the great scientists were Christians, like Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Faraday and far too many more to mention.

        Here’s an example of what I mean about making up rules out of prejudice:

        When reviewing Carl Sagan’s final book, genetics professor Richard Lewontin included this admission,

        “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

        A further quote from Lewontin’s review: “The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of .. Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.”

        All that these people have done is to replace God with their ‘god’ called science. The belief that they are right has to be just as strong as to believe in the Creator. In fact, with the knowledge of how these people operate, denying God when the evidence points that way and making up rules which are clearly false, makes having faith in these ‘experts’ in evolution seem pretty dumb.

        But unfortunately, most people are not made aware that the Theory of Evolution has been constructed on sand by jerry-builders and it is still defended after all this time despite the evidence.

        Another famous ‘rule’ which was invented out of thin air in the 18th Century and which changed the course of history is Hutton’s uniformitarianism. We know that catastrophes have happened, so his unscientific philosophy which made millions and billions of years and therefore the Theory of Evolution possible – is a lie.


        • On your second point, Flaxen, you may be interested in Max Planck’s view:

          “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”


          • With faith, you gain the evidence through growing the proverbial mustard seed. I’m sure you know the parable. This can never happen if you simply dismiss the Creator.

            “I can sleep well, tonight.”

            By believing there is no God and no afterlife? It makes you feel good that there is no (in your opinion) possibility of Heaven, a place without fear or pain or hate or politics?

            Ah! You think you can sleep better by pretending that you are not answerable to a higher power for your actions?

            Wouldn’t you be able to sleep (even) better knowing that it is possible that no matter how grizzly and gruesome your final hours, days, weeks, months or years may be that there could be a reward more than worth it awaiting?


            • Mr Cowan, faith is not a viable path to knowledge. We can only find knowledge through induction and deduction. On the basis of faith, you can believe in anything regardless of whether it is actually true. On what evidence do base your belief that their is an afterlife or heaven?


              • It was faith in God’s orderly universe which allowed science to flourish. It is faith which keeps science going. The Theory of Evolution is faith-based. Climate ‘science’ is faith-based. Most of the ‘science’ from Tobacco Control, if believed, is down to pure faith.

                Anyway you look at it, everything is based on faith.

                Most people recognise that there is more to life than our five senses detect, so they go off on a discovery to find out more. Not just based on faith, but based on a real sense that something very important is missing from their lives. This is one way in which faith becomes very real. It is also tangible inasmuch as it changes (most) people for the better.

                Others are content to suppress those feelings, which I think makes a lot of people ill, hence the amount of rabid responses I have had from fans of Dawkins.

                It’s one faith against another, except that Creationists tend to keep a cool head and try to explain what they believe amidst the cackles and rudeness of the majority of atheists/humanists/secularists.

                Not you personally, I hasten to add, but maybe you’re not that bothered about defending a 19th century mistake made possible by an 18th century unscientific philosophy called uniformitarianism.

                But generally, it’s the love of Christ versus how Dawkins describes the universe after talking about suffering on the earth:

                “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

                The atheist lacks direction and instruction, so is wayward and demonstrably so. You just need to be a Creationist and debate on Dawkins’ ‘science and reason’ Facebook page for proof.


                • Stewart, I think that our gracious host may lose patients with us if we continue our debate using his blog. I’ll come to your site and attempt to answer some of your assertions.


  2. What is the difference between the various whiskies? Is it just what grain they are made of? Wheat or rye? I guess the quality of the water used must have an effect on taste.

    I speak as one who is quite happy with a blended cheapo from Aldis, as long as I can mix it with cola.


    • XX I speak as one who is quite happy with a blended cheapo from Aldis, as long as I can mix it with cola.XX

      You deserve to be shot multiply, laddie!


    • Differences stem from the grain, the water, the barrels they are matured in… many things! That’s why there are so many different types.

      I wish I could be content with the cheapos. Since I like my whisky neat, it can only be the good ones for me – and the good ones don’t often come cheap.

      The Lidl malts are pretty good, but their Queen Margot blend is not. Might be okay mixed with cola but really, a couple of quid more is all it takes to get Glen Orchy.


  3. ” There is absolutely no data to support a ‘life’ after death. If you posit such a possibility then the onus of proof strictly lies with thee.”

    There is absolutely no data to support the claim there is NO ‘life’ after death.

    That makes it a 50/50 bet.

    Believers in God have nothing to lose if they are wrong and a great deal to gain if they are right.

    Atheists have nothing to gain if they are right and are screwed for eternity if they are wrong.

    Atheists are making a very bad bet.

    Evolution is a nice history story; but, since it is not mathamatical or predictive in an exact way, it is not a hard science.

    Even Faraday’s electro-magnetism ideas were just a nice idea until Maxwell put them into a math form and the effects became predictable and usefull,

    As for thinking beings with no physical body; well, 85% of our universe is dark matter/dark energy that we know nothing about.
    There is no way to know what sort of critters are out there.

    Some say that there are as many as 11 dimensions.
    Let’s number them 1- 11.

    We live in a world of the first 4 dimensions.
    A world of critters living with dimensions 8-11 may well be minds with no physical beings.


    • You quote Pascal’s wager with regard to whether we should believe in a deity. The argument being that it is better to ‘believe’ regardless as this will accrue maximum benefit. Apart from being a rather cynical viewpoint it is not a very cogent position. Firstly, if you say you believe, but don’t, wont an omniscient, all powerful deity detect this and presumably treat you accordingly? Secondly, which deity are we to worship? Jahweh, Allah or Ganesh? Adherents of various religions believe they worship the one true god and the rest are damned. Therefore we must choose wisely. Pascal’s wager is an attempt at psychological intimidation and belongs to the ‘believe or else’ category. The threat of eternal torment, though never specifically stated in Pacal’s argument, is clearly implied; frankly I find this repugnant. What have we got to lose, if we accept this position: well perhaps, Intellectual integrity, self-esteem and a passion for this this life.


    • As Flaxen points out, ‘saying’ you believe isn’t going to cut it with the big guy and he might even come down harder on you than if you were open in your unbelief.

      I’m an apathist, not an atheist. I worship no deity but do not actively deny their existence. On that basis, if God has a sense of humour he might give me a pass.

      If there is a God, he does have a sense of humour. My existence proves it. 😉

      There is enough out there to construct a compelling argument for the existence of things we can’t see as well as things we experience but don’t understand. Maybe some part of us survives death – but even so, I see nothing to prove anyone is in charge of it all. The next life looks just as random as this one, but without the whisky.

      So I am still in no hurry to find out!


      • If there is a god, then it must be a women with a sense of humour. Otherwise how do you explain the design of the prostate gland? Tis an organ wrapped around the ureter and liable to expand as we age. Ouch.


  4. You evil man, going somewhere to enjoy yourself in the company of other people. This sort of behaviour has Saint(until she can get herself made a Dame) Debbie Arnott trying to it stamp out for our own good. So Stop It.


    • If I was not such a polite and well mannered person I would answer you like I would answer her, SHOULD I ever meet her(?).


    • Mrs. Queen needs to invent a new honour for the likes of the Dreadful Arnott. The Order of the Hideous Harpie would do.

      Then again, if it wasn’t for Dreadful and her ilk, Smoky-Drinky would not even exist and we’d still be in the pubs where our conversations could be overheard and our drinking monitored.

      She can hardly complain – she caused it!


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.