The Future Prayer

Dodgy connection tonight. Gales, horizontal snow, freezing temperatures and the phone line is still trailing across the garden. So, I wrote this offline first in case I get suddenly deleted from the internet again. Life is now random and unpredictable. Better get used to it.

It’s probably what you can expect in a future world where gods are corporate and all worship the Jabberworkers. Look around, we’re nearly there. Many already are.

You’re told that the New World Disorder plans a new world religion, among other idiocies, and it does. It both understands and fails to understand religion. It understands the heirarchy of things like catholicism, where the big boys get to keep all the money and the poor bring them more. It does not understand the visceral beliefs of the followers of religion.

You cannot simply go to a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Jain and say ‘hey, this new stuff is the best religion now’. If that were possible there would be no Jews or Christians in the world, they would all be part of Islam, the latest Abrahamic religion. People believe what they believe. You cannot force belief.

You cannot attack belief with logic. They are entirely separate mindsets. Just as you cannot attack logic with belief. You can believe there is an entire English teaset orbiting Betelgeuse. I have no means to prove you are wrong but logic suggests it is very, very unlikely. Actually I would be delighted if it were ever proven to be true… but I digress.

The religion intended by Swabby Klaus and his Great Messup is a humanist religion in which humanity worships themselves. Right. I have no religion. I have never felt the need for religion. I have studied religions to see what makes them tick. This entire ‘man worships man’ is the biggest load of rancid mammoth bollocks I have ever encountered.

Religious people worship something or someone far more powerful than themselves. Whether that is God or Allah or Krishna or Darvell Gadarn or whatever. I don’t believe in worshipping anyone but I can see the logic in the argument here. I don’t follow any religion but I do not poke fun at them either. In the end, at least one of them might be right.

I can see no logic in worshipping Man. I am one. What am I to do? Sacrifice things to myself? I do that every time I cook a lamb shank and it’s made no bloody difference to my life so far. So should I pray to myself while it cooks and hope I help or guide myself to get it right? It makes not the slightest sense.

That’s not the real new world religion, of course. You will not be worshipping yourself. You will be worshipping your superiors. The corporate gods.

Our Pharmer
Who art in profit
Hollow be thy needle
Thy vaccines come
Thy experiments done
In adults as they are in children
Give us this day our daily booster
And forgive us our hesitancy
As we forgive those with hatred against us
Lead us not into early treatment
And deliver us from cures
For thine is the immunity
The power and the money
This ride lasts forever
For all.

So yes, you will be worshipping humans in the New World religion but you wil be worshipping little fat old humans who see you as inferior.

The New World Order comes with a whole raft of new gods. The most piss-weak, feeble, useless gods any world religion anywhere has ever seen. If you worship them, it follows that you are even weaker than they are.

Do you really want that label?

21 thoughts on “The Future Prayer

  1. These people are weak, which is the reason they resort to name-calling. They have nothing else. Well, they do: threaten you with a lawsuit or get you fired.

    Russell’s teapot is disingenuous. No religion claims that it exists, never mind worships it. It would have to have been made out of matter by somebody, so could not have made that matter itself. The burden of proof actually doesn’t lie with religious people. I don’t have to prove myself to anyone! What they mean is that in order to convince atheists, I have to prove it to them. They obviously don’t understand what ‘faith’ is and, in my experience, hard-nosed atheists don’t want to believe as a matter of ‘principle’. Some famous ones have admitted this. It is wrongly assumed that atheistic scientists are unbiased, but they also have their starting assumptions, like creationists do.

    It could be argued that intelligent design is the only account which doesn’t have a starting belief, as I.D. is based on detecting whether intelligence was required to achieve the design that is abundantly evident in nature and especially ‘the cell’.

    I donโ€™t follow any religion but I do not poke fun at them either. In the end, at least one of them might be right.

    Did you celebrate Christmas? (Pagan/Christian). What about New Year? (Pagan Roman). I could go on. Rejecting the Creator necessitates belief that everything is here by chance. Because the science shows that this universe “finely-tuned” for life is so unlikely to have formed spontaneously that atheists invented the multiverse hypothesis. There is far less evidence for that than there is for a Creator.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s not fair to call SC a moron, he’s just incapable of seeing past his beliefs. I wonder how he justifies the inclusion in cells – every cell of your body Stewart! – of mitochondria, which were separate organisms a few billions of years ago, before they ‘joined the band’. Studying the difference between eukaryotic and prokaryotic forms might help.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think Sexton was being ironic/humorous.

        “…heโ€™s just incapable of seeing past his beliefs.”

        Pot/kettle, or if you prefer, Russell’s teapot/kettle.

        Similarities in nature are an indication of a Designer as well as evolutionary processes. It’s just that neo-Darwinism doesn’t work. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are evolutionist terms.


        • Similarities in nature fit with an intellient designer and also with a common ancestor in evolution. It works for both.

          Oh and Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam can actually be used to support Sctipture, if you think about it ๐Ÿ˜‰ Especially given the time difference between them.

          Because it’s not Adam, it’s Noah ๐Ÿ˜‰


          • There is definitely a serious time difference between the Biblical time frame and evolution’s ‘Bible’ characters, and yes, it would be Noah’s Y-chromosome all us men have.


    • There is nothing in that post that denigrates religion. Russel’s teapot isn’t connected with religion, it’s a thought experiment along the lines of ‘Well if you can’t prove it’s not true, how do you know it’s not true?’ Science doesn’t work like that. Science cannot prove that anything isn’t true because there can be no test for something that isn’t detected. Science can only prove something is there, it cannot prove definitively that something is not there. It can suggest that it’s not likely to be there based on observations but that’s all.

      As an example, when I was involved in food testing, one of the things we tested for was (of course) Salmonella. We never, ever reported that it was absent. We reported ‘not detected in the sample tested’ because if we tested every bit of food, none would go out to the shops. So it was not detected. Still doesn’t say it’s not there, but if it is, it’s at too low a level to be a problem. Salmonella won’t infect with one bacterium, it has to go in mob-handed or the bacteria in the gut will wipe it out. They don’t like competition.

      I wouldn’t say I ‘celebrate’ Christmas. I like the food and all the present stuff but it has no real spiritual meaning for me. This year, Christmas and New Year have actually been a bit of a pain, with all the extra closed-down days. As for New Year, well in Scotland that’s all about boozy parties and I’m too old and unsociable for that now. To be honest I never was much good at the party scene anyway. I just had a whisky and did some Danish lessons. Oh and we watched a film. At home.

      You are right that so many people ‘believe in science’. They have made it their religion. Not just the atheists, who I have poked fun at in the past for having atheist meetings. It’s like a church without a god, or a knitting circle that denies the existence of wool. There is also the new Cult of Covid and the longstanding Church of the Green God. Something about ‘many false prophets’ comes to mind and let’s be honest, how much more false could they get?

      Science that cannot be questioned is not science. It’s religion. These new science-religions even have their own doomsday predictions if we don’t do as they say. They shout down heretics. It’s like the Middle Ages all over again with most of them. I’m sure they’d love to burn all of us who think they are raving loonies, which would just prove they are all indeed raving loonies. It seems, lately, the Archbish of Canters and the Popefather have joined those science-religion cults. It’s looking like the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right – organised religion is a scam and a racket.

      That’s not real religion. I am not involved in it but as an outsider looking in, I can see the devotion the really religious have to their beliefs. I cannot understand it but I can respect it. Much more than I can respect the end-of-the-world lunacy of the Green God or the Covidians and other lunatic fringes.

      Real religion does not need to co-opt science. Science cannot prove or disprove religion. There is no possible way to prove that any god does not exist, and no way to prove that any god does exist unless that god manifests and submits to scientific tests. Not a likely scenario. Science can suggest alternative scenarios to creation and often these are plausible alternatives but it cannot ultimately say there was no creation and nobody was guiding the development of species. Science doesn’t have a way to test for that.

      So we come back to Russel’s teapot, which seemed to offend you, and yet it applies to science and religion in this way – ‘There might be a God, but there is no way to prove there isn’t’.

      Science and religion are entirely separate things and they see the world in entirely different ways. Both sides should recognise and respect that. Science measures and analyses. Religion believes. There is really no crossover between them.

      Although, if I feel like playing Devil’s Advocate, when hearing about the Big Bang and how it’s definitely true ‘because science’, I can’t help asking ‘Yes, but who set it off?’


      Liked by 3 people

      • Russell’s teapot didn’t offend me. I suppose it slightly riled me, if anything! I can see its point, but I still think it’s a pretty worthless analogy for atheists to use. There is evidence that we were created specially for the task. You just have to look around at people’s lives and how their bodies and minds work and that we have moral standards which go against what would be expected if evolution theory were true.

        Flood geology is very exciting for me (I hated geology at school). When you examine the evidence, it is inescapable that there was a worldwide deluge. Atheists – and probably many secularised Jews and Christians, etc. – just cannot see it and insist that there is no evidence for the Flood, which is just extraordinary to me. I think it’s just the position they have taken on sort of religious grounds and they won’t budge an inch. That has been changing somewhat in recent years due to the Missoula floods in the USA.

        Science and religion are entirely separate things and they see the world in entirely different ways.

        That might often be true (there are so many religions), but what the Bible says about the past can be backed up with science.

        What John Polkinghorne said on “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is also true, that if you make metaphysical arguments you have to defend them with metaphysical reasoning, or words to that effect.


        • I know why the damn teapot argument riled you. It’s the same old, same old, same old phrase that has been trundled out eternally in Richard Dawkins fashion, so the brain immediately thinks “Oh no! Not THAT old thing again.”


          • That’s probably the reason, Elizabeth. It’s like the same old quotes from Messrs Dawkins, Sagan et al that get posted in jpg format (so they must be true!).

            Liked by 1 person

        • There could have been big floods. When the Varangian and Sturtian Glaciations melted finally, each after about 200 million years of IceBall Earth, there’d have been big floods, yes. About a billion years BC should be your starting marker.


          • There needn’t be such a starting marker. E.g. the Grand Canyon: a little water over eons of time or a lot of water in a short time? Slow and gradual Uniformitarianism dictates the former as a matter of principle, but does that make it true?

            My point about Flood geology is that the whole Earth testifies to the Deluge… Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth; there are folded rocks all over the world – which had to be wet when folded, or they would just have fractured; erosional remnants (supposedly millions of years old, but should have been eroded away millions of years ago); underfit rivers; water/wind gaps; guyots; flat-topped mountain ranges – planed flat by the action of hard boulders in turbulent water (the boulders still sometimes up there – and the water would have to have covered the mountains): “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” Genesis 7:19


  2. The trouble is that believing in a ‘ New World Order’ or any conspiracy theory is also a religion. Our technology is so global, one cannot help to accept that we are all now ‘Global’. Even your blog is global. You are the one that assumes you run it. But the ‘New World Order’ is only true in the way that almost everyone wears tee shirts. Jeans are worn worldwide. Billions have mobile phones and prefer proper toilets than holes in the ground. Toilet paper is very popular Face lifts, botoxed lips and western eyes are very profitable to surgeons as are breast implants. Wigs are globally used. Electricity is preferred to candles or doing laundry in a river. Plastic is a fantastic improvement for most people’s lives especially the poor. There is hardly any place on Earth that is not somehow Global. Even thongs are worn under Berkas! We definitely have a New World Order. All governments are linked by technology just like their citizens are. It’s not surprising they develop the same ideas moving in the bubble of governance where everyone around them assures them they are right. Just like the way worshippers of conspiracy, celebrity, Gods etc collect to feed in the nutritious soup of feeling, by association, they are right!

    Liked by 2 people

    • My understanding of the NWO is simply that there are supranational organisations such as the UN, WHO, WEF who decide on global policy and have member countries’ governments sign the treaties which obligate them to implement the policy. Since, however, none of the citizens of the member countries even knows who the puppet masters are, let alone vote for them, then the citizens’ lives are run anti-democratically with the elected individuals in a particular government being merely the ‘lower management’. So, the NWO isn’t some shadowy cabal plotting world domination but legitimate but anti-democratic organisations whose existence is plain for all to see.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Yes, I understand that. Very clearly put. Nicely explained. All working to their own benefit and self-sustaining. They implement the ideas most profitable to themselves or ideas they worship. But without being elected to do so…

        Liked by 1 person

    • Taking away our plastic things is, as you infer, a direct and genocidal assault on the world’s poor. All meat will decompose to inedibility for example, in the distribution chains, without plastic. Look at he USSR and the Warsaw Pact provinces under occupation… Denial of plastic is designed on purpose to starve the world’s poor into obliviion. Rich elitists can afford to build their palaces near “farms sourcing the finest seasonal foods and meat and dairy locally”.


      • I’m NOT inferring taking away plastic things, I simply said they are used all over our new Global world! By everyone, especially the poor.


  3. Wonderful prayer! 16 years of Catholic school taught me to appreciate such efforts!

    But you say, “What am I to do? Sacrifice things to myself? ” as though that was a problem! I’ll have you know that I have regularly been sacrificing 4 to 6 ounces of chocolate to The Great Hollow Bunny In The Sky for quite a while now. (It had religiously been 4 oz. for a great good while, but as I approached my 8th decade I realized that I needed to give still more as I saw The Third Ton (US) beckoning o’er th’ horizon. I needed to grit my remaining teeth and give my all!I

    – MJM, Slayer of The Horned Vanilla Beast

    Liked by 4 people

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 )

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.