Sorry if my blogs are less frequent this week, but I have to take advantage of the only dry days we've had since April to do some gardening (for which read 'hacking down 4-foot nettles with a machete'). However, to keep you entertained, here's a little selection of songs and stories from 'Jim & Tammy & Their Friends'. That's Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye (who became Tammy Faye Messner... and recently died).

A little crackly, but this is when we had 'records' on black vinyl, with tracks on both sides. If it spoils your enjoyment, just ask yourself what you are doing actually enjoying this stuff anyway?!

Don't turn the volume up too high if you have pets, and be aware that I will not be liable for any shattered glass which may result from playing these jolly little tunes. You'll wish you'd never listened, but I guarantee you'll want to play 'em again, just one more time...

If you don't want to deal with Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists and other religious types evangelising at your doorstep, how do you actually say no to them without being offensive? Here's one suggestion. They are very good at bringing you magazines and leaflets about their faith... so why not give them something to read as they head on down the street? Simply print out the following document, and hand it to the next Jesus Freak who disturbs your early morning peace at the weekend.

I've tried to keep it as inoffensive as possible, to give absolutely no indication that you are a militant atheist spoiling for a fight. Most people aren't. Most people just want these religious people to go away. If you become aggressive, or show annoyance, they will simply feel 'holier than thou', shake their heads and leave, without really hearing what you have to say. But a simple 'no thanks' also doesn't tell them why they are unwelcome. This message, however, tries to do exactly that.

It's time we started explaining to evangelists exactly why they shouldn't knock on our doors uninvited, preach to us when we don't want to listen and, often, condemn us if we tell them we are atheists. Adapt the words to your own message if you prefer, but I hope this at least gives you a few pointers.

I have a PDF file available ready to print out, but here's the text of the document:

After re-working Genesis 1 in my God Made Everything story I took a quick look at Genesis 2, which hints at where the Garden of Eden was originally located. Apparently this is where a stream divided into four rivers: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris and the Euphrates. The latter two still run directly through Iraq and into the Persian Gulf, but the Pishon and Gihon are no longer there. Hence, finding Eden is made more difficult. However, since the two extant rivers do not (at least not now) rise in the same place, the location of the missing rivers is arguably irrelevant.

The ancient people who wrote the legends of the Bible would identify with major features of the areas in which they lived, and since the Tigris and Euphrates are most certainly real, I don't doubt that the Pishon and Gihon were once real rivers (albeit probably not rising from the same source, in the Garden of Eden). But rivers are often lost. They may silt up and dramatically change direction, or their water sources may be blocked, diverted or run dry completely. Climate change, erosion, or even man-made effects such as the diversion of water for irrigation, may all end in 'death' for a river. Even the rivers which do still exist almost certainly do not follow the same course as they did hundreds, and certainly thousands, of years ago.

Still, I tried to find out if any efforts had been made to find the lost Pishon and Gihon rivers. This page, although not scholarly in itself, summarises some of what is known about the Pishon River:

The Pishon River - Found!
A scientist from Boston University, Farouk El-Baz, taking clues from alluvial deposits in Kuwait, carefully examined satellite photos of the Arabian peninsula. There he spotted the unmistakable signs of a river channel cutting across the desert. Originating in the Hijaz Mountains near Medina and the Cradle of Gold, the ancient waterway, currently concealed beneath sand dunes, runs northeast to Kuwait. Dubbed the Kuwait River by its modern discoverer, it once joined the Tigris and Euphrates at the head of the Persian Gulf. Then because of climate changes, it dried up, the archaeologists say, sometime between 3500-2000 BC.

Again, I have no dispute with the archaeology. The valleys of long-dead rivers are common enough, and often lead to the discovery of ancient towns or cities, long-since abandoned when the river changed it course and could no longer provide water, trade or transport for the local population.

What struck me about the article itself was the fact that the author describes the destructive effects of the Biblical Flood (ie the one mentioned in the Noah's Ark story) as removing all traces of the Garden of Eden, so that it can no longer be identified. Once more, this is a potentially valid argument. Such a flood, if it was sufficiently violent, would indeed destroy vegetation over huge areas... 'the whole world' being a 'huge area'.

However, and this is the point I have been labouring towards, isn't the Flood supposedly responsible for all the sedimentary rocks on the planet? According to fundamentalist teachings, and for that look no further than the Creation Museum, the Flood covered the whole world, and after killing everything, it embedded the dead animals, eventually becoming fossils, in rock strata, often hundreds of metres thick. So you'll forgive me for wondering: if the Flood covered the planet, and created all these thick layers of rock, how come the Euphrates and Tigris were not completely filled in? How come two rivers exist today which have the same names as those recorded in Genesis (ie pre-Flood times)?

Once the Flood waters subsided (and you'll forgive me if I continue as if the Biblical Flood actually happened in the world-encompassing manner told to us by fundies), the land would undoubtedly have been a completely blank canvas. Imagine pouring a deep layer of concrete onto an uneven surface to imagine what I'm getting at here. Only some freak coincidence would have led to two rivers (or more if we include the Pishon, which later dried up, as per the article) carving out the same channels as before, but presumably many meters higher, given the thick layers of Flood material deposited below them.

Since the Tigris and Euphrates do still exist, it would be logical to assume that if there was a major flood in the region, even one which covered the area in many metres of water, eventually the flood waters simply subsided, left the usual silty deposits which all flooded rivers leave behind (the economic strength of Ancient Egypt depended on the annual floods of the Nile), and the rivers continued on in their original channels.

It's not just the location of the mythical Garden of Eden which is lost. Also lost is the common sense of those who seek to latch onto one set of 'evidence for Biblical accuracy' without realising that this automatically disqualifies the validity of some other part of the Bible. If the Flood really did cover the entire Earth, and desposited huge layers of fossil-bearing rocks, the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2 would no longer exist. They would be different rivers, with different names, running over vastly different landscapes. If the Flood was not as catastrophic as is described in the Bible... well, the whole 'God killed everyone in the Flood' story is simply revealed as being totally false.

The truth is very simple. Almost certainly, ancient peoples were devastated by one or more floods which, to them, covered their 'whole world'. The survivors passed down the stories orally, embellishing them over time, until they were finally written down after being attributed to the vengeful act of an angry God. Later, much later, Fundamentalist Christians who wanted to disprove scientific knowledge which contradicted their 'perfect, true and inerrant' Bible stories, invented the whole 'dinosaurs were on the Ark, the Flood made the fossils' story and hoodwinked as many gullible people as they could.

Geology (that annoying thing called 'science' strikes again) says that the Flood story cannot be true if the Garden of Eden story is also true. The simplest explanation is that neither of them are true, and both are just ancient legends which are as closely related to real events as are the legends of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

---

References:
Euphrates
Tigris
Pishon (note its mention in the post-Flood book of Ecclesiasticus)
Gihon

Yesterday I bought a copy of the 'Children's Picture Bible', just to find out what Christians are telling their kids. It's not the whole Bible, just selected stories. This is not a radical fundie-style book, it's just a typical, inoffensive book of Bible stories. If read in the same context as Aesop's Fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales, I have no problem with book like this. Myth, legend and fantasy are all good for stimulating the developing brains of young children. With the obvious proviso: the stories are not true.

While the book's contents don't offend me at all, it is not so much what they put in as what they leave out which interests me. For example the Book of Job doesn't seem to be mentioned at all - you'd have thought that kids would love a story where God makes a bet with Satan so that Job ends up being tortured and his children killed, all for no reason, wouldn't you? And the Flood story doesn't go into how long it takes someone to drown, and how much pain and suffering they have while they are breathing water into their lungs.

I'm keen to explain to children (and their parents) what the stories actually mean, when you examine them more closely. So with this in mind let's go right back to the beginning of time, to the very first Bible story. There's no death and destruction yet, but there's a lot to learn from reading Genesis, so this is my up-to-date version of the Bible's Creation myth, from Genesis 1.

Of course Genesis 2 is ever so slightly different, in a 'totally conflicting so how could you ever reconcile the two' way. But I'm sure I will deal with that at some point. For now, here's a story you can tell to your children, or enjoy for yourself. More stories will no doubt follow.

---

God Made Everything
A logical interpretation of Genesis 1, for children

Once upon a time, long, long ago, there lived a god whose name was God. God was different from all the other gods because they didn't even exist. God was the one god, the only god, and he lived all alone in the middle of nowhere.

Nobody knows how long God had been there, or where he came from, because God didn't tell anyone, and anyway there was no one there to tell. God was all alone in the universe, but he wasn't even in the universe because that didn't exist either. What a strange place it must have been back then!

One day, about 6000 years ago, God decided to make the universe, so that he would have something to do. Maybe he was bored, or maybe he was lonely. We just don't know, because God never told us. You might think he would explain why he made the universe, but he never did. That's what God is like. He works in mysterious ways.

The universe would be huge, so God would need a long, long time to build it. So he made a plan, decided how utterly enormous the universe would be, and thought that six days would be enough time to make it all.

God started by making the heavens and the Earth, which was pretty important because everything else would need to fit in there. Nobody knows how God made everything so quickly. If you think about it, the Earth is a big, big place, and you'd need a lot of patience to put all the tiny little atoms together, one by one, to make a thing as enormous as a whole planet. And remember, he even had to make the atoms too, because before he made them there was no such thing.

God was a super-fast worker, even though this was probably the first time he'd tried to do anything so complicated as making an entire universe. He made the heavens in no time at all, but that was a lot easier than the Earth had been, because that was just empty space with nothing inside, which was a piece of cake for a god who'd just made a huge planet from atoms.

It was pretty dark in the big emptiness before Creation, so God made the light. He didn't actually make it, he just said it and there it was. Back then God just had to say things and they happened. It's easy to make things when all you have to do is say their names.

Nobody knows where the light came from because God made it before he made the Sun and the stars, so some people think the story is mixed up. But the Bible says so, so it must be true, and we don't need to think about it too hard, we just have to believe it.

When all this was done, God realised he needed new names for a few things, so he invented words like day, night, morning and evening. Nowadays we only get day and night when the Earth rotates and different parts of the planet face the Sun, but back then there was no Sun, so we don't really know what God had in mind when he said day or night.

All we know is that God had a plan, and he stuck to it for six days, and if he needed six days he must have worked out what a day was before he started. If you don't know what a day is, how do you know what six days are? God knew, and that's all that matters.

So that was the first day, and God must have been pretty pleased with what he'd made. Even if most of it was formless and empty, it wasn't bad for a first attempt.

Nobody knows if God went to sleep at night, but he probably didn't because he had a lot to do. On the second day he realised that there was water everywhere so he made the sky and put it inbetween the water in the sea and the water in the clouds. There was still no Sun, so it must have been quite chilly, but the Bible doesn't mention any snow or ice, so there probably wasn't any.

Dividing the water into two took a whole day, so it must have been quite difficult, much more difficult than making the Earth and the heavens and the light. Maybe God was tired because he had done so much on the first day, and wanted to pace himself.

On the third day God had more trouble with the pesky water. He wanted to make some dry ground, so he moved all the water around until he had the land and the seas. It all looked a bit empty, and it was halfway through the week already, so God made all the plants and trees as well.

These days many plants need bees and insects to pollenate their flowers, and lots of them will only grow where the weather is just right. And one of the things that plants really like is sunlight. But in Creation times God hadn't made any animals yet, and there was still no Sun, so there must have been special types of flowers which didn't need bees or sunlight, and God grew everything really quickly, using the light from the first day, which still seemed to be shining from nowhere.

The Earth back then must have been like a huge greenhouse, and if you think how many millions and millions of plants and trees and growing things there are you will see just how busy God was on the third day. Of course God had to make all the growing things the hard way, by putting fiddly little atoms together just right, so that makes it seem all the more incredible.

God decided that he really had to make the Sun and the stars now, because if he didn't do it soon, nobody would know where all the light was coming from. Luckily he made them on the fourth day, two days before he made the people who would do the wondering.

The stars were a lot less trouble than the water had been, because he made billions and billions of them all in one day. And remember, he was making everything out of nothing, which people today say is completely impossible. But not for God of course, because God is special and doesn't have to follow the same rules we do.

The Bible says that God made two lights for the Earth, one for the day and one for the night. The night light we have today is called the Moon, but it isn't really a light, it just bounces the light off the Sun onto us, a bit like a mirror does. So did the Bible get it wrong? Of course not, the Bible is never wrong! In Creation times it might have been a different kind of light, and nobody was there to see it anyway except God, and he wouldn't lie to us or try to confuse us would he?

There were only two more days to go, so God worked even faster. On the fifth day he made birds for the sky and animals to live in the sea. He saved the land animals until later, maybe because the plants weren't quite grown up yet, and he didn't want the elephants to trample all over them until they were ready. Birds and fish are more difficult to make than billions of stars and galaxies, so God took the whole day, just to make sure he got it right.

On day six God finally made all the animals who would live on the land. There were millions of different species, including all the dinosaurs, and thousands of things which we will never see again because most of them are now extinct. Some of the animals look like they are related, but they really aren't because they were all made individually, one at a time.

All the birds and animals ate plants, because at that time God hadn't planned on making them eat each other. But he gave some of them long, sharp teeth, just in case he changed his mind later on. Even the sea birds didn't catch fish, so they must have been happy eating berries and seeds. Imagine how funny a pelican would have looked in those days trying to carry fruit and nuts in the pouch under its bill, and sharks would have had to chew on yucky seaweed!

God just had one more thing to do. Remember at the beginning of our story when we found out that God was all alone? If you were alone wouldn't you want someone to talk to? Well God thought so too, so he made a man who looked just like him, except he was much smaller and not so powerful. Then he made a woman, who was like the man in some ways but had the kind of things under her clothes that make boys and girls different. Except that the man and the woman didn't wear clothes at all, but because there was nobody else to peek, God thought that would be okay.

God told them they could eat all the plants, but not the animals, so the very first people were vegetarians. He told them they could rule over everything - over all the animals and the fish and the birds - so in a way they were like a king and a queen. Of course God was still in charge of everything, because he had made it all. And in only six days too. No wonder we call him God Almighty.

Six days is very quick, even for someone who is as big and powerful as God, so God needed a rest and took the day off on the seventh day, which was his own special day. We now call that day Sunday, but you'd think that we'd give it a more God-like name wouldn't you? Well maybe it's to remind God that he should have made the Sun a bit earlier on, so that we weren't all wondering where the light came from for the first few days.

Of course God does everything for a reason, but he never tells us what those reasons are. That's just how God is, and of course we love him anyway don't we? Of course we do.

---

The Holy Fucking Bible:
1.	Another Fucking Creation Story
2.	The Talking Snake Fucks It Up For Everyone
3.	Eve Shows Off Her Furry Knickers
4.	Cain Twats Abel and Fucks a Mystery Woman
5.	OldTesticles.com - God's nuts for dating
6.	Noah's Ark: It's Fucking Genocide I Tell Ya!
7.	God's Shit Stained Planet of Death
8.	Noah: The Transvestite Years
9.	9/11 - The Triple Towers of Bullshit
10.	DIY Coffin Dodgers Gettin Jiggy Wit Da Pharaoh
11.	Are You Lovecraft Tonight?
12.	Allah G's Skool Histry Homewerk
13.	God Loves Panties and Porn
My earlier Bible Stories for children:
1.	God Made Everything
2.	The Apple and the Snake
3.	Babies, Murders and Mysterious Girls

This is one of my favourite short stories of all time, and every single time I read it it brings tears to my eyes. Unfortunately that means that it's difficult for me to read it aloud without blubbing! However I spent an enjoyable part of yesterday giving it my best shot. I hope you like it. It's a wonderful story and I've tried to do it justice.

More information about the author can be found in the O Henry Wikipedia entry, and the story itself has its own entry - see The Gift of the Magi (spoiler warning: don't visit the page until you've listened to the story first).

Important Note: Please read this post before continuing.

---

What prompted me to write this poem was the blog I posted a couple of days ago, called Christian propaganda for children. In it, I pointed out that cutesy Christian cartoons were being used to tell young children not to talk to atheists, and indeed to run and tell their parents 'if you find an atheist in your neighborhood'.

This has been nagging away inside my head. It's just so wrong how some people take what is purportedly a belief system based on love and understanding, and pervert it so they can scare young children away, convincing them to avoid at all costs people who simply don't believe the same things they do. The fact that condemning different beliefs rather than embracing, even welcoming them is what causes most of the wars in this world never seems to occur to them. They are just perpetuating a culture of mistrust and intolerance.

By all means reject atheism, just as atheists reject religion. But don't tell a child that atheists are to be feared, shunned, not to be trusted. Because if you do, they will probably grow up with similar views about people from other religions, other countries, other lifestyles, perhaps even other races.
 

As an outspoken atheist, I'm in an unusual position because I live in a country where there is far, far less prejudice against atheists than is evident in the USA. And yet most of the atheist videos I've made, and most of the writing I've done, have been geared towards an attitude to atheism which does not, if I'm honest, directly affect me.

I don't even have a great 'conversion to atheism' story. Unlike some people who struggled with Christianity and left it behind, perhaps alienating friends and family in the process, I just grew out of it, in exactly the same way that I grew out of believing in Father Christmas (you'd call him Santa, but remember, I'm British). It just sort of happened.

Although plenty of people on the Internet have slammed me for my views, nobody has ever condemned me to my face, 'in real life', about my lack of belief in God. I have never been shunned or victimised or laughed at or bullied because I am an atheist. And that's really how it is in this country. Most people don't have much of a belief in God, and nobody really cares if you say you're an atheist. The worst I ever had was from my grandmother who, when I told her I didn't believe in God, said, "Well you should do!" and, well, that was that. Nothing changed. I was not cast out from the family. I did not get evil looks from the neighbours.

So why am I doing this? And who am I doing it for?

There is only one answer to that. Other atheists. Just like people who have never fired a shot in anger can protest against a war, I want to protest against the treatment of other atheists. Like those who give to charity to assist with the provision of fresh water in Africa, but who have never stepped foot on the continent, I decided to give my time to people who are surrounded by Christian propaganda and who want some ideas, who want help as they work out what this 'atheism thing' means to them.

I don't have to live in the USA to know that most of what I say will be particularly helpful to atheists who live in the USA. And thankfully the Internet makes that possible. I'm typing this now in the outskirts of Derby, England, a city which even most Brits would have trouble finding on a map, and you are probably reading this in some place I've never heard of either. I'll never meet you. I'll never come to your town. And Derby is far from being a tourist hot-spot, so I recommend that you give it a miss! But I reach hundreds of other atheists every day (if my web stats are to be believed!), and that's as good as it gets for me. It's good enough. It's my little contribution to the atheist 'revolution', which will probably not take over the world (that's not what anyone wants), but which is definitely standing its ground and making its voice heard.

Atheists are all around us (spooky!) and the beauty of the Internet is that we no longer need to feel isolated. We can contact each other, exchange stories, swap ideas, and become part of a community of atheists who act just like other groups of people with different ideas: arguing, fighting, back-stabbing and generally behaving like idiots! The Internet is so good at making that happen!

Being serious again, when I was ejected from YouTube I initially thought: that's it, that's the end of my contribution to atheism. Nobody's going to read my book, nobody will ever be able to watch my videos, and nobody will remember who that long-haired weirdo Englishman was - you know, the one who made that Atheist's Nightmare video with bananas and pineapples in it. But I was, of course, proved wrong, and though I won't repeat the story again, I will repeat my thanks to all the people who have helped me get back to where I want to be - maybe not right in the heart of the atheist community, but perhaps somewhere off to the side, contributing a little bit more each day. It's all good.

Evangelical Christians won't leave us atheists alone. It's in their job description to evangelise, to proselityse, to witness, to unrelentingly try to persuade us that we are going to Hell and we need to be saved by accepting Jesus Christ into our hearts.

And of course they don't accept 'no thanks' for an answer.

Why can't they just let us live our lives in peace? We know about the 'risks' if we are wrong. Yes, we'll all go to Hell, we'll burn in the fiery pit, and our skin will grow back a billion times just so that it can be seared to a crisp and served on a bun with some hot sauce and a pickle. Atheists are good eatin' in the abode of Satan - he's lovin' it, but we probably won't be so keen.

We know all the stories they tell us, and we all think they're bullshit, and we say as much to the evangelical Christians. So can't we just agree to disagree? Apparently not. Why not? 9 times out of 10 this is the tale they tell, or a variation of it, whenever you ask them:

If you saw a burning building and knew that someone was inside and would die without your assistance, and you knew that to help them all you needed to do was phone the fire department, would you do it? The answer is of course 'yes'. So as Christians, these people see that our lives of sinful non-belief are sending us on a one-way ticket to hell and its associated fire, torture and poor health care facilities.

Using an analogy is a common thing for Christians when they set off on the witnessing trail. But then again we all do it. Analogies help us to break down subjects we might not understand into easier to digest forms, by comparing one situation with another, and highlighting any similarities. In this case, the burning building is the punishment which awaits us (Hell) if we are not saved from this fate by the oh-so-kind Christians, who will send in Jesus to the rescue. Jesus is the all-powerful fireman who will carry the little children out of the flames and into the cool air of safety. I'm perhaps laying it on a little too thickly here, but you get the idea.

Analogies are all well and good, but an analogy is not reality. You can compare one situation with another all you like, but if the two are not identical concepts, well, they're just not the same thing are they? The reality of the situation we are talking about is that evangelical Christians are forcing their attentions on people who don't want their help. We just don't want it. And because we don't want it, we see it as an imposition. Evangelising is reducing the quality of our lives, not bettering it. We resent the fact that we have to politely say 'no thanks' each and every time, over and over, because each and every time it gets harder and harder not to shout, 'Will you just get the message and fuck off.'

Of course if we ever do that, if we lose our cool, that is turned on us as well. We are then the irrational ones, the typical intolerant atheists. Our anger is sinful, evil, a product of our unwillingness to accept Christ. With Jesus in our hearts, we are told, these wicked feelings will go away.

Sorry, no. These feelings will only go away when Christians stop pestering us with their gospel double-talk. Please, just keep to your own religion. We don't mind, really, that you do the hand-waving, wailing, speaking in tongues thing. It's a little weird, and frankly somewhat disturbing, but if that's what gets you up in the morning, go for it. But please, please, please don't tell us that we should do it too. We've made our choice. Respect that. In the same way that we respect your right to pray and praise in whatever manner you've chosen (as long as it doesn't adversely affect our lives), respect our right to have nothing to do with it.

The burning building analogy doesn't apply, because the reality is this: nobody can see Hell. Nobody can prove it's there. With a burning building, the person inside it can actually see that he's in danger. He has proof - the flames are all around him. But religion has nothing to show us, nothing we can pin down and say yes, there's the danger, and I could use some help out of it please. And to 'save' us the Christians are already asking us to believe in something we are fairly certain does not exist - Hell. If we can't see the fire, can't feel it, and nobody can prove it (or the JC fire department) is there, why should we believe the word of someone who says he knows how we can be saved?

And while I remember: isn't this all-loving God, who wants to save us from Hell, the same God who created Hell in the first place? Back in the Christian analogy, this would be as if the fire department had waited until you were sleeping, poured flammable liquid all over your house, set it alight... and then waited while some helpful Christian called the emergency number for assistance.

Here's my own analogy for evangelical Christians:

Try to imagine that you are about to step onto a plane which will take you around the world, the start of an exciting life full of adventure and exploration. You will be going to places you've never seen, meeting many different people, enjoying other cultures, experiencing food, architecture, art and music from countries you've hitherto only read about. But as you are about to have your liquids confiscated and constitutional rights violated by the TSA, and pass into the boarding area, one of the friends who has come to see you off tells you that you shouldn't go.

It's too risky. The plane will crash. Or if it doesn't, you will be killed by wild natives with crude weapons (there's a stopover in New York). He pleads with you to stay here because here is a place of safety. Here nobody can hurt you. And if you'll stay and listen to him a little longer, he'll have saved you from a terrible death and a whole world of jet lag.

Do you get on the plane, or do you stay at home where it's safe?

Of course we would all get on the plane. This is the trip of a lifetime. It's probably the only chance we'll get to see this much of the world, and we'd be mad to miss it. To sit listening to our sad, frightened friend telling us how comforting it is not to be in danger any more would be simply crazy.

To an atheist there is no excitement in a life of Christian worship. There is no benefit to a life where we are not able to explore the world free of negative, accusing, guilt-laden thoughts, which is what evangelical Christians try to inflict on us. If we think 'bad thoughts' we don't see that as sinful - thoughts are just that, they are only thoughts, and remain so unless we act upon them. No God is up there to condemn us for the 'crime' of thinking. Believing, or not believing, is not a crime. Even if I sincerely believed that all people with short hair should be put to death, that would not be a crime, unless I started to act on those thoughts and killed a few of the evil, sinful, short-haired, little bastards (just kidding).

And yes, there is danger in life, but usually those are dangers we can see for ourselves, or ones we can face head on when they turn up unexpectedly. And we don't have to wait until we're dead to find out that there was no Hell waiting for us, no eternal punishment. Atheists don't believe that, so we're not waiting to die to find out what happens after we do. We simply don't want to be repeatedly told that endless torture and pain is what is waiting for us.

So please, no more analogies. If you want to show us the dangers, we want a direct satellite link-up to Beelzebub's magic frying pan. And if you can't produce the evidence, it's this simple: case dismissed. How many times do we have to tell this to evangelical Christians before they get the message: we don't want to convert you, so please don't try to convert us. Just leave us alone. Live and let live. Failing that, if you don't stop bugging us we'll smack you in the face... using non-violent means such as logic, reason and evidence, naturally.

I could have been a real misery and done a long rant about Christians who think Harry Potter is Satanic. But who cares what they think? Fuck em! And watch this instead, it's hilarious!

Important Note: Please read this post before continuing.

---

I found this on the rather inappropriately named Objective Ministries web site:

The site gives a different message each time you click on the goat's head:

• Bah! I don't believe in anything! I'm staying home on Sunday!
• Jesus probably wouldn't love me anyway...
• Coffee's the only thing that gives me solace!
• I've never read the Bible, I like Secular TV instead!
• I feel empty... I'm gonna drink some more coffee
• Madalyn Murray O'Hair is my hero!
• Nothing's gonna happen to me when I die... I think...
• Hey kid, wanna read some Ayn Rand?

The implication from this banner is that atheists are bad people and should be identified as targets for some immediate religious indoctrination. 'Tell a parent or pastor right away!' What kind of a society sends its kids out looking for atheists in order to report them to the religious elders, who will presumably do something about this awful person in their midst? Doesn't this sound a lot like Nazis outing the Jews in the 1930s and 40s?

In fact, let's see how this reads if we simply replace the word 'atheist' with 'Jew':

Not so funny now is it? Not so cheeky and mischievous when Jews, who, like atheists, are simply those with different beliefs, are being vilified in this way is it? Do you really think that this is suitable material to be teaching to young children? Where is the 'love thy neighbour' message that Christianity is supposed to be so big on?

Maybe those same Christian children would like to experiment with other words. What should you do if you find a Hispanic? A Homosexual? How about a Negro? (Word used here only to make my point). No atheist child would be taught by its parents to 'tell on' a Christian, or told to avoid talking to Christians (which, in the US, would of course be difficult). But some Christian children are being taught exactly that kind of intolerance. Children are being taught this garbage.

The most obvious lie, and certainly the one which leaves the worst taste in my mouth, is the part of the banner which says 'Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children'. Implying that atheists will hit children (or anyone) is just wrong. And yeah, we are 'often very grumpy', but you know why? Because Christians come up to us and want to try out their 'witnessing' skills on us. I guarantee you that 100% of such Christians would be equally grumpy if someone approached them in the street, without warning and said, 'Did you realise that your belief system is wrong and that your God does not exist?'. Let's see who would get angry and lash out then!

Atheists don't witness. While we don't respect the religion, we respect everyone's right to their own beliefs. Live your life the way you want to live it, but please don't inflict those values on people who don't share them.

And stop knocking on our doors on Sunday morning! THAT is why we are grumpy! That and being accused of being bad people, or of lashing out at children.

Creation Science Fun Facts
Check out the questions and answers for 'Creation Science Fun Facts', on the same web page:

Q: Hey Professor! Haven't dinos been extinct for millions of years?
A: Wrong Little Buddy... Dinosaurs still walk on the land and swim in the seas! And the Earth is less than 10,000 years old!

Q: I saw in a Secular movie that T-Rex was a vicious killing machine. Is this true?
A: No, Secular movies lie! T-Rex was a herbivore, its sharp teeth used to shred plants. The Ark's passengers were safe from harm!

Q: Professor, what are fossils and where did they come from?
A: Fossils are the buried remains of the wicked men and animals that perished 4,000 years ago in the Flood!

Q: I was wondering, Professor... Were my ancestors on Noah's Ark?
A: Yes indeed! All of our ancestors were on the Ark... except those of our fishy friends!

Q: Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?
A: No, Adam and Eve were the first parents and so they never had them! Also, Adam was missing one rib!

Q: Where did Cain get his wife?
A: All humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, who had many sons and daughters... so Cain married one of his sisters!

Q: Were Neanderthals the "monkey men" Evolutionists keep talking about?
A: No! Neanderthals were humans with abnormal bone growth due to very advanced age and Flood-cloud-related rickets!

Q: My friend Bomby the bombardier beetle can shoot boiling-hot toxic chemicals out of his butt. Why?
A: God gave your friend that ability for defense against evil and as a testament against the false doctrine of Evolutionism!

Where do I begin? I don't. I don't need to say anything, of course, other than that this is complete bullshit, being fed to children by stupid, ignorant Christian parents, pastors and educators.

It's a shame that this is happening in some quarters, but there really is no hope for these kinds of people. Not all Christians are as stupid as this, but the fact that there are any at all, and worse that they are out there in significant numbers, is cause enough for concern. This is the crap we're up against, and I am more than willing to take the intellectual high ground on this and say that, yes, these people are idiots.

Martial arts, and indeed many self-defence techniques, often use the force of the attacker and turn it back on the opponent. So if someone lunges at you, you might lean back, allow them to commit themselves, and then deftly grab them by the collar and throw them to the ground, using their own momentum to take them there.

We can apply this to dealing with questions of religion, particularly the ones we see over and over and over again. Two common accusations are frequently levelled at atheists:

1. Atheism is a religion

2. It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian

Standard answers would of course be:

1. Atheism is not a religion because it doesn't involve any ritual, there is no deity, no dogma, no praising, chanting or bowing to a supreme being.

2. Insert long, complex arguments about what faith is (belief without evidence) as opposed to the secular, scientific, scholarly understanding of knowledge, evidence, etc.

Of course if you're having to respond to these kind of statements a hundred times over (dumb Christians tend to ask the same dumb questions because, well, they are dumb), you will soon tire of repeating yourself. So let's have some fun with them instead. Your mission today is... whenever you see or hear such a statement, do the unexpected. Give some ground. Don't argue. Maybe even go so far as to agree with them.

1. Atheism is a religion
   So what? What if it is? If atheism is a religion, well, we've finally found a religion which is based on evidence, not on superstitious nonsense. If atheism is a religion, it doesn't mean I believe things which have no basis in fact. If atheism is a religion, I am still an atheist.

   If atheism is a religion we certainly have a lot of dogma. We have books. Millions of them. We have research. Centuries of it. We have evidence, data, physical things we can observe with the scientific method, historical records we can cross-reference using written evidence, archaeology and many other visible traces from the past. But if the 'atheist religion' has its own dogma (maybe Darwin's work, maybe Dawkins, both commonly cited), give me some indication where in these books the authors have asked you to suspend your powers of reasoning and, without offering evidence, just believe.

   Atheists are sometimes set in our ways, most certainly. We believe what the evidence tells us. Except... when more evidence comes in which tells us a different story, we are more than willing to change our minds. And we don't accept all evidence. Of all the 'religions' atheism is uniquely sceptical, forever challenging old ideas, and welcoming new ones, with the proviso that new ideas must be subjected to rigorous testing before they become accepted. In fact we marvel and applaud when something comes along, maybe in physics, maybe in archaeology, or in another of the many branches of knowledge, which proves that the old ideas were not the whole story or, in rare cases, were altogether the wrong story.

   When new evidence emerges, we are the only 'religion' willing to drop old ideas completely. If someone proves our old books wrong, we never, ever, hold onto those ideas simply because they were written a long time ago.

   If atheism is a religion, sign me up for religion. Atheism is the best religion ever. But of course, don't forget that you will need to radically change the definition of religion.
   
   

2. It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian
   Yes it does, doesn't it? It takes more faith because, unlike Christianity or Islam, there is such a vast amount of knowledge in the world that it would be impossible for one person to comprehend all of it. Think of how many university degrees you would need to be able to cover all the bases. Think of all the books in all the world. You'd have to read them, memorise them, understand them, all of them. And if you don't, and of course nobody ever has or ever will, you necessarily have to trust the people who have taken the time to understand certain subjects, to learn about astronomy, physics, maths or biology. You even have to trust the electrician who says he can wire up your house, and believe that it won't burn down when he's gone.

   So if we cannot personally know everything, and we have to trust many, many people to take care of those things, to be experts in their fields, then yes, it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. Christians, after all, only have to have faith in a small number of things: faith in God, faith in Jesus, faith in the Bible, and... well, if there's more to the list, let me know, otherwise I'm done. If that's all the faith you need to be a Christian, it seems to take hardly any faith at all.

   Hey Christians, you really don't have much faith after all, do you?

   But if you are a God believer, one who says 'it takes more faith...', aren't you actually mixing up 'faith' with 'trust'? Faith means that your belief in something is not based on evidence, and yet you still believe it. Atheists aren't big on the word faith. I prefer 'trust'. Trust means that you, personally, have not seen the evidence, but you accept that someone else has. There is someone who can get access to the data, or repeat the experiment, someone who has studied in his or her field of expertise and understands. You yourself may never be able to understand, even if the evidence were to be put in front of you, so you trust the experts. You could never personally build a nuclear reactor, but you're pretty sure that those who do so have a reasonable idea of what they are doing. You trust them.

   Of course one of the big reasons for trusting such people is that, unlike God, there are a large number of them, ever ready to correct one another, to present fresh evidence and new data, all of which will be scrutinised independently by many more of these knowledgeable people. Unlike belief in what preachers tell us, the peer review system weeds out the mavericks, the ones who might try to purposefully deceive us. It puts the microscope (sometimes literally) on new knowledge and says, 'I'll just double-check that to make absolutely certain it's right'. And when these people agree, it gives the knowledge credibility, a higher status. It gives us the very best reasons to trust what they say.

   If that's faith, if that's what Christians want to call it, then so be it. As with 'religion', let's re-write the dictionary again, this time for 'faith'. And, like the previous statement, I will agree with it: I have more faith than a Christian. I have faith in the men and women who are alive today. I have no faith in a supernatural being who does nothing, cannot be seen, cannot be heard, and, quite frankly, cannot be there.

There are many more of these 'old standards' that Christians bring out in the creaky old wheelchairs of so-called reasoned argument, but most of them can be turned on their head in this way. Watch out for my next book, The Hong Kong Book of Kung Fu Atheism, but right now I'm heading back to my job as a mild-mannered janitor.

Oooo look at all these lovely things:

• Pajama top with breastplate of righteousness and belt of truth hem.
• Pajama pants with wings of peace to cover feet.
• Helmet of salvation.
• Shield of faith pillow.
• Sword of the Spirit (New Testament).
• Activity coloring book.

Not forgetting (they did, so this is my reminder):

• Skull of emptiness.
• Hammer of ignorance (bash skull of emptiness twice daily).
• Carving knife of mental instability.
• Free copy of 'Mentally Challenged', the fundie game for all the family

As far as I know, this is a genuine web site, not a parody. I don't really need to comment any further do I? Click the image for way more information than you really need!

---

Footnote: Of course when the girls grow up they will want to go to the beach or the pool, won't they? Well, here's just the site to protect their Christian modesty:

Wholesome Wear

Yes those are swimsuits, not bin liners with coloured trim! Attractive! And of course in no way would wearing something like that get you laughed at in a public area, right?

But that's nothing - the Mormons wear (wait for it) Magic Mormon Underwear!

I have got to get me some of those!

If your feet smell, don't go to a mosque. And don't even bother with spicy food if you're thinking of worshipping the mighty bearded one. How do we know? Muhammad said so, that's how:

Whoever eats onions, garlic or leeks, let him not approach our mosque, for the angels are annoyed by the same things that annoy the sons of Adam.

Obviously, if you come out of a pub having had several pints, go round the corner for a donner kebab, smoke a pack of 40 Marlboros, and get a bit of a sweat on by walking a couple of miles to the mosque, you're probably not going to get past the bouncers on the door.

But something tells me that the above description rarely fits any of the Muslims I've seen, and those who do that kind of thing are much more likely to be praying to the great god Ralph (or Huey) on their knees before the great, white, porcelain telephone.

I'm still looking for the hadith on farting in the mosque, by the way. All that nose-to-tail genuflecting is sure to mean that one or two sneaky windy-pops are unavoidable. The secret is to breathe out through the nose when your head is down, in through the mouth as you rise up. Muhammad said that too. Probably

I've read a few comments lately where Christians condemn the decadent nature of the Roman Empire and its 'heathen' ways: its pagan values led to its fall, and good riddance to those nasty people who killed Christ and fed Christians to the lions.

So how did it really happen, and who was in charge of Rome when the Roman Empire finally collapsed?

I'll give you three guesses. All of them begin with 'C'.

Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus came to power as Emperor Constantine in AD 306, and in 312 he converted to Christianity, becoming the first Christian Roman Emperor. Prior to that Christians had been persecuted and many of them martyred, but the religion was now tolerated in the Empire.

Constantine's conversion to Christianity is often attributed to a dream, which influenced him to march into battle with Christian symbols painted on his soldiers' shields. He won the battle, attributed it to divine intervention, and the rest is history. Without that dream he would probably have won the battle anyway, perhaps not become a Christian at all, and the whole course of religious history might have been different. 'Might have', however, is never written in the history books.

Despite this 'tolerance' of Christians, it was only in 391, during the rule of Theodosius I, that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. By 476 the Empire had fractured into two parts and the last emperor of the western Roman Empire, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed. The eastern Roman Empire, which later came to be known as the Byzantine Empire, continued for a further 1000 years, but what we know as 'The Roman Empire' ended in 476.

Christianity was in power when Rome fell. And it only took 85 years for Christian rule to wreck a civilisation which had been founded in 753 BC, some 1200 years earlier. Let it never be said that Rome fell because it was an evil, cruel empire, ruled by pagans who persecuted the Christians. In fact, when it stopped condemning Christians, and was in fact ruled by them, it all fell apart.

Before Christianity, Rome tolerated any and all gods, and allowed their followers to worship as they pleased (except for some really weird, sicko cults which were banned). You could worship your gods so long as you recognised everyone else's gods. The rule of thumb: be tolerant of all other belief systems.

Of course Christians didn't like that. With their one god they refused to accept the worship of other gods. They refused to tolerate other gods. They wanted everyone to worship their god and abandon all the others. Sound familiar? Wonder why they were persecuted? Because they themselves refused to tolerate other religions.

This is not the whole story, of course. The fact that tribes such as the Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, and, most famously, the Huns (under Attila the Hun) weakened the fabric of the Empire, was key to its eventual end. But Christianity was in power when all this happened. Christian rulers could do nothing to stop it. The Christian God did not save the Roman Empire.

And then, of course, 200 years later, came the Muslims, who ended up slaughtering half of Europe and eventually putting an end to the eastern (Byzantine) Empire too. But that's another story!

There are some Christian groups who claim that Christianity can 'cure' homosexuality. This story suggests that they do far more damage than good:

Ex-Gay Recovery

When you've read that, take a look at the whole site. They are few and far between, but it seems that there are at least some Christian organisations which do not condemn homosexuality and, in fact, want to include GLBT people in their communities.

Of course, if they dropped the belief in God they would earn even more of my respect, but given that homosexuals are condemned by most Christian denominations, this one is actually doing some good, at least in terms of acceptance that these are not 'choices', and that sexuality is as much a part of people as is the colour of your eyes.

---

Footnote: This blog was not written at gunpoint. I am not being held hostage by militant Christians!

Protesting is one thing, soliciting violence or murder is another. Four Muslim men have each been jailed for six years after they chanted slogans such as "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA." and "Europe, you will pay with your blood".

Freedom of speech in the UK does not, and never will, allow anyone to incite others to commit crimes of violence.

BBC Story: Four men jailed over cartoon demo

How many times will Muslims do this before they stop the pretence: Islam is not, and never has been, a religion of peace. As for the cartoons: words and pictures don't kill anyone. They were offensive to Islam? Get over it. If God or Allah can't stand up to insults without his followers getting upset, he's a piss poor god. It's not as if he can't strike someone down himself if he really wants to... but only if he's actually up there of course.

---

Footnote: I find this statement incredible:

Anjem Choudury, one of the march's organisers and fined in a separate case, claimed there was one law for Muslims and another for everyone else.

No, there are laws against incitement to murder, and other laws which allow free speech, ie peaceful protest. If you break the law, whoever you are, you will be punished. A non-Muslim chanting 'kill all Muslims' will be prosecuted in exactly the same ways as these men were punished.

But the cherry on the cake is this:

"This is not a peaceful country. Look at the words of [suicide bombers] Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer who took military action against the UK," he told reporters.

"The more you put Muslims under pressure, the more problems there will be."

Holding up the words of suicide bombers to make your point really isn't the best way to imply that Muslims are being victimised is it? The convicted men were guilty of promoting such behaviour, and someone defends their actions by implying, in other words, 'the more you offend us the more we will keep breaking the law like this'.

Being offended is one thing. Threatening to kill them is a whole different ball game. And let's not forget that people were killed because of the cartoons published in Denmark. People died not because the cartoons killed them, not because the artists killed them, but because offended Muslims killed them.

I'm not the sort of person to defend any faith, but people of other religions, and people of no religion, simply do not act in the same threatening, violent way that Muslims do. Extremists, yes, but where are the moderate Muslims condemning them?

Here's a great story with some gentle humour which made me laugh out loud at the author's 'sighting' of Jesus... or should I say JESUS.

Christianity and Atheism: A Conversation

It's worth reading the comments below the article too. I love how the conversation jumps quickly from a story with a religious theme to discussing thermodynamics and the efficiency of a refridgerator. Why are Christians so determined to use any and every opportunity to disprove science? Badly.

Back to the article itself, this was a very heartwarming story. I'm happy to know that some people out there are not phased by what would be, to most, unwanted approaches from proselityzing Christians. Anyone who can turn such a situation around to great comedic effect deserves a mention in my blog (as if that 'honour' really means anything!). I don't know of a single atheist who would walk up to anyone and, without warning, say, "You do realise that God doesn't exist don't you?" If that kind of approach would be unwelcome to a Christian (and it's patently obvious that it would be, right?), why do they not realise just how wrong it is for them to announce their faith to you, without asking?

Of course, if atheists were to wear a badge saying 'please don't preach to me', we might as well put a pot of honey next to a wasp's nest - the challenge would just be too much, and every Christian evangelist for miles around would home in with their condescending speechesm about the love of Christ, and temperature of Hell, and how to stick with one in order to avoid the other.

So that has me thinking. What is the best way to stop a Christian talking to you, assuming they've already started with the standard, "Do you believe in Jesus?" What would work best? What kind of angle is most effective? What would just make them turn right around and walk away without another word?

Tell them to fuck off and die.	Maybe a little too offensive. It might be the very first thing you think of, but you might also have thought of punching them in the mouth, and that's quite offensive too. Think laterally and logically.
Jesus wanted me for a sunbeam and now I have skin cancer. Please, I don't want to talk about it.	People hate talking about cancer. Especially if it's other people's. This one won't work if the person talking to you is a faith healer. Or your doctor.
I have a contagious disease. Can you give me a hug for Jesus?	They use this instead of a starter gun at the Christian Olympic Games. Watch them run, run, run.
My genitals are oozing green pus. Can Jesus help me?	As you can see, I'm on a roll with the medical theme here. Mention anything disgusting that, potentially, they are in danger of coming into contact with, and it should persuade them that you don't need Jesus. Not today.
Satan. Satan. Satan.	Repeat continuously in a low growl, while narrowing (or rolling) your eyes, breathing heavily, and clenching and unclenching your fists.
Speak in tongues.	Don't worry, they are used to behaviour like this. The problem is, nobody knows what the fuck any of that babbling nonsense actually means, so they won't be able to continue the conversation.
I'm Jewish.	They can't quote the Bible to you because of course half of the Bible is the Jewish book too, and yes you believe in Jesus - who do you think gave him to the Romans to be crucified. Without us Jews you wouldn't even have your stoopid religion.
Speak in Arabic (or affect a weird accent), look around furtively, and then whisper (in English) that 'we will both die a glorious death for Allah'.	This doubles up as a great way to get to the front of the queue at the supermarket checkout. Not so useful in airports.
Tell them to fuck off and die.	You're right, the old ones really are the best. Say it like you mean it and walk away briskly. If you're visiting Alabama at the time, make sure you have a car nearby, preferably with the engine running.

These methods are all cop-outs, of course. The best way to deal with Christians who try to evangelise to you is to tell them, as politely as possible, that you are an atheist and that their proselityzing is inappropriate. Don't allow them to debate with you, or engage with you in any way. You didn't want them to talk to you in the first place, so you certainly don't have to listen to any more from them. If they start to bad-mouth you, to criticise you, or even heckle you (and it's certainly happened to me), don't rise to it. They will just be proving that their religion is not tolerant of other views and that they, not you, are in the wrong.

But if you know where they're parked, you could always slash their tyres. Just for fun.

Now and again I go on Skype and change the setting to 'SkypeMe', which means that anyone can find me and contact me - random strangers up for a conversation about anything and everything. Of course the question quickly comes up, 'what do you do?'

Well, er, I... perhaps my MySpace page will explain more, I tell them, and give them the link:

http://www.myspace.com/NickGisburne

My MySpace profile is simply there to promote my book. What I do is write about atheism. And because there are many, many people who are deeply offended by that, I always bring it up straight away, because I get really pissed off if I've spoken to someone for a good hour or so on Skype, only to have them instantly block me when they realise I am an atheist. Now they block me after 5 minutes, so at least less time is wasted!

Today was more of the same, but I decided to let you know how these things generally pan out.

Someone contacted me out of the blue, just wanting to talk. We had a little text chat about what I'd been doing at the weekend - drinking myself silly at a beer festival, and singing along to the Queen tribute band who were playing at the event. I commented on the fact that the lead singer was the worst lookalike I'd ever seen, and that his wig made him look more like Hitler than Freddie Mercury!

All very chatty, until I decided to give the link to my MySpace page. As the person was taking some time looking at, I added (jokingly):

That usually has one of two effects: 95% of people never speak to me again! Of course the other 5% are the only ones I want to talk to anyway

The reaction was very typical:

hmm i think i'll be the 95%
you seem very set in your ways and pretty much unapproachable

Yes folks, after 10 minutes of chat, when we had been talking like people normally do, nothing too serious, just some general conversation, the fact that I was suddenly revealed as an atheist flicked a switch.

Instantly I was someone not worth talking to - and I was the one set in my ways? And unapproachable? This person had approached me, and we were talking in a very friendly way. Was there anything else I could do to be 'approachable'? Offer free coffee and doughnuts with every conversation?

Needless to say, the conversation ended shortly after that. Any lines of text I sent came up as 'not delivered yet'. This after I had gone on to say that I preferred not to talk about religion, and that, despite knowing now that the other person was a Christian (she told me so), I was still more than willing to continue with our conversation.

So who is set in their ways here? An atheist who doesn't let his atheism come between talking to someone about non-religious subjects? Or a Christian who is so prejudiced against a person who says he is an atheist that he instantly becomes 'set in his ways and pretty much unapproachable' the moment he mentions it.

As surely as if a racist refused to talk to a black man once he found out the colour of his skin, this is the same kind of bigotry and prejudice, but from a religious point of view. If I'd been a Christian, she would have continued to talk to me. Because I was an atheist, she did not.

---

Footnote: My MySpace profile is quite clear that I'm an atheist. Fair enough. From that she deduced that I was 'unapproachable'. Her MySpace page, however, links to this page under 'Who I'd like to meet'. I'm getting the rotten smell of hypocrisy here. How about you?

---

Footnote: If you've read my Contact Me page you will notice some pretty strong words warning religious people who try to contact me with a view to persuading me that I am wrong. Basically, I tell them not to bother, that I am 'closed to the arguments of Christians, Muslims and other religious types'. So surely that just confirms the aforementioned Christian's suspicions about me?

Not quite. I specifically try to stop the kind of long, rambling proselytising emails which Christians very often sent me. But I will talk to anyone about anything if it's not religion. People are free to believe what they like, so long as they don't ram it down my throat, and my conversation with this person had been about my weekend drinking and singing exploits. Only when I mentioned that I was an atheist (and I do so early on to save being blocked later) did she decide I wasn't worth any more of her time.

So come on everyone, talk to me on Skype! Just remember, I'm an atheist... but I don't always talk about religion!

On 27 July 1967, almost 40 years ago now, the Sexual Offences Act passed into law in England and Wales. It ended the total ban on sex between men which had existed since 1885. However homosexuality in Scotland was not decriminalised until 1980 and in Northern Ireland it remained illegal until 1982.

In 1967 the age of consent for gay sex was set at 21, whereas the age for straight sex was 16, and this situation did not change until 1994, when it came down to 18 (still higher than for heterosexuals) and only seven years ago, in 2000, did homosexuals finally have equality in this respect. Since then the age of consent has been set at 16, throughout the UK, for both hetero- and homosexual sex.

The 1967 laws did not completely legalise homosexuality, even for over-21s. Importantly, it only decriminalised gay sex 'in private', so that where three or more gay people were having sex together this was not 'in private' and was therefore illegal. Even if the third person was somewhere else in the house, that still made it illegal. Indeed the 1967 laws were widely said to be responsible for more, not less, persecution of homosexuals, with many more arrests for gay sex which were not (within the strict letter of the law) 'in private'.

Only in 2003 were these inequalities between the rights of homosexual and heterosexuals finally and completely removed from the law. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 overhauled many aspects of sexual offences of all kinds, replacing the language of the older laws - permitting sex between more than two men, for instance.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as those granted to people who are married. In all but name, a civil partnership in the UK is the same thing as a marriage. The first civil partnership in the UK took place on 5 December 2005, less than two years ago.

Gay people in the UK now have the same legal rights as everyone else in the UK (although I won't go into the attitutude to homosexuality in the armed forces). The UK is, sadly, one of the very few countries who can make this claim. In some countries, mostly African and Middle Eastern nations, homosexuality is illegal. And in several of those countries, convicted homosexuals are put to death.

But even where homosexuality is legal, very few countries allow same-sex marriages or civil unions. Most of the USA does not allow them, nor most of South America, Eastern Europe and the Far East. And the only country in Africa where same-sex marriages are legal is, ironically, South Africa, which of course had for so long been the center of terrible discrimination on the grounds of race. The country is now embracing a much more progressive attitude to the lives of its citizens than many of the countries which had previously, and justifiably, condemned it during the decades of apartheid.

Of course even in the UK a civil partnership is not called a 'marriage'. Of the 244 countries in the world, how many do you suppose allow same-sex couples to say 'we are married'? Answer: 5. Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006) are the only ones to allow same-sex marriages.

For civil unions (also called civil partnerships) the number is still pitifully small: only 19 countries, plus partial areas within other countries (eg a handful of US states). Of those 19 few give full legal rights on a par with marriage.

As explained earlier, the UK does give full legal rights to same-sex civil partners, but even going this far there is an exception: if you want a civil partnership ceremony in a church... tough luck. You can't have it. Of course I'm not big on religion, but it seems to me ridiculous that the law goes so far, only to snatch something away at the very last moment. Some Churches do not condemn homosexuals, but the law does not permit the civil partnership to be held in their religious buildings, even if all involved were willing to allow it.

Of course the reason such legislation took so long to be written into UK law in the first place is that at every step of the way, religion, and in the UK that means Christianity, has objected, protested and condemned each and every proposal for equal treatment of homosexuals. If you're not familiar with the fight in this country, you only have to look at the USA for Christian attitudes to gays, which will not, or certainly not in the foreseeable future, permit any kind of civil union for same-sex couples. Those states which have passed legislation to allow it are up against fierce lobbying from the Christian right to repeal those laws, and some of those challenges have, sadly, been successful.

And though the fight in the UK has largely been won, with no prospect of re-criminalising homosexuality, imagine what would happen if this country were to be governed by, let's say, a party of evangelical Christians. How long before the 'abomination' that is gay sex was made illegal again? It will never happen here - we British just don't 'do' evangelism. We're not big on the arm waving and shouting and wailing, for one thing. And I can't imagine what speaking in tongues sounds like with a Yorkshire or Geordie accent (maybe I can - give me 7 or 8 pints of beer and I'll give it a go).

Unfortunately it is not so fantastical to imagine that situation happening in the USA. Imagine a US Senate with 50 or more evangelical Christian Republicans in office. What then? Back to the 'values' of the Bible, where homosexuality is condemned? Laws restricting gay rights (as per the 'only in private' aspects of earlier UK laws)? Do not underestimate the ability of Christian fundamentalists to make strenuous attempts to get into government - the presence of George W Bush at the top of the tree suggests that the roots of the Christian right are planted very deeply in US soil.

Even if the rights issues don't get worse for homosexuals in the USA, don't expect the situation to improve to the point where same-sex marriages are legal in all the 50 states. Ever. Of course in neighbouring Canada they are legal. But in Canada there is less religious fundamentalism. And of course less crime, funnily enough... wasn't less religion supposed to equal more crime?

We in the UK have now had a 40 year period where homosexuality has become gradually more and more accepted (at least in legal terms) in our society. I am still ashamed to realise that for the first year of my life (I'll be 41 next week) homosexuality was completely illegal. However, that is no longer the case, and we now have some of the most liberal laws in the world with regard to gay rights.

In most of the world homosexuality is now legal, but that does not mean we should not continue to condemn those countries where it is not legal. And looking at this map it is a depressing thought that the areas marked in dark blue are the only countries in the world where common sense and decency has prevailed, and where people in same sex relationships enjoy the same rights as any other human beings. And in all other countries the number one obstacle to the overturning of anti-gay legislation is, you guessed it, religion.

---

Footnote: The first civil partnership ceremony under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is thought to have taken place at 11:00 (GMT) on the 5 December 2005 between Matthew Roche and Christopher Cramp at St Barnabas Hospice, Worthing, West Sussex. The usual 14 day waiting period was waived as Roche was suffering from a terminal illness. He died the next day.

---

Footnote: I recommend these pages for further reading, all of which have a number of links to more information and other sites:

• LGBT rights in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada
• LGBT rights by country
• Homosexuality laws of the world
• Same-sex marriage

I'm now back on track with the audio version of The Atheists Are Revolting! and to whet your appetite I've added a couple more free audio chapters on the web site. Here's what's freely available so far:

If you prefer, you can download the MP3 files - just visit this page for more information.

An article in this week's NewScientist took me to the following site:

Faith Based SEO Services
"a Christian based company, was formed to provide excellent search engine optimization service to businesses and individuals... We feel that God has called up to help you, whether large or small, move your web site to the top of Google."

I don't really need to explain that expecting God to help you get your site to the top of a Google search is a little... stupid. However, this got me thinking about other so-called faith-based initiatives, and using Google I put in the words 'faith based' along with other words that popped into my head. Here are some of the things I found:

• Faith Based Farming
  "Farming ought to be regarded as a sacred calling to take care of the land and to bring forth the food and fiber that sustains the community"

• Faith Based Dieting
  "Marianne Cook has been on the program for three years, and has lost 40 pounds. When she feels hunger pains, it's God telling her it's time to eat, she explained. Cook rejects the idea of eating five servings of fruit and vegetables a day. 'I don't agree with that because that's not in the Bible,' she says."

• Faith Based Wrestling
  "The members of Greater Gold Wrestling Club will do a double-leg takedown on opponents, press them in a bear hug and muscle on a headlock - all in the name of Jesus Christ... 'It almost enhances your faith,' he said. 'You feel as though you're not just out there wrestling, representing a team, but wrestling for God. It's really representing God as well.' "

• Faith Based Prison
  On the face of it, the results of the prison described in this article would seem to be positive, but why does belief in the supernatural have to be involved? Most of the methods used would apply to non-believers - and teaching respect for women isn't one of the Bible's stronger points is it?

• Faith Based Pokemon
  Actually the article's title is 'Satanism in Pokemon' and is as anti-Pokemon as you might expect. "Headstrong, stubborn, quibbling, self-centered, vindictive, obnoxious, hormonal, sexually preoccupied, evil, thieving, cross-dressing jerks are most definitely not biblical role models! (I beg to differ. Nick) These characters do not portray biblical values... To be sure it is a game, but a game that does not glorify God!"

• Faith Based Killing
  "The antichrist has come to Earth, and the forces of good are battling the forces of evil. Your mission: to convert or kill the non-believers... players learn the value of prayer - key to success in the game"

• Faith Based Programming (of computers)
  "When I begin to code, I stop trying to follow the rules and logic of my own experience over the years. Instead I allow the divine spirit take my hand and control the code that is written."

Well okay, maybe the last one was not quite as sincere as the others! These are just a few tasters to get you started. If you find more, particularly if they are the weird and wonderful variety, let me know and I'll add them here.

---

Footnote: any attempt to analyse my choice of words will be utterly futile - my mind is completely random and unpredictable. Or maybe God told me what to search for!

Hard-line Christians are forever showing their true nature. For them the whole freedom of religion debate, the talk of 'prayer in schools' and 'prayer in public spaces' isn't about prayer at all. It's about Christian prayer. They don't want just anyone praying anywhere they like. No, they want their religion, their God, their type of prayers, and only their type of prayers. So long as it's Christian, they like it.

So when, for the first time, a Hindu is invited by the US Senate to lead the prayer (12 July 2007), what are the chances there will be a big fuss made by Christians?

100%, of course:

This is why atheists want prayer removing from areas such as government building, schools, anywhere where religion simply should not be part of the daily routine. Because you can guarantee that if someone brings up religion, someone else will object because it's not their religion.

And again, this clearly shows that many Christians are not peaceful, loving and tolerant at all. They will shout until they are blue in the face that God loves everyone, and teaches them to be moral and kind, and yet when a Hindu stands up, they call his words 'the prayer of the wicked which is an abomination in your sight'.

I like to see things like this for two reasons: it shows Christian bigotry and hypocrisy, and it also confirms that religion and prayer have no place in the workings of government. Had there been no prayer, nobody would have been offended. Once prayer is allowed, the person leading the prayer immediately puts down a marker: this is the prayer of a specific religion, and if you are not part of that religion you are not fully included. With no prayer, everybody is included, or at least nobody is excluded for their religious beliefs.

Private prayer? I have no problems with that at all. I imagine its rare to be heckled in your own home, or in a church, mosque or temple. Unless of course you want to watch the Sunday Service on TV and I want the motor racing on the other channel!

---

News Story:
Non-Christian allowed to bless Senate floor; Bigoted conservatives are outraged

I decided to record one of the full-length lectures of Robert G Ingersoll, but had I known how much work this would entail... I would probably have done it anyway. The end result is 1 hour and 42 minutes of audio, which I've split into 4 parts for convenience:

For more Ingersoll audio, go to my Robert G Ingersoll audio page - I like to keep things logical like that! And you will also be able to download the MP3 files from there, should you wish to play them on an MP3 player or burn them to CD.

Lessons I've learned from this:

• Read the lecture out loud before recording it. The fact that I had only skimmed through the text meant that I was constantly putting the wrong emphasis on words, which meant I had to repeat myself. This added way too much editing time.

• Drink water frequently. After several tries at getting some 'difficult' lines to come out properly, a quick glug of water always does the trick and my mouth no longer feels, and sounds, like a badger's armpit. Or does it?!

• Between sessions, put the microphone back in exactly the same place as before, and try to sit in the same position. It surprised me that some fairly small movements would change the sound quite radically, even beyond the obvious 'move closer and it will be louder'.

• Once a file has been recorded, play it back to see if any of it needs re-recording, and record those parts straight away. This relates to the previous point - I recorded the whole lecture, then edited it, but while editing found I needed to re-record certain lines. Trouble is, my voice often sounds completely different, whether it's because it's at the end of a session compared to the beginning, or maybe the time of day, which seemed to affect the 'atmosphere' in the room. Though I've tried not to make it too obvious, there are one or two lines which might 'jump out' at you and sound out of place... so now you know why.

• I now have much more respect for professional studios and voice actors who do this kind of thing. I imagine you really have to know your stuff to be good at this. But I did my best!

I'm considering recording more Robert G Ingersoll, and possibly making the results available on CD (as MP3 files) for anyone who wants them. The Lulu.com site allows me to do that, so I'll give it some thought. For now, it's a rest from audio and back to some serious blogging, which I have been neglecting while doing this.

---

Footnote: Oh the shame of it. The last of the four parts, uploaded to the web site, included a small section which had not been edited. I now remember leaving it half finished to go and do something else, but then I must have forgotten to finish the job later. That would have been bad enough - the unedited audio is usually just two or three tries after making small errors - but this time, just to make it extra special, I had to pick the one section where I took a swig of water, burped a couple of times and then clearly said "I've got f*cking wind now". I seem to be human after all! Needless to say, the corrected version is now the one you'll find here. Thanks to Edward for spotting that - I owe you (yet another) one!

So this Friday the 13th thing... maybe I'll be more careful next time!

---

Footnote: A PDF document of the lecture is now available on the Robert G Ingersoll audio page

Well, here I am, after a slight break between blogs, in which I've been recording some rather long audio files, which should be available on the web site in the next few days. However, this is a break-within-a-break because I took time out from editing the audio to write (and record) a short poem.

I've got out of the habit of writing poetry, and it's something I want to go back to now and again, because I really enjoy it. Not that I'm known for it on YouTube, of course, but it's something I like to dabble in from time to time.

In the past I've done little poetry challenges for friends. Give me four words, any words (even really strange ones!), and I will come up with a half-decent poem with one of the words on each line. Okay, so it doesn't sound quite as much fun written there, but trust me, it fills in an otherwise empty 10 minutes!

In my book there are a couple of pages of poetry, but I'm definitely going to try to write more. Anyone up for a book of atheist poetry?! I prefer poems which rhyme, so don't expect some arty-farty flow of words you can only understand with a good dictionary!

So this is me back in the poetry saddle. See what you think.
 

---

My atheist message to you
by Nick Gisburne

You talk about God but I cannot believe it
I turn you away but you just will not leave it
So here is your faith and the way I perceive it
My atheist message to you

The Jesus you know is a phantom, a fiction
Your Bible has nothing but false contradiction
The Christian faith is a foolish addiction
So here's what I want you to do

Believe what you will, just don't ask me to share it
Hold onto your cross but I don't want to wear it
Don't pray