I just added a new section to the site - Human Rights. At the moment its quite a nebulous area and I have no clear direction for its future content, but there were some obvious ones: the death penalty, waterboarding, and a general human rights video are the first three I added, all videos produced by Amnesty International.

However, there was another subject I wanted to include there, a subject about which I have strong views, and that is the issue of gun control. I'll start by saying, without hesitation, that I am 100% opposed to any and all possession of personal firearms. Other than state organisations such as the police and armed forces, I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to own a gun. The 'right to bear arms' is a non-starter for me, and as I'm British it doesn't come into it. We have no such right.

Note: from now on assume that I'm not talking about the police/armed forces.

In the UK all handguns are banned. Not just concealed weapons. Not just guns of a certain type. Not even ones for which you have a licence. All handguns are illegal. You cannot get a licence for a handgun in the UK. Even our Olympic shooting teams are not allowed to practice in the UK. How that is going to pan out when we host the Olympics is anyone's guess, but that's not a concern of mine. I'm happy to report that the UK government has banned personal firearms, and I have no problem with that at all.

There are some exceptions - shotgun licenses are available, but the laws on owning them are extremely strict. You have to have a very good reason to own one, for example if you're a farmer (ie for vermin control) or are taking part in licensed hunting events. I'm not particularly overjoyed about even these exceptions, but the numbers are limited and the number of hoops you need to jump through to obtain a licence is enough to deter most people from even trying to get one.

Other types of gun were never legal here - automatic and semi-automatic weapons could only be obtained illegally. And of course they are still banned.

Why am I so against the possession of guns? After all, so the saying goes, guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people. But people who don't have guns find it much more difficult to kill people, particularly in the heat of the moment. And people without guns can't shoot anyone. People without guns can't accidentally fire a gun, or inadvertantly allow their children to find a gun in their home.

If I wanted a gun, could I get one? Probably. You can buy anything on the black market, for a price. But I would find it extremely difficult to do so. I don't know criminals. I wouldn't know who to ask. I wouldn't know who not to ask in case they shopped me to the police. Most people would experience immense difficulty in obtaining a firearm. Good.

Yes, criminals can buy guns. But if they are caught in possession of such a weapon they will be given a mandatory five-year prison sentence. No excuses. That alone probably means they should (if they had any brains) be reluctant to carry a gun frequently. And yes, of course they'd take it with them for crime, but if gun laws were less restrictive they would do that anyway. Criminals will be criminals.

Am I worried that I cannot defend myself or my loved ones if I'm confronted with a gun-toting man in a mask? No, because I know the chances of that happening are far less here than in a country where guns are everywhere. I have never ever met anyone, or even walked past anyone, who I thought was, possibly, carrying a gun. As a result, I don't feel the need to carry one. I'm not stupid - I won't walk at midnight in a 'rough' area, but who would do that anywhere in the world? However the fear there would be that I might be robbed, not killed, and it's just common sense to be careful where and when you travel.

There are a whole host of reasons for being anti-gun. Sign me up for every single one of them. I'm not American. I will never live in America. The right to bear arms doesn't interest me. I don't want to be able to shoot anybody or anything. And I don't want anyone else to have that right either. It's not even a 'right' - if we were talking about personal bombs, would anyone consider they had a 'right' to carry one? Of course not.

Why am I talking about this here? Well, I wanted to add a video to the new 'Human Rights' section of the web site, perhaps a statement from someone who holds similar views to my own. Someone who is against the ownership of firearms by private citizens. Someone who supports gun control. I searched. I looked. I didn't find a single one. There were dozens and dozens ridiculing gun control, but not one voice to support it. I find that shocking. Maybe owning an object which can kill someone somehow overrides any sense that killing someone is entirely wrong. Maybe it's like atheism before atheists started to speak out - nobody feels as if they can say anything, for fear that they will be (pun intended) shot down by their opponents.

I just don't get it. I will never get it. It's the same kind of madness as religion. The majority of Americans believe in God. The majority of Americans believe that owning a lethal weapon is okay. I believe neither one, and do not understand anyone who does. So if you are now thinking of bringing up the subject with me, and disagree with me, please don't bother. If you are against gun control, I am against you, just as surely as if you were a Creationist or a Muslim fundamentalist.

When asked what she would do as president were Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, Hilary Clinton had this to say:

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

If there was ever a statement which so encapsulated the total inability of religion to prevent death and destruction, that was it. If a Muslim nation attacked a Jewish nation, a Christian nation would simply blow it up.

Anyone else who thinks that faith, God and religion are the great peace-makers should take one step forward. And wait to be shot.

Yep, it's that well-known celebration day when all the people of English origin remember the Saint George, the patron saint of England, and... do absolutely nothing! Yes, we don't even have a national holiday, which is a bit pants but who cares - I'm sat here doing nothing so fuck the workers and up the English!

Here's a nice Christian symbol just to show that atheists can be proud of a symbol of torture and execution:

Did I mention that the red cross is considered to be offensive to Muslims because they regard it as a symbol of the Crusades? Tough titty.

It's also Shakespeare's birthday, plus he died on this day too. I expect he had just blown out his candles and opened yet another pair of wooly socks from a well-meaning relative and the strain was just too much for him. Bugger.

---

Footnote:
Talking of death, I feel like croaking it myself today - I just did 30 km on the exercise bike. That's 18.6 miles in case you're still not up to speed with the metric system (I mix the two anyway - we're the only country which uses both systems at once). Last week I set myself a target of doing 50 miles (80.5 km) in 3 days and that was pretty tough, but imagine my disappointment when I realised that had I done just another 2.5 miles that would have been two full marathons in 3 days. As per Shakespeare... bugger. Oh well, it leaves me another target for some other time.

30 km in a day is a lot, and I did it all on setting 11 (I used to struggle on setting 6!) and is just about my limit for now. I'm still doing the resistance bands but have cut out the leg exercises, for several reasons: they are particularly time consuming, I don't enjoy them at all, and because I do plenty of leg work on the bike. I'm doing this for life, so it's got to be something I keep doing, so anything I hate has to go. I now spend 45 minutes doing exercise bands, whereas before it was taking me way too long - having to do 90 minutes meant that some days I was skipping the bands and doing the bike (hence the 3-day/50-mile thing), which is not good because I want to do both so as to be fit overall.

My weight has gone from 280 pounds (20 stone) when I started, down to 244 pounds (17 stone 6 pounds), and that's 36 pounds in 16 weeks. I seriously can't believe I've stuck at this for 16 weeks. I've had to buy new clothes - 4 inches gone off my waist, my T-shirt size in now L not XL, and unfortunately my leather jacket now looks like it was made for a fat bloke (it was - me!). Amazingly enough, I just have to shift another 12 pounds and I will be 'normal weight' for my height, which is 6'9", although I am ultimately aiming for 16 stone (224 pounds) because that will be 20% of my weight gone! I'm feeling great. Well, great when I recover - at the moment I am completely knackered.

I'm not sure if anyone is reading these exercise things, but it's something to do when I don't have the energy to stand up again! This has precious little to do with religion, but if I can try to stretch a point, it does prove that you don't need God to motivate yourself and change your life. Pictures of Kylie Minogue in her underwear are just as effective, I find!

Up the English, down with the weight!

It seems that in Islam every day is April Fools Day, and of course it's the Muslims who are the fools. Get this:

Muslim call to adopt Mecca time
Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.

A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth; proof, he said, of the greatness of the Muslim "qibla" - the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray.

Read the rest of the article, then join with me in appreciation of the advanced state of Muslim science:

---

Footnote:
Muslims, here's how it works:

• When the Greeks were a major world power, they gave names to the constellations, many of which we still use today.
• When the Muslim world was the centre of scientific knowledge (a long time ago), Muslims gave names to many of the stars.
• When Britain was the major maritime nation of the world, and an accurate measure of longitude was required for navigation, accurate time was crucial, so a timing point was needed by which all clocks could be synchronised. Time along a certain line of longitude would be 00:00, while 15 degrees west it would be an hour earlier, 15 degrees east an hour later. Greenwich was chosen purely because The Royal Observatory was (and is) located there. Like the Greeks with the constellation, like the Muslims with many star names, Britain simply named it first. Deal with it.

If science has 'provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth' then it's news to me. And probably news to science. Or both. Or bollocks.

That old favourite of Christians, and probably the page of the Bible which is most lovingly fingered by them, is John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

So where do I start with that little pearl of wisdom, or should I say 'nugget of nonsense'? First, let me express my total incredulity and bewilderment that this passage could in any way be taken as an act of love for anyone. Ever. Yes, in one single way could this be seen as 'good': allowing one person to be killed, so that more than one person would be spared the same fate, would be 'a good thing', but (and it's a big one) only if there was no other option.

The fact that God supposedly allowed his only son to die implies exactly that - that there was no other option available, that Jesus could not have been spared a painful death while at the same time allowing everyone else to be 'saved' as well. Pardon? Isn't this God we're talking about? God the mighty, God the omnipotent, God the 'made the universe in 6 days and can do abso-fucking-lutey anything he wants to, just like that?' This is the same God, right?

And yet he can't think of any way of saving mankind other than by allowing his son to be tortured and then nailed up to a cross to die? I'd say that was at best wholly unimaginative of him, and at worst downright negligent and unnecessarily sadistic.

I can personally think of quite a few ways mankind could be given the same message of love and deliverance, and in fact far better and more humane ways:

1. Just before the first nail was driven home, God could have reached down, plucked Jesus out of harm's way and said, "Behold, I have saved my son, and if you believe in me I will save you too." A huge hand coming out of the sky would deliver the message fairly convincingly, I sense.

2. If he was going to kill anyone, why not kill the Roman with the hammer and nails, or the one who put the spear into Jesus' side? The message this time? "Trust in me and I will keep you safe from harm."

3. Or put an impenetrable force field around Jesus while he spoke about God. Now he'd be saying, "I am God and I authorise this message, and this is my son - the force field is with him."

4. While we're heading in that direction, why did the son of God have to die at all? Imagine how many more believers in Jesus there would be if the immortal man himself were walking around for thousands of years, still preaching, not aging, surrounded by an impenetrable shield and proving to a sceptical world that the water-into-wine thing was no party trick.

It really does seem to me that if 'God so loved the world' he would lower the bar for entry to enlightenment as far as possible, so that it would be so much easier to believe in him. Fair enough, punish the ones who were bad despite all the warnings. But come on, if God was really out there and so unbelievably obvious that you could say 'look, there he is' and point to his beardy face hovering above you, would anyone be so stupid as to do something even remotely naughty? And don't give me that 'free will' bullshit - either God wants you to behave or he doesn't, so why give us the ability to do bad things at all?

And why go through this complicated rigmarole of having to learn about some dead man from the Middle East, from an old book of dubious origin? Like Martini, God can appear anytime, anyplace, anywhere, so couldn't he just send out 'thou shalt believe in God' messages to everyone? Can't we just have the belief thing implanted into us at birth? I mean, we've supposedly had the knowledge of good and evil in us since Adam bit the apple, so a little sprinkling of faith built into the human genome wouldn't go amiss, and it would hardly be a big job for someone clever enough to invent DNA, as well as cancer, HIV and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Why does God make it so difficult anyway? If he 'so loved the world' wouldn't he want to make it as easy as possible for us to believe?

I'm sorry, but a God with unlimited power also has unlimited options, so to choose one of the options where his son actually dies, is quite obviously the action of a sadist. And by the way, Christians, don't go all pro-life on me when talking about women having abortions - if God can choose to let his son die, why shouldn't women have the same choice? But I digress...

If your son was drowning and you could swim out to save him, but in doing so a million other people would die, what would you do? Actually, perhaps that's not a black and white choice because a lot of people would in fact let the million die to save their child. So let's assume the choice is simple: allow one (unknown) person to die or allow a million to die? Of course the answer is that you should save the million - the 'greater good' wins out. But this is not the choice faced by God. It's not one or the other at all. God could save his son and the rest of the world if he wanted to. If he wanted to. But he didn't want to. Instead he allowed his son to die, simply to prove a point in the crudest and bloodiest way imaginable. Out of all the available options God chose torture, pain and blood sacrifice.

So if your son was drowning and you had all these options, which would you choose?

1. Save your son but allow a million people to die
2. Allow your son to die but save a million people
3. Save your son and save a million people

Now the answer becomes obvious. Only option 3 makes sense, unless you are uncaring, unfeeling and have no regard for human life. But then, this is God we are talking about, and as the rest of the Bible proves many times, God can and does kill as many people as he feels like, whenever he wants, even when there are far better, kinder, more loving alternatives.

---

Footnote:
Remember at all times that my descriptions of God actually doing things are hypothetical. I don't for one second believe that Jesus was the son of God or indeed that there is a God at all. But in these types of arguments the case has to be put in terms of 'if God existed, and acted in the ways described by Christians, then x, y and z would be the realities of the situation.' Atheists should probably endeavour to explain that every now and again, because we are constantly told that we do actually believe in God but are denying him. No, we don't believe. We are pointing out what nonsense these teachings really are.

One of the big arguments religious people will give for their anti-gay rantings is the idea that 'if everyone was gay the human race would die out because there would be no new births'. That, of course, makes complete sense. If two gay men or two gay women have sex, it doesn't matter what they do they won't be having a child anytime soon. However there are a couple of reasons why, every time I see that point raised, I have to shrug and say, 'so what?'.

First, it's actually a 100% true statement. Taking artifical insemination out of the picture, which is not exactly high on the 'thanks be to God' list, then yes, if everyone was gay there would be no more children, and when everyone died that would be the human race finished for good. And maybe you could argue that, technically, for the survival of the human race it would be better that we were not all gay. But whoever said that because some people are gay all people must become gay? That isn't what being gay is all about. Gay people don't want everyone to be gay. There are no anti-straight rallies, no marches against 'the evils of heterosexuality'. Sadly, the reverse is not the case.

To say that 'if everyone was gay there would be no more children' is as ridiculous as saying, 'if everyone was vegetarian there would be no more McDonalds restaurants'. They are both true statements, but neither of them reflects reality. We live in a world where diversity is everywhere you look. We are all different - we look different, we all have different mannerisms, choose different lifestyles, eat different foods, cheer on different sports teams. Yet in few areas other than sexuality are any of our 'ways' criticised with such vigour as is homosexuality, and most of that criticism comes with the 'assurance' that God said it's bad so that's how it is.

It simply makes no sense to even start the sentence with 'if everyone was gay', because that is not the case, has never been the case, and will never be the case. What the people who promote this attitude should instead realise is that 'not everyone is gay therefore the human race will not die out because there will be new births to ensure it continues'.

This leads on to my second point, which lays more emphasis on the religious notion that God has commanded people to 'go forth and multiply'. Again, that is supposedly a reason to condemn homosexuality. It is in fact one of the reasons why the main religions refuse to accept same-sex marriages - they teach that one of the primary reasons for marriage is the production of children. I posted the following comment about a week ago, on a video from a Christian woman who was promoting an anti-gay marriage viewpoint:

Yes, Steve and Bill cannot produce a child. But 75-year olds Alice and Bert also cannot produce a child (too old). Should they be barred from marrying for that reason? Your reason is therefore null and void - to make any sense it would have to apply to ALL people who are unable to produce children, or not at all. Plus, no law exists which says 'You MUST produce children if you marry'. Some people don't want children. Should they be barred from marriage too?

There are so many ways in which people enter marriage knowing that they will not be having children, yet why is only gay marriage unacceptable? I mentioned old age, but what if one partner is sterile? Because their religion says they must produce children, should he/she then reject a marriage with the sterile person, in favour of someone who is fertile? And I don't remember many couples being hounded in the streets, or discriminated against at work because they simply chose to remain childless.

Is one child enough? To re-work the original statment at the top of this blog, 'if all couples had one child the human race would die out because there would be not enough new births'. Again, that's a true statement but one which does not reflect reality. Why does religion not condemn those with fewer than two children? Because it all averages out, that's why. Some couples have 3, 4 or more children. Some have just one. Some have none. And the human race goes on regardless, endlessly increasing as it has always done, despite the fact that gay couples cannot have children, and despite the fact that many heterosexual couples cannot, or choose not to, have children. Yet only those who are gay are condemned by religion.

To argue that homosexuality is wrong because it is not a union which produces children is ridiculous. Life does not have to revolve around the creation of children. If you don't want children, don't have them. If you can't have children, that's just the way it is. And if the reason you can't have children is because you are in a homosexual relationship, that's just the way it is too. Condemnation of any of these situations is pointless and wrong, and it is only the condemnation by religion of homosexuality which is in any way seen to be 'acceptable' in society. This tolerance of homophobia is a position which should be ended as quickly as possible. Intolerance of homosexuality is as bad as intolerance of other races, another area where religion has historically had blood on its hands. The fact that racism is wrong is these days self-evident to most people. That homophobia is right is still upheld by most of the major religious denominations, and these are the groups which must be shouted down from their position of self-righteous bigotry. The human race is not about to end because of homosexuality.

A couple of notable things happened to me yesterday (the second one overlapped midnight hence the change of date). First, the Jehovah's Witnesses did what they always do:

THE FUCKERS KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND GOT ME OUT OF BED

Well surprise fucking surprise. Who'd have thought the Jovos would have knocked at the door when I am not yet up? In fact I was so stunned to be awake at that time (I'd only gone to bed at 5am and it didn't seem like I had actually had any sleep, that I didn't realise it was them and just assumed it was some random religious people dropping round for an argument.

Which they got.

I'm not really going to go into all the details, but on the Jovo retard team we had two men who said several of the following things. They are in no particular order, but his introduction of each point was almost as random as I've shown here:

1. They said: To create electricity you need to have water. He knew this because he'd helped to build a power station years ago.
   I said: no you don't you just need a magnet and some wire. Spin the magnet inside the wire. Result: electricity.

2. They said: But to create a magnet you need carbon. (WTF?! Magnetic carbon?!)
   I said: No, magnets occur naturally. Just find some magnetite (note: there is no carbon in magnetite in case you were wondering, it's an oxide of iron)

3. They said:God had always been there.
   I said:The universe has always been there

4. They said: God made the light
   I said: How did he make the light before he made the sun and the stars?

5. They said: To have a creation you need to have a creator.
   I thought: Fuck me you imbeciles, the last video I did for YouTube was a complete demolition of exactly this subject, and it's as fresh in my mind as anything ever could be. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. So...
   I said: (insert most of the arguments given in my video)
   They of course gave the same bullshit responses such as 'you just have to look at the firmament to know it's been created'. Bollocks. You just had to look into their eyes to know they were as clueless as the day they were born.

6. They said: So you think this all came out of the Big Bang? When has an explosion ever created anything?
   I said: The Big Bang was an expansion of energy and matter, not an explosion as we commonly understand the term, and it got the name Big Bang from Fred Hoyle, a scientist who was making derogatory comments about the theory, after which the name stuck. (They had obviously not heard of Fred Hoyle)

7. They went on to explain in very basic terms how evolution was rubbish, and that we didn't all evolve from apes. I said that nobody who understood evolution ever said that, and had they read 'The Evolution of Species' by Charles Darwin?
   They both said: No.
   I said: If you are going to argue against something, shouldn't you actually know what you are talking about rather than just giving out false information? I explained that I'd read the Bible and in fact read it most days.

8. They said: If the Sun was closer we wouldn't be able to live on the planet.
   I said: Yes would would, in fact there is quite a large zone where the Earth can be in relation to the sun before it's either too hot or too cold.

9. They said: Back on the electricity again, they were determined to prove that God breathed life into dust, and bizarrely told me that if you put electricity into clay it became animated.
   I should have said: So Wallace and Gromit are evidence of God?
   I actually said: Not a lot. How can you respond to clay + electricity = animation?

10. They said: If you get sick you'll go to the doctor? So if your spirit is sick you'll go to God.
    I said: I'm not sick. (And later thought: actually, if I was a Jehovah's Witness and my leg was severed and I needed a blood transplant, I would of course refuse it and die. Bad analogy, guys - when you really need help, God's holy word has told you not to bother).

11. Somewhere in the middle they mentioned Jesus and I said the Trinity meant there were 3 gods and they then laughed merrily and said that the Trinity was a ridiculous idea and they didn't believe it at all. Yeah, right. So the clay thing and the other stuff about an invisible creator, that didn't rub your funny bone at any point? Idiots.

To be honest, all of the above was falling on deaf ears, and then they had the cheek to say that I was the one with a closed mind. Meanwhile they just had a pair of annoying smiles like a couple of simpletons, and occasionally laughed when I gave them some scientific fact that was beyond their comprehension (ie most of it).

There is more I could tell you, but as you can probably tell by the haphazard way I am just putting down some of the conversation, I really don't give a toss what they said because the Jehovah's Witnesses are just morons who should have their hands removed so they can never knock on a door again. Ever. They have nothing to say which bears any resemblance at all to rational thought, and why should I listen to fuckwits like this?

One last thing though: after all this conversation, which just went into their ears and out again, I mentioned that I'd written a book about atheism and they asked to see it and to read it. So one of them now has it, and promised to bring it back once he read it. In what I thought was a very untrusting way he asked me what my name was, and when I said it was on the book he covered up the name and said, "No, you tell me." Cheeky bastard.

I would have had much more to say to them had I not been in need of a drink, with a mouth like the inside of Gandhi's flip-flop, but that might be why they descend on the neighbourhood in packs (there were what looked like a dozen of them on the street) and wake you up without warning. Shock and bore tactics.

I'm done talking to them. They know my views now, they are in the book (although I doubt it will be read), so if they ever knock again they can fuck off (after giving the book back - I paid good money for that). As you can probably tell, I was in a bad mood all day after that encounter.

Remember this from a while ago...?

---

I said there were two things. The other one came right at the end of a film I was watching, called Constantine. Excellent film, highly recommended, and the theme is one of possession, exorcism, Catholicism, etc. Fantasy, sci-fi, religion, all mixed together. Great stuff.

It took me 4 hours to watch it because for some reason as I was doing so I was inspired to write down ideas for at least two, possibly three, new YouTube videos and/or blogs, and had to keep pausing the DVD. I've been a bit bored with religion (again), hence the lack of new blogs lately, but I was writing pages of the stuff, hence the extra time taken to watch the movie. Watch out for the results shortly, hopefully.

That wasn't what I wanted to tell you, however. What really tickled me was right at the very end of the credits, where you get the usual disclaimers about no animals being harmed, etc. Almost the last words were:

The story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious.

Some of the characters in Constantine? God, Satan, and the Archangel Gabriel.

Well I thought it was funny anyway.

An atheist activist, Rob Sherman, was at the end of an appallingly ignorant politician, Monique Davis recently. It could only happen in America, naturally (sadly, probably not):

Davis: I don't know what you have against God, but some of us don't have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it's really a tragedy -- it's tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don't see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I'm trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.... What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it's dangerous--

Sherman: What's dangerous, ma'am?

Davis: It's dangerous to the progression of this state. And it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you'll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I'm sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

The background to this outburst is explained on Rob Sherman's web site or read the article here. Basically, Sherman is taking legal action because government approved funds are being diverted to the restoration of a church building, the Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago, to the tune of a million US dollars. How many times do American atheists have to repeat the phrase 'separation of church and state' before politicians get the message?

---

Update: