Atheist on the Blog - Nick Gisburne

The universe is not so fine-tuned after all

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:00:00 +0000

One of the mainstays of the Intelligent Design movement is the idea that if any of the laws of physics were not exactly as we find them in our universe, galaxies, stars, and indeed life-bearing planets, could not have come into being.

Not so.

Calculations find that many universes could sustain stars
Fred Adams sees stars in the most unlikely places.
His calculations suggest that, contrary to some previous claims, stars are not only common in our cosmos but are also ablaze in myriad other universes, where the laws of physics may be drastically different. Even in a cosmos where balls of gas and dust never collapse and ignite to make conventional stars, radiation produced by black holes and clumps of invisible material called dark matter may play the same role as stars, says Adams, a theorist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
By allowing all three of the parameters, rather than a single parameter, to vary, Adams created a simulation that may embrace a larger number of possible universes, he says. He finds that stars are stable entities in roughly one-fourth of the universes he considered. "That's a sizable amount of real estate."
Had Adams found that the range of parameters that allowed for stars was very small, that would have suggested that the laws of physics in our universe have been "fine-tuned" to allow for star formation, Aguirre notes. Instead, Adams' study shows that our universe doesn't seem particularly special in that regard.
"This open-minded approach can serve, in some cases, as a counter-argument to claims that our universe is fine-tuned for life."

Another argument for creation bites the (star) dust.

Praying for petrol prices

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:00:00 +0000

We call it petrol, you might call it gas, but whatever it is you'll know that the price has been going up and up and up... until recently that is, when oil prices have fallen back and prices at the pump have started to go down a little. So who gets credit for this reduction? Who else? God, that's who.

Petrol pump pilgrims keep faith
A prayer group in Washington DC is claiming the credit for the recent sharp drop in the US price of petrol.
Rocky Twyman, 59, a veteran community campaigner, started Pray At The Pump meetings at petrol stations in April.
Since then, the average price of what the US calls gasoline has fallen from more than $4 a gallon to $3.80.
"We don't have anybody else to turn to but God," Mr Twyman told the BBC. "We have to turn these problems over to God and not to man."
His first pilgrimage to the pump was prompted by fellow volunteers at the First Seventh Day Adventist Church in Petworth, a working-class neighbourhood of the US capital, who were struggling with higher gasoline prices.
He led them down the block to the local Shell gas station to pray. And over the months since then, he has held similar prayer meetings at pumps all over the US.
Prayer warriors
"We were down in Huntsville, Alabama. We finished praying," Mr Twyman said. "Immediately the owners came out and changed the gas prices. They brought it down. We had marvellous success down in St Louis, Missouri."
This week the group returned to the site of their first prayer meeting to celebrate. Singing "We shall overcome," they changed the words of the well-known hymn to "We'll have lower gas prices".
Mr Twyman is sceptical that market forces might be responsible for the lower prices. But he and his prayer warriors have changed their motoring habits.
"We believe not just in prayer - because we believe that faith without works is dead. So we've encouraged people to car-pool more and organise their days more, because it's a combination of faith with these other factors."
Pray At The Pump plans to build on its success and drive gasoline prices even lower. In the words of Rocky Twyman: "We just thank God for blessing us with small victories and we expect greater things to come."

Of particular note is the fact that this moron is 'sceptical that market forces might be responsible for the lower prices'. So what made the prices so high in the first place? Pixies? Of course, he never blames God for bringing on the massive price hikes which preceded this does he? No, no, that would be Satan's fault, right?

See what has happened here? Some idiot preacher has enough common sense and craftiness to realise that sooner or later the price of oil really did have to fall, simply because its peak was caused by speculation in the market rather than actual shortage of supply. So he started to pray that this would happen, in the full knowledge that it would happen anyway, with or without prayer. It's like praying for rain - during a drought, if you pray long enough, it is guaranteed that it will rain. Eventually. And so it goes on, with these prayer groups demonstrating apparent success, and probably converting more gullible fools as they do so.

Expect more stories like this when the housing market starts to pick up again. "I dun prayed fer the credit crunch t' end and the good Lord heard ma voice. Praise Jeeeeesus."

I don't think further comment from me is necessary other than, "Get a fucking grip on reality, you stupid, deluded, ignorant bastards."

Footnote:
This article, posted in May before the prices began to fall, notes that the prayer gatherings are not entirely welcomed by the fuel station owners: "Last week, as one of the demonstrations was winding down, an angry gas station manager in Petworth chased them from the property, Twyman said, annoyed that the activists were hampering business." And page two of the article just confirms what I mentioned about the rain. This same group did exactly what I suggested - praying for rain, only for rain to eventually fall. It's always easy to take credit if something is certain to happen.

Digging for Victory

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:00:00 +0000

See what I did there? I disappeared from view again! Okay, this time I am making the most of the good weather and doing some serious gardening. The exercise I've been doing this year (I've lost well over 50 pounds) means that I can now do way more than a couple of hours without getting exhausted or feeling ill, which is fantastic. It also means I have less time on the computer. Which is also great - real life is much more interesting, after all.

The garden is a big job. I've lived in this house for 18 years and have done the absolute minimum outside. And I do mean minimum - when the grass grows tall enough so that I can't see my dogs out there I cut it, and that's basically it. Sometimes not even that! I have a pile of concrete slabs outside which have been there for several years waiting to be laid down as a patio. Still waiting. Until last month (the start of my adventures in the garden) I had a garden with a surface like a rollercoaster because over the years soil had built up in the jungle undergrowth. I've had to strip the entire layer of grass and soil off and am in the process of digging it level and at the same time removing any unwanted growing things (in this case, that is everything).

So that's why I'm away. And it's going to be a while. But I do have a project on the go, a big, exciting thing which I'm writing and which, funnily enough, the gardening is helping. While I dig, my mind is clear of the clutter which usually bombards it when I sit down in front of the computer (the Internet is a habit which is hard to kick), and outside I get more and more ideas, and frequently have to run into the house to write them down. Today was particularly productive in that respect - at one point I just stopped going back outside for a while because I was writing down so much. With pen and paper - no keyboard involved. Anyone still remember when that was the only way to write things?! In the time when I am actually still in the house, or when the weather is bad so I can't go out, I turn the ideas into... things. I can say no more. If I did I might jinx it. Suffice to say, it's something you would never ever expect from me. Or indeed from any of the other YouTube atheists. 'Different' is not the word. Well, yes it is the word, but it's not strong enough.

I'll be around. Not making videos, maybe not even blogging very much, but I'm not gone, I'm just... busy. Sorry!

Criticism of Islam is not racism

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

If anyone has ever criticised Islam, chances are they will at some point be called racist. But...

Is Islam a race? No.
If Islam allows people of all races into it, then it is not a race and I cannot be racist.
If Islam did not allow people of all races in to join it then Islam itself would be racist.

So how can I be a racist for criticising Islam? Answer: race and religion are not connected. At all. It's not really all that difficult to understand... is it?

God! You wanker!

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

God, you wanker. You fucking idiot. You twat. You've fucked up the whole world with your stupid, stupid fucking religion. If nobody believed in you we'd all be happily going along thinking, "This is all there is so we'd better make the most of it," and, "Fuck me, we've got one planet and if we don't look after it we're in deep shit." But no. No. You had to be there didn't you. Or make that 'you had to make people think you're there'. Even though you're not there, but if you were... well, how fucked up does it have to get for you to just shout down and say to us all, "Look, you little human bastards, this is how I want to be worshipped," and then send down a list of all the things we have to do to make you happy, so that we all know what the crack is, we all have the same religion and we're not all fighting with the ones who believe in different ways.

Because it's like this isn't it: there's this book, and apparently you put it into people's heads, so they wrote it down and we're all supposed to believe it. Nope. No can do. For one thing it's too fucking long, for another it's too fucking weird, and for a third thing it's so out of date it would be illegal to sell it if it was food and it would probably poison everyone. Which, by sheer coincidence (not) is exactly what the book does. No fucker understands it. No, let's be more specific. Everyone who reads it understands it in a different way from everyone else. So what's the point? Are you proud of that, God? Are you proud of writing a book which isn't even intelligible to the people who want to believe it?

Let's do a comparison: the people who write the manuals for putting together a Boeing 747 are pretty specific. If they missed something out or they were a bit vague, or worse still if something could be interpreted in two or more ways, the whole flying hunk of metal would probably come crashing down or maybe never even get up in the air in the first place. There are some seriously accurate specifications in the tech manuals for a commercial airliner. Fuck, even Ikea do instruction manuals well enough so that most people can put up their weird hippy bedroom furniture without turning it into a pile of sticks and an amateur modern art project. But the Bible? Vague. Fucking vague. Jeebus even admits that he wants to be vague by talking in parables so that most people are confused and haven't got a fucking clue what he's jabbering on about. Why? Who knows?

If there was no Bible we'd be cool. We'd all be pagans again, believing in all the gods all the time, a bit like the Hindus, maybe a bit like the Greeks and Romans and whoever - before the intolerant monotheist motherfuckers came along the Romans were cool. "Hey, whatever religion you want, whatever gods you have, that's okay, so long as you respect everyone else's gods we'll respect yours." That's what it was like, but the Christians weren't having any of it. Not a bit of it. Fuck that say the Jesus freaks, it's the one God and nobody else's and we're not respecting your religion because that's what we're like - intolerant tossers who just want it our way and can't stand seeing you have a good time.

And you wonder why the Christians were persecuted? Not for them the 'live and let live', and where the fuck is 'turn the other cheek' when it comes to letting other people have their own set of beliefs? "Sorry, when we get into power you're all fucked," say the Christians (except they probably didn't use the bad words, and it was probably all in Latin, or maybe Greek). Soon as they're in, pagan religions get persecuted and wiped out. Bastards.

So God, back to you. You sent down this book, apparently, and not just one book, there were 66 of em, and they all got smushed together and now people think it's the word of God. The confusing word of God. If it was supposed to be a manual so that people could live better lives, why does it need thousands and thousands of preachers and philosophers to make sense of it all? Shouldn't it be easy? Shouldn't we just be able to open it and work out what to do without someone else interpreting it for us?

"I'm a bit anxious, what do I do, God." Ooo, let's turn to Psalm 46 (says my Gideon Bible stolen from a hotel). I've literally picked this out at random - see the footnote which indicates my current mental state, so this is probably typical of the 'help' you'll find elsewhere. Now you'd think that Psalm 46 would give me some advice about my anxiety. Sort of like Dr Phil, but much more emphasis on the white beard, flowing robes and ability to create/destroy universes at will. So what do we get? Here it is, God's everlasting wisdom (aka the usual Bible bollocks):

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;
Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.
There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.
God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.
The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.
The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.
He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

WHAT. THE. FUCK?

Look, God, I'm fucking anxious. I have some serious debts and the credit crunch means I'm about to lose my house. What am I going to do? Bible says: "There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High." Wah?! What use is that? What use to me is any of this crap, at all, ever?

Worse than that is the fact that the same book means different things to different people, purely because it means nothing. Literally nothing. So we're all arguing, we're all disagreeing, we're all responding and reacting in different ways, because the book, which is supposed to be inspired by God, is saying fuck all so that the people reading it have to make up some shit and get a handle on their own lives. Which of course they could just as easily do if they didn't even have the Bible in the first place.

It's not even the only book. Fuck me, God, you gave a different book to a different set of people! Dodgy. Very dodgy. Well okay, this book has some detail, I'll give you that. The Qur'an and and hadith even explain which hand to wipe your arse with after a shit, and tell you all about spooky spirits called genies (I'll add links when the drink wears off... not, but for now, trust me, Islam really does have rules for all that). So you'd think that all these detailed instructions would be so easy to follow that everyone would say, "Hmm, okay, well that's God's word then, we'll all do it." Are you fucking crazy? Who in their right minds is going to follow that bullshit when it's so strict, so controlling, and so totally alien to the way of life you could have if you followed (however loosely) the stuff in the Bible? I mean, no drink? No bacon? No thanks! And those are just small things.

If God was up there, you'd seriously think he would sort this one out. Not all of these different ways of living can be the right ones, surely. It's impossible - they are to a lesser or greater extent mutually exclusive. Of course they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong, which means one of two things:

There is no God.
God exists but he's loving the trouble he's caused by not making it all any clearer. God is a wanker.

I'll go for option one any day, but if you believe in God (you idiot) you have to see the sense in option two. Any God who sets up a system like this just wants it to fail, wants to see people running around killing each other because they believe different things, because they can't agree on what the true religion is and what everyone should do. They all think they know, but they can't all be right, so they kick seven shades of shit, blood and bile out of each other, among other things.

They're all wrong. And if they're not, then I'm telling him straight: God, you're a wanker. So fuck off and leave us alone. At least until you decide to sort things out. And this time... no watery, flood-based genocides please, okay?

Footnote:
Written under the influence of massive quantities of neat whisky (not the good stuff, either), which is all the more impressive because I managed to put in the HTML codes manually and upload it to the right place with my FTP software. I am the dog's bollocks of all atheist web designers, I kid you not :o) And now I have the munchies...

So you thought alcohol made you say and do stupid things?

Proving God the hard way

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Take a look at the following list, which shows just a small selection of the methods used by religious people to 'prove' that their God exists:

There are many, many more, and I recommend taking a look at the Existence of God article at Wikipedia, which is a good starting point. Many of these 'proofs' are incredibly detailed, using extremely complex philosophical arguments and logical acrobatics to make their case. Theists go to enormous lengths to prove that God exists - some of the greatest minds of the last 2000 years and more have taken up this challenge and set out their ideas as to how God must exist because of their particular proof.

Isn't this a little odd?

Surely the fact that so many great (and not so great) philosophers have tackled this problem speaks volumes about the truth of the statement 'God exists'. If God exists, why would anyone actually need to go to so much trouble trying to prove it? Take a look at any of the 'proofs' in the list - they all link to quite lengthy articles, quoting such lofty minds as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas... these are no two-bit Christians making YouTube videos, they are serious intellectual heavyweights whose writings have stood the test of time - after all, their arguments are still quoted today, so they obviously knew what they were talking about. And yet they each had to put in huge efforts to make sure their argument of choice would be totally water-tight, would have no room for doubt, contain no flaws of logic, so that there would be no way to refute their case.

The complexity of these arguments suggests two things to me:

The more difficult it is to prove that God exists, the more unlikely it is that God does actually exist. (Although note that this is not at all proof that God does not exist.)
More importantly, it seems to show a lack of faith. Who exactly are these people trying to convince? To re-work a common saying, 'Methinks the philosopher doth protest too much' - if God is so obvious, why is it so difficult to prove his existence? And if his existence isn't so obvious... why not?

God, if he existed, would be the most important 'thing' ever, bar none. That much is plain. If he exists, would there be any doubt at all about his existence? Would there be any need for teleological, ontological or anthropic arguments to be formulated? Moreover, these arguments, being highly complex in some cases, are not so easy to understand - many people are not able to grasp the finer details of Aquinas' great theological treatises, for example. You'd think that something as big as God would need to be proven beyond doubt to us 'lesser mortals', those who don't want to study theology for years in order to prove God's existence.

If God existed, wouldn't he just be, well... obvious? You'd think that someone who apparently wants us to believe in him, and who will punish us if we don't, would not require the efforts of history's greatest theological minds to convince us that he is actually there. Surely something a little simpler would be enough to provide this proof?

Someone once asked me the following question. I had taken great pains to dismantle all his so-called 'proofs' and 'evidence' for the existence of God, and finally he became exasperated and asked:

If there was some evidence which could be put in front of you which would convince you of the existence of God, what would it be?

My answer was just a single word:

God.

This can all be distilled very neatly into something which I proudly present to the world as (wait for it):

The argument from potato

I have a potato in my hand.

I can prove to you that I have a potato in my hand.

Here it is.

When someone can bring God forward and put him where I, and indeed everyone else in the world, can see him, only then will we have a valid proof of God's existence. If you're out there, God, just come out of hiding - it would save us all a whole lot of time and trouble, believe me.

Let the punishment fit the crime

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:00:00 +0000

Consider this to be a little follow-on from my previous blog, Who does it harm?

So, Christians, let's discuss crime and let's see how you feel how people should be dealt with when they commit various crimes:

Murder - Arrested and charged? Agreed.
Theft - Arrested and charged? Agreed.
Child Abuse - Arrested and charged? Agreed.
Homosexuality - Arrested and charged?

If you said 'agreed' to the last one, just check for a moment the laws of your country. Homosexuality is legal in all the western democracies I can think of, and that's a lot of countries. So in your country, the country in which you live and work and, if you're a Christian, in which you pray, there is no penalty at all for the so-called (at least by Christians) 'crime' of homosexuality.

Why is that? Might it be because the majority of societies have no problem at all with homosexuality? Could be, could be. But surely in the Bible God specifically calls homosexuality an abomination:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

Whereas he doesn't mention child abuse at all and yet we all know that's a crime.

So we have these things:

God sets out rules defining what he thinks are crimes and we ignore them
We know certain things are crimes, even though God never said they are
Coveting your neighbour's wife is apparently far worse than raping her (coveting is in the 10 Commandments, rape is not)
This is all arbitrary and modern laws do not reflect the Bible in any way at all
This is because the legal system is in no way related to Christianity
...because Christianity makes no sense

And yet despite this, despite the fact that, in law, 'gay is okay', we still have gay-bashing Christians. Go figure. However my point is this: if homosexuality is an abomination against God (and that would be a really bad thing, right?), why is it legal? And why are the vast majority of Christians (rather than the usual few fundie fucktards) not voting for it to be outlawed? If Christians really do believe that homosexuality is wrong, why is it not banned in every country where Christians are in a majority? Why no bills passing through the UK Parliament or the US Senate?

The answer (and again I refer you to my previous blog) is this: homosexuality hurts no-one. When someone steals, there is a victim. When someone is murdered, there is a victim. When someone has gay sex... there is NO victim.

No victim = no crime. So despite what the fundamentalists may lead you to believe, the majority of Christians seem to be okay with homosexuality not being a crime. This would be encouraging, but for the extremely vocal minority who whip up the homophobia into a creamy, frothy, hateful frenzy. And let's not forget Muslims, who nearly ALL hate gays - in ALL Muslims countries homosexuality really is illegal.

It seems we all have more work to do.

Who does it harm?

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:00:00 +0000

Religion puts great store in the idea that certain actions are sinful or immoral. Much on this list of 'bad things' is beyond dispute: murder, stealing, child abuse are without question all things which are wrong. Why are they wrong? Because they cause harm to other people. Furthermore, only because they cause harm to others are they wrong. You could, for example, 'kill' a life-like plastic doll and it would harm no-one. You could 'steal' a piec of driftwood floating on the sea, and (because it has no owner) there would be no harm done. Neither of these things is wrong because nothing else, nobody else, is hurt by these actions, or has in any way a reduced quality of life because of them. When your actions interfere with the life of another person in a negative way is when something starts to become 'wrong'.

In essence, this is simply an extension of the so-called 'golden rule', also known as the 'ethic of reciprocity':

Treat others as you would like to be treated

In other words, if you'd rather something didn't happen to you, don't to it to someone else. Not many people like a punch in the mouth, so punching someone in the mouth is considered to be wrong. In most cases it's simple common sense.

Of course Christians will tell you that this is morality, that it comes from the Bible, that God laid down these laws, and even if you're an atheist you're living by God's rules... etc, etc. The trouble is, religions have longer lists of wrongdoings, much longer lists, containing actions which, though they hurt absolutely no-one, are still considered to be wrong. I'm going to look at just a few of these, examining why religion says they are 'a bad thing' and why I consider them to be not a bad thing.

Homosexuality
Homosexuality is condemned by pretty much the majority of the active Christian and Muslim world. Why? Because, they say, it is an abomination, it goes against the teachings of their respective holy books, and, the clincher, 'because God says it's wrong'. However saying that something is wrong because 'God says so' does not in any way explain why homosexuality is wrong. Who does it harm?

Are the people in a gay relationship harmed? No. They are happy to be in that relationship in exactly the same way that two people of the opposite sex would be happy to be in their relationship. Their love for each other is as strong as that which exists in any heterosexual coupling. If they fall out of love, they separate, as do hetero couples. That's just relationships for you - morality is not at all in the equation because if it was then it would be wrong for people of the opposite sex to get together just in case they risked hurting each other's feelings at some point.

Does the coming together of two people as a homosexual couple harm anyone else? Again, no. Anti-gay protestors don't like seeing gay couples together, and may find it offensive, but is that hurting them? Their own mental barriers to such actions mean that they themselves are making this imaginary mental 'harm' for themselves. By all means, accept that this is something you yourself would prefer not to do, but leave it at that. I personally would prefer not to watch cricket, ever, under any circumstances - I can't see why people enjoy it or what purpose it serves - but people want to do it, and it doesn't affect my life in any way. Not in any way. So where's the harm?

Children. Ah yes, gay people can't have children. So? Neither can old people. Old people get together all the time and they can't have children either. Is that wrinkly sex immoral too? Of course not, because it's not hurting anyone. The Christian position is that God made us to have children, but is not having children (and remember, some people choose not to do so) hurting anyone? Of course not. Who is hurt when a child is not born?

It's just ridiculous to say that homosexuality is wrong. It harms nobody. It harms nothing. Indeed it brings great satisfaction to the happy same-sex couples who ignore the religious slurs and just get on with their lives - hurting nobody.

Sex before marriage
Sex before marriage hurts no-one, simply because sex before marriage is exactly the same as sex within marriage. The mechanics are the same - things go up and in, and it's all over until the next time. Good or bad, sex is sex. Why is it considered wrong by religions? Again, it's because 'God said so'. But who does it harm?

It doesn't harm the people involved. They want to do it, so they do it. It's a choice they make. Remember the 'treat others as you would like to be treated' ethic? Think of it like this: 'have sex with someone if you want them to have sex with you'. Harm? None. Where only one side wants the sex, of course that's different, but then the situation is 'would you want someone to force you to have sex?'. Of course the answer is no, so there is harm involved. In that case it becomes wrong.

If sex is sex, why does marriage have to be involved? Probably because the preachers of religion want to enforce you to behave in a way they deem acceptable. After all, marriage shows a good level of commitment to a relationship doesn't it? But does not being in a long-term relationship but still having sex cause harm? How can it if both parties are agreeable to the situation? You can go bowling before marriage, so why should sex be any different? Where's the harm? I don't see it.

Masturbation
See the pattern of religious 'crimes' developing here? Most of the taboos are based around sex. Masturbation is actually the least dangerous sexual activity you can undertake - nobody else is around (usually) so nobody can even see what you're doing. How could jacking off ever be seen as immoral? Who else is harmed? Nobody.

Contraception
Not all religions outlaw contraception, but the big one does - the Roman Catholics are so against contraception they will mobilise at a moment's notice if it appears that any attempt is made to distribute condoms where they don't want them to go. However, where they are 'not wanted' by the Catholic Church is often where they would do the most good. One of the world's greatest scandals is that at a time when huge areas of Africa are seeing the spread of HIV/AIDS, the Pope still continues to reject the distribution of contraception for the people of these countries, simply because 'God says so'. God, apparently, would rather have millions of people die of a terrible disease if it means that a man's penis can enter a woman's vagina without protection against infection.

Who is harmed when contraception is used? Not the man. Not the woman. The religious will say 'it stops the creation of a life', but that implies that every sperm and every egg is useful. It isn't. Even if you don't masturbate, billions of sperm live and die inside and outside a man in his lifetime. Women have their periods - more 'potential life' is gone. So manual prevention of pregnancy is in no way any different from the natural order - people are simply choosing not to create a life (which harms no-one) and, as a beneficial by-product, are protecting themselves from the risk of infection from sexually transmitted diseases. Where is the harm in using contraception? There is none. On the contrary, the benefits are abundantly obvious.

Okay, I couldn't resist including this video

Thought crimes
Here's where it gets silly. Here's where we go into Orwellian 'Big Brother' territory. Christians, Muslims, and some other religions, think that certain thoughts are wrong. If you think them, if you allow them to so much as cross your mind, you are committing a sin, an immoral act, something for which you must pray to be forgiven.

One of the Bible's Ten Commandments tells you not to covet your neighbour's house, wife, slave, ox, donkey, or anything else that belongs to your them. To covet is 'to wish for longingly'. In other words, if you see that your neighbour has a better house than you, it's immoral to think 'I wish I could have that house'. Just thinking something is wrong? Again, the acid test: how does thinking that thought hurt anyone? In fact how does thinking any thought hurt anyone?

Let's go further. I'm essentially saying that no thought is bad because, obviously, thoughts cannot affect the lives of others. So if someone dreams about killing, or (let's go to extremes to make this point) if someone thinks about how nice it would be to have sex with a child, is the act of thinking these thoughts immoral.

I say no.

And I say no because the act of thinking is in no way the same as the act of doing. Yes, if you think about murder and then go on to kill someone, that would be wrong. But it would be the act of murder, not the initial thought which was wrong. I have at times entertained thoughts of killing a particularly hateful person, but those thoughts inflicted no pain, no suffering, no death, on that person. He did not even know when or where those thoughts came into my head. He is now dead (from natural causes!) and yes, I am glad he's dead, the evil son-of-a-bitch! Is it wrong for me to think that? No. Who is harmed? Thoughts do not harm anyone. Only actions harm people. Thoughts are never, and I really do mean never harmful to others.

Self-harm
Is harming yourself wrong? Is suicide, the ultimate self-harm, wrong? That's a tricky one because by hurting or killing yourself you may of course cause emotional distress to those around you - friends, family or loved ones. But your life is your own, your body is your own, so ultimately you should be able to do with it whatever you wished. Ultimately, it is not for anyone else to decide what you should or should not do with your own body. I still maintain that if you hurt someone, it would be wrong, but if you hurt no-one it cannot be wrong.

Assisted suicide (euthanasia)
Helping someone else to die when they themselves have asked for your assistance, usually because they are in a weakened state and cannot do it themselves, is not wrong. Again, let's go back to the golden rule: 'treat others as you would like to be treated'. You may not want someone to kill you, but then that is not the situation in which the other person finds themselves. That person, for whatever reason, and it's usually because they have some incurable disease causing them a great deal of pain and suffering, is asking you to help put an end to their suffering. They are not in any way saying 'kill someone who does not want to be killed'.

Is there harm? Harm in the sense that you will be actively helping someone to die? Yes. But the alternative is this: if the person is not allowed to die, the harm may be many times greater, the pain far, far worse. Would you condemn someone to endless suffering, or release them from their pain with a quick end to their life? In this case, I personally would assist someone who wanted to die. Unlike the other examples I've dealt with, it would not be a case of 'is there harm in doing this?'. Instead the question to ask is 'is there harm in not doing this?

But if the person is suffering terribly and does not ask for help to die, should you then use the justification of 'is there harm in not doing this?'. Absolutely not. The only judge of what is right and wrong with respect to the ending of someone's life, at least if they still have the mental capacity to make a decision, lies with the person whose life it is. If a person is suffering but does not want to die, they have made that choice and it should not be denied them.

There are other possibilities, such as when someone leaves specific instructions to end their suffering if they become unable to make the decision for themselves, but that still falls under the heading of 'a person must be able to choose what to do with their own life'.

To me, euthanasia is almost the same as a situation where you have a diseased organ or limb, and to leave it attached would cause more harm than good. In this case you would remove it, so as to prevent further suffering. The difference is that with euthanasia you are removing every limb and organ from the equation, ending the suffering in the only way possibly, by ending the life of the sufferer.

To wrap this up, I'll end by saying that it's my opinion that morals are, in most cases, very straightforward things to determine. In fact, rather than the Christian Bible, you might easily take every single moral decision you make by following one of the basic teaching of another religion:

An it harm none, do what ye will

This is the Wiccan Rede, and although in my opinion Wicca itself is a weird 20th century made-up religion consisting of bunch of new-age mumbo-jumbo, that single line really encapsulates everything I am trying to espouse in this article. Another (less archaic) way of saying it would be 'do what you will, so long as it harms none'. Although there are some grey areas, such as the conflict caused by removing someone's suffering by ending their life, but one thing living by this ethic does not do is to treat countless thoughts or actions, which are in no way harmful to anyone, as crimes.

Thinking in this way encapsulates both the idea that some morals are relative (actions may or may not be wrong, depending on the situation) and that morals may be absolute (applying in all cases). Christians often cite the example of Nazi Germany: if morals are relative, and change according to the culture, politics and social mores of the time, then the extermination of the Jews would be 'right' and therefore moral, in the eyes of the Nazis. But killing Jews harms Jews. What simpler way can there be to explain how wrong the Holocaust was?

To take a different example, is sex outside marriage always okay, given that I've already said that you don't need to be married to have sex? The answer is: no. If you have extra-marital sex with a third party when you are already in a relationship, knowing that your partner would not, if they knew about it, be accepting of it, is wrong. Why? Because finding out about it would cause emotional harm to your partner. What if they didn't find out about it? Well, that then becomes an issue of conscience - are you willing to take the risk? Or perhaps it goes back to the golden rule - don't screw around if you'd rather your own partner wasn't also screwing around.

I'm starting to pick at the edges of my own certainties and unravel a few of what I thought were tightly-constructed arguments, so that, I'm afraid, is where I'm going to leave it!

Abortion - Not discussed here
This is perhaps one of the toughest subjects for which anyone can make a case, either for or against. I need to address this in more detail, because adding it into the above-described mix of actions which are, to me at least, far more clear-cut, would be to give the subject significantly less weight than it deserves. Abortion, to many, is the unnecessary, and thereby immoral, ending of a life, and to some is described as nothing less than murder. Needless to say, I do not agree with either position.

If by saying that I would rather not discuss abortion here that sounds like a cop-out, it probably is. I have wanted to write down something about this subject for a long time, but it's difficult for me to set out reasons and justifications for my position. Which is? Well, I am 100% supportive of anyone who elects to have an abortion.

I promise I'll come back to this.

Why there are no aleprechaunists. At all, at all.

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Why are there atheists? Saying you're an atheist merely tells people you don't believe in any god or gods. So why say it at all? And why, somebody asked today, are there no aleprechaunists, fiercely claiming that leprechauns do not exist?

Here's why, in a comment I just posted in response to a video by someone asking exactly that kind of question:

If people believed in leprechauns and went around trying to convert you to their ridiculous deity God O'Murphy, ostracised you if you didn't believe in the pot of gold, and wanted to put giant pictures of shamrocks in schools and courthouses, I guarantee you there would be aleprechaunists. As nobody believes in leprechauns, you'll instead find atheists, speaking out when your equally silly beliefs in God contradict and contend with their lives and notion of what is real.

Sometimes YouTube's 500-character limit is just about enough to say all you need to say.

Religious laws: good for men, bad for women

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Just a small example of what happens when you allow religious groups to take charge of a country's legal system:

Turkish women attack clothing law
About 70 Turkish women have protested in Istanbul after a court found a woman guilty of exhibitionism for fishing in what was termed "improper clothing".
Turkish newspapers quote court documents as saying she was wearing a lightweight outfit like a nightdress, which blew up in the wind.
Last week a judge upheld the men's complaints.
The AK Party - which is led by devout Muslims - has been in power since 2002. Some are concerned Turkey is becoming more conservative under its rule.

Perhaps the most telling part of the story is this:

Men who groped a woman on Taksim Square last New Year's Eve were fined 57 lira ($45, �23).
The fisherwoman in a flimsy dress was given a five-month suspended prison sentence for exhibitionism.

Man committing sexual assault: $45

Woman wearing a dress on a windy day: five-month suspended prison sentence

Muslim discrimination against women: priceless

The fourth of July means nothing

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

It's the fourth of July. So what? I'm British and I don't give a flying fuck what the date is, mainly because it has no significance here whatsoever. What would I like to celebrate today? Being part of England, Britain and Europe, that's what! Our Independence Day is... oh, that's right, we don't have one because we were the ones in charge and everyone else became independent of us! Meanwhile, we have to wait until the fifth of November to set off our fireworks... and burn effigies of a Catholic traitor on our bonfires! Woohoo! God save the Queen!

Love the sinner, but not if he's gay

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

You want some hate? I'll show you hate: Christian attitudes to homosexuality. Look no further, because if you want evidence of real intolerance, serious discrimination, undeniable hatred for living, breathing people just going about their lives in their own way, you'll find it among those Christians who would do anything, anything to rid the world of homosexuality.

So what brought this up today? After all, I've made a few videos about the subject, and it's no secret that this is one religious prejudice which raises my anger to boiling point. What's new? Well, this article is new:

AFA calls for McDonald's boycott
The founder of the American Family Association (AFA) says the McDonald's Corporation's refusal to be neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality has resulted in their declaration of a boycott against the popular fast-food chain.
AFA founder Don Wildmon says they went to McDonald's after learning several months ago that the company had joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. And following a $20,000 donation to that group, one of McDonald's executives was placed on the Chamber's board of directors.
"We contacted McDonald's and showed them what they were doing -- that is, helping to support the homosexual agenda," explains Wildmon. "...[O]ne of the primary purposes of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce is to promote homosexual marriage."
After meeting with Wildmon, the corporation refused to withdraw their support for the Chamber. "...In fact, McDonald's strongly told us that they are reaffirming their commitment to -- they called it -- 'diversity,'" he continues.
Wildmon says that reaffirmation means throwing the corporation's full weight into the cultural battle on the side of homosexuality -- which is why AFA is calling for consumers not to help McDonald's do it with their dollars.

Yes, for once I am proud to say that I stand shoulder to shoulder with that great American belly-expanding institute, McDonald's. But what really gets me angry is the comments section, the target audience for this news story - the Christians who are showing their true feelings. Take a look at the page for the full view, but first a few choice quotes from some of the people who supposedly 'hate the sin but love the sinner':

Let's all let the sodomite's support McDonald's. They say they are 10% of the population. The last I heard they were 2% of the population. Then we can watch McDonald's go under. The next place we have to boycott because of sodomite support would be shaking in their boots.
Most of us already quit McDonalds when we heard about their perversion push. It is families with children that made them what they are today so we can also take them down. I doubt many homos will continue eating there if there are no children to "convert" or molest. I say let the fruits have it - the food is horrible and why buy nasty food when you can buy good food next door that you can actually take your children inside the place! NO to the perverts!
Homosexuality is a choice to follow a deviant sexual lifestyle... Fortunately, there are plenty of clinics that successfully help people who want to get rid of same-sex attraction. It is not discrimination to tell the truth to confused people. Normal people seek other normals and confused people think they're suffering discrimination when all that is happening is the law of nature seeking after its own. Homosexuals need therapy, not tolerance. And plenty of prayer. . .
If McDonalds will support a racist agenda, it only figures it will support a homosexual one as well.
Note: incredibly, this idiot is condemning one prejudice (racism) while supporting another (hatred of homosexuality), probably without a second thought
Colonel Sanders was a Christian man and gave God the glory for leading him to found his business. He will be getting all of my business from now on.
Note: Okay, that one is funny! Kill yourself with Christian chicken instead of gay beef!
Most people I know do not support discrimination against homosexuals nor more than we would a person with cancer or an alcoholic. All three have a sickness and should be prayed for. What I do object to is the idea that the pro homosexual agenda wants society to "accept" their behavior as morally ok and to silence those of us who do not agree.
Note: So, you don't want to discriminate against them but you object to anything which would allow them to be accepted into society? Riiiiight...
I started boycotting McDonald's about a month ago, the moment I heard about their support of the homosexual lifestyle. This boycott is about denying McDonald's my money to spend on deviant behavior.
No to McDonalds. No to diversity. No to political correctness.

If that's love, I wouldn't like to see what happens if they started to get mildly annoyed with someone. Let's end with a voice of reason, again from the comments:

So.. We will continue to support McDonald's when they lure children with their advertising to transfatty oil, mystery meat Burgers of Death... but when they support a GLBT cause, we refuse to buy their disease-causing "food" for our kids anymore? Boy, those are SOME priorities.

Footnote:
Imagine if all the fast-food restaurants in the USA openly supported GLBT causes. Then imagine all the world's Christians suddenly stopped eating there because of their hatred of homosexuality. There would be massively fewer deaths and far more slim, healthy Christians. Needless to say, I'm hoping this boycott fails. Fat, cholesterol-guzzling Christians get off this planet and up to Heaven all the quicker! (Or not, obviously.)

Update:
Saw this. Had to share:

Atheists Have No Burden of Proof

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Look at these two statements:

I believe that God exists
I do not believe that God exists

On the face of it they appear to be two sides of the same coin. They are opposites. Or are they? In reality, what the first statement, the position of Christians, Muslims and other theists, is telling us is this: a person who believes in God has come to this position by being convinced in some way that God exists. Meanwhile the second statement, the position of atheists, is that he or she has not been convinced, and therefore does not believe in the existence of God.

All an atheist claims is 'I do not believe that God exists' and this in itself is an undeniably true statement because it says nothing about proof of the existence of God, only that the person does not believe. In the same way, theists undeniably do believe that God exists. But as before, this does not have anything to do with proof of God's existence.

Proof is, however, an important aspect when considering why anyone does or does not believe in the existence of God.

Theists, those who believe in God, must bring forward reasons for their belief in God. This is because their belief, their faith, is a belief in a specific definition of God. For Christians it is the God whose actions are described in the Bible. For Muslims the Qur'an shapes their understanding of what God is. When saying 'I believe that God exists', it is therefore an absolutely fundamental requirement that you must bring to the table your reasons for holding this belief. If there were no reason to believe in the Christian God, why not believe in the Norse Gods instead?

Are these 'reasons to believe' proof for the existence of God? A Christian will tell you that they are. So will those of other religions. Even something as seemingly straightforward as 'creation proves that God exists' is a statement of several things:

I believe that God exists
I present this observation/evidence to you as proof of God's existence
This is one of the reasons I believe in the God described by my religion

Atheists, however, are absolutely not required to prove that God does not exist. Why not? Because any such assertions would, of necessity, have to be in terms of the claims made by theists. Let's take the previous example: 'creation proves that God exists'. An atheist might say simply, 'I am not convinced by your argument'. Yes, both sides might go into more detail, but it is detail which must be provided by the theist, and which an atheist will (if he continues to be an atheist) reject as proof of God's existence, for whatever reason.

Yes, atheists can and do provide proof that particular claims made by theists are incorrect, but we do not have to provide cast-iron proof of the non-existence of God. The existence of God isn't something an atheist thought up in the first place, so why even attempt to prove that a god, any god does not exist? The only reason atheists debate with Christians is to refute Christian dogma. There is no atheistic proof for the non-existence of God, just as there is no atheistic proof for the non-existence of fire-breathing dragons. All we assert is that there is a lack of evidence to support any such claims (for God or dragons). Then given this absence of evidence, why should atheists believe in God?

Evolution, despite what theists vehemently claim, is not something used by atheists to attempt to prove that God does not exist. Evolution says nothing about God, nothing at all. Physics, biology, chemistry, and all the other sciences so readily attacked by theists, are not atheistic plots to prove that God is not there. Atheists do defend the sciences, but this is because theists try to discredit them so frequently. In and of itself, defending science is nothing to do with the existence of God.

If atheists were required to provide proof of something in which they do not believe, where would this end? Would Christians be required to prove that their God is not purple if someone claimed he was? Would Muslims have to present evidence that Allah does not eat chocolate cake on Wednesdays? The burden of proof is always, always on the person making the claim. 'A purple God' may seem ridiculous to Christians. But 'God' seems equally preposterous to atheists.

Theists believe that God exists, so let them prove it, and when the proof is convincing enough, atheists will readily accept that proof. That almost goes without saying - I don't believe in God, but if you provide enough proof to convince me that he exists, I will believe in him. Conversely, theists do believe in God, and provide their reasons, their 'proof' that this is so, and it follows that if each one of their reasons is examined and proved to be incorrect, the theist should become an atheist, simply because they will have no valid reason to believe.

This is partly why there is such debate between theists and atheists. Theists present their evidence, knowing that if any part of that evidence convinces someone that God exists there will be one less atheist in the world. Atheists have a seemingly far tougher job - they must dismantle everything which convinces a theist of God's existence. (It's often the case that once you undermine one part of a person's faith in God, the whole thing falls like a house of cards, but that isn't something for discussion here.)

The burden of proof has to be on theists, purely because it is the theists who define who/what/where/why their particular God is. If someone asks you to prove that God does not exist, all that is necessary is to respond with 'define your God'. If they refuse to do so, you would be perfectly within your rights to make up your own definition of God and easily refute it... which of course the theists would love you to do because they then say, 'But that's not who God is. God is...' and go on to define what they mean when they say 'God'.

If all else fails, if someone tells you that you, an atheist, must provide proof that God does not exist, that it is your burden of proof to do so, here's one simple response: 'Sorry, I don't believe that either'.

God's Pre-Genesis Gay Wank-Fest

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:00:00 +0000

At some point that title will no doubt find its way into my 'Holy Fucking Bible' series, perhaps as a pre-cum, er, prequel, but for now I'm just writing about the following passage I found when I was pondering the question, "What was God doing before he made the universe?" (that was actually what I typed into Google). Well, according to some Christians, he was just fiddling with his genitalia, or so it seems:

What was God doing before He created the universe?

As we all know, those batty Christians think that God is a kind of three-in-one sandwich, the BLT of divinity, except in this case it's GJH. However, that's not such a snappy acronym and, sadly for the Jews, involves a lot less bacon. Before they had the big universe idea God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit existed, according to the aforementioned web page, "in perfect harmony and flawlessness, having all they needed in one another" - similar to the feeling you get when you realise you now own every episode of Xena and Hercules on DVD (though that might just apply to me). How lovely for them. But the question remains: before the Big Bang what was/were he/they actually doing?

No surprise: God having hot sex with his three separate but individual parts. Those parts being parts of himself. So basically, God was masturbating. The evidence is all there on the web page:

The preincarnate Christ was intimately united with the Father
(incest, possibly paedophilia, depends if 'preincarnate' means 'under the age of consent')
Before creation, God felt complete joy and fulfillment as He perfectly beheld and communed with Himself
(by syphoning the python, bashing the bishop, straining the spuds, etc)
God has and always will experience complete joy because He has complete and perfect knowledge of Himself
(by looking up his own arse in the mirror)
Before He created the universe, God experienced absolute satisfaction in Himself
(by constantly jacking off)
These three were together in fellowship with one another from all eternity. They loved each other
(and what stronger affirmation of gay pride do you need?)

One God: masturbation. Three parts: gay sex. Conclusion: God created the universe because he was actually bi-curious and wanted to get jiggy with a virgin from the old-time Middle East. Hey, it's a Christian web site and they never get it wrong do they?

Footnote:
Today's prize 'Unintelligibly tangled grammatical weirdness' goes to this line:

"And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

Pardon?

I am normal... in some ways!

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:00:00 +0000

No, not normal in the 'you're a weird hairy atheist' sense of the word, but normal as in I am now a 'normal' weight for my height. So this is a quick update of where I am since I started exercising, almost exactly six months ago.

In those six months I have gone down from 280 pounds (20 stone if you're British) to my current 230 pounds (16 stone 6). That gives me a BMI of 24.6 (anything above 25.0 is overweight). I am normal! 50 pounds is a lot of weight to lose, and there is a big, big difference in the 'before' and 'after' me.
I've pedalled almost exactly 1000 miles on the exercise bike (over 1600 kilometres). And I love doing it. In fact I recently did a little too much, strained my knee and took an enforced break and was really missing it!
I've lost so much from my waist that none of my jeans fit - even the really old ones hiding at the back of the wardrobe, from maybe 10 years ago, are too big. Before I was struggling to get into jeans with a 40" waist, now even the 36" ones are beginning to feel a little loose. If I ever make it to 34" I will be at the size I was when I was 18! Those ads you see with the skinny man holding his 'fat man jeans' way out to show how much he's lost? That's me! I can do that now!
Instead of wearing XL size T-shirts, I now wear M size. I skipped L altogether when I bought a medium by accident. Yes ladies, I now have a torso which I am not ashamed to put in a tight (ish) T-shirt! But no 6-pack yet - I think that is going to take more work than I'm prepared to put in. I always intended this to be part of my normal life, rather than spending my entire life working out.
Even my face looks different. If you look at my videos from around December 2007 and compare those pudgy features(!) with my 'Sounds of the Street Preachers' video you might be able to see what I mean. Don't ask me to post 'before' and 'after' photos, it ain't gonna happen!
I eat a lot less but don't feel obsessed by food. I really don't feel great when I pig out like I used to (I get bloated, lethargic and uncomfortable), so I don't do it. Having said that, like anyone I have urges to eat whole packets of something (anything) bad, which is why I never buy anything I will regret later. It's no use getting something and saying 'these can be my treats for 2 weeks' when in reality I will only sit down and eat the lot in one session!

So that's my end of term report from the exercise regime. I don't know about a grade, but I feel as if I've definitely passed with flying colours. The exercise bike was really the key to my weight loss. I sort of lost a bit of interest in resistance training (with my stretchy resistance bands), although I may pick them up again. But the bike is just there, I can get on it and do whatever distance I feel like, including a few (not many!) marathon distances (yes, the full 26.2 miles) from time to time. One last tip: you will pedal faster if you have some classic Iron Maiden in the background - that stuff was just made for it!

The plan now is this: don't lose much more weight, and really just stay as I am. Job done!

Crystal Skulls From Outer Space

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:00:00 +0000

I just watched an interesting documentary about the famous 'Skull of Doom' (aka the Mitchell-Hedges skull), the most elaborate of the crystal skulls which were at one time thought to have been made by the Mayan civilisation thousands of years ago. Only fairly recently has science progressed to the point where these skulls could be examined closely enough to determine that they could not possibly have been made by ancient people with ancient tools. They show evidence of rotary tools, for example cutting wheels, which were never used by the ancients. In fact the skulls are thought to have been produced in the late 1800s or early 1900s, when such tools would have been, if not readily available, then certainly available if you wanted to go to such lengths as to fool people with so-called 'ancient' crystal artifacts.

So this smashes to pieces the claims by the happy hippy New Age freaks who believe the skulls are invested with magical powers stretching back to ancient Central America. Right? Er, not quite. It seems that now the evidence proves that the tools needed to create these skulls could not have existed thousands of years ago, then obviously (you'll like this) this is proof that the skulls were made by an alien civilisation who left them behind so that we could use them to keep in contact with the aliens. The word 'wacko' springs to mind.

I'm mentioning this here because it showed to me that again and again when people are faced with overwhelming evidence to contradict and utterly shatter their beliefs, they just make a slight detour, change the story, and head out in a different and even more freakishly stupid direction, without so much as a second thought. This is how apologetics works. Take an element of religious dogma. Subject it to rigorous scrutiny. Thoroughly debunk it. Find a wacky but passably credible explanation as to why the original dogma might not be wrong after all. Go with it until someone else finds the cracks in that theory. Repeat the process, papering over the cracks again and again.

People of faith are people devoid of the power to reason, to objectively look at their beliefs and accept criticism, evidence and the opinions of others. It doesn't matter if it's a crystal skull or a collection of old stories in a religious book, someone out there will believe whatever they want to believe, even if you produce a mountain of evidence proving that the things into which they put their faith have no basis in fact and can often be proven to be unquestionably false.

I had the world's longest tongue

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:00:00 +0000

I'm seriously pissed off that I failed to get in the Guiness Book of Records because I didn't know I held the record for the world's longest tongue. And now it's too late because someone else has beaten me.

Link to the old record (7cm):

Link to the new record (9.5 cm):

For the record (but not the world record), mine is 7.5 cm long.

Still, put the word out - there must be SOME advantage to having a tongue 3 inches long :o)

Slurp

Relentless - Sounds of the Street Preachers

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:00:00 +0000

It's been a while. So I wrote you this. I decided to read it at speed - it works better that way. And you can probably tell why the original title was 'Relentless'.

Sounds of the Street Preachers

You wander the streets and you see them around you
They all but surround you
They're happy they found you
They know they can hound you
They smile and you hear that familiar sound, you
Just know this will end only one way - they'll drown you
In scriptures and morals and readings and psalms
And they hold up their arms
Using all of their charms
And already you're moving away in alarm
But they really don't mean to bring you any harm
Because all that they want is a moment in time
In your vision they climb
Is that really a crime?
Back at home if they told you their ultimate cause
You would bar all the windows and lock all the doors
Yet alone in the street they can now make you pause
As your stress level soars
It's their minds against yours
And the second it takes them to sink in their claws
Is the second they think that they've already won
And before you can think of a place you can run
The one chance to avoid them is finished and done
They are already talking of God and his Son
And the street preaching madness has only begun

So just who are these people, and why do they care
If you don't go to prayer
And you don't want to share?
In their Bible and all that its pages declare
Is the truth of their God, and so fine and so rare
That they'd place their hand down on its cover and swear
That their lives are now promised. To what and to where?
An invisible man who is not even there

And where is the source of this deep admiration
Intense motivation
Such pure inspiration?
The son of a God gave them news of salvation
And this information
This realisation
That out of a book they could find revelation
And something that gives them a life transformation
And turns them away from the false explanation
The lies education
Has fed to their nation
This is what drives them on to fight God's Holy war
They must battle the evils they truly abhor
Yet they promise us something we all can explore
Bow your head to the floor
Take the path to God's door
And they tell you that life everlasting's in store
Yet with no word of warning, no chance to implore
When you tell them to leave you alone and 'no more'
Disregarding your protests, your words they ignore
Because all that they know is the one they adore
And the Christian words from their mouths simply pour
And it's Jesus and nothing else counts any more

They can't and they won't and they don't want to leave
They just truly believe
That you need to receive
All the good news this man, or what they now perceive
As a God, has to offer. They cannot conceive
How a person like you would be blind and naive
For they think that your life is so full of temptation
And evil sensation
The path to damnation
But follow their God and you choose liberation
The whole generation
A new congregation
For one destination
A home for your soul at the heart of creation

Their pace is relentless, it's like an attack
On your senses and if you just try to talk back
They ignore all the problems and queries you stack
At the feet of their scripture - that Bible so black
Has not one tiny flaw that they cannot explain
You might try to protest but they're sensing your pain
And they know you'll deny God again and again
But they tell you to think with your heart not your brain
And it drives you insane
And meanwhile they maintain
That the God who so loves you and who they admire
The same God whose book seems to bring awe and inspire
Has but one single purpose - his central desire
Is to burn non-believers like you in the fire
And this is God's love? Then this God is a liar

With such statements your lack of belief is exposed
And the preachers of God see their message opposed
Then a sense of mistrust and hostility grows
And the words they compose
Are from someone who knows
That to deal with such foes
Is the reason they pose
As such plausible speakers of Biblical prose
And just what they suppose
Is that nobody knows
About truth except them and their kind. They compose
Some new ways that your mind
Will be led like the blind
And one day you'll just find
That the doubts of the God you so wrongly maligned
Have been put far behind
And your faith in the saviour of all of mankind
Is the thing that will change you for life and will bind
Heart and soul to God's word, and in grace be entwined

They continue to say
That for them each new day
It just happens that way
And they simply obey
What has brought them to pray
For your soul and to sadly and darkly survey
That without God your lifestyle has led you astray
It just isn't okay
To now turn God away
In the end you will pay
But to their full dismay
You're an unwilling prey
So reluctant they listen as you have your say

And you tell them you've heard them and given it thought
That you've studied the same God and Bible they're taught
You list all of the ways that it all came to naught
And the only good thing from religion you caught
Was a spreading infection called rational thought
And what stirs up your innards and rattles your head
Is the knowledge that fear of a God and the dread
Of a life living frightened to speak out instead
Is now open to critical words and you tread
Where large numbers before you have wanted to go
They just needed to grow
And right now they can show
That their lives without Jesus have meaning, although
Almost all of the preachers don't think this is so

But the atheist numbers increase in their size
And we counter the Christian doctrine of lies
And we pull it apart and we dare criticise
Try to open the shuttered and half-sighted eyes
Of the people who fear God and truly despise
This new group of free thinkers who see the big prize
Is a world without dogma which faith can't disguise

It's a far distant future, I grant you that much
But if each of us stands up and throws down the crutch
Of the Bible then one day we might even touch
The religion around us but meanwhile we clutch
At thin straws if we honestly think we can reach
The closed eyes and blocked ears of the ones who still preach
And as atheists all we can do is take each
New found member, new sceptic, and hope we can teach
That to flourish we all need our powers of speech
We have all the same rights as the faithful and each
Of us has our own mind and the terrible leech
That is sucking the life from each God-absent day
Is some band of evangelists wanting to pray
But next time they meet you
And cheerfully greet you
And start with their God-talk just hot off the street you
May give up and walk on and turn them away
Maybe just for a laugh you could tell them you're gay
Just don't think that you'll change them, at least not today
If you try to outwit them they'll just start to pray
But when next they surround you, here's what you might say:

With my courage restored
With religion I'm bored
That old book is out-dated, your reason is flawed
And you speak of God's peace but his son brought the sword
And now all that I hear when you preach is a fraud
Yes the root of your hatred for me is your Lord
Mindless faith you applaud
While good works are ignored
And for spreading this folly you claim a reward
But when all is explored
And the facts still record
That there's nobody up there, your prayers ignored
Tell me why such a fantasy brings you toward
All these innocent people who, walking abroad
Step around you, avoid you and will not afford
You a look or a glance
So they dodge and they dance
And they side-step the Jesus crowd if there's a chance
To escape from your maddening, saddening trance.

When you speak of my sin, just when did it begin?
Long before I was born you condemned all my kin
And all babies you say hold a cancer within
So I wonder what chance has a mortal to win
With the threat of damnation the chances are slim
And for me with my atheist life they are grim
Faith's not part of my skin
I don't want to go in
To the Heaven you speak of - just more lies you spin

Your religion's so fractured, in dogma you're stuck
And you claim that no evil lies inside your book
But outside its worn pages you never dare look
And in science from thin air your fantasies pluck
Manufactured from muck
All your theories suck
Add in fear, mix with hate, when you simply mistook
What you heard from a sermon that someone made up
And repeated so often that time and good luck
Have all made it sound true. Those who question are struck
With the wrath of their neighbours and such is the plight
Of the words of the doubters and those who would fight
To the death for their country but not for the right
Just to question religion - most cower in fright
And they stay out of sight
They are oh so polite
And if cornered they'll do their best not to ignite
And it's really no wonder the Church has such might
Yet the time for its critics to surface is right
See our flag? No more white
And so now we invite
You to join with this battle of words we incite
All you Christians take home this message tonight
You may think we're in darkness but we bring the light

Footnote:
Since several people have mentioned in the comments to this video hints about rap music and Eminem in particular, I'll just say that the spark for this poem came when I was clicking through some of my MP3s at random and came across 'Lose Yourself' by Eminem. The word 'relentless' just popped up into my head because that's what I was getting from it, a barrage of words, line after line after line. So that was what I was setting out to do here, rather than creating some kind of musical rap. For one thing I can't do those double-twiddly rhyme things in different parts of the line, and I also like to stick to a particular rhythm with my poems - here it's 6 or 12 syllables for most of the lines.

D12's 'Fight Music' would be another example of something relentlessly pounding out a message. The idea for me was to emphasise how the street preachers go on and on, and then show that the same kind of medicine can be turned around and directed right back at them. It was important to read the poem quickly, again to emphasise the continuous pressure, the relentless nature of the situation and the message.

So although the idea started when I heard an Eminem song, I wasn't trying to do anything other than my own thing. It was a great way to play with words, and it's always a high to have an idea like this burst into your head, demanding to be written down!

Jesus Made Me Puke

Wed, 28 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Well I may not be writing it myself but that doesn't mean I can't report what other people are writing about does it?

Jesus Made Me Puke
Matt Taibbi Undercover with the Christian Right

The above link is an article showing the extreme fringes of Christianity, but that's not to say that those religious folk several degrees from these outer margins aren't also beyond the reach of rational thought. Many of them are. MANY of them.

No blogging for a while

Tue, 27 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Right now I'm fairly sick of religion, sick of talking about religion, sick of writing about religion. I have no wish for it to be any part of my life at the moment. So, as you've probably worked out by the title, I won't be adding anything further to this blog until I'm in a different frame of mind. And you can probably see what led me to this decision by the previous entry, on the 13th. I'm 100% sure this won't last - I will be back at some point. You can't keep a good atheist down... or indeed a bad one like me!

Apocalyptic signs: Earthquakes

Tue, 13 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

I wasn't even going to touch this, given that only yesterday an earthquake killed thousands of people in China. But you know what? Seeing people crying on the TV news as they brought out the dead, and then realising that some bastard God-loving motherfucker somewhere will be gleefully proclaiming that this is yet another sign of the end of the world, gets me seriously wishing they would put all the Jehovah's Witnesses in an earthquake zone and wait for their so-called God to bury them in rubble. They're not getting out of this one lightly, no way.

No, I'm not going to list the whole passage from the leaflet this time, because it's just a sick list of death tolls from earthquakes, as if the fuckers are gloating at the sheer numbers of human lives ended by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, where the earthquakes hit. They want you to know that 'about ten times as many have died each year from earthquakes since 1914 as in previous centuries'. They want you to know because they get off on it somehow, in their twisted little minds, as they imagine that their fucked-up invisible sky God is getting ready to wipe out the rest of us too. They would just love that. It's what they live for, isn't it?

You know how the paragraph ends? After the list of the death tolls, the last sentence is this:

Surely, "great earthquakes"!

Right now, with the TV images still fresh in my mind of real people, real lives, all of them ended prematurely, the bodies being pulled out of collapsed buildings, some of them schools, and carried away on stretchers, those three words 'surely, great earthquakes!' seem like the Jehovah's Witnesses are laughing in the faces of those who died and those who are left to grieve. The exclamation mark even seems to be put there purely to add an air of perverse celebration. To them, yesterday's earthquake will be just another statistic, just another line to add to their magical 'chart of proof' or whatever it is they put together to justify their obscene obsession with natural disasters and death statistics. They don't really care that people are dead and dying. This isn't about real people to them, it's all about the 'signs' that the world is ending. This is one more sign, and you can bet they are thanking God for it.

I hate the Jehovah's Witnesses. I've always hated them. Now I'm beginning to wonder just how much stronger that hatred for these despicable vultures can go. They'd just better not show up at my door any time soon.

Send in the clowns (and the straitjackets)

Mon, 12 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

When I wrote my 'Too many clowns spoil the circus' article, I swear to you I was under the impression that this picture was a fake:

I only used it because it seemed to fit in with the story, and because there is at least one church sign generator around I assumed that that was how it had been created.

Wrong. Or rather, 'the truth is out there'... and it's bizarre. Because if you click this link you'll find that there are real churches who have what is known as 'Clown Led Worship'.

Look at the page and you'll find information about a 'Clown Eucharist Discovery Class'. What the FUCK are these people smoking? But is it just a parody or is it for real? Oh it's real, alright. As real as this:

And that's WAY too real (shudder). The overall impression I got of the service was: it looks like a lunatic asylum. But with extra crazy. And a large dose of scary. You can watch the whole service using the web site link above, but proceed with caution if you want to stay sane. Christianity + clowns + mime = mind fuck. Don't go there.

I had wanted to make my original article into a video anyway, and seeing all that church clown garbage seemed to spur me on to do it, if only to erase the mad crazy Jesus clowns from my brain. So here it is...

Too many clowns spoil the circus

Apocalyptic signs: Famine

Sun, 11 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

Looking at the titles of this and the previous blog, you might already be seeing a familiar pattern. So far we have war and famine, and if I tell you that another of the five on the Jehovah's Witnesses list is pestilence, and yet another is a list of deaths caused by earthquakes, what have we got? War, Famine, Pestilence and Death - do my eyes deceive me or are those the names of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

Yes indeed the Jovos have latched onto the weird ramblings of the drug-addled mind who wrote the book of Revelation (see this excellent documentary: The Doomsday Code), then looked back through the teachings of Jesus and pulled out half a dozen so-called 'signs' to support it. These riders are much like the ring-wraiths in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and of course equally fictional - the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse similarly appear in a work of fantasy.

So let's see what the 'Will this world survive?' leaflet has to say about famine:

There will be food shortages (Matthew 24:7) (Note: That's a prophecy?! A bit short isn't it?!)
Following World War I came perhaps the greatest famine in all history. Terrible famine also followed World War II. A scourge of malnutrition affects up to one fifth of earth's population, killing some 14 million children every year. Truly, there have been "food shortages"!

Again, as per the 'war' scenarios of the first part of the leaflet, I find it strange that the Jovos focus only on famines which occurred after World War I. Are we seriously to believe that before 1914 there were no food shortages whatsoever in any historical period? Look here and you'll see 'In Sudan the year 1888 is remembered as the worst famine in history'. So immediately the JW statement that a post WWI famine was 'the greatest famine in all history' is opposed.

Here's a list of some major historical famines, which all occurred before the 20th century:

Ireland - 1845-1852
In The Great Hunger (aka The Irish Potato Famine), the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent when a potato disease caused the catastrophic collapse of the potato crop. But note that the article to which I link also describes many earlier crop failures.
Ethiopia - 1888-1892
A famine caused by epizootic rinderpest, drought, smallpox and war led to the deaths of one-third of the country's population.
China - 108 BC through to 1911
A long period of time, during which a massive 1828 famines are recorded. One, in 1333-1337, killed 6 million Chinese, and this article notes that 'The four famines of 1810, 1811, 1846, and 1849 are said to have killed not less than 45,000,000 people.'
India - 1702-1704
Famine in Deccan killed at least 2 million people. Later, there were 'approximately 25 major famines spread through states such as Tamil Nadu in the south, and Bihar and Bengal in the east during the latter half of the 19th century.'
Europe - 1315-1317
Any famine given the name The Great Famine of 1315-1317 is probably going to be something of a major event. Once again, millions died.

Staying with the period of time around that last famine, remember from the previous article that the Hundred Years' War began shortly afterwards (1337)? Unfortunately for the people around at the time, so did the Black Death (1347 onwards - I'll deal with this in a future article), so anyone living in 14th century Europe would see far, far more 'signs' than we see today. Surely the 14th century would have been much more likely candidate for 'the end of the world'. Did it actually end? No, we're still here, more than 600 years later.

It's obvious that famines are nothing new. Whatever the cause - weather, disease, or some other natural disaster - as long as there have been people needing food, there have been times when the amount of food just wasn't enough. Result: famine - people died. So the only thing the Jehovah's Witnesses have to cling to is their assertion that famines are getting worse - more people are dying. And as with their war argument, this is an entirely false premise. Of course more people die when there is a famine. And why? Because there are simply more people alive to die.

Look again at the so-called 'sign'. All it says is 'there will be food shortages'. Here's my prediction: next year, and every year until the end of time, somewhere in the world there will NOT be food shortages. And somewhere in the world there WILL be food shortages. Does either one tell us the world is ending? No, it tells us that there are different natural, social and economic conditions for different people in different parts of the world. It doesn't take a genius, and certainly not the son of a god, to work that one out.

Coming next:
Next, the Jovos assume that more earthquakes are happening, and more people are dying in each one. As you can tell, their silly number games continue unabated.

Meanwhile, I found this collection of short articles, including some information about famine and the Four Horsemen, which may interest you: Consistently Inconsistent!. Indeed the whole site, JW Files, tears apart the 'end of days' arguments of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I found this image from Awake! (one of the official JW publications) particularly amusing:

Note the underlined text:

Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.

Er, guys, we're still waiting. 94 years and counting. And doesn't that sound a little like Matthew 16:28?

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Again, still waiting. And in both cases: not going to happen.

Apocalyptic signs: War

Sat, 10 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

I have to report another weekend sneak attack by the bloody Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm beginning to realise why they always turn up on Saturday morning: it's because at that time I am least likely to argue and/or bring up well-chosen arguments against their religious bullshit. Basically, on Saturday mornings I am completely out of touch with reality, having usually stayed up until the small hours and, like this morning, only got out of bed at all because I was desperate for a pee.

Today all they wanted was to give me one of their leaflets, the cover of which looks a lot like the poster for a low budget 80s sci-fi movie. This one is called 'Will this world survive?' and like Oil of Olay's seven signs of aging, it gives a list of signs (five in this case) which foretell the end of the world. Let's dissect these nuggets of excrement and see if we can dig out any kernels of sweetcorn, er, truth, shall we?

Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom (Matthew 24:7)
War in modern times has been of greater magnitude than ever before. One historian noted: "The First World War [beginning in 1914] was the first 'total' war." Yet, the second world war was much more destructive. And war continues to ravage the earth. Yes, Jesus' words have undergone fulfillment in a dramatic way!

This one is partially covered in my blog of 2 March 2008, End Times alert - are there really more wars? In essence, there are now far fewer wars than was the case in most of pre-20th century history. What has changed is the scale of war. There is no denying that it's now far easier to kill more people, simply because the technology is more advanced. And let's not forget that there are simply more people to kill, so obviously more people are going to die. But is that any reason to play the numbers game and use this as a sign that Jesus is about to make a comeback?

No, of course it isn't. World War I was the biggest ever war, certainly... until World War II came along of course. But then before WWI there were other wars which were, at the time, the 'biggest ever wars'. So shouldn't the words of Jesus have applied to the end of the 15th century, after the Hundred Years' War? I see no mention of it in the Jehovah's Witnesses' literature at all. Surely a war which lasted 116 years was actually bigger, by some measurement, than ones which lasted for relatively short periods of time (1914-18 and 1939-45). Yet that was over 500 years ago, and the world didn't end. Life went on. Wars went on.

Wars are almost invariably of greater magnitude than previous wars, but why does the scale of the war even matter? Let's go back to the Bible quote cited by the JW leaflet: 'Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom'. Come on, that is so ludicrously non-specific that it can apply to every moment in history at some point in the world. You would struggle to find a year, perhaps not even a day, when there has not been a war somewhere, and the preceding passage, Matthew 24:6, extends the scope even beyond that, saying 'ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars'. Rumours of war? Just rumours are enough?

This so-called prophecy is as general, and therefore useless, as they get, and can be safely ignored as a tool for prediction, simply because during every day in human history there was guaranteed to be an ongoing war, or at the very least the rumour of a war. It is an utterly worthless 'sign'. Moreover, the spin given to the quote by the Jehovah's Witnesses is entirely invalid. Of course wars are of greater magnitude as time goes by - more people are alive to fight and die, and more destructive weapons are available. But that can be said when you look at the difference between Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars and the Crusades, or between American War of Independence the and the Vietnam War. What does it prove? Nothing.

And by the way, the Gallic Wars were responsible for one million deaths even before the time of Jesus. That's a million people out of a vastly smaller world population - approximately 200 million at the time. In modern terms that would be 30 million (given the current population, 6 billion, which is 30 times larger). Sounds big to me, particularly compared to the 20 million who died in World War I. Granted, WWII deaths were 72 million, but all we're saying here is that 'some wars are bigger than others'. How do we know that World War II was not, in fact, the peak of war deaths, and that all subsequent wars will have many fewer casualties? In fact, since no other war has been bigger, can we not now say that wars are getting smaller? The evidence says as much - wars still go on, but now fewer people die.

Let's further inspect the 'magnitude' claim. There are wars now waging around the world. Is there a war in progress which can be said to be of the same magnitude as World War I? No. WWII? No. Are there even rumours of an impending Third World War? Since the end of the Cold War, absolutely not. How did the once very real threat of nuclear war come to an end if things are actually getting worse? Surely the rumours of wars should include rumours of bigger and bigger wars. They do not. As has always been the case, some wars are big, some are not so big. And anyone, anyone at all, could make the startlingly obvious statement that 'nation will rise against nation'. You may as well say 'someone will eat cheese' and use that as a sign for the return of Speedy Gonzales.

I'm going to split this blog up into sections, so check back for more. The increasing prevalence of of food shortages is the next JW prediction, so watch out for that soon.

How to patronise atheists

Fri, 09 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

You'd expect me to respond to a news headline which says:

'Respect atheists', says Cardinal
The Archbishop of Westminster has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem".

My reactions on reading the headline: 'I certainly didn't see that one coming', and 'steps back in amazement'. Sadly the feeling of 'what the fuck is going on?' didn't last long. On reading just a little further, not far beyond the headline and first paragraph, the expression 'don't judge a book by its cover' sprang to mind almost immediately - and it was clear exactly what was going on:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers.
The leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales said that a "hidden God" was active in everyone's life.

In other words, respect atheists... but only because God is inside atheists too. Well actually this 'hidden' God is so hidden that he doesn't exist at all, so I'm sorry to say that the only way you can show atheists respect is to stop insisting that God exists in all of us. What he's really saying is, 'We'll humour them, even though we think they're wrong'.

I suppose that when it comes down to it his hands are tied. This is the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales we're talking about, so he obviously does believe that God is inside everyone. But why attach it to a patronising message telling other Catholics to respect atheists? Did we ask for his respect? I personally don't want his respect, and I certainly won't return the favour and give any iota of respect to a man who represents a huge organisation of people which opposes secularism, as well as a large number of principles I and a great many other atheists readily uphold:

The Cardinal's lecture at Westminster Cathedral comes after a spate of public clashes over issues such as stem-cell research, gay adoption and faith schools.

He expressed concern about the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life, saying: "Our life together in Britain cannot be a God-free zone and we must not allow Britain to become a world devoid of religious faith and its powerful contribution to the common good."
Last year, he complained of a "new secularist intolerance of religion" and the state's "increasing acceptance" of anti-religious views.

Does that really sound like he wants to hold atheists in 'deep esteem'? I think not. Not when, as he says, 'we must not allow Britain to become a world devoid of religious faith'. 'Must not allow it'? Isn't that another way of saying that 'atheism must not be allowed'? Of course it is.

Archbishop, just say what you really think. Don't use weasel words. Catholicism, and Christianity in general, diametrically opposes atheism. Similarly, those who actively speak about atheism will often oppose Christianity, certainly the illogical and irrational dogma which manages to infiltrate corners of society where such baseless beliefs are not welcome.

So let's abandon the pretence, shall we? There will be no esteem until religious views are totally removed from public life, and are instead relegated to their rightful position - the private beliefs of individuals. We can all respect that. Everyone has a right to belief what they wish, so long as those beliefs do not impact on the rights of others. So long as there are bishops and priests and preachers of all kinds poking their long noses into the affairs of those who do not share their beliefs, there will be no mutual respect and certainly no 'deep esteem'.

Update:
I don't believe it
Terry Sanderson (The Guardian) agrees with the idea that the Cardinal is taking 'a patronising line on atheists'.

Easily pleased

Thu, 08 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

I've been having an enforced break because my mouse died and I was too lazy to go and get a new one. Having no mouse means it's virtually impossible to use the computer - try it and see - so I've been doing, well, not very much really. However, I've now bought the cheapest mouse I could find (who buys those super-whizzo ones for 30 quid anyway?!) and as a special gift to reward my thriftiness, the BBC has rewarded me with this wonderful headline:

Link to the article (I'm not spoiling the surprise)

As my title for this blog says, I'm easily pleased.

Too many clowns spoil the circus

Sun, 04 May 2008 01:00:00 +0000

When I was very small, and that was a long, long time ago, my Dad told me that I was old enough to go to the circus and that on my very next birthday he would take me to see one. Well, I was excited, but I wasn't really sure what to expect, and even the word was a new one to me, so I ran all the way down to the local library, pulled out a book and read all the about the circus.

Wow, what a wonderful birthday this was going to be. According to the book everything happened in a huge white tent, so tall you could hardly see the top, and right in the middle of everyone was the ringmaster, with his long coat and tall hat, and he shouted out what was going to happen, and everyone would listen as he told about all the wonderful things to come. I read all about the amazing animals - the lions and the tigers and the elephants, which would run and walk and do whatever they were told.

Then there were the fire eaters - however much fire they ate, there was still more. The book said that some circuses had side shows, with the muscle-bound strong man, the towering giant, the fortune teller and the hall of mirrors. The jugglers and the trapeze artist and the high wire, they were there too, performing in the big tent, doing things you wouldn't believe were possible. And the crowd would be excited, and on their feet cheering, and how wonderful it all sounded. But best of all were the clowns - I knew right away the clowns would be my favourite, even before I saw them. They made me laugh just to look at them. This was the circus and I couldn't wait.

The great day came. My birthday. Without even being told, I put on my best clothes, because today was the day I was going to the circus. Dad gave me some money and told me to keep it safe, and I knew that was how I would pay for my ticket, so I kept a tight hold of it all the way there. I thought we would have to take the bus, but would you believe it, the circus was right around the corner of the street, and I hadn't even realised!

There were lots of people going in, and they didn't seem as excited as I was, but maybe that's because it was my first time. Dad smiled and said I could sit wherever I wanted, and I went right up to the second row, and would've gone all the way to the front, but I didn't really want to get too close to the tigers, not on my first visit anyway.

Well we sat in our seats and it all went really quiet, and then I saw him. The ringmaster! Wow! He looked even more amazing than in the book. His hat was huge and his long coat reached right to the ground. This was going to be great. Suddenly things started to happen. The ringmaster stood in front of the crowd and announced the first performance.

Now I know this is going to sound really ungrateful, and it was my birthday and Dad was doing a special thing for me and all that, but... well, somehow it just wasn't quite the spectacle my excited young mind had conjured up for me. Maybe the ringmaster just wasn't a very good one, because to be honest he was very, very boring. Sure enough he told us about the animals from all around the world, but he really seemed to be taking a long time about it. Okay, so he threw in something I wasn't expecting - something about a boat they would all fit into - but I couldn't really see how they would ever get a boat inside the place, and now I think about it I couldn't see any animal cages either. I looked around impatiently, expecting the elephants to come out at any time, but the ringmaster kept on talking and, well, he was in charge, so there wasn't really much I could do to speed things along.

The library book had said that the ringmaster would anounce the performers one at a time, but this one was different - he seemed to be telling us about all of them before we'd even seen the first one. He told us that the fire eaters were next, and I don't think they were a big favourite of his because he seemed quite angry about them. He even said that some of the audience might be fire eaters, and that seemed like something I could do one day, but oddly enough I got the impression he was warning us against that, rather than encouraging us to take it up as a profession.

I pulled on my Dad's arm and asked where the clowns were, but Dad whispered that I had to be quiet because churches were places where you didn't talk very much. I thought he'd got it wrong when he said 'churches', but no, that really was what he meant. So that was another new word I learned, and come to think of it churches and circus do sound a little alike, so maybe that's why I was confused. All of a sudden I got a sinking feeling in my stomach as I again remembered the clowns. The ringmaster hadn't mentioned them yet, but surely he would announce them soon. There had to be clowns, there just had to be. But somehow I knew that even this was going to be denied me.

No longer listening to the dull ringmaster, I looked at my surroundings for the first time and wondered why I hadn't even realised that this was no tent at all, it was just a big white building made of stone. It wasn't even round - how would the horses run in circles when all there was was quite a small, square space, with some kind of table filled with candles at the far end? The book I'd read never said the audience would stand up and sing, but we did. Twice. And inbetween all that, the ringmaster announced that big things would happen, huge things that we should all look forward to seeing. Now he was starting to sound like the fortune teller, and that wasn't his job at all. I just wanted to see something, if he'd only stop talking about it and let the performers come out and perform.

And remember those coins Dad gave me? Coins I should have used to buy a ticket? Well, I still had them, and I held onto them until much, much later, when a big brass dinner plate was passed around. Everyone else put their money on it, so I did too. But I never got a ticket, and I didn't really see why we should pay at all, because we never saw the tigers, or the elephants, and, most disappointing of all, there weren't even any clowns. This was the worst circus I could ever have imagined, just a ringmaster with no ring, telling us to expect lots of different things, some of which might be great to see, if only we could see them, but we never did. None of the things he told us about ever actually happened.

I don't know why, but after that Dad took me to the circus every week, until one day when I was much older I told him I was never going again. By then we'd moved house a few times and been to quite a few different circuses, but they were all as disappointing as the first. As the years went by the ringmasters became louder and louder, and stranger and stranger. They no longer wore tall hats and long coats, but some of them waved their fists at the audience, and most of them still warned about the dangers of becoming fire eaters.

But those places really do have all the things the circus book said I would find. The ringmaster still tells tall tales about the animals and the boat, the strong man and the giants, and every week he thinks of a new way tell your fortune, as if he knows what's really going to happen. The hall of mirrors is real enough. Wherever you stand things seem different, distorted, until you can't believe what's real anymore. The ringmaster performs everything with words, not actions - he juggles, he balances on the high wire, and does breathtaking acrobatics, all of them with a safety net, which he calls 'The Bible'.

But always, always I missed the clowns. To me that's what the circus was all about, and the day I stopped going was the day I figured out why there were no clowns at any circus I'd ever visited. The clowns were there alright, they'd been there all along. The ringmasters, the men who stand and call out to the crowd, those are the biggest clowns of them all. And although they talk about some truly comical things, you only really learn to laugh at them when you walk out of the circus, the churches, for the very last time.