If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

10 Atheist Commandments - By Jamie Kilstein

I thought I'd finish 2010 with a little brash clarity from the Melbourne Atheist Convention 2010.
10 Atheist Commandments delivered with inspiring gusto to an appreciative audience.
Have a broad grin on Me and Jamie Kilstein - so to speak ;0).

Wishing 2011 will bring
the very best and brightest lumps
of whatever you consider the good stuff
to your eager sticky fingers.

Really, hope you have a great one

This is NOT one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

OSHO: God Is Not a Solution - but a Problem

OSHO: God Is Not a Solution - but a Problem

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Economic Hitmen

Sometimes Reality is not what you thought it was

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

TED - Cognitive dissonance - Ash Donaldson

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Tim Minchin If I Didn't Have You

This is NOT one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Tim Minchin Storm

This is NOT one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

The Pope - Thought For The Day

Well, he's done it, he's delivered his, much touted (in the UK at least), "Pope's 'Thought for the day'" to BBC Radio 4 listeners.

As you'll see the article says "Pope has addressed the people of the UK" but it means "addressed the today programme's share of Radio four's 9.5 million viewers" so that means he delivered it AT MOST a sixth of the UK population.
Is this because the BBC guy in charge of the today show a snivelling catholic suck up?
We know he is, so maybe.

As for the speech itself, in a departure from the more usual, sometimes provocative thoughts presented by previous guest speakers, the RCC's chief paedophile protector, the little papal pillock himself, broke the mould with the delivery of a 'thought for the day' that was completely bereft of thinking.
Check it yourself, there's a copy below for any who can't access it on the BBC website.
Every last sentence he utters is an old platitude, or retells the same 'Jesus is fab' tales that everyone already knew - the whole speech could have been edited together from bits of old speeches.
In fact it is so bereft of anything knew, it makes one wonder if Papa Rat is under the impression that British people are 'not fanatical about Jesus' because we've not heard about him or 'understood the message'.
Arrogant Dick!
I always feel there's something of old school British Empire mentality about the purveyors of monotheism...
"If they don't like it, it's not because they don't like it, it's because they've not understood... I'll repeat and SHOUT".

As a final thought, it struck as I was listening that I've heard similarly air-headed speeches before, but I couldn't figure out where until now - it's from the giggling contestants of beauty pageants who can't find things on maps.
Have a read or a listen, I'm sure you'll see it too :(

Anyway, onto the firing of blanks...
The Pope has addressed the people of the UK on Radio 4's Thought For The Day, the first time the pontiff has broadcast to the people of one country.

In his talk, recorded in the Vatican earlier this week, he said:

Recalling with great fondness my four-day visit to the United Kingdom last September, I am glad to have the opportunity to greet you once again, and indeed to greet listeners everywhere as we prepare to celebrate the birth of Christ.
Our thoughts turn back to a moment in history when God's chosen people, the children of Israel, were living in intense expectation.
They were waiting for the Messiah that God had promised to send and they pictured him as a great leader who would rescue them from foreign domination and restore their freedom.
God is always faithful to his promises, but he often surprises us in the way he fulfils them.
The child that was born in Bethlehem did indeed bring liberation, but not only for the people of that time and place - he was to be the Saviour of all people throughout the world and throughout history.
And it was not a political liberation that he brought, achieved through military means; rather, Christ destroyed death forever and restored life by means of his shameful death on the Cross.
And while he was born in poverty and obscurity, far from the centres of earthly power, he was none other than the Son of God.
Out of love for us, he took upon himself our human condition, our fragility, our vulnerability and he opened up for us the path that leads to the fullness of life to a share in the life of God himself.
As we ponder this great mystery in our hearts this Christmas, let us give thanks to God for his goodness to us and let us joyfully proclaim to those around us the good news that God offers us freedom from whatever weighs us down: he gives us hope, he brings us life.
Dear Friends from Scotland, England, Wales and indeed every part of the English-speaking world. I want you to know that I keep all of you very much in my prayers this Holy Season.
I pray for your families, for your children, for those who are sick and for those who are going through any form of hardship at this time.
I pray especially for the elderly and for those who are approaching the end of their days.
I ask Christ, the light of the nations, to dispel whatever darkness there may be in your lives and to grant to every one of you the grace of a peaceful and joyful Christmas.
May God bless all of you!

BBC News - Today - The Pope's Thought For The Day

Why did they waste the air time?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Tim Minchin Angry - Feet

This is NOT one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Hate E-mails with Richard Dawkins

YouTube - Hate E-mails with Richard Dawkins: ""

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Tim Minchin Ten Foot Cock And A Few Hundred Virgins

This is NOT one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Tim Minchin If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out


This is NOT one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Wiki Rebels - The Documentary

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Islam or Atheism Which Makes More Sense

This is review of a lecture delivered by international public speaker Hamza Andreas Tzortzis to the Aston University Isoc on Wednesday 27th October 2010.
The lecture entitled "Islam or Atheism - Which One Makes More Sense?" proposed "The intellectual foundations of Islam make more sense than the foundation of the atheist world view."

Before we start let’s make one thing clear. The lecturer has started from an unarguable position; he assumes Atheism is a ‘spiritual’ choice. It is not.
Atheism delivers no ‘system’ of belief. It does not have a manifesto of rituals and prostrations or theories about the unknown. It is simply a disbelief; a position which is merely unconvinced by the concept of god(s). It is in no way ‘like a religion’.
I, for example, find there is no god because of purely philosophical thinking, as evidenced in the TMQ Core.
While the lecturer attempts to drag Allah into the 21st century by trying to weave him into what science has thus far revealed, he at no point makes any attempt to provide concrete details about the Allah proposal. The underlying assumption is still the age old, ‘we are here so there must be a god.’ an accusation which he sneakily levels at atheism!

When I started putting this post together, I was going to give introductions to each point I’m pulling the international public speaker up on but there have been so many, I’m not going to do that. Instead, I think best way to do this is watch the vid till you get to the time code. Read my bit and watch what he says or vice versa.


So here we go, I hope your sitting comfy, this is a long one…

4 mins 11 secs
“We cannot order our perception.”
There is, I think, a deliberate misdirection here. He presents real world items about which we cannot alter our perception and then talks about spiritual perceptions to give the ‘accidental’ inference that we cannot alter any of our perceptions. But perceptions are not merely about real objects; perceptions are emotionally weighted and, often involuntarily, emotions order our perceptions of that which is innately hypothetical. We only have a fixed order of perception when the subject is physical (if we disregard the theory of relativity).
If the origins of the universe appeared physically causal wouldn't every religion have the same creation story?
Every religion tells a different story, and none truly match with what science has uncovered; is this not clear evidence that all the ‘prophets’ got it wrong?
The lecturer uses this introduction to claim that all atheists fit into the empirical group and not the rationalist, and he states “this proves atheists are irrational” but as I sated at the top, not all atheists are empiricist; I for one, and I know there are many, many more, am a rationalist non believer.

I also disagree with his premise here.
The premise is ONLY valid where a person finds god through personal rationalist thought alone.
When you find god from a prescriptive book it is not necessary to have done any critical thinking
All the ‘critical’ thinking was done by the one who penned the book.
So as people of follow someone else’s critical thinking cannot be legitimately be called, by his definition, rationalist, surely his definition of the difference between atheist thinking and magical thinking only holds ‘true’ for Muhammad.

7 mins 5 secs
His first point in this section, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." is a false premise.
His opening point would be more precise if it were worded
“In our current, very limited, primitive and undeniable short experience, we have found so far that whatever begins to exist has a cause.”

He goes on to state “We hear a bang; we know it must have come from somewhere.”
But no!
When we hear a bang we know we have experienced the sound wave of a bang. Our sound measurement machines (ears to you) tell us roughly which direction and how far away the sound was IF...
a. The sound was not pre recorded and played at a lower volume
b. The sound was not made in a canyon / echo chamber
c. The sound was actually in the real world and not a mental aberration.

While one can say one 'knows' the sound was made, one cannot begin to suggest one 'knows'…
Where it came from, how far away it was or even, unless one had people to ask if they'd heard it also, if it was real or in one's head.
Further investigations using the scientific method are required to discover these unknown variables.

11 mins 50 secs
“Infinity cannot be exported into the real world.”
This is an interesting one. The lecturer doesn't begin to address the question of the notion of infinity but instead decries the statement out of hand.
There's an interesting article by G. Stolyarov II Mistakes Concerning Infinity. It's quite intricate but it's thrust as it relates to this infinity point -
Until ANYTHING is properly quantified or measured it may appear infinite.

The subtext of this section is that infinity is ONLY a mathematical construct but, as far as I’m aware, science doesn't make the claim that some form of infinity is impossible in reality.
As a further thought here, if as the lecturer claims infinity is only a mathematical construct and not exportable to the real world, where does that leave god? Doesn’t that mean that a god can have no effect on a real world in which his "infinity” is only "a potential and never an actual"? Doesn’t that make any eternal god even more incalculably improbable?

14 mins
Horrifyingly only 5 students in this lecture had even heard of the big bang! A clear indictment of the poor science education delivered to students in faith schools?

15 mins
The lecturer loses his train of thought when he wanders off topic into 'politics' and states, “that's for another lecture.” an example of biased education for Muslims?
The point of this lecture is not the furthering of students understanding of science but, patently, to persuade the students that they should stay in love with the Allah dream in spite of science.
And the point of the politics lecture will be? I think you can probably guess. :(

15 mins 26 secs
The lecturer quotes scientists "Schram, Beechers, Tindley and others" who claim that at the moment of the big bang, the universe had "Infinite mass zero volume" then paraphrases for the students to 'get it' "a scientific word for nothing." but the point he raises is fallacious.
The claim of science IS philosophically troubling...
How can a finite volume have infinite mass? It seems irrational. However, I feel it's not irrational, but not because of dubious maths (though it maybe lacking some undiscovered equation or physical observation of which we are unaware as yet), rather because of the description 'infinite'. The scientists could have said 'incalculable', which, I assume, would look a lot like 'infinite' (in a maths equation) Scientists, this time, responsible for not considering carefully enough the word infinity.
It occurred to me at this point, why has he not investigated the meaning of the word? A tentative, intuitive answer came running almost as soon as I’d thought question… because the god he believes in needs infinity to exist?

17 mins 33 secs
He quotes the Qur'an (this is a paraphrase) "When you ponder the universe are you saying that this whole thing came from nothing?"
Clearly displaying the Qur'an as manipulative and confrontational. It forces the reader to make a choice, when nobody ever came to a consensus as to whether one must, should, or even, can choose! It imagines that the person, who finds him / herself existing, actually cares how they got there.
The natural position is, there is insufficient evidence to assume the Qur'an or any other tenet describes reality, especially when so much of every creation fable is actually wrong.

18 mins
He spends a few seconds belittling Richard Dawkins TV programme “The Enemies of Reason”
for more, my comments on the programme are here .
The audience laugh with his joke in spite of the misdirection. If those girls in the "Enemies of Reason" were 7, I'm a Muslim! Further, would the audience have laughed at all if they had not seen the show?
He decries Richard Dawkins as a mere prophet, failing to notice that in that derision he placed Dawkins in the same spiritual category as Muhammad.
Is he not guilty of Islamic Blasphemy for this?

18.35 mins
"That’s the arrogance of atheism" - failing to notice the arrogance of Muhammad; he wrote a manifesto which instructs that all the different varieties of humanity must live the way he thought they should! - How arrogant is that!

Remember Muhammad’s words only have power while everybody still believes in magic.

19 mins 57 secs
This is a paraphrase; he states "We may assume only 1 cause because we don't have any conceptual differentiators for outside the universe."
But he finishes the point so it MUST be one, failing to take into account the 'may' in the previous statement.
You could say it like this…
If one is going to ASSUME a cause THEN you may assume only one.
However if you are "not going to assume a cause" or similarly "assume there is no cause" you may only choose zero.

The same argument applies to his immaterial point.

Also notice how often the word 'assume' has been used here. These are all philosophical positions which must be assumed before any further step can take place. And all on top of the false premise I mentioned above! (7mins 5 secs)

21 mins 12 secs
He takes a moment to disrespects Dr. Stephen Hawking.
All Dr. Hawking did, as all scientists do, was to uncover facts and display findings; there is no agenda in genuine investigation, but he speaks as if it’s Dr. Hawking’s findings are all his own idea, not scientific discovery.

22 mins 23 secs
His point 3 that the cause must be uncaused for me ends the argument.

He uses the Occam’s razor argument at point 1 and states “do not multiply entities beyond necessity”. I’ve always understood this to be akin to always assume the simplest system.

The simplest answer for point 1 is ‘no cause’.
If ‘no cause’ is assumed at point 1, then point 2 the difficult concept of an 'immaterial' being fades to irrelevancy and point 3 ‘uncaused’ (because of absurdity of an infinite regress of causes) is automatically achieved at point 1.

If you are using Occam’s razor as your template for thinking on this point, why move past point 1 and through 2 more stages to reach a position of ‘no cause’ when the option 'no cause’ exists at point1? Occam’s razor dictates ‘don’t multiply entities’, the three points are entities, by Occam’s razor this is invalid!
So why move past point 1? There can be only 1 answer: It is to find a way to crowbar a god into the picture!

23 mins 30 secs
His point 4 - The creator of the universe MUST have a will
"If it's eternal (uncaused) and it brought into existence a finite effect (universe)", he says "then it must have a will"

a. It is impossible for the lecturer to know if the universe is a finite effect. Even if the universe is discovered conclusively to be finite, there may be other effects (multiversally etc.) of which we are unaware.

b. I fail to see how an uncaused event infers the presence of ‘will’ in that event.
If a black hole were discovered to be eternal, would it then also be described as wilful?

24 mins
Here he uses the description "because material cause and effects usually exist in the same time scale." but his point is about the effects of an 'immaterial' being, so this point is irrelevant - it's like comparing conditions of matter to infer properties of antimatter!

31 mins
He quotes that miracles are an "Act of impossibility" or an "Event that lies outside the productive capacity of nature" then posits that the Qur’an is a miracle before droning on for almost 3 minutes about how many people are convinced that, as a literary work, the Qur'an could not be any more perfect. This is all anecdotal; we have to take his word for it. We have no reason to doubt his/there opinions about he syntax and form of the text in which they are experts. And, barring any comparison by experts of equal merit in Shakespeare finding otherwise, I'm happy to concede any poetry they claim for it.
However, if as they claim the book is, within human comprehension, as perfect as it is possible to achieve then that only proves that it is possible, not impossible!
The Qur’an exists so, no matter how beautifully written it is, it cannot be seen as impossible; only improbable. If it were an ‘act of impossibility’ it could not exist and so fails to be a suitable example under his criteria for "Linguistic miracle".
However, apart from all that, evidence of perfection is a massive assumption short of proof of divinity.

34 mins
He states that the Egyptian kings where called Malik (Arabic for king) but also known as Pharaoh (whose roots derive from Hebrew / Ancient Egyptian / Greek for King) and then asks *"How did he know both words?"
Err, stupid! He knew because he lived in the area and heard the other name! Pharaoh is an ancient name and Muhammad spent his youth travelling extensively, what we know call, the Middle East bordering Egypt and Israel with his guardian's caravan.
It's an out and out lie to say there was an absence of knowledge of the time! In fact, now I've written it down, I’ve realized the full impact of how stupid a statement it is, and how disrespectful of the proud civilizations of the time!
How did he know? Well, it’s way too ordinary to cry miracle, eh?
I think it MEGA-FAILS to be a suitable example of what he calls an "historic miracle"!!

* "How did he know?" - This seems to be a favoured phrase amongst the Muslim charlatan's. Dr Zakir Naik uses similar mentalist techniques to instil a sense of wonder into his audiences' minds.
The inference is given in the lack of answer, it hangs some "ooh that's spooky" bait for the listener make a conclusion upon the unspoken subtext.
"Yeah that's magic/miraculous/divine! How could he have known if it wasn't?"
And they are willing to conclude this because they want to believe in magic, magic is the only way the poor can equalise the playing field with the rich man.

But I digress.

36.52 mins
He calls ‘all’ previous science "Nice guesswork or speculation based on theory but no specifics; there was no accuracy"

Look at this a minute - he's talking about 600 AD.
He's claiming that the greatest, wisest, most technologically, medically and scientifically advanced races the world has ever know - the Chinese, Byzantine, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mayan and people of the Indus valley had all NO KNOWLEDGE! The arrogance of Islam is truly astonishing!!

37.09 mins
He claims Muhammad "knew mountains acted as pegs to stabilise the earth" (along with the inescapable *"How could he have known this?") Then adds that scientists call this Isostasis but a more precise description of how the Earth's crust is self stabilising through isostasis would be Archimedes principle - NOT PEGS!
You call it a "Scientific Phenomena" if you want my son, I'm going to have to blow wind on your theory with my arse!

39.56 mins
He recaps on his conjectural 'evidences' and concludes this circumstantial section with (this is a paraphrase.) "there are no naturalistic explanations therefore we are seeking for super-naturalistic explanations"

Sorry son, NOT PROVED - try harder.

Prophet’s claim to prophet hood

40 mins
He was an ordinary bloke then had a revelation a "Paradigm shift... Everything changed because of the profound concept that there is no god but Allah"

Err, hello...
Akhenaton was the first Pharaoh ( circa 1350 BCE ) to conceive of the 'single, one-true-god of gods, unification belt'! And we know, because the lecture boasted, that Muhammad knew about Pharoahs. Then there are the beloved friends of the religion of ‘peace’ the Jews. They were there with their version of the utmost supremo superhero way before Muhammad cottoned on to the control system so...
Err, hello, earth to Islam, check history not the Qur'an, the Qur'an is full of misdirection and lies.

41 mins
He asks "1. Was Muhammad a liar?" And answers "It causes too many philosophical problems to label him such" then goes on to deliver 6 mins of anecdotal circumstance reverie about why one shouldn’t think he’s a liar then concludes in an emotive logical fallacy by saying very argumentatively "if you call Muhammad a liar you call your mother a liar because she never gave birth to you" then crosses out the liar point as if he's proved it!
Sorry dude – NOT PROVED

He asks "2. Was Muhammad a deluded madman?" And answers with a question "Could a man have come up with Islamic economics if he was deluded?" and a political rant about how Islamic economics is so much better than Capitalist economics.
I question this claim, maybe naively (I’m no economist), If Islamic economics was as good as capitalist, wouldn’t Saudi Arabia or Iran be as powerful as the UK? For me the claim is nonsense, for me, it’s the quantity of brilliant minds which forms a strong economy. But that’s a whole other subject.

So, Muhammad was not deluded? Conceded but with reservations.
1. As evidence of Muhammad’s connection to the divine he sites Muhammad’s economic policy. “There are enough resources for 36 billion people's basic living needs” but that is, essentially, Bronze Age man's needs. If I remember correctly that didn’t include the internet and the infrastructure of civilisation which makes it possible. As I said, I’m not in any way an economist but… Does Muhammad’s Islamic economic policy only work for 36 billion people if everyone’s in mud huts and burqas?
2. As far as I’m aware Muhammad spent most of his formative years around the dramatic wheeler dealing of medieval Arabic transactions with his guardian’s Bedouin caravan lifestyle. (“five for that you must be mad” ring any bells anyone?) So yeah, fair enough, not deluded at the time he 'penned’ Islamic economics but given his history and obvious intelligence, his conception of his own economic policy is ‘a big bagful of not surprising’ short of miraculous.
Also, this concession doesn't include any delusional episodes which may have bee brought on by Hypoxia from the cave.
However, as the lecturer’s ‘not a liar’ point was NOT proved, the question of Muhamad’s delusion is irrelevant; he can be a liar so delusion is not required as a reason for his manifesto’s claims.
There’s a further possibility here also, if the Hypoxia caused the delusion of visitations from spirits and Muhammad actually believed they were real, he would not aware of it being a lie when telling the tale of any visitation.

The Meaning of Life
50 mins
He asks – “What does it mean to be a human being?” then states "Atheism says; we are only here to propagate our DNA. What value does that have?" and "Atheism offers cold death because of thermodynamics." And “That means philanthropy comes to nothing.
After generally inferring and suggesting the atheism position means all existence is futile he makes a plea to the audience’s empathy...
“If we believe that killing a 5 year old child is objectively morally wrong then the atheist paradigm cannot justify this.”
Without exception all of his closing arguments are emotive; painting a bleak picture with dark cold words of a meaningless existence.

But atheism only looks like that to people who have been previously led to believe ‘god is light and life.’ Their perception has been ordered by the book to perceive the world that way.
It’s like with drug addicts. Happy and high on the drug but when they come off it, until they reacclimatise to the more normal body chemistry, every day is bleak and hopeless but the days are the same as when they were on the drug. It’s merely the perception which changes.
Don’t believe me? Stop drinking coffee for a week. (or whatever vice you have)
Take note: if you suddenly felt panic at the thought of that (no matter how slight) that’s exactly the same feeling the religious person gets when they start to sway towards agnostic. It’s not surprising so many stay with the drug/religion. It’s mighty hard to step away that from which your psyche derives comfort.

On his thermodynamics point, I’ve said it before The laws of thermodynamics are not the holy grail for the religious.
You’d have to read that post to understand why but NOT (conclusively) PROVED.

To the “killing a child” point, we know this is morally wrong because the child is the next evolution of ourselves (humanity)

Finally concluding, he makes it seem important that human existence should have some ‘added’ meaning but why should there be meaning?
Sorry again, NOT PROVED.

For me, this lecture is no more than tiptoeing of the troubled faithful in and out the scientific bluebells with the intention of casting enough doubt on the science for the audience to stay in love with their mythical sky daddy.
However, does the lecturer’s mockery of Dawkins and Hawking clearly display that Islam perceives these scientists as the major threat to their vice grip? Is it perhaps displaying that Christianity is no longer the largest perceived threat to Islam? Does the existence of this lecture signify that critical thinking and the scientific method, which bring forth atheism as a biproduct, are now recognised by Islam as public enemy number 1?

Makes you wonder, eh? If Islam is robust and thriving on its own merit why is this lecture needed? Or even allowed to exist?
Do you think the fact that it does exist and is considered so necessary it’s on an "international public speaking" circuit, is a signal that reason is making a bit of headway?
Is it's presence evidence that some Muslim youth and young adults, at least, must be asking difficult questions.
From the lack of dissenting voices in his audience it seems that his 'reasoning' is currently sufficient to comfort the disquiet in the hearts of the young faithful but how long do you think it will be before they are as unhappy with his (and other preachers) metaphysical machinations as I am?

For a further insight, here's a blog post by a representative of the Aston Humanist Society who was at the lecture; If you watch the lecture's Q and A videos (starting around 10:45), he's the one being mocked and belittled!!

Finally, did anyone else smell a hint of this style of desperation?

Kirk Cameron And Bananas - http://youtu.be/2z-OLG0KyR4

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Pope Favours Male Prostitutes

Yeah, I know the title is a cheap shot but I couldn't resist. You've probably read the headlines but here's a snippet of what it's all about.
In a bizarre (and totally maddening) move, Pope Benedict XVI announced in a book-length interview with a German journalist that condom use, which has been long condemned by the Catholic Church, is permissible for male prostitutes seeking to stop the spread of HIV. Benedict, [...] tried to fit his claim into Church teachings by saying that although condom use is not a "moral" choice, it can be acceptable if the intent is to "reduce the risk of infection."

Article Here

I am gonna start with a wow!
(notice it wasn't capitalised, that's because I'm not that impressed but it's still movement from the immoveable object.)
Only 18 months ago Papa Rat stated "HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem"
So yeah, wow, this is a major U-turn but no matter how you cut it, it raises an instant question.

Why mention MALE prostitutes specifically?

Makes you think about how MALE the Roman Catholic Church is.
Makes you think about how human sexuality is prohibited for those thousands of MALES.

Makes you wonder eh?

Is this move merely more of the Vatican's 'self'- serving ways?
I mean, it's not long since Bill Donohue, president of the USA's Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, suggested the Abuse scandal is rooted in homosexuality, not paedophilia
A suggestion that I don't remember hearing the Pope deny!

So, is the pope just watching his priests' (bare)back?
Is this really about protecting the church from the further scandal that a million headlines of "Gay Priest is HIV+" would no doubt bring.
Which begs the further question...
Has the Pope already been forewarned that such a headline might soon break?

Whatever the reason, this begrudging capitulation to good sense and true morality is way too little, way too late.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

One Size Never Fits All

I've been thinking about it the whole drugs subject a bit and it struck me...

Our laws say everyone who wants to change the way they feel and think may do so, but ONLY by one method and drug.

But, are we not ALL different?
Is that position not like saying, "Size six shoes are the traditional shoe size so all humans must wear size six shoes."?
Think of the damage that would do!

Or, like making only one size of wooden leg?

Or, like making only one hair dye colour, from only one chemical, and prohibiting the use of any other chemical!

Or, like almost any other aspect of human life.

Tailor made is widely accepted as preferable to 'one size fits all'. If we are honest, every last one of us, if we could achieve it, would have much of our lives tailored to suit our personal comforts and choices.

We are a very varied canvas of humanity, what smooths out the bumps of life for one may be poison to another.
If we are truly striving for equality, then should we not let each consume the drug of their choice, or let none?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Related article: Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Of Something And Nothing

Since Darwin penned his great work of genius, the religioners have been rushing about trying to find ways for them to continue to go to the heaven that, frankly, cannot be.
We have heard them spout defensively...
"So, why don't we see apes turning into humans?"

This obviously self-protectionist choice, of stupidity, inherent in their self deluding question, carries as always the subtext of...
"It doesn't matter what answer you give, my question carries sufficient doubt for me to continue to believe I'm going to heaven."

Unfortunately, for them, evolution is generally accepted as fact, even by the Pope. Now as you'd probably expect if you've read my other posts, I'd never hold the Pope up as a great teller of truths but on this subject, he'd have to be pretty convinced that he couldn't defeat evolution to make this major concession. Wouldn't you say? (Pope bows to Darwin).

Anyway, as with other human advances...
God is no longer in the rock or the sun because, as we discovered, they didn't exist.
God is no longer in the sky because we've been there and, y'know, he wasn't.
God is no longer in space because we've been there and, guess what? absent!
God is no longer the creator of life on earth because ALL the collected evidence weighs in as 'otherwise'
And, most recently in their battle to retain 'the afterlife that never was', we've seen his purveyors dispatch the goalposts of their god to what I see as his final resting place...
God's metaphysical Alamo - the beginning of the universe(s).

And what brilliant question have the religioners carefully constructed to stand guard, defending God's last bastion?
In a similarly pitiful grasping of the ethereal straw, the god squad are repeating the same...
"How can something come from nothing, it is preposterous. Things would be popping into existence from nothing all the time!"

and again, the same smug self-deluding subtext can be heard loud and clear...
"There! This way I still get to go to heaven! Na, na, na-na, na!"

And at first you think,
"Yeah I suppose so! Why don't things still come from nothing?"

It seems a logical question, eh?
And, while I've only made a guess at how something can come from nothing (The Most Probable Thing in the Omniverse?), I think, once again the Religioners question is erroneous. (Who would have thunk it!)

So, Why don't 'somethings' spring from 'nothing' all the time?

Might the simplest answer be...

we don't have nothing, we have something;
we have a universe(s)

From what I know about string theory, which is way short of even 'not that much', the universe does not consist of mostly nothing, instead it is one massive continuous something ( Vibrating filaments (strings) and membranes (branes) of energy. Read more here - http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/string-theory-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html#ixzz13HIziuvU )

Right, gird your mental loins, I've done my best but this next bit is still something of head twister. Sorry, please bear with me!

As I see it, in a universe consisting of inconsistent densities of a universally pervasive 'something', we can say that on a mission to achieve a container of 'pure' or 'absolute' nothing, the best one can hope to discover is a void in that all pervasive 'something'.
Now, by void, I don't mean 'absolute' nothing, the 'pure' nothing that is said to have existed before the universe(s), rather one may only assume that any void is composed of the same 'something' as the surrounding universe but at a lower density.

Our previous baseline for absolute nothing was a vacuum similar to the void of space, however, string theory suggests our previous understanding of nothing was imprecise, formed from the perceivable evidence. It was merely 'our' baseline, our observable 'nothing' and not 'absolute' nothing.
As we saw our perception of zero degrees Fahrenheit/Centigrade change when absolute zero was discovered, if string theory is correct, should we not also be expecting our perception of the baseline for 'nothing' to similarly change?

Now, in this context, string theory also suggests that, at the instant one has something (a universe), one no longer has 'pure' nothing.

As we no longer have any 'pure' nothing to experiment upon, and have no reason to assume, or expect, that our perceived baseline of nothing would have the same properties as, or act in the same way as, 'pure' nothing, is it not folly to even attempt to guess as to whether a new 'something' can come from pure nothing?

While there is no 'pure' nothing currently known in existence, is it not unreasonable to expect 'somethings' to continually burst into existence.

Okay, that's as far as I can go. My head doesn't even want to accept that something can come from nothing, but as I've never experienced nothing, I can't really hope to have any idea why it's possible, or not, for something to spring from it!

Yet another pointer that there are insufficient statistics to legitimately suggest a god?

If you know something about string theory, please let me know if the conjecture, queries and assumptions I have made above are all 'so much bollocks', because when it comes right down to it, I'm not sure they are not and the world's got way too much bad information in it already!

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Will Moderate Muslims Please Stand Up

Dear moderate Muslims,

You claim the militants, radicals, extremists don't truly follow Islam. They claim that you are not following it properly. You must be furious that these foul, evil, haters of human freedom are bringing such an easily despised view of YOUR religion to global attention, but how can we, whom are NOT compelled by any scripture to cause harm, however 'righteously', how can we know that's how you feel? I 'hear' you constantly professing that your religion is peaceful so won't you please...
Take Responsibility.
Be the surgeon of your own religion. Declare a Jihad on the those you claim are perverting your precious message. If those at war with human freedom are truly your religion's cancer, cut them out!
Openly denounce the radicals and militants. (While you do not, we (the rest of the human race) must assume you stand with them and secretly support them.)
Openly denounce any who promote hate, especially your Imam.
Openly discourage extremist talk of militant jihad.
Muslim mothers - please take charge and slap the violent urges from your sons.
Report your troubled youths and errant Imam's to the police.

If you feel that the Qur'an, Hadith and Sharia need modernisation, that they no longer properly represent the modern Muslim, or indeed as I feel, are the root cause of the extremists, born, however misguidedly, from the more violent, misogynistic passages, then take personal, local, direct action...

Openly admit Islam is a supremacist doctrine. (It is, whether you admit it or not, but admitting so would at least show some measure of intellectual honesty.)
Openly refuse to worship the hate (Modify the clearly supremacist Surah 1:7)
Openly declare equal rights for women.
Muslim women, openly assert your own equal rights. (If you are a Muslim woman living in a free democracy, you do not have to obey your husband. The only power over you to which your husband is entitled, is the power you choose to give him. YOU ARE FREE and our free democratic laws support your freedom.)
Openly send Midwinter greetings cards to your friends and neighbours.
Openly fly the flag of the nation in which you have chosen to make your home.
Openly stand for, and sing along with, your national anthem. (You are either a part of the free democracy in which you thrive, or you are not. If do not wish to be part of it, then you should be asking yourself whether you should be there.)
Openly denounce the global dominance aspirations of Islam.
Openly take those of other religions or no religion as your friend.
Openly watch television programmes made in the free democracies.
Campaign for the proper education your children in Evolutionary science.(Ultimately, dishonest education can only be a disservice to our children and our democracy.)
Openly sign the Declaration of Human Rights. (Take it to your mosque and get your friends to sign it too. How about a sign up party?)
Openly protest against the human rights violations. (Show you are for peace! Iran is a nightmare, Iran is Muslim! They are your home-boys, don't like what they're saying? Then get on it! Protest and sort it!)
Openly declare your dissatisfaction with the hateful passages within the Qur'an (delete Surah 9:5 etc.)
You could even do this yourself!
You don't have to wait for the hierarchy to sanction your actions. Permanent markers are widely available. If you feel you want to make a protest, although I would never promote wilful destruction of property, you could register your dissenting opinion instantly and easily. What could be a simpler or more peaceful protest than just striking through the hateful passages in any Qur'an you find?

Please note here.
If you are worried that you may get in trouble with your parents, friends or religious hierarchy for acting on any of the points I've made here.

If, alternatively, you have a clear understanding of exactly what punishment you will receive for acting on any of the points I've made here.

Open dissent is the cornerstone of a free thinking democracy.
And at the core of freedom.

You say there's over a billion of you, so that's plenty of people to 'educate' any extremist minority into extinction.
Stand the fuck up!

Take responsibility
Ensure your religion IS the religion of peace you profess it to be.
I wonder why you haven't yet done so.

For those unaware, this is apparently what moderate Muslims sound like...

I've a very different comprehension of the definition of the word moderate, have you?
This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Immortality And The Meaning of Life

I have been asked a number of times, by Christians usually, but not exclusively,
"Why live?"
that is to say,
"What possible reason could an atheist have for living one's life?"
I've tried to tweet or comment responses but, as you can see from the length of this post that would never have been possible.
I know it's long but give me a break, this is meaning of life stuff!

After an initial answer of, "Duh, it's the only life I have, why would I waste it?" I came to realize that the reasons to live, atheist or not, are too abundant to list! Having been dead, which, honestly, is rubbish, just being alive (Thanks Shaz.) is a cracker of a reason for continuing life! However, I suspect that their question carries the subtext of...
"Why continue to live considering you have no hope of afterlife?"
or more precisely, I fear, given how immature it sounds...
"If you don't have a big floating granddad keeping score of all of your 'gold stars' and 'brownie points', what's the point of doing anything?" It's kind of an arse about tit way of looking at "What’s the meaning of life!" (Christians! Sheesh!)

So, as most people's 'afterlife' fantasy seems to include some sort of magical immortality, here's my view on human immortality, which for me, is also a triple layered meaning of life.

The first layer
This is biological, simply passing the DNA to the next generation. Each father does his bit, enjoys the deed, passes his seed and raises the babe, body and mind, as well as he is able to quality human adult.
(No offence to any ladies reading, I realize you have a major role, but from a male point of view, that's pretty much the gig.)
So, genetically speaking, the more offspring you have, the more you have achieved for your genetic heritage and the 'better' your DNA is doing? Going by that measure, who's the most successful human so far?
Patently it’s the human whose genes are expressed most frequently in any population. Genghis Khan? Charlemagne? Confucius? Nefertiti?

Interesting article on this in The Atlantic - http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/05/olson.htm

The second layer
Any individual's physical exploits can have a social influence on humanity's development.
We are a physical being; we admire great examples of our own physical beauty or achievements. In any century there are hundreds of sporting greats, warriors, heroines, adventurers, musicians, artistes and artists etc. who have fashioned society by their examples, of great beauty or remarkable feat. How many society-shaping examples are displayed by the deeds of the characters of any historical account? Helen of Troy? Beauty, honour, deceit, love, valour etc. etc. Physical humans, living the everyday turmoil of just being human and making human choices, have influence by example, on future society.

The third layer
Any individual's mental characteristics can have huge influence on the societal path of humanity.
We are a thinking being, we form societies based on that thinking.
In ancient times that would have been the tribal council, the wise woman, witch-doctor, Druid, advisor to the chief etc. In more recent global history, the overarching shape of civilization in which our societies flourish has been shaped by the greatest thinkers; often distributed in print, from Ivory tower.
I don't think there is a 'most successful' originator of a concept, you could argue the wheel or zero but we all stand on the shoulders of giants, however, any one of us can name hundreds of thinkers who have directly or, mostly, indirectly shaped the social landscape in which we now thrive.
Aristotle, Nietzsche, Einstein, Buddha, Darwin, Freud, Muhammad, Leonardo da Vinci, Feynman, Jesus, Hawkins, Dawkins, Sagan, Twain, Brunel, Orwell etc. etc.

The Mortal's Immortality.
We are each a four dimensional being, a three dimensional animal moving through the time of our life but we have a longevity that is extended beyond our lamentably short spans. We are not merely our single individual selves, but much, much more.
We are each a proud caretaker of the current evolution of our family's genetic record. We are each, the temporary custodians of an unbroken chain of life stretching back millions of years.
It is an honour to be the ONE, naturally selected above all other eggs of my mother and all the sperm of my father to carry my version of our genetic record into the next generation. Indeed, I feel some measure of pride for being the sperm that got to the egg first and simultaneously, somewhat head-bendingly, thrilled to be that egg!

The single responsibility of life?
My weighty and great honour is to choose the best mate for the next generation in the spectacular record of survival of our honourable line of lives.
I choose wrong and 100,000 generations of my family tree, who fought for the chance I now hold, will have wasted their efforts. I choose well and my genetic heritage finds itself in a body that is better suited to its environs. My children thrive and reproduce and then their children reproduce and, currently, the very luckiest of us may see our great-great grand children. And, we do well my friends!

The life we live, our chosen social structure, in the free democracies at least, supports the natural human desire for a long healthy life, rather than a short life and pack your paradise bags. You've only to consider how hard we cling to life for it to be obvious that we do not really believe there's an after-death happy house and we really don't want the oblivion of death.
Death is, as I see it, merely an unfortunate necessity of evolution. For a species to survive, it needs an ability to adapt to any change in environs, a relatively short reproduction cycle and lifespan seems, to me, to be imperative to that biological priority.

So, my genetic immortality is embedded in my children and, one day, in theirs but what of a 'reward', as the spirituals expect, for my part in the continuation of our genetic heritage?
A full life in which I can laugh and love, strive to better myself and, hopefully, leave something behind which may benefit humanity's future.

And my life long quest and personal raison d’ĂȘtre?
To try and help those who are still being taught to think in the old ways to see, firstly, that they are thinking in the old ways and, secondly, that there are new better, more real, ways.
To play any small part I can offer in dragging humanity into the 'light ages', in the hope that our more evolved descendants will inhabit a world free of the religious fascism we have today.
To raise the mythological veil and release even one person from archaic spiritual bondage would be grand reward indeed.
The meme that I leave behind, any and all reference to the entity known as Crispy Sea, whatever that may be, is my immortality.

The deeds of our lives mark our place on humanity's evolutionary timeline.
While free speech endures, Darwin is as immortal as Jesus and, maybe, in a few centuries will have become more so!

So, as an atheist, what's my reason to live, to not 'end it all'?
Life is my DNA-given opportunity to enter the annals of Human Immortality.

Every man earns his own epitaph.
What do you suppose yours will say about you?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Not A Miner Miracle

About the rescue of the 33 miners trapped in a mine in Chile for 10 weeks...

Firstly, kudos to all the rescue teams - fabulous effort guys.
Secondly, congratulations to the miners for 'keeping it together' for so long.
Thirdly, to the families, I feel your joy.

It is a great human achievement of rescue.
33 men did not die - it's truly fantastic to see people rally around.

Now, to the hard points..

There must have been at least 500 hundred rescuers struggling to get the 33 men out. drillers, engineers, the Chilean navy, support services etc. etc.
That amounts to the efforts of 15 rescuers per trapped miner.

What happens if we compare this to the Pakistan flood?
How many millions would have had to go to Pakistan to equal the effort expended on retrieving these miners?

At the disasters peak, 20 million people needed care and attention.
20m needy X 15 rescuers = 300 million people would have had to pour into Pakistan for the same human effort to have been expended.
While it illustrates the point, it would have been completely impractical, so let's talk about the cost, difficult to do as the full amount has not yet been released, but let's go with a conservative $2,000,000
That's a bit more than $130,000 per miner!

Multiply that by 20,000,000 displaced people, and the funds which poured into Pakistan should have totaled
£2,666,666,666,666.00 which I think is £2.6 trillion dollars
(three times the UK debt from the banking crash!)
The last headline I saw for the actual amount donated to the Pakistan flood appeal was around 30 million dollars. For a country facing a rebuild cost of multiple billions!
About a buck-fifty per person!
That's less than you'd pay to buy a stranger a beer!

So why such an embarrassingly vast difference?
Is it racist, religionist?

Now, I suspect that, there is an undercurrent of anti-Taliban feeling which will have reduced the donations, and the recent banking crash will have had a bearing, but I think the overarching discrepancy in aid is simpler.

The rescue was an extraordinary event.
Having taken proper safety precautions the miners, became trapped in a seemingly inextricable location. Their highly unusual plight was brought to the attention of the world by our constantly drama hungry media.
Whereas, a big flood in a country that is annually battered by monsoon and the subconscious reaction is...
"Well, you know it rains hard, why didn't you prepare better?"
So might one tentative conclude, "We don't react too well to stupidity or irresponsibility"?

And finally,

My blood boiled when I heard the first miner say that he 'knew' god would save him!
It's tantamount to saying,
"The efforts of the rescuers were unnecessary. If no attempt had been made, god would have got me out!"
How deeply embedded is a delusion to produce such arrogant disregard for reality.
ALL the credit goes to the technical expertise of the human rescuers.

God did fuck all, this is not a miner miracle.

If you believe god's control on reality was what rescued you, you must also accept that his control on reality was what trapped you in the first place.
Following that point... If your god's prime action was to trap you then rescuers must therefore be seen to have thwarted your god's original will.
If you want to thank god for anything...
Why don't you thank him kindly to keep his nose out of your life?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Freedom Is Your Birthright

The poem "Warning: When I Am an Old Woman I Shall Wear Purple" by Jenny Joseph is, for me, one of the greatest poems about freedom....

Warning: When I Am an Old Woman I Shall Wear Purple
When I am an old woman, I shall wear purple
with a red hat that doesn’t go, and doesn’t suit me.
And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves
and satin candles, and say we’ve no money for butter.
I shall sit down on the pavement when I am tired
and gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells
and run my stick along the public railings
and make up for the sobriety of my youth.
I shall go out in my slippers in the rain
and pick the flowers in other people’s gardens
and learn to spit.
You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat
and eat three pounds of sausages at a go
or only bread and pickles for a week
and hoard pens and pencils and beer nuts and things in boxes.
But now we must have clothes that keep us dry
and pay our rent and not swear in the street
and set a good example for the children.
We must have friends to dinner and read the papers.
But maybe I ought to practice a little now?
So people who know me are not too shocked and surprised
When suddenly I am old, and start to wear purple.
Jenny Joseph
While I cherish the poems eternally naughty twinkle, its resilient spirit of mischief, it does display a longing for 'a time of less social constraint'.

We are born free, society shackles us immediately to its breast and force feeds us its contrived ways, long before we are aware enough to know that our, non-negotiable, birthright was traded, on our behalf, for the rights and responsibilities of tribal life. And we are 'encouraged' to live out our days under the, all too often, archaic rules of whichever tribe, into which we have been born.

Perhaps, a little less social constraint, here and there, in our daily lives would facilitate a waning of that longing for our artificially suspended animal birthright.

And remember people it's us who enforces that social constraint.
We are the ones out there, sneering and laughing at each other's ways, or even looking the other way when organisations, governments or religions trample on the diversity of human experience.
Whenever we are critical of our fellow independent humans, we only tighten the social noose around ourselves and freedom.

Never forget that everything you have been taught is somebody else's opinion of how human existence should be!
But you were born free!
Your individual opinion and the direction in which you choose to take your personal experience of the human condition matters as much, if not more, than any traditional view or socially expected custom.

Never be afraid or ashamed to enjoy
the freedom you were born with.

Feel free to explore and discover your OWN human experience
and endeavour,
as far as the Declaration of Human Rights allows,
to afford all others the same courtesy.

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Unofficial Atheist Anthem

On John Lennon's birthday I thought I'd give Imagine an airing because, apart from the fact that it's genius, it seems, to me, to be the unofficial atheist anthem...

Is it?

"IMAGINE" John Lennon - http://youtu.be/qq7qZrXYtvk
If it isn't, shouldn't it be?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Proud to be an Islamophobe

Recognise these words?


Only one religion generates enough resentment to warrant its own phobia label...


Why do you think that might be?


If you are in favour of
The Declaration of Human Rights
you are already an

Don't believe me?

Find out, give Lorna Salzman's short quiz a whirl...
Are you an Islamophobe?

Do you favor equal rights and treatment of women and men?
Do you oppose stoning of women accused of adultery?
Do you favor mandatory education of girls everywhere?
Do you oppose slavery and child prostitution?
Do you support complete freedom of expression and the press?
Do you support the right of an individual to worship in her chosen religion?
Do you oppose government- and mosque-supported anti-Semitic publications, radio, TV and textbooks?
Do you oppose the wearing of burqas in public places, schools and courts?
Do you oppose segregation of the sexes in public places and houses of worship?
Do you oppose the death penalty for nonMuslims and Muslims who convert to another religion?
Do you oppose "honor" killings?
Do you oppose female genital mutilation?
Do you oppose forced sexual relations?
Do you oppose discrimination against homosexuals?
Do you support the right to criticize religion?
Do you oppose polygamy?
Do you oppose child marriage, forced or otherwise?
Do you oppose the qu-ranic mandate to kill nonMuslims and apostates?
Do you oppose the addition of sharia courts to your country's legal system?
Do you disagree with the qu-ran which asserts the superiority of Islam to all other religions?

If you answered most or all of these affirmatively, you are a vile Islamophobe and deserve to be beheaded as the qu-ran instructs.

If you answered one third or more of them affirmatively, you are a borderline Islamophobe and need to receive brainwashing to become a full-fledged dhimmi.

If you answered a quarter or fewer affirmatively, you need a few private lessons in dhimmitude to scrub yourself clean of those remnants of Islamophobia.

If you answered affirmatively to NONE of these, Congratulations! you are a worthy observant Muslim and have a bright future vilifying Jews, torturing women or inshallah, becoming a suicide bomber.

So, welcome to
or, as it used to be called,

Isn't Islamophobia merely an honest freethinkers natural reaction to the separatist Humanityphobia that the Qur'an teaches?

Please note:
I realize that phobia means "irrational fear".
I understand that the 'fear' of the spread of any totalitarian doctrine is a rational fear.
I know no word whose definition is "rational fear"

I like Lorna's poem because it highlights the preposterous nature of the word. Further though, I felt that Lorna's poem went some way to taking ownership of 'Islamaphobe', in a similar way to the homosexual community taking ownership of "Gay" and the black community taking ownership of "Nigger" but the poem didn't state it was taking ownership, not that it was its purpose. This post was written to highlight that 'take owneship' position. Upon re-reading and after a few helpful readers have pointed out the 'irrationality' problem, I realise I'd not made that point clearly.

So, to be clear, it's an ownership grab, in the absence of a word whose definition is 'Rational fear of Islam'.
If you know Greek or Latin, I'd love to hear some suggestions.

For a concise view of Islamaphobia, as expressed by many unbelievers, check out "Islamophobia" by @ATHE1STP0WER

If you ever wondered where the word "Islamaphobia" came from, it seems the Muslim Brotherhood invented it in the 1990s More Here

Here's a little something on the same subject from Pat Condell
This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

No Respect For Spiritual Terrorists

This is simple so it won't take a long time to say.

The origin of fascism is irrelevant.

Where unchangeable, undemocratic laws came from is irrelevant. The evidence of a fascist regime can be seen in how much its people are coerced, cajoled and bullied into subservience. It can be seen in how vehemently the dogma's fascist faithful react to a dissenting voice from the flock, a defector from it or an outsiders differing views.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;"
Romeo and Juliet : William Shakespeare

Means, of course...
What matters is what something IS,
not what it is called.

Hitler's fascist dogma was dictated by Hitler.
Muhammad dictated his fascist doctrine and blamed a god (Allah).

The only difference I can see between Nazism and the strict conditioning imposed by Islamic doctrine is that the Qur'an has been heavily promoted and publicised as being the word of a god, thereby carrying the threat of punishment for non compliance with the regime, from torture and execution, to guaranteed repeated cycles of torture and execution for eternity.
A point which I feel takes fascist doctrine in to a lower, dirtier form of spiritual terrorism.

But as I said above, the origin of a fascistic doctrine is irrelevant.
Fascism is Fascism.
ALL Religion IS Fascism backed up by Spiritual Terrorism.

What YOU "BELIEVE" is irrelevant


Your Point Is Not Valid

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Is Islam Actually Illegal In The UK

I am atheist. The Qur'an calls me infidel and I am deeply disturbed by what I find in Islam and its rituals. It seems to me to that there are passages which clearly promote hatred of all who are not Muslim.

Surah 9:5 states quite clearly that devotees of the faith should...
"fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?"
As the Muslims are always stating, for them the Qur'an is the revealed word of 'god', so we must assume that they take this instruction seriously.
I, as an Infidel, must therefore also take the instruction seriously.
If even a single Muslim chose to follow the instruction to the letter, or simply misconstrue it, my life could be ended. And, when it takes more than 2700 words to explain why the 13 word instruction does not mean what it clearly states, I suggest the passage is permanently in danger of being misconstrued!
As we see devout believers carrying out the extreme instructions of the Qur'an almost on a daily basis, it would be the act of a fool to simply trust that the instruction will not ever be followed by any devout believer.
I must therefore assume that when in the proximity of even a moderate Muslim my life is in danger merely because my path of rational freethinking conflicts with Islamic doctrine.
I write this blog under an assumed identity because of that assumption.

If you are a UK Politician or Policeman, I feel you are doing me and the rest of the UK non-Muslim population (97.2% of general population) a serious disservice if you do not take the violent instructions in the book seriously.

I wonder why you do not.

It seems quite clear to me that Islam, the Qur'an and Shariat, Imams and every Muslim from moderate to extremist, all, in some way or other, contravene the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

How do the Qur'an's numerous hateful passages not contravene paragraph 29g?
How are the Qur'an's publishers and distributors not in contravention of paragraph 29c?
How are the Imams and preachers not in contravention of 29b and 29c
Every time a Muslim prays, Islam compels each to recite an affirmation of the denunciation of, at best, Jews and Christians, and at worst, ALL that is none Muslim.
Please note here, that even the 'at best' is deeply offensive to all who believe in the Declaration of Human Rights and the 'at worst' is deeply offensive to the rest on the Human race!!
How is that not in contravention of paragraph 29b?

Further, by placing itself as the 'superior way to live' a doctrine simultaneously implies all other paths are inferior. This is derogatory, discriminatory and disparaging of all other paths; paths that the rest of the human race (more than 80% of the world's population) find equally, or more, valid.
In my view this instruction for all Muslims to consider themselves superior is, at best, elitist and separatist, just like the Nazism, and, at worst, keeping in mind the well known phrase "If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.", it should be assumed that a doctrine which does not promote integration, is not conducive with unity and peace and thereby is promoting the opposite of those states.

And all that's without even getting started on the instruction to Jihad or Qur'an 4:34, which appears to permit domestic violence!

I would like the offending passages of the Qur'an removed.
How can I feel safe while they exist?

If Islam is truly a religion of peace, the Muslims must also surely be in favour of the removal of a few passages which directly threaten innocent life simply for being free of thought.
As it stands Surah 1:7 is an affirmation and promotion of religious bigotry, a direct statement of hate which is recited multiple times each day by even moderate Muslims.
I would like Surah 1:7 modified to remove the hatred and include 'all paths', not just the prejudicial Muslim one. All recitations of this Surah should be modified accordingly.

Now, I'm not unrealistic, I know it's going to take a bit of time for the Muslim brothers and sisters to gather an opinion on the form of the necessary rewrite for the Qur'an. And I realize that proper scrutiny of any 'new' version of the Qur'an by the authorities could take years, so, in the mean time, I'd like all currently circulating Qur'an to be collected and suitably disposed of. After the hate speech has been edited out, the old Qur'ans would be of no use anyway.
Also, so that prayers would not have to be suspended, until the rewrite is published and circulated, all prayers should be modified to at least remove the hateful recitations.

If there are any Muslims who are not in favour of the suggested changes, they should be seen as wishing to continue the hate, a clear infraction of 29b and could be encouraged to find accommodation in a country more conducive with their hateful stance.

As a side question here...
If a book were produced today, which clearly stated death to a culture because of its beliefs or non belief, do you think it would be allowed to be published? Would its publication not be restricted under the Public Order Act?

There is a further issue of equality here.
When we are about to have an increase of faith schools, (look out here come the dark ages.) why should Muslims be allowed to preach and teach such blatantly hateful intolerance.
As I see it, with an eye to equality, should it not ALSO be lawful to teach kids in other faith schools that it's their duty to...
"Slay Muslims wherever you find them"?
Perhaps a pamphlet could be issued?

I am unfortunately penniless but I hope someone will take up the baton for the UK's freedom.
I would hope that the Police, Members of Parliament, Home Secretary, Prime minister would act to protect myself and my fellow non-Muslims from the very real threat of violence from followers and purveyors of the Qur'an. Failing that, I'd hope the Secular Society or Humanist Society or the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason an Science, or a collective of the free thinking organisations could mount some legal challenge.

If you want to see a similar breakdown of how the Bible may also be illegal in th UK check out Rosa Rubicondior's equally troubling post Are The Bible's Publishers Breaking The Law?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Intolerant Islam Religion Of Bigotry

Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace.
As you probably know if you've read my previous posts, I don't see it that way. Quite apart from all the violence we see supported by vast tracts of the Qur'an, I see Islam as deliberate social conditioning, a totalitarian doctrine for the control of the primitive people.
I've recently been looking at the daily indoctrination ritual enforced on Muslims by Muhammad, the daily prayers.
17 times a day, spread over the 5 daily prayer periods, Muslims must not merely utter but be totally in agreement with, or believe wholeheartedly in, the opening chapter of the Qur'an.
In the same style as the ten commandments found in the Bible, that opening chapter of the Qur'an is, for the most part, about kissing Allah's arse...
1:1 In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
1:2 Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds
1:3 The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
1:4 Master of the Day of Judgement
1:5 To you we worship and to you we turn to in help.
Now, I personally feel that we, humanity, are better than all that vile toadying, so I find the practice of deliberate self humiliation through repeated supplication deeply offensive, but others seem to find some sort of masochistic comfort in it so we have to accept that licking divine bottom is nothing out of the ordinary for those who pretend in god, all religions enforce it.
In Islam though the toadying is not the whole depraved story.
What I find truly disturbing is the subtext of the the last two Surah 1:6 and 1:7.
1:6 Guide us to the straight Way,
1:7 The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
Now, as we all know, the Muslim tribe hold the original Arabic Qur'an and its meanings and, thereby, to whom it was referring, as sacred instruction; the direct word of a god no less. (Sheesh!)
So, to be faithful to Muhammad's original dictation of his evil manifesto, a Muslim cannot ignore Muhammad's disparaging view of Jews and Christians.
Look at what's going on here, Surah 1:1-5 indoctrinates the worshiper with how 'totally righteous' Allah is, then 1:6-7 indoctrinates that Allah is angered by Jews and Christians. So, as all pretenders in god want their idol to be pleased with their devotions, any 'good' Muslim, is also going to be eager to 'do as Allah does' and will, quite naturally, be enticed to despise Jews and Christians.
This means that 17 times a day, the average 'good' Muslim must recite his fully committed intolerance of the members of these two religions.
17 times a day!
Let's look at this in the whole.
I have seen videos of children as young as three recite the prayers. That means by the time these former innocents have reach 18, they will have recited this hatred, 17 times a day for 15 years.
That amounts to a sickening 93,705 recitations, a gut wrenching tirade of hate! And, in an average 70 year lifetime, a doctrine that to all intents and purposes is...
We all think Allah is the greatest. Allah finds Jews and Christians offensive and I want be like him!
will be repeated by each Muslim 434,250 times
So the question here is simple...
With almost half a million personal declarations of affiliation with Muhammad's bigotry of Jews and Christians, how can any Muslim reconcile this religiously enforced intolerant totalitarian dogma with a religion of peace?

In the broader, more egalitarian, interpretation of Surah's 1:6-7, 'those who earn thine anger nor of those who go astray' can only be read as 'be intolerant of those who do not follow Islamic dictate.' It clearly indoctrinates that Islam is the ONLY allowable path for human existence.
That is elitist, wouldn't you say?
Extra Extra...
Qur'an teaches...
If you are not Muslim you are invalid!

How does the active shunning of humans who are atheist, apostate, gay or any who are deemed 'not following the path' tally with our cherished declaration of human rights?
Islam seems to be in direct opposition to the fair and free society for which many have fought and died, so why is Islam legal in the UK?
Fascism is fascism, whether it comes from Mein Kampf or the Qur'an so in a country where the BNP are generally derided, why is Islam tolerated?
And, is the broader interpretation any better? On the first look it seems to have lost its bigoted overtone, as it doesn't specifically state 'be shit to Jews and Christians' like the original, but instead proffers the dictate 'be shit to all who are not Muslim'.
Are half a million recitations per Muslim of their non allegiance with the rest of humanity really the way to unity and peace?
In an age when we are supposed to working towards ensuring that all humans are equal, is that more, or less, acceptable?

As a side thought here...
I am not saying Israel is blameless but while Muslims are being so heavily brainwashed with hate, is it really any wonder that peace in the middle east is so tricky?

Muslims, if you must get together in little groups to pretend in god, at least lose the hate. Everything after 'grace' could easily be chopped, without losing even one syllable of meaning!
1:6 Guide us to the straight Way,
1:7 The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
While Muslims keep up this totalitarian indoctrination of hate, how can a rational humanist see Islam as anything other than one of the vilest crimes against humanity?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
All the pertinent details for this post came from
Wikipedia or alquran-english.com


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines