Sexual Camel

Let’s just say that God likes to play the Sims.

I recently started reading the Pervocracy by Holly, in particular for her hilarious reviews of Cosmopolitan magazine, a magazine I have long regarded as hilarious for it’s terribad advice given to women. And it has inspired me to take my own whack at Christian Agony Aunt/Uncle.

Which lead me onto this lovely post about Marriage without Intimacy. It’s advice given from a christian perspective on marriage and it is just as vapid and misogynistic and misandric as Cosmopolitan could ever be. It’s filled with crass generalisations about individuals and indeed the idea that there exists a single marriage in everyone’s life. That marriage only occurs once in a person’s life and it’s always to “the one”, the only person in the 7 billion people on this planet who happens to be the exact match to us, possibly predetermined by God.

The intimate connection that results from sex is often the glue that holds a marriage together. As human beings, we are hard-wired to crave a special sense of intimacy with another human being. That is why people who are in a sexless relationship feel lonely, hard, depressed and emotionally unfulfilled. 

The problem is that often only one spouse no longer wants to have sex while the other one still craves it. And rather than deal with these vital issues, oftentimes the one spouse that is without such intimacy attempts to fill the void by being extra active in other areas of their life, such as church ministry, sports, hobbies, etc. 

And while these areas of activity “sound” good, it is not only wrong, but it is an almost impossible unsustainable task to “go without” intimacy simply by sheer fact that God made us this way. Intimacy comes from God. The devil perverts it outside of marriage, but intimacy and sex still comes from God’s design for our marriages. 

An entire life devoted purely to sex and being creepy.

What about love? What about companionship? Honesty? Truth? Handcuffs? The american way? All that keeps your marriage together is sex? What about people who are asexual? Are they doomed to never have love simply because they do not enjoy the act of sex?

Are we really suggesting that marriage is about sex and sex alone? That intimacy cannot come without spraying DNA at each other? (Don’t be silly! This is a christian advice site! There aren’t any lesbian marriages!)

I mean the implication is that people have hobbies due to a lack of sex (Which may explain why my CV is so full) but can’t a man go fishing without it having to be about sex? Sometimes a cigar is a cigar and sometimes the urge to go watch 22 grown men fight over a ball is about the urge to go watch them fight over a ball. Your loves and interests outside sex are what make you an individual and quite frankly if your entire personality is geared towards fucking then your entire personality will just be vapid and uninteresting.

Or you are a male anglerfish…

In particular, for us as Christians, this poses an added danger – infidelity. When the spouse is forced to “fend for themselves” it poses the potential temptation in their path, and many times the spouse that is withholding has no idea that their actions of not being intimate is in fact a key factor in pushing their spouse into infidelity.
It’s noted in many counseling sessions by many Christian counselors that when probing into situations of infidelity, many surprising twists and turns pop up that reveal that it’s not only the responsibility of the one that fell into adultery, but a surprising number finds that it is often the spouse that remained visibly faithful that oftentimes is the culprit of “pushing” their spouse into the cold, open field for the enemy to hunt down. Even many times not even realizing it!
Google Image Search accepts no responsibility
for what you type into it.

 If you accept that you are in a monogamous relationship, then “cheating” is not acceptable. Especially if your excuses is “I cheated because you didn’t have sex enough”. Did anyone ever think that the reason for infidelity was the lack of love in a relationship? A lack of respect? The personalities involved? Is it always because someone wasn’t putting out enough?

And really? The very idea that the people who you cheat on your other half with are some sort of Sex Shark who prowl around looking for people who are a bit sexually frustrated? And really? Are you suggesting that we humans are simply slaves to our genitalia? That at the slightest bit of horniness we would fuck anything with a pulse?

“I have heard every excuse imaginable – whether it’s not having enough time, being worn down by housework (not to mention that he (meaning the husband) doesn’t help with
the housework or the children), needing to unwind from a long workday herself, being unhappy with her body, being repulsed by his body, working through resentment against him for something he did this morning, last week, ten years ago…I have truly heard some doosies…But an excuse is an excuse is an excuse no matter how cleverly or eloquently phrased it is. And apart from 6-weeks postpartum recovery, other physical conditions that prevent a couple from being able to have sex, and/or damage resulting from abuse, truthfully, there just isn’t any excuse that holds up for a wife not “giving it up” regularly… Here’s the deal: Sexually active men need sex often…not once a month, not once a year, not only on holidays – but often. Websites, books, 
television shows overflow with information about the difference between the sexual needs of men and women. Some wives (and even a few husbands) are like sexual camels, able to go years without sexual intercourse. But most healthy husbands need sex just to function. I can’t imagine that there is an adult woman breathing who is not aware of this fact. But just in case there is, let me make it plain.”

I note this is dropping women in it. Having sex when you don’t want to have sex is a survival tactic and it’s very close to rape. What we are seeing here is the suggestion of marital rape.

Let’s face it. You read the article just to see
a picture of a Sexual Camel

And these are all valid reasons why people don’t want to have sex. And reasons why honest conversation is vital to any marriage and indeed why a healthy sex education and frankness regarding sex is required. If you treat sex as a job then you will see people shirking on it because doing what you love out of duty and obligation really sucks the fun out of it. These aren’t excuses, these are valid points as to why you don’t want to have sex. The entire point of sex is not to placate men or to stop us from shagging other women. It isn’t payment for our affection and attention, it is part of it.

The excuse that holds up for a wife not wanting to have sex is the simple “She doesn’t want to have sex”. If someone doesn’t want to have sex with you then they don’t want to have sex with you. Tell them the truth if it bugs you, but if they are being coerced to have sex against their will then how is it gratifying? It’s just rape. It’s you forcing someone to do something they are not comfortable with.

Women like sex too. If we told our young ladies that sex isn’t something to be ashamed of and is something to be enjoyed particularly with good communication then they too would see sex as something positive. Men may enjoy sex, but women enjoy it as much as men do. Also the idea of a Sexual Camel is quite possibly the most disturbing mental image ever rather than something sane.

Men don’t need sex to function, I find that idea highly laughable and insulting that the idea that men physiologically require sex to exist is even used in a serious format. By the logic of this article, I should be a horrendous wreck of a man doomed to live a half existence until some lady has sex with me (in the context of a heterosexual monogamous marriage of course).

There are some obvious signs that alert you to the possibility of your marriage going the sexless way. The first of these is when the frequency of regular intimate contact begins to decrease dramatically. Of course, in most marriages, the initial fervor dies down after some time. Still, many couples work out a pattern that keeps them both satisfied. But if you find that even the smallest and simplest of gestures is unwelcome, then you may be in for trouble.

And this would not be a problem if people didn’t marry out of obligation and didn’t treat sex like it were a Fabergé egg. Communication is very romantic, knowing what your partner likes and what they don’t and making adjustments to your sex life to match that is vital. Your partner thinks sex should be as vanilla as possible while you prefer restraints and a whip, then you may have a problem. Did anyone consider the issue being that the lack of communication about sex and indeed the relationship as a whole may be the actual fault rather than someone being forced to do something they don’t like?

• Make it a point to think thoughts that are related to sex with your spouse throughout the day.

Me simply thinking about sex with someone isn’t going to make me want to have sex with someone. I can think about having sex with a man all day but it won’t make me want to have sex with men. Likewise if you don’t like your spouse then no matter how much you think of sex with that person you aren’t going to be enjoying it.

• When you were dating, you daydreamed about your future husband. The image of him, his voice, waiting for letters in the mail, phone calls, his kisses, his cologne, etc. it’s been said that men (Christian or not) have a sexual thought every 20-40 seconds. It is vital for the relationship to be healthy that the wife must develop the habit of thinking about sex for her husband.

I use L’eau d’Issey,
Ladies and gay men, you may
start your fantasies.

Whoever said that is a fucking idiot. I am thinking about sex right now because we are discussing it. However when I am eating food, I am thinking about food rather than sex. Men are fully capable of spending minutes to hours not having thoughts about sex. If you start thinking of sex for your husband then you will stop enjoying sex and if you stop enjoying sex you will have less of it.

And by day dreams you mean sexy fantasies. If you are imagining a man’s cologne (I use L’eau de Issey by Issey Miyake. Ladies and gay men… start your fantasies!), his letters and phone calls then your sexual fantasy is either very tame or very very kinky. Whichever it is, good on you! Tell the man in your life these things, if men know what makes the woman in their life tick then men will do that. It’s vital to a relationship tha
t people communicate and know what the other likes and dislikes, that way you don’t have to think about “sex for your husband” and can start thinking about sex that’s for everyone involved.

Oh baby I would like to collate your figures till they
make a nice round number… 

o As stated by Sheeri Mitchell, “Instead of letting your mind wander to the bills, the kids, the bills, your aging parents, the bills, learn how to fantasize about your husband.” This falls under the scripture, “Taking every thought captive.”

Wow… If your mind is wandering during sex, then someone is doing it wrong. Or someone is not really in the mood for it. And why are you thinking about your parents? Or your kids? This is turning into the Aristocrats.

• Put it in your schedule or on the calendar.

Oh it’s sexy alright but it makes it really hard to type.

The only time you are allowed to even consider this is if one of you is dressed as a sexy secretary. The entire problem with Business Time is that both of you are going through the motions to have sex. That both of you are doing it to “save a marriage” or just because some guy on the internet told you to. In which case this can arguably be the only case where both people involved in having sex don’t want to have sex resulting in the weirdest definition of marital rape where both parties involved are the victims who have been coerced into having sex by a calendar.


• Make it part of your routine. This part is for your husband. Your part is when there is what’s called “gourmet” sex, when there is extra long, special romance and time taken.

Is special romance the same as foreplay? Because one finds that vital to sex in the first place. I don’t think many men are into sex purely for the penetration. It’s not too much to ask that sex be a give and take situation where both people’s desires are met.

And way to categorise men as nothing more than single minded sex fiends. We kind of like the bits before sex too.

And gourmet sex just sounds like food is involved or that your about to have sex with a chef.

• Pursue him more often.

Ah! How to combine sex with the Most Dangerous Game of all. By all means assert your own sexual needs, this is the only piece of advice that I can actually consider as halfway sensible in this entire article.

• Make it a point to instigate sex and chase him down for sex. Be the first and you will have his heart in your hands to trust.

Only if he wants to and only if you want to. Sometimes men don’t want to have sex. And I do like the laughably naivety of a suggestion that assumes that a woman asserting her own sexual requirements will somehow cause the man to love you forever and buy you a pony.

• Read positive books and resources that give you better understanding.

Not Cosmo! Whatever you do, do not read that!

• Do not talk with your friends or church friends about your bedroom life. You are destroying your trust and relationship with your spouse.

You should instead listen to some random stranger who used the term Sexual Camel.

• If your schedule and business is making you too tired for your husband, then you are too busy period. Get rid of something to accommodate. You are telling your husband that he is not as important as your list of items on your to do list. This will destroy your relationship.

How dare you have a career? How dare you have any interests bar pleasing your man! Of course you are equal to men, just a different sort of equality! Now stay at home and learn how to touch your ears with your ankles. You don’t want your marriage to explode now do you?

Or you know, learn how to make the most of the time you have with each other rather than blaming the woman’s career. I mean if the man is busy it’s because he is hunting mammoths to feed you, but if the woman is busy then it’s a case of a frivolous fascination with utilising all that equality that’s enshrined in the law.

• Many do not realize just how bad they need the intimacy until after having intimacy.

Is sex such a bad word that we have to use intimacy in it’s stead?

• We get used to routine as creatures of habit. Even negative routines. When we continue the negative cycle, we think this is “normal” simply because we have been doing it continually for so long. That’s the farthest thing from the truth. We can deceive ourselves out of a life of richness and love that comes with being close and intimate often. Intimacy is healing and will continue the bond between husband and wife that absolutely nothing else will.

Forget all that nonsense they tell you in school about respecting yourself, love, conversation and sharing interests and a connection based on personality. What you need to make your relationship work is sex and only sex. Conversation can go fuck itself because you will be fucking your husband. After all, all men want is sex.

I just wanted to use this image
because it makes me laugh.

• Deal with the problems preventing WANTING sex, but be effective.

I don’t even know what this means. I mean aren’t they supposed to be giving advice? If your advice consists of “Solve your problems” then you aren’t really giving advice.

• Saying goes, “ready, aim, fire!”. You may be ready to heat things up a bit, but before you start doing things to re-ignite the passion, “aim first.” First find out exactly what is causing the lack of desire. THEN deal with those things.

Oh? I was about to suggest you let problems build up until they explode into a barrage of insults, yelling and the hurling of small objects but this idea is much better.

• Many times a partner will try all kinds of things they think would kindle the fire, only to be burned themselves by frustration that it seemed like it didn’t do anything. Aim at your target. Don’t just shoot, aim. Find out specifics by discussing this in depth with your partner. Then shoot at the target. Bullseye!

Does this have to do with the whole “pursue him” argument. This boils down to the whole “have a conversation” and “be honest about what you want” advice that most sane people give. Rather than the whole “sacrifice your whole life to be a sex slave even if you don’t want to be one” advice that the author also gave.

I think reading this article dropped me into the shallow end of an entire genre of agony aunts/uncles who give atrociously bad advice to women based on theology and frankly lunatic ideas. And it puts me in mind of the various Men’s rights activist forums I used to mock when I used to read Manboobz regularly. At worst we can laugh at it, at best we can fight this sort of bad advice which prolongs loveless marriages, increases bitterness and wastes life.

Atheism United and Me

Come February, I will be moving the blog to a new server at the new Atheism United project as part of the initial set of bloggers. At the moment we are fundraising for a new server to host all our cool stuff that is in the works, and for that we are accepting donations.

If you look to the left you can see the chip in widget through which you can help us out.

A special thanks to any reader who helps us out and to all my readers who view the site.

I am also gearing up towards my finals, so will probably not post all that heavily until they are done. I shall still probably have a few posts in my downtime but they will be sparse.

If you wish to show your support and be part of the new community please join us on facebook. And don’t worry, we have even been pharyngulated so you know we can do something impressive. And yes we are still looking for new bloggers who want to write for us. 

Logical Coherrance

Mr. Kohlmayer certainly thinks that our arguments lack logic and coherence while cherry picking a single quote from a skeptical website.

The argument we make is based on a simple concept. If god is completely a non-physical entity then how does he interact with the universe? How does he affect believers? How does he implement his magic? How do miracles function? Surely in the action of these events he has achieved physicality or at least disturbed the waters of reality sufficient for detection. I mean if he is affecting fairly grandiose changes in people then surely we should be able to detect that. We can detect a single particle but not the massive effect of a god?

But even as the atheist tries to make his point, he unwittingly falls into a trap: If his worldview were true, then the principle of non-contradiction – or any other rule of logic – would be void of meaning.
Why? Because within atheism reality is ultimately composed of only matter and motion. If atheism is true, then everything in the universe must be explainable in terms of these two.
Rules of logic, however, possess properties that cannot be explained in terms of matter and motion. After all, rules of logic are immaterial, abstract, universal and unchanging.

The rules of logic are determined by humans and are routinely refined as new concepts come up. Atheism is based on a simple concept. That no god exists because there is no evidence of him bar written texts from dubious sources. There is no repeatable empirical events. There are no gods, not Shiva, Jehovah or Allah.

Everything in the universe is a explainable through science. If not know, it will be. Just because we don’t know something now doesn’t mean we won’t later.

Many of the earliest scientists argued about the nature of light. How fast it was, people tried to measure the speed of light. They mostly got it as instantaneous, so many assumed it was, however a few smart souls realised that light had to have a speed, a very high speed that they couldn’t measure. They predicted other people would find out. They didn’t deem it to be the realm of god. They deemed it to be something for future generations to understand when the technology caught up.

The thing about gods is that they are always behind the next theory, the next great mystery and in the great unknown. They have to be hidden lest they be exposed to science and rationality.

I mean if “there is probably no gods and these 2000 year old books are wrong” is not rational but “doing specific things on specific positions of the earth to the sun so that you get a benefit of a non physical entity that likes it” is then frankly your definition of logic isn’t a very good definition at all. 

Uniquely and Singularly Dangerous

Oh bombs! They are so entertaining!
Can’t you see how happy he is!
Ah, Animal liberation nutters are at it again, with Camille really crossing the line from vapid lunatic to dangerous vapid lunatic again. Not only offering such lovely educational material as this device to make a firebomb (and also by happy coincidence a real bomb) which she claims is also for entertainment. (Coming up Next! Avicenna’s handy torture guide! For you edutainment!)
She hosts literature from the Straight Edge Vegan criminal, Walter Bond who is in jail for arson. You know, that crime where you set stuff on fire causing property damage and potentially killing someone with fire?
This work is pure straight edge philosophy which is fine if you keep it to yourself. If you start preaching a straight edge philosophy, then you come off as a dick. And it doesn’t help that the movement is filled with people who suffer from what I like to call “holier than thou” syndrome. It’s where you refer to other people as less than you simply because they have made a choice. Sure in the grand scheme of things some decisions are patently idiotic (Anti-Vaccine/Anti-Medicine/Creationism/Animal Liberation) and should be treated as idiotic stances but you never stop treating the individuals who follow these flawed ideas as human beings.
And Walter Bond fails miserably here. Co-opting pro-life literature to assault women’s rights as if a foetus were equal to a fully developed human beings, he not only denigrates the actual struggles of women across the world that are fighting and indeed dying to get abortions but also fails to realise that human cells does not equate to a human being. It’s not a right of convenience and pleasure, for many women it’s a right to care for children in an appropriate fashion. For the first 20 to 24 weeks of life the foetus is incapable of independence and even after that the foetus is heavily reliant on medical technology (which Walter Bond is against) to live. A testament to medical technology is that at 24 weeks the survival rate of pre-term infants is 96%. In most third world nations it’s around 25 to 40% depending on availability of technology. To put it in perspective the actual survival rate of all infants in India is 96% (ours in western nations is around 99.6%).
At what point is a foetus sentient? Babies certainly are not when they are just born. Sentience and self awareness can arguably be considered to develop post birth since due to the nature of our giant craniums we as human beings are not born fully developed. (it’s one of the reasons why we have such a phenomenal infant mortality rate without medical technology compared to other animals considering how phenomenally tough and survivable we are). Our weak and incompletely developed babies undergo a series of developmental milestones that include identification of self and response to names… and even then they aren’t as fully developed as the young of other animals. The consciousness of the foetus isn’t used as a determinant on abortion; it is the viability of the foetus outside the mother. To medics, the lungs are more important than the brain. The 24 week limit is due to the developmental milestone of lungs. Prior to 20 weeks the foetus has no lungs to speak of and cannot survive. In short, even if born it cannot be a viable entity. In most western nations it’s 24 weeks because we can save a baby with partially developed lungs. Most nations consider personhood to begin at 28 weeks for the same reason.
So… Cannibalism? 
But Walter Bond obviously considers anyone who aborts a foetus to be equal to an animal murderer (which is anyone who eats meat or does research on one) and equal to a real murderer. Which is a step above the crazy of most pro-lifers, and we know Mr. Bond is capable of dangerous acts. Endorsing this vile human being is no different from the people who endorse the actions of Scott Roeder and Camille doesn’t disappoint in sinking to such depths.
And is it surprising at all considering literature from such individuals as the Animal Liberation Front’s Dr. Steve Best (a Ph.D. in philosophy rather than someone you would call in an emergency. Well in a real emergency, I suppose you call him if you have an existential crisis.) regularly features on her site?
His idea of Peace and Justice is like the ranting of Osama Bin Laden, if Osama Bin Laden were a Dr. Seuss fan. And if this is indeed his work then I would suggest that the University of Texas reconsiders their relationship with him. Because this is nothing short of a statement of the encouragement of terrorism and should be taken seriously. Lest we have another George Tiller incident. 
Let’s just say that if we did what he wanted we wouldn’t have any farmers nor would we live in a society free of disease and vermin. I assume alongside his Ph.D. in philosophy, he knows how to till the land and produce food on a scale that can feed people reliably. 
It’s pretty much this…
We wouldn’t have animal rehabilitation programs and we would lose animals to the scourge of poaching and people just not doing anything. If people have been paying attention, the only hope for the Western Black Rhino to ever return to the wild is captive breeding programs in zoos.  One notices that animal liberation aren’t out there having gun battles with poachers to protect tigers, rhinos
, elephants and thousands of other endangered creatures, in fact they actively attack the people who engage in these activities.
We wouldn’t have any meat, because everyone vegan lives a rich healthy life with their tiny inefficient farms. What Walter wants is a Cultural Revolution, much like Mao. Only instead of attempting to force an entire country to make a Great Leap Forwards, he wants a Great Leap Backwards.

He obviously doesn’t want any medical experimentation, or products there off. He specifically mentions antibiotics and steroids being present in meat (yet not one single mention of steroids being present in Vitamin D tablets. Vitamin D is a steroid.) without realising that cooking would destroy most of these things. Possibly he assumes that carnivores like myself prefer to eat our food alive.
He doesn’t want shelters, he would rather us spend money on animals getting nice homes when we can barely ensure our humans live in nice homes. Because heaven forbid we try and do something about homeless people and poverty before the kitties.
In specific he advocates that the biggest ecologists on the planets (AKA biologists) be tortured and killed (brutally no less, because professors of philosophy seem to have a lot of time to think up inventive ways of killing people) for daring to experiment on animals. I have a friend who has worked on research involving Von Gierke’s disease by testing in dogs. Apparently this friend deserves torture simply for trying to alleviate suffering by understanding the world. And I am classified under this since I am in medicine and by extension my entire field and lifestyle is built on suffering both of the animals experiment on and indeed of the patients who receive relief from their suffering. Oh and like Camille Marino’s earlier outbreak I assume he intends to target those selfish patients who chose to utilise the technology derived from animal experimentation to save their lives and those of their loved ones rather than die.
For someone whose existence is practically guaranteed through technology, he is awfully luddite about it. Does he really think the internet will run in his utopia of no technology or that people would indeed keep feeding him for philosophical discourse? Surely this is an individual who ranks amongst the least likely to survive outside the constraints of civilisation?

I suppose a response to this rant is in order. After all, someone needs to call him out on the nonsense he purveys.

Dear Stephen Best 

I disagree with everything you stand for, you are an odious human being, a chancre on humanity. You stand against everything that is good and right with this world. You bandy a world view that encourages suffering and pain for actual human beings while being safe in a delusion from the suffering and pain you inflict because you yourself don’t get your hands dirty. To me you are no different from those mullahs who fire their devotees up with rhetoric and faith and send these young men to kill and die for their twisted ideology while you remain safe to spread your poison. 

Go stand in front of the families of those dying due to disease and tell them that their loved ones deserve to die rather than some animals. Tell them that their children, their brothers and their lovers are less valuable than a mouse in your eyes. You say we are without compassion? I suggest you see how we treat human beings. Pain, Suffering, Starvation, Disability, Poverty are all facts of life for some people, and your philosophy would only increase that. I find it a shocking betrayal of educational ethics that you would be even allowed to lecture at a university for advocating terrorism particularly with your association with Camille Marino who actively threatens students with death.

You are a parasite, no different from Camille and indeed Walter Bond. Individuals who have benefited from modern society which tolerates their nonsense because we are a society filled with excess. I shall assume that like Camille, should you require the aid of “medical care derived from animal experimentation” you too will show the same sort of fortitude and double standards that she has. I shall assume you have never been to a country where there is no concerted effort to keep animals off the streets and keep pest populations down so don’t know what it’s like dealing with rat borne diseases. In short I shall assume (quite rightly so) that you are a privileged hypocrite.

I am not a good man, I never claimed to be. I try my best to do what is right and believe me what is right is standing up for those who you torment and threaten as many of them cannot. Because some of them are my friends, some of them are my family. The others are people who rely on us for a cessation of suffering. Yes, you may slander my character and call me a torturer and hundreds of other things but ultimately the people who I meet tend to not think so. 

The ultimate irony is the biggest reduction of use of animals in experimentation is not by the actions of your luddite breed but by the actions of the very people you attack. The biggest protectors of animal life isn’t the placard waving celebrities PETA acquires to flog their viewpoint or terrorists like Walter Bond, but people who know how animals work and who experiment on them and learn.

I would call you vultures but vultures form a useful part of the ecological chain. There is no animal as patently useless as you are. And to prove that I am just as good as rhetoric as you are… Your movement is a disease and you are nothing more than cyst to be lanced with education and understanding. Throughout history men have stood in the way of humanity and progress. All have fallen before education and knowledge. Do you think you are any different from them? 

What you need is a Doctor. 


(Doctor to be. A real one)

I do seriously wonder what the University of Texas is doing keeping such an individual on their teaching register. Perhaps I can hire Abu Hamza to teach Media Studies.

Yar har, fiddle di dee,
Being a Terrorist is alright to be,
You should really go on a huge murder spree,
You are a terrorist!

Modern Slavery

It’s been a long while since I was back home, I am a Mancunian and I do miss it all the time. But things seem to have changed since I left.

This is frankly despicable, it’s not a scheme that encourages labour, it’s a scheme that encourages slavery. You know that thing where you work and you don’t get paid for it? These individuals are working 30 or so hours a week (6 hours for 5 days) and should be  taking home roughly £30 a day rather than £50 for an entire week.

This isn’t a back to work scheme, this isn’t even an internship that encourages people to work for any and all jobs such as small businesses. This is a massive scheme benefiting multi-billion pound enterprises by providing them part time labour under the guise of keeping people working and teaching them the skills they need to be productive members of society.

If the government were honest about this being a system to encourage people to work, this scheme would apply to any business of any size rather than just big retail chains. And ultimately they are working for less than minimum wage.

That in my book is slavery, and it actually hurts the economy since paying these individuals a minimum wage would just mean more money is being ploughed back into the economy since it is very difficult to save on minimum wage and it is much easier to just spend it on things in the hear and now. Like food, clothes and entertainment.

Until then, it’s just a shocking way that the UK is giving big businesses a monetary boost. By all means, give people money for doing a job, but don’t take money away from them for not.

Depths of Sleaze and Depravity and Children’s Literature

Sometimes I read the Huffington Post and a post by the user Jesus Germanotta irked me ever so much. The entire comments section contains such lovely gems as these.

I think this is precisely the problem that Greta Christina talked about . The idea that porn is somehow bad if everyone involved wants to be in it. That somehow anything Miss Grey does from now on is polluted by the fact that she once used to have sex for a living. And that this precludes any other achievements in life.

See Sasha has acted in real movies, ranging from experimental art house movies such as The Girlfriend Experience to the upcoming I Melt with You. She has released an electronica music album. She has released a photography album. But you know what? That never comes up.

Would we see this kind of outrage if Ayn Rand read there? No? Ayn Rand’s philosophy is far more toxic than simple sex or even very complicated sex. Would you require a permission slip if the Pope (A man who has actively helped protect paedophiles) decided to read there? Would you need one if a barely literate american footballer decided to read there? A certain ex-president? Dick Cheney?

Then why the hell does it matter that she did porn? Is she not a human being? If you cut her does she not bleed? If you tickle her does she not laugh? Is sex okay or is it some dirty little secret we hide from kids? Will you be telling these kids that they are a product of some sort of immaculate conception rather than 5 to 30 minutes of exertion and weird noises? Does any of this even matter if someone who has had sex in the past reads a children’s book?

And it shows the utter hypocrisy that we as humans are happy for her to take her pants off on our screens and be objectified but heaven forbid the object of your masturbation deems to be more than a picture on your screen. Everyone one us has had sex, some more than others. We are all a product of sex. Letting kids know that, isn’t wrong and never has been. We all have sex and if anything the catholic church has proven that leaving your kids around people who don’t have sex  tends to end poorly. I think the genuine issue is that society has conditioned us (and yes, I had to have an introspective moment to recognise that even I have the same problem) to regard porn stars as vacuous dummies who hate their job, their objectification and end up as burnt out husks in the evil porn industry. We cannot for the life of us understand women such as Dr. Brooke Magnanti who are smart and either trade/or have traded sex for money. We as a society cannot accept them being normal, or even happy because we are conditioned to treat porn as something shameful and so cannot accept when it stops being fantasy on a screen and starts being a reality. And we especially cannot accept it if it decides to show up and teach our kids to read.


So we accept that it’s not because she had sex, but because she accepted money for having sex. Sasha Grey’s biggest problem is that she had sex for money. She will never be taken seriously because people cannot disengage the idea that she had sex for money from the fact that she is a human being. And I see the semblance to the issue which atheism has in that she as a human being is not being judged for what she is doing but rather for doing something a bit sexy. It’s sad, that the worst issue of pornography is not that the public assumption is one that all pornography is degrading, abusive and exploitative. It’s that the public cannot accept anyone who doesn’t fit into the stereotype. Not even liberals….

She’s quit porn, but has a lot of fans and was part of the sex positive movement including producing some female friendly alt. pornography because *spoilers* women do like porn of their own *spoilers*. So people like to keep in touch with her via the twitters. Compared to other people in the industry she had a good time in it and is smart enough to realise that porn careers are transient and she has used that popularity to springboard herself into other careers including one in Education (which is a degree that she is apparently pursuing).

Oh Sasha! You simply cannot
cope with the depths of sleaze and depravity
that I can foist upon children!

And it is utterly sad that she will be tarred with the brush that somehow she is stupid or talentless and shouldn’t be allowed around children for this. Are we simply going to suggest that everyone who did a job that’s demonised in society be prevented from hanging around kids? Are politicians and lawyers going to be banned from schools? After all one must not tell lies. Are we going to ban soldiers? After all one must not kill. Are we going to ban doctors? Because doctors give out drugs? I was once a telemarketter. Does this mean I am not allowed around kids lest I sell them broadband and arguably access to more pornography than dear Sasha?

Myths versus the Truth of Homeopathy

Now listen very carefully Avicenna!
When you click the pen three times in a row,
it will break and you will have to go get a new one.

Apparently we in the medical industry are heavily paid (yeah right) by Big Pharma to spread a disinformation campaign about homeopathy. And apparently the secret to everlasting life is in stationery since the only things I have ever gotten from a pharmaceutical giant for free are supplies of stationery. Basically my pen says Disprin on it and it probably like any other click ballpoint pen out there, except that exploding one from Golden Eye.
Homeopath is the biggest quack group out there, their infiltration into the third world (Homeopathy is very big in India and China) is aided by poorly educated and corrupt politicians who themselves don’t know what it’s about and ignorance. You see, homoeopaths do not portray themselves as anything less than an equal to a doctor. The entire persona of a homoeopath is designed to provide the illusion that they are the equivalent of a doctor. 

In response, I shall start wearing
a fez.
For instance, the white coat is actually being slowly phased out of medicine on accounts that it is a great way to spread disease and it honestly impedes the doctor. However, patients do expect the perceived uniform of a doctor to be present, somehow thinking that modern doctors with their short sleeved shirts and lack of extreme formal attire somehow are less professional than their coat wearing counterparts. . 
So homeopaths have adopted this symbol wholesale, indeed often boasting actual trained doctors within their ranks. Doctors who seem to lack a basic understanding of biology and chemistry, but doctors nonetheless. Any website boasting a homeopath portrays them as visionaries with intimate knowledge of human physiology and pathology which even doctors don’t claim to possess while normally posing around in photos in a white coat.

Homoeopathy is portrayed as a economic alternative to conventional medicine, with money going to homeopaths rather than doctors and indeed the shadowy cabal of nefarious individuals known colloquially as “Big Pharma” who seem interested in killing you for unknown profit rather than selling you a product for a known profit. Big Pharma’s conspiracy theories involve them being guilty of everything from the crime of being rich and making profits as a business, to the crime of making expensive medicines that involve vast amounts of research and investment that needs to be paid off and even to such lofty crimes such as genocide by vaccination. Natural News, steps up to defend homeopathy against the alleged myths being spread by us nasty medicine folk. 

The homeopathic approach to healing maintains a deep respect for symptoms of illness as important defenses of a person’s immune and defense system. While conventional medicine often tends to assume that symptoms are something “wrong” with the person that need to be treated, inhibited, suppressed, or biochemically manipulated, homeopaths tend to assume that symptoms are important defenses of the organism that are most effectively resolved when treatments nurture, nourish, or mimic the symptoms in order to initiate a healing process. Ultimately, these two different approaches to healing people have led to various conflicts.”

Conventional medicine doesn’t treat symptoms as something wrong rather than something indicative of an underlying problem. Symptoms range from “cough” and “fever” to “burning urination”, “repeated sore formation”. Some of these can be simple such as cough and fever (Cough and Fever can also be indicative of more deadly diseases). Some of these are serious depending on the nature of the individual (like diarrhoea) and can and should be controlled. Some symptoms are heavily indicative of serious issues (a rash that does not disappear under cold pressure). Some symptoms are treated (Headache, Diarrhoea), while others are given relief or are plain ignored. 
Conventional medicine tends to leave symptoms alone unless they would harm or otherwise affect the patient negatively since feeling better is half the battle. It tends to treat the underlying condition as well as the symptoms to improve patient condition. So a symptom of cholera is a fever and watery (described as rice water) diarrhoea, this symptoms are classical of the disease. The treatment would be an antibiotic to fight the cholera causing bacteria, anti diarrhoeal medication so that the person stops defaecating themselves to death and finally rehydration to replace lost water. The patient is also given an anti-pyretic so they don’t have as high a fever so that they are comfortable. Thus the underlying cause (bacteria) and symptoms (diarrhoea/anti-pyretic) are both treated.

Homoeopaths claim that they would increase the symptoms by giving you something that causes a fever and a laxative, despite knowing full well the cause of death in Cholera is the diarrhoea which is “just a symptom”.

Homeopaths contend that increased rates of cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue, and various chronic diseases for increasingly younger people may result from conventional medicine’s suppression of symptoms and disease processes.It is therefore no surprise that conventional physicians and Big Pharma have a long and dark history of working together to attack homeopathy and homeopaths.

Increase in chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease are due to the lifestyle we lead. This includes simply not dying from huge numbers of very common diseases as we see in third world countries. Nigeria for example has a very low death rate to cancer and heart disease but has a colossally high death rate to nearly everything else. The average life expectancy measures in at around 47 years. In the past, people simply didn’t live long enough to die from cancer and heart attacks, or in the past no one cared about the vast majority of people who died and so didn’t keep records.

Medicine doesn’t stop death, it merely delays it. It gives you time. From just 10 seconds to say goodbye to the people you love to 10 decades to live your life as you see fit. The time it gives depends on the technology it has available to treat a specific disease. As per the technology, every single one of us will die. You are going to have to die of something. For most of us it will be heart attacks (and we are the lucky ones), some of us will die by stroke, some by respiratory failure, some by cancer and some by accidents. Some of us will die maliciously, some will die unexpectedly and some of us will know it’s coming and try to make our peace with those who we love and cherish. Medicine is the tool by which we do that.

However? The thing is for the time being these are diseases that we cannot prevent but can forestall. Even medication exists to reduce the time frame of these diseases, placing controls on them to reduce their effect on our lives until it is the unfortunate day that we die. We are working on fixing that and indeed we have given people a second chance at life through technology that wasn’t possible before.

With this in mind let’s see what Myths, me and the other big pharma stationery club members have perpetrated on its quacks.

Myth #1: “There is no research that shows that homeopathic medicines work. 

In Case you didn’t get it.
The argument they use is that homoeopathy is not standardised. It is tailored uniquely to fit the needs of each individual patient as if the homoeopath in question has the ability to discern your physiology through questions (He cannot) rather than tests. The assumption in medicine is that everyone is the same inside except in rare cases which are mentioned. The most common case of people being different on the inside depends on whether you can write your name in the snow or not.
In fact we do tailor our drugs for gender and indeed per person depending on reasonable assumptions we can make such as height, weight, allergy profiles and previous drug interactions and lifestyle.

Dana Ullman’s argument is that homoeopathic drugs don’t work the same for each person (unlike real medicine which works the same for most people with a few variations courtesy of the person’s innate physiological make up. All of us work roughly in the same way with a few “silent mutants” whose physiology varies but is still functional enough. These people suffer from adverse reactions called idiosyncratic reactions, where they react in weird ways to the drug. Eg. In India there is a caste called the Arya vaisya chettiyars who live in Tamil Nadu. They suffer from a fatal allergy to suxamethonium chloride which is a drug is given to induce muscle paralysis over short periods of time during intubation.
So this means that according to Dana, a single homoeopathic drug cannot be tested against a placebo. This is a rather weird argument since surely some of the patients would have received sufficient benefit to atleast implicate some level of action rather than producing an effect equal to the placebo.

Myth #2: “The research studies showing that homeopathic medicines work are ‘poorly conducted studies’.”

When you claim that water that’s been shaken causes massive effects in patients over and above the placebo then yes… your work does get tested more. Mainly because you are making a fantastic claim that requires testing.
The Lancet does not TEST hypothesis and theories. It merely publishes papers for other doctors to test out and analyse. This is called peer review. When a homeopath posts a paper, the ensuing backlash is due to doctors reading the experiment and writing out various ways the experiment is faulty ranging from a lack of control, a lack of proper blinding and lack of sufficient rigour in statistical analysis including very tiny populations or papers such as homeopaths logging their water versus a drug’s side effects rather than effect.
In fact many of the arguments against the placebo show wild variations on retesting because many homeopaths don’t understand bias or how placebos must look like the drug and so on. A simple example of how efficient a placebo effect could be is a simple test of a placebo IV injection versus a homeopathic pain medication in pill or capsule format. The pill would do worse than the injection due to the placebo effect. Homeopaths often assume the number of pills given doesn’t make a difference but it does.

So a real test would be a homeopath who writes out a diagnosis and Rx and the Rx is filled either with a cocktail of whatever quackery he writes up or placebo of those. Then the overall efficiency of homeopaths versus the placebo can be tested as a group for a symptom rather than as an individual medicine. The homeopath cannot oversell/undersell as the Rx would be delivered to the house. I am pretty sure in this scenario the results would be the same. That homeopathy is generally the same as the placebo.
And this is without mentioning that homeopathic testing is done in an incredibly subjective manner even including dream states and feelings of the individuals taking the drugs rather than by physiology.

Myth #3: “12C is like one drop in the entire Atlantic Ocean.”

For those who aren’t aware, homeopathy is based on the claim that water has a memory and that the less you use of the active ingredient, the more you have an effect due to the claim that water somehow behave like a solid with the imprint of the molecules present in it rather than like a liquid that are all well aware of.
If it helps, picture all this mathematics being
taught to you by the Count.
The logic is incredibly stupid. Water is a dipolar liquid, the molecule of water is itself neutral but the hydrogen area of the molecule has a net +ve charge as the electron is dragged towards the oxygen molecule. This is called a dipole and is based on the fact that electrons behave like probability densities of negative charge rather discrete particles. This causes water’s unique properties such as how it acts as a solvent and how it expands when it freezes and it’s lack of volatility as a compound. However it still is a liquid and so any dissolved substance is normally spaced out evenly in the solution. When the dissolved substance is removed the water reverts back to normal.
So water has no memory even if you smack it against a leather table board and dissolve it. And here I must post a disclaimer. What follows is some mathematics that is VITAL to understanding why homeopathy is bullshit.

The second problem with this argument is the problem of concentrations, in particular the C. 1 C is what you get when you take 99 parts of distilled water and 1 part of the substance. A 2 C solution is taking 1 part of a 1 C solution and diluting it with a 99 parts of distilled water and so on with each increasing value of C taking 1 part of the prior solution and diluting it with 99 parts of water.

The formula for this would be 1/(100)^n where n = the value of C. So 1C would be 1/100, 2 C would be 1/10,000 and 3 C would be 1/1,000,000. And you can see what the problem is right here. I apologise, what we are going into is some serious arithmetic and it’s vital to understand how this works.

3 C is one part per million which is a very small amount. The number given in this example is 12 C which is 1/1000000000000000000000000. So there is one molecule of active ingredient in 1000000000000000000000000 molecules of water. We are actually pretty smart ourselves. We can work out what those many molecules of water weighs via the avogadro’s number which is constant of number of molecules within one mole (a unit, not a mammal). Chemists prefer using it since working in molecules is highly irritating and because moles are linked to molecular weights which are the weight of one mole of any substance (so 1 mole of hydrogen weighs 1 gram, 1 of helium weighs 2 and so on…) 602300000000000000000000
1000000000000000000000000 molecules of water = 1000000000000000000000000/6.023 x 10^23 = 1.66 moles
Hydrogen weighs  1 gram per mole and oxygen 16 grams per mole. So water would weigh 18 grams per mole since it is made up of 2 hydrogens and one oxygen atom. This works out at 18 x 1.66 = 29.88 grams of water. Water by happy fortune is the key unit of the SI scale so 29.88 grams of water would occupy roughly 29.88 ml, a shot glass rather than an ocean of water to contain a single molecule of active substance.
However the concentration most homeopathic medicines range from 24 to 50 C with 30 C being the most common. Not 12 C at clinical doses. 24 C isn’t double the strength of 12C… Remember each progression of C is a dilution by a factor of 100.
Using the previous formula, the dilution factor of 24 C (the highest concentration and therefore the least stupid value) we come up with a concentration of 1/1x10^48.
Which is one molecule of active ingredient in a stupidly huge amount of molecules. This we can work out the weight of.

 1x10^48/Avogadro’s constant =
1660302174995849244562510.3768886 moles

The weight of which is 29885439149925286402.125 tonnes which occupies a volume of 29885439149925286402.125 cubic metres or 29885439149.925 cubic kilometres. 

On planet earth there is approximately 1.3 Billion cubic kilometres of water in our oceans, lakes, rivers and ice. This is 29.88 billion cubic kilometres of water required to carry just 1 molecule of the active substance.
The argument (if you haven’t blown a fuse with the mathematics/chemistry lesson) is that there is no active ingredient in the homeopathic preparation since it is so dilute that there isn’t anything in there but distilled water. Even if you are working on a small scale by batch no. 14 or 15 there is probably nothing but distilled water in each test tube since by serial dilution you have pretty much eliminated any active ingredient.
And this is without going into the sheer nonsense that a 50 C concentration would entail.

Myth #4: “There is nothing in a homeopathic medicine. It is just water.”

Well, if you waded through the mathstravaganza then you would realise that yes, it is just water.
And I call shenanigans on the Indian Institute of Technology, (which is an esteemed engineering university in India and not some hack science mill) for sponsoring such industrial grade garbage as the research quoted in this article. The paper seems poorly written and I wonder how long it took to find such nanoparticles and whether this holds true across the board of all samples or that they found it in one bottle out of hundreds.
And this is without levelling the charge of performing lousy science to give credence to an industry of snake oil merchants who are often given free rein to practice in India with deadly repercussions to their patients who cannot tell the difference between a homeopath and a real doctor.

Myth #5: “If we do not presently understand how homeopathic medicines work, then, they cannot work. It’s witchcraft.”

If we don’t know how homeopathic medicines work, then why the hell aren’t homeopaths the slightest bit interested in their function? Why does homeopathic cyanide have no effect unlike homeopathic medicine? Why aren’t homeopaths producing irrevocable proof that water has a memory? Why are instead homeopaths so content to not change and not do any research? Why are all their papers posted in tiny magazines and peer reviewed only by people who understand the arcane proofing system rather than a scientific test? Why is there no conclusive data like actual medicine and no logical explanations on how the drugs function?

Homeopathic medication functions on a similar effect to the placebo effect, this is well known.  There has been no repeatable, conclusive experiment to prove that homeopaths produce a discernable physiological effect similar to actual medicine. These aren’t myths, these are facts.

Homeopathy isn’t witchcraft. It’s bullshit. Industrial grade bullshit that is killing people in third world nations by passing itself off as real medicine in order to make a quick buck of the suffering of people. This is also a fact.

The proponents of homeopathy utilise fudged research in third world nations to flog expensive treatments in the west. This is a fact.

The proponents of homeopathy utilise the fact that stupid people in the west who buy their drugs are held in high esteem by poor people in third world nations. They use this to flog their drugs to people often telling the people to throw away their medication. This is a fact. 

People have died from taking homeopathic medications. Not because of the homeopathic contents, but because of the lack of an effect. This is also a fact.

One doesn’t need to spread myths about homeopathy. Not when the truth will suffice.

Age of Kali: Birthdays are Bad!

Darul Deoband thinks birthdays are a product of the west and possibly aimed at destroying islamic civilisation through the practice of giving presents on a day where the sun and earth are in roughly the same positions as they were when you were born.

Oh they finally cottoned onto us. Quick! Let’s try destroying them through Valentine’s day and New Year’s eve too! 

8 Reasons

I suppose it would be extremely hard for a Christian to understand why atheists exist in the same way that we cannot understand how someone would believe in a blatant lie. I suppose it’s even harder for Christians to understand what goes through the minds of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and even Jews when they reject the (to the Christian at least) truth of the existence of Jesus as the son of Jehovah who was sacrificed in a convoluted plot to rid mankind of the mythical sin that stems from the acquisition of knowledge/the innate sinful nature of mankind. We as atheists all know that, but do Christians understand why we are “Apostate”?
Of course not, to them atheism and indeed apostasy is this horrid problem. It is a combination of a fear that atheists are harder to stamp out these days and that they are losing their protected status in society. So they come up with reasons such as those written by the Reverend Michael Bresciani which draws lines in the sand marking out the true believers and the CINO (Christians in Name Only). It’s a stupid idea and a poorly executed one at that. A CINO argument is basically a statement that any behaviour that is not in line with your beliefs can be dismissed as being the behaviour of a false Christian. So with this argument you can rule out paedophile and rapist priests, Hitler and all the people whose views you don’t like.
It is then you realise why the idea of Christian Persecution exists. CINO rules out Christians who read the wrong bible, who may be of different denominations and whose views you plain disagree with. After all to someone such as Bryan Fischer, only a CINO would want gay people to have equal rights.

I skipped lunch! I totally understand your plight!
So despite Michael’s relatively comfortable lifestyle in the USA, a nation which gives inordinate protection to the Christian faith, you see the idea that somehow he is under threat and that the suffering of Christians in Islamic nations and in China somehow apply to him because they believe in the same fairy tale. This is like suggesting that we understand the horror of starvation because we consume food much like a famine stricken Somali. And Michael naturally utilises this perceived persecution complex to blame the CINOs and indeed secularists with his lovely piece which reads like the angry rant of a 8 year old who just got told that he couldn’t eat more than one chocolate bar.

So let’s start at the bottom and work our way up as these were listed in descending order of importance. 

Untold millions have begun to reject Christianity for its exclusivity. A generation long effort by proponents of the great political correctness movement, and comparative religion courses; have emerged triumphant in the lives of many. In the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations the effects of years of that kind of gobbledygook is apparent. Religious leaders can be seen wearing collars and religious garb with sashes imprinted with the symbols of many different religions. 
They mill freely around the crowds and can hardly offend anyone. No gospel of salvation for the lost and dying of the world, just a lot of syrupy religious hokey pokey. A little something for everyone coupled with a pious remark or prayer and it’s off to the next circle of performers, poets, and aimless squatters. Here is a small picture of what the larger world expects will come out of a one world order.
Taking over the world through
the power of the leg drop, power bomb and suplex.
We start at No. 8 where he assumes that the Hindus and Muslims of the world reject Jesus out of spite rather than that they believe in their own fairy tales in much the same way that Michael rejects the Vedas or the Koran. He regards their faiths as somehow inferior because they don’t require their god to go through a hilarious song and dance about non-existent sin.
Not to mention the difference between Judaism and Christianity is the difference between animal sacrifice (the Scapegoat) and human sacrifice (Jesus).
I as an atheist don’t believe in God because there is no proof of one existing let alone it being a Christian god. And the moment someone says New World Order, I can only really think about Hulk Hogan.

Real Christianity both sees and fully resists the coming one world government that the Bible so clearly predicts will fall under the leadership of the world’s last dictator.(Rev 13:7) I once found myself arguing that Europe would form a united kingdom and would become a single nation; that was almost 40 years ago. I also warned that nations would come together in the last days to seek and find a way to become one world under one seemingly magnanimous world leader. That is obviously a prevailing thought in today’s world and the fulfillment of these prophecies is without doubt, just around the corner. 
Naturally the world interprets the resistance to the great dream of one homogenously engineered world as something worthy of scorn, and one day; something worthy of death. (Rev 20: 4) It is this part of the gospel that the CINO’s and the squeamish would rather not acknowledge. Many are turning away because they cannot bear to think that these days are now upon us. The crowd carries them along with the wail of music, laughter and full emersion in all of the fleshy and contemplative indulgences of the day. The path of least resistance rules: at least for today.

You got to have faith!
In Jesus!
Number 7 reads like the ranting of a crazy person. But it’s religion so it’s very hard to tell the difference. Religion is a culturally acceptable delusion. If the voice in your head is called God then it is perfectly normal but if it’s called Sam then you aren’t considered sane. The prophecies in Revelations read like a bad cheese dream rather than the writings of the sane and lucid.
Of all the movements on earth attempting to create a homogenised and engineered society none have even come close to Christianity. The destruction of local beliefs and cultures, is not the work of secularists but the work of Christians. The missionary and the destruction of indigenous culture goes hand in hand, particularly the usage of technology to amaze poorly educated and naive people to believe in your faith. The history of “rice conversion” is quite well known in Asia particularly in places such as Korea where Christianity was spread under the guise of charity.

The world is fully aware of the church’s apostasy but it is also taking note of its perversions and twists. The Emergent Church and Dominionism are just a couple of the latest side trips into nonsense but there are many more common extravagances that are seen as cause to steer clear of the Christian message. 

Although the bible does declare that God is willing to bestow his own with plenty of this worlds materials for their journey, the excesses found in the over emphasis of that teaching are doing inestimable damage to the gospel. Ministries that pound away at what has come to be known as the prosperity gospel are seen as misguided money mills that should be avoided at all cost. Perception may sometimes overtake reality but in fact nothing takes precedence over the preaching of the gospel.

Number 6 has him complain about all the hypocrisy in prosperity gospel. We are more interested in the hypocrisy of its followers. Of people who speak out against the destruction of marriage, not due to their own actions which often involve rape, paedophilia or cheating on their spouses but because gay people can get married.

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, President George W. Bush was heard to say, “Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended.” Not all definitions of cowardice are so strong but any endeavor begun in good faith only to be abandoned in short notice is a microcosmic example of cowardice. If the slightest fear turns us around what do we call it when a person starts to walk in a new life with Christ, and then turns back?

Number 5 shows the selective blindness of faith and segues into a terrorism rant. The attack on the 11th of September, 2001 was not done as a strike against Christianity but as a strike against the USA in order to create a new Holy War which would drive up Al-Qaeda recruitment and fulfil Bin Laden’s (who arguably is a MINO or a Muslim in Name Only) desire for Jihad against the Great Satan. If he really wanted to screw over Christians he would have carried out massacres in all the arab countries and staged attacks on the Vatican, but so far his attacks have been on secular nations. Not Christian ones. From the 11/9 attacks, to Madrid to the London bombings, every single one has targeted people who lived in secular nations.
To claim that these were attacks on Christianity is to take persecution to an entirely new level. These were attacks on people for reasons we ill understood. The average American didn’t understand why Bin Laden hated America, and indeed that is part of the problem. The average American’s lack of interest in world affairs allows people like the staff of Fox News to take advantage of them. It allowed a lot of blind flag waving which politicians utilised to drag the USA into two tar pit wars. It allowed the politicians to cover up deaths, to utilise the actions of brave men and women to boost their own ratings and to deny people the reality of the suffering of everyone involved.
These were not attacks on Christianity any more than they were attacks on Tall buildings or Aircraft. This was an attack against an enemy whose ethics stood against the teachings of Wahaabist Islam. You can call these men dicks, douche bags or unbelievable motherfuckers, but frankly one of the few terms that cannot be applied to them is coward. The day we start denigrating our opponents is the day we underestimate them and it is the day we are sorely surprised by their actions. Islamic terrorists value the same ideals that we value in our soldiers, Courage, Obedience, Heroism, and Skill but with the added caveat that they must believe in a twisted version of Islam.

Christianity is assumed to be anti-science and against seeking knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact Christianity encourages all disciplines that aid mankind and promote the well being of our species. To be more specific the secular world despises what they perceive to be Christianity’s narrow mindedness about evolution. Not only does the Bible declare hundreds of times that God alone is responsible for creation but the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own evidence.

Centuries from now Jurassic Park
will be creationist literature.
At number 4 we have this ludicrous defence of creationism as a reason why we hate Christianity. This is true; we are sick and tired of Christians trying to flog bullshit as science. This is particularly evident in the link he provides on his article from the Institute of Creationist Research which claims to be Biblical, Accurate and Certain while sprouting such nonsense such as the claim that Dinosaurs ate Modern Rice, rather than Dinosaurs eating a rice like ancestor. To the creationist the very history of mankind is denied as is the reality that wi
ld rice still exists to this very day.
I will give them that; I don’t want my hypothetical children to learn creationism as fact. I would want them to learn science and reality. To live in the real world and utilise fantasy as a cloak that one can don to enjoy books, videogames and movies. To me fantasy is a sign of creativity, to be able to create worlds and scenarios of your own choosing. Be it the imaginary friend of the child or the escapism of a movie, or a good book. If you have an imaginary friend as an adult however, you are not considered sane you are considered to be quite mad.
But I don’t hate Christians, I hate creationists. I hate the people who try and lever faith into science and then expect science to hold back and give faith the free ride it gets in other aspects of life. I don’t like Hindu creationists, I don’t like Muslim creationist. I am an equal opportunity hater of creationism. It’s just that Christian creationists are a lot more vocal and organised on the internet and we have bigger drives by Christians to force our kids to learn nonsense on an equal footing as science than by Muslims.

True Christianity does not just deal with personal sins but it stands diametrically opposite the social trends of the day namely, abortion and the gay agenda. It sees these two collective trends as sins that mark time as we know it and is a sure declaration that man is heading toward a last days encounter with God. That encounter is called, judgment and is meticulously outlined in the final book of the Bible we call the Revelation. The disregard for the lives of the unborn and the rise in perverted and deviant lifestyles are only two of dozens of signs that promise rather than merely predict the demise of the entire world.

I am sorry! The woman isn’t wearing a veil
and the man is not in a tuxedo. This marriage
is null and void. 
Number 3 has him portray Christianity as a bastion of morality against abortion and homosexuality while completely forgetting its protection of rapists, paedophiles, racists, wife beaters and child abusers.  
It’s a telling argument because of its anti-progressive nature, it doesn’t matter that homosexuality doesn’t harm anyone and that marriage as a concept has been damaged more by the actions of people like Britney Spears and the celeb du jour. In fact gay marriage is pretty much the epitome of marriage ideal, that you as a human being chose to spend your life with someone else and they agree with you. You hope that this commitment will last and it’s a promise of that hope that you undergo a ceremony of your choosing, be it the spectacle of an Indian wedding or the sombre austerity of the western ideal or the more ludicrous of weddings. Each of these things mean something different to different people and arguing that the state not accept a marriage because it doesn’t conform to a judeo-christian ideal means that my marriage as an atheist and indeed as someone who comes from a Hindu cultural background is not acceptable in their world view since it won’t fit the logic behind an abrahamic marriage.
Yes, if you apply the CINO principle then obviously no one likes Christians since only real Christians are anti-feminist homophobes.  Any Christian who accepts that abortion is a necessary part of female health and indeed recognises that abortion for most people is not taken lightly and is done with massive consideration of the issues involved is not a true Christian. Any Christian who accepts that homosexuals aren’t child bumming bogeymen but are people just like us isn’t a true Christian.

Christianity is resisted and in many ways hated because it is part of what has come to be known as the Judeo/Christian heritage. Put simply, that means that Christianity is always a friend to Israel. Beyond that is the knowledge that God has never given up on his chosen people and will very soon redeem them and raise them to prominence in the world. As anti-Semitism grows so will anti-Christian sentiments grow; it is inevitable

Number 2 involves Israel as some sort of hated international figure for no reason apart from its unwillingness to accept Palestine as a genuine nation which would prevent it from building settlements and indeed force it to stop utilising the holocaust as an excuse for its treatment of Palestine.
Being the chosen of God doesn’t give you free right to behave like arseholes. And the Christian right’s habit of supporting Israel no matter their behaviour is not encouraging.
Palestine’s support for fundamentalists is not acceptable, that’s for sure. But one has to realise that the fundamentalists have such support because of Israel’s behaviour, because Israel validates their actions. The Palestinians live in an apartheid society. To them Hamaas and the PLO were not terrorists but freedom fighters. The moderates were pushed to the side because Israel showed no actual progress in dealing with the problem instead pushing settlements and displacing Palestinians until they snapped.

The indisputable number one reason real Christianity is despised is because it declares that man’s greatest problem is sin. We have for centuries seen the problems of man as a lack of knowledge, economics, race problems, politics and dozens more. The Bible recognizes none of these things as the root problem of man. Rather the scriptures declares that the fallen condition of man drives us all to a propensity to sin that ultimately causes the problems of all mankind. Wars, economic disparities, race problems and all else is a result of man’s willingness to sin and live out lives of sin without recognizing that they are sinners.

Number 1 deals with the ludicrous hoops that one has to dance through over sin as if the whole complicated song and dance is something we actually care about.
My issue with biblical ideas of sin is that it is designed to make everyone feel guilty all the time and scare people into belief through fear of punishment. Half the stuff mentioned in the bible are natural thoughts and half the stuff not mentioned as sins are degrading. The first sin in the bible is the acquisition of knowledge.  It’s telling that the deadliest thing to all Abrahamic faith is knowledge.
That and this is perhaps my Hindu upbringing shining through as Hindus revere knowledge as something vital, going so far as to place teachers above God and actually praying over books. During the Saraswathi festival, I still give my grandmother a book so that she can bless it despite not believing in it because it makes her happy.
Compare this to the biblical take on rape or the biblical take on genocide and you realise that biblical morality is far behind the achievements of ours.
I too am like a Vampire in that I sparkle in the sunlight.
I also have a killer tan.
The reason atheists despise Christianity is that it is bullshit. There is no proof of a god existing let alone the Christian flavour of that god. We don’t like any faith because we see it as a force that blinds its believers from reality, promotes bigotry and harms progress. We don’t like the fact that the simple ability to read poetry to an imaginary friend means that we have to call Michael a “Reverend” rather than “A fucking nutcase” and indeed this applies to all priests. We don’t like the fact that the simple belief in an imaginary friend means that Priests get a free ride for molesting children. We don’t like the fact that we have to tolerate stuff we know is weapon’s grade nonsense because it’s culturally acceptable to believe in imaginary things.  We don’t like the fact that religious people get to decide what we should teach in our schools, what we should wear and what marriage means to us.
And most of all we don’t like the fact that a deeply held religious conviction is a perfectly acceptable reason to be a complete arsehole to people

The Seventh Seal

If we agree to be arranged by a tetris player, then I am sure
we can fit a few more hundred people in here.

Humanity has crossed a very important landmark in our existence. As of this week, it is predicted that there are seven billion people on earth. Who the seven billionth child is? That isn’t important. What is important is that we tackle the issue of overpopulation across the world. But not everyone sees this as a real issue. The catholics have started declaring this a celebration in the fight against our “murder industry”. A good example is the pro-catholic Population Research Institute who celebrate this event.

We don’t wish to reduce the right of people to have children, it’s a universal right. What we do want is for them to have fewer kids, and treat the ones that they do have as cherished treasures regardless of gender, ability, mental and physical status or sexuality. We basically want the western ideal of 2 children to become the norm because it produces a relatively stable population that doesn’t grow or fall, a stable economy from the influx of people into it and a reduction of drain on natural resources since they are finite and the more we spread it out the richer we are as people and the more easier and comfortable our lives are. We want people to understand that they need to have as many kids as they can manage and for most it is one or two. 

Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute disagrees with this idea. But his argument is filled with ludicrous fallacy after fallacy. Of catholic rhetoric that may not work on non catholic governments that we are so proud to support, but will work on the millions of catholics who reside in Africa and parts of Asia like the Philippines.

In short, I am stating that Mosher lies about a variety of things in both posts. Either he is lying or is simply following church propaganda. 

“None of this matters,” the official responds. “The only relevant fact is that you are not married now. The rules cannot be bent,” she tells you. And the rules of China’s birth-control program absolutely forbid single motherhood.  
Under the double threat of losing your job and paying a huge fine (the first makes it almost impossible to do the second, of course), you report under duress to the abortion ward.  Because you are already in the third trimester of pregnancy, you are given a cesarean-section abortion.”

There is no rule about “single parents not being allowed to have kids”. It’s a social rule not a government rule. A quick check online specifically states that children born out of wedlock can be registered and stories abound of single mothers whose complaints are about chinese prudishness. Social pressure makes these women abort more for the same reason that single mothers all over the world abort more. The child is more prone to not having a good lifestyle, the child is prone to being stigmatised as a bastard and often there is a societal pressure to do so lest the mother be treated as a woman of easy virtue. The added unwillingness of unmarried men to take responsibility for their child adds pressure to this decision.

In china the benefits given to a single child are not applied to children born out of wedlock due to old rules that didn’t consider this. With the rise of single mothers the chinese government has begun to provide the same level of support to these children albeit at the social cost of disdain. People still maintain old prejudice and those old prejudices are what drives the discrimination against these women and children coupled with a society where boys are more valued and treated as Little Emperors. There are few little empresses, but they are more and more common in a society where most people have one or two children.


The number of forced abortion has gone down each and every single year particularly as China has realised that the policy it pursued is untenable in two ways. The first being that it has encouraged a massive ageing population, while the sec
ond being that it has caused a hugely skewed gender ration resulting in a lot more boys than girls particularly with the issues brought about by sex selective abortion. But while this is a rather appalling use of abortion, it isn’t as bad as the alternative which was China’s phenomenal rate of female infanticide, which I am familiar with since I currently live in another country where female infanticide was acceptable and indeed normal despite massive programs by the government.

This example is a repeated one used by Stephen as seen here in an earlier article.

For me, such tragedies are not just morally repugnant; they make zero economic sense. After all, as our numbers have grown, incomes have soared. In 1800, when there were only 1 billion of us, per-capita income worldwide was a mere $100. Today, as we pass the 7 billion mark, per-capita income has soared to $9,000.

Stephen fails to understand economics as a whole. To him all items are the same value all over the world with everything translating into the same currency value. It’s a very childish look at the economy of the world considering the basis of economic trade is that different resources have different values in different countries and people inherently value things differently.

He also fails to understand the value of currency has changed over time and that $100 in the 1800s probably would not have the same value as $9000 today. And as many american readers can point out that the $9000 figure is incredibly tiny for most first world nations and indeed would be considered a medium to low wage in many third world nations.

And this is without the obvious logical disconnect in assuming that everyone earns the same amount of money. We in the west take the lion’s share of that money both as normal income (Minimum wage at 40 hours a week is above $9000 a year) and indeed as wages in our middle class and upper middle class (who do work for a living) not to mention our entrepreneurial class. All this is without mentioning our super rich whose earnings are phenomenal or indeed a certain virgin with a big hat who happens to have a lot of bling.. 

All in all he paints a very rosy picture of the world, failing to realise that there are people in Africa, India and China whose poverty is heart rending. The issue is not that of money, it is of producing sustainable growth and value that brings money in. Money doesn’t solve the problem if you simply give it to people. Money has to be earned, the value money has is in it’s earning. It sounds incredibly harsh but what you want to produce is sustainable and steady growth across the board. Simply giving people money ACTUALLY stymies that growth since it doesn’t encourage actual growth. Money can provide expertise, training and infrastructure but it is the people who pull themselves up. We can provide infrastructure and the training, but a lot of improvements need to be made INCLUDING the birth rate which needs to plummet like a rock if we are to produce sustainable growth. 

If we really were “breeding ourselves off the face of the planet,” as the other side likes to claim, mortality rates would be climbing and life spans would be shrinking. Instead, we see the opposite

Evolution and Rats!

The highest estimate for tigers in the wild is 5066 individuals. That is a species that is “disappearing from the face of the earth”. There are 7 billion human beings. Humans are not endangered, not by a long shot. We are as tough and as survivable as the cockroach or the rat, but so intelligent that we have produced a method of development as a species that ignores evolutionary pressure. By our use of tool making we have subverted the natural pressures on us to become the dominant force we are today and that is amazing. 

Stephen doesn’t understand that in the west with low mortality rate and high lifespan we have increased individual productivity to a point where most of us have realised that fewer children are better and have willingly applied our own pressure to reduce our populations. We would rather have one or two children and make sure they get the very best in life rather than have more children than we can feed. And population control basically boils down to this very simple point. When you have more children than you can feed, then you become a liability. The rest of the productive members of society have to weigh in for you. This is available in the west but not in Africa where there isn’t the resource or the drive for the middle and upper classes to bail out the poor and definitely not in India where nearly 600 million people exist at or below the poverty line. Sustainable growth isn’t madness, it’s common sense. 

Yet crop yields per hectare have more than kept pace with population growth. Enough grain is produced for every person on earth to consume 3,500 calories daily. There is no need for anyone to starve in the midst of this plenty.  

Economies continue to expand, productivity is up, and pollution is declining. Life spans are lengthening,
poverty is down, and political freedom is growing. The human race has never been so well off.

Marasmus Starvation. The potbellied appearance is due to
oedema rather than fat. There is no protein to maintain
osmotic pressure to reabsorb water. 

Crop yields in the west do not translate to crop yields in Africa. For starters we have technology that not only costs a lot but we also use subsidies to encourage this kind of production to the ACTUAL detriment of third world farmers. This subsidised bounty ensures we have cheap food produced locally but also food for export. This drops the international price of food often beyond what farmers in the third world who often don’t have the seed quality, the infrastructure and the technology to produce a similar yield. Actually taking food from the west and giving it to Africa is a short term measure. It doesn’t solve the problem of sustainability. And this logic assumes that you can live solely on grain. One of the biggest problems in Africa is Marasmus and Kwashiorkar which are protein deficiency starvations. Plenty of calories, just no protein in their diets. The issue of supply of food is a complex one. And indeed this involves freighting tonnes of food over months to Africa when we should be encouraging local growth. The issue of this “bounty” is so bad that it is the direct cause of many suicides across asia and china as local farmers simply cannot afford to farm their ancestoral lands.

The part about economies is particularly stupid considering we are in a recession. And it’s not like it’s a small piece of news what with all the misery we are being put through. Pollution is declining because we have moved all the polluting industries to third world nations while we enjoy clean fresh air. Stephen is well off, humanity is not.

So, they continue to raise funds by frightening people with the specter of overpopulation. They continue to claim that too many babies are being born to poor people in developing
countries. This is tantamount to saying that only the wealthy should be allowed to have children — and is a new form of global racism.

No. We are saying that you should have as many children as you want and should be responsible for maintaining them at a good standard. The basic rights of a child state that a child should be brought up in a world where they can get education. Where they do not fear for their lives and can achieve anything they want. Where they are provided for. We can soften the blow in first world nations because the vast majority of us are productive to the point we can afford to have a dole.

This isn’t racist, this is just common sense. Telling people that they would have more money if they had fewer kids and provided them with a good standard of care is logic. Dropping the populations of India and China will have positive effects on their economy and provide a stable society for the children being born in the future not to mention sustainable growth.

The Catholic church doesn’t feed these extra mouths, it is us. We have to take food there and feed people who technically would die without us to the point that many africans rely on us to survive (all the while the Catholic church treats this as a blessing from a mythical entity rather than the sweat of humanity). The church isn’t helping by encouraging these people to have more children making us provide more food and further curtails any effort to be self sufficient.

What he doesn’t realise is that the industrialisation of most countries is often held back by such population booms where resources are wasted trying to feed people who aren’t self sufficient. Family Planning is vital in ensuring the offspring of these children grow up in a world where they aren’t subject to the same pressures as their parents and indeed to produce a society where resources are plentiful and where environmental damage is low. In India where I live there are so many people that nearly every source of water is either being used up faster than it can be resupplied or worse polluted by sheer population density. The environmental effect of 1 billion people is not to be sniffed at. Had India’s population remained at the 400 million individuals it had during the partition it would have been able to feed every single person in it and be easily capable of making the crossover from developing nation to a developed one. Instead the birth rate has ensured that a lot of issues are that much harder to solve because so many people are involved.

We should stop funding population control programs, and instead turn our attention to real problems, such as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases. As mortality rates fall, so will birth rates.

Here he shoots himself in the foot, in typical Catholic fashion he forgets two important things. Condoms stop the spread of HIV and therefore it reduces the amount of AIDS. Despite HIV/AIDS still being rife in the Men who have Sex with Men community, it’s not as bad in the 80s and 90s when the disease spread as few of these men used condoms. Now with the rise of condom usage amongst gay men the rate of HIV has fallen. While MSM still form the bulk of new cases well above their proportional demography, their number is falling rapidly all the time due to the adoption of condoms and the increasing adoption of them. And this is ignoring the stellar work done by vaccination drives and anti-malarial measures that are slowly being implemented.

And Stephen forgets the most important way our birth rate fell. Our birth rate fell due to the cheap and easy access to condoms, the education that goes with condoms and the empowerment and continuing empowerment of women and men to insist that a condom be used for non-procreational sex. In short our birth rates dropped by birth control.

In short people are our greatest resource. But only if given the space and resources, to be slowly nurtured to become productive members of society. Without education, infrastructure and indeed independence people cease to be a resource and become a burden that needs baby sitting. Yes, I understand that it sounds like white man’s burden at this point but hear me out. If we could provide some slum dwellers with the means and the monetary support to break out of the slum and be self sufficient, is it not better than simply giving him rice? Have we not turned someone who wastes his life into a positive force, both for himself to escape poverty and increase self sufficiency to provide a role model for other people in the slum he left to do the same.

That is real charity. Even the most powerful of western ch
arities such as the Red Cross or Medicin Sans Frontier understand this. They don’t send doctors and nurses JUST to work there and make life better for the locals. They also send them to teach locals the skills needed so that the Red Cross and MSF don’t HAVE to send doctors there. They help them with education, infrastructure and sustainability. The most important things you need as a charity. In short the most important point of charity is to ensure that people don’t need charity. The point of us encouraging family planning is so that people in poor countries don’t need hand outs to keep their families from starving.