666

This is post number 666

I might be Post 668 or 669 because along the way I may have deleted a couple of older posts, but in the spirit of all things I'm going to post a poorly thought out and ridiculous homage to 666

I started with some #facts

Wikepedia :  666 (six hundred sixty-six) is the natural number following 665 and preceding 667.

 is the sum of the first  natural numbers

But then I thought I'd look in the intertubes for examples of where you might find 666 if you really had the time and energy, some of my favourites are as below. Oh ok they're not all 666 things, a couple of them are just funny, like the Chase\Nazi one.

But I do like the Vodafone, and the CERN ones. and I'm reminded of the joke that goes

"What's the difference between Tom Jones and Walt Disney?"

"Tom Jones sings, and Walk Disnae" (which is clearly a much more humorous joke if you speak it in a scots accent, and feel free to replace Tom Jones with anyone you like, I first heard it as Al Jolsen, which might be funnier)

[gallery type="rectangular" ids="6122,6123,6124,6125,6126,6127,6128,6129,6130,6131,6132,6133" orderby="rand"]

Two things;

• I had nothing better to do


• It was too early for a beer

Related articles

• The Facts About That Most Evil Of Numbers 666


• 666: Beware the End is at Hand


• 11 curious facts about 666, six years after the disappearance of the 666 area code


• The Empty 666 Seat In Parliament


• 9 "signs" of the apocalypse

The Fleece Machine - Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families

This made me a bit angry today  - " Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families " via Spiritual medium to meet with Pike River families - National - NZ Herald News.

So to be clear as to where I stand on this - There are no spirits, ghosts, afterlife, angels, sky-god, demons, it's all made up bullshit nonsense to part you & your cash.

You can't talk to dead people, they do not talk to you.

Prayer does not work, the Bible is not the true word of anyone other than then person who wrote it.

There is no plan for your existence, there is no reward in some imaginary afterlife, you will not be rewarded in this life by some imaginary sky-being who watches over you, and there is no after-life.

If psychics were real then the stock market would use them, and lotto would be won at will - don't be taken in with the claims that "it does not work that way" - tell me in what way does it work.

Why are all these spirits hanging about to tell you they are ok, and that you should be ok, and they watch over you. Which is all they do. Is that, in fact, all you do for ever and ever and ever, just hang about watching. Can these "spirits" only tell of the past, of things that you knowingly or unknowingly communicate with your "medium"

What happens when all your immediate family die, and you're a spirit, joined by all your relatives, good and bad? Do you start watching over strange people just for the crack?

Do the dead outnumber the living ?

• Number of people who have ever been born: 107,602,707,791


• World population in mid-2011 : 6,987,000,000

That's an awfully big ratio.

Finally let me confess to tell you, I did once get a freebie to watch one Kelvin Cruickshank  at work in Takapuna, and was amazed at his skill and the way he dealt with the audience. I was impressed and confused as to how he did what he did, but let me state again - he wasn't talking to dead people, spirits, ghosts, angels, demons or anything other than his own thoughts, and his interpretations of the feedback from the audience.

I'm prepared to be made to look a fool and have someone tell me something that they can't know about me but that a "spirit" told them, both my Mother and Father are dead, and all my GrandParents, so you should be able to get something recent, unless they've disowned me.

Do it for free to prove you can do it, if you have a gift why do you need to monetize it?

Related articles some of them Comedic Value only and not an endorsement

• Medium bare: Psychic 'told women to strip naked to increase their spiritual powers' (mirror.co.uk)


• Mediumship is defined (figsandgrapes.wordpress.com)


• Is there a life after death? (healthy-spirit.org)


• Wales News: Psychic Karl Lang found guilty of conning young women into stripping (walesonline.co.uk)


• Christian Spiritualists to offer readings in Erie (goerie.com)

Faith, Same sex marriage, and Children.

New Zealand is on track to remove barriers to same sex marriages. We have Civil Union legislation, but this is a sort of half-way house thing. Removing an arbitrary sex based barrier to marriage is of it's time.

However those of the faith and the religiosity have got their collective underpants all bunched and they're going to come out swinging on a number of 'points'.

And they are all nonsense. And they are all nonsense because there is not one logical argument that could be put forward that would or could justify their position. Not a one.

"Marriage is between a man and women" Since when? Since a when the 'church' decided to Ponce up some ceremony and add some bells and whistles is a when. The church is big on dogma and protocol. But I can't find any evidence that before the church decided to dress up a ceremony that marriage wasn't a thing. I can't find any evidence that before the church decided to restrict it's 'blessing' that all marriages were between men and women.

In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage.

Historically then a marriage was a means to ensure a continuance. That is all. If you had not confirmed or announced partner then you had no estate to pass. Marriage brought with it some assurances.The churches brought with it dogma, and protocol and restriction.

Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts. And the texts in question are scant indeed.

The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27.

Not only does one have to "hunt" for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter.

There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds.

Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.

It beggars belief that you would refer to an ancient book of myth and stories to cherry pick what your faith is. Sure the Bible might say "husband" and "wife" but it doesn't as far as I know define the gender of either in terms of what constitutes a "marriage".

The restriction or constriction is therefore one made up by the church and religion as a method of control.

Children

In New Zealand we have out share of conservative doom-sayers

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said he was planning a "research-based" campaign on the advantages of heterosexual relationships and traditional family structures.

 "I'm keen to be part of a campaign to get out there on this issue. It would look intelligently at the differences between homosexual parenting and a Mum and a Dad. Does gender matter, does role-modelling matter?

I don't mind having it on record that the idea of two men having responsibility for a child is a little beyond me. I couldn't do it. I assisted with a more maternal and capable mother in raising our children from birth. But I am talking about baby children, not toddlers, or schoolers, or teens.  I don't have the same doubt about females raising children. Call me a bigot if you like, but I have first hand experience of a woman raising our child and she did a great job. I'd hire her again :-)

I have no idea what feeling or compulsions you have a person in relation to children and your level of altruism in wanting to look after, nurture and care for a child. I just don't.

I have my understanding. I have an idea of what is acceptable and required from my experience, and I have the insight from a number of people who I've associated with who've raised children. I have experience.

Just because I don't think I could does not mean I don't think you should. It might make you shudder, cringe and gasp. It doesn't mean that you can't raise a child as a parent.  To have any other position on this indicates you live your life in a cave. There are lots of children raised by single parents. There are heaps raised by same sex parents, mostly female I'd wager.

The world did not stop when Elton John and David Furness adopted a child. Money makes it better or acceptable? Get a grip.

Related articles

• Key will back early stages of gay marriage bill (radionz.co.nz)


• Same sex marriage bill delights gay community (radionz.co.nz)


• Gay marriage to be legalised in Scotland despite two thirds of people opposing change (telegraph.co.uk)


• Gay marriage in Scotland is a 'dangerous experiment', says Catholic Church (independent.co.uk)

The one with the Personal Values Inventory

I'm participating in a Leadership Development Program at work, this is for all managers not at the Executive Level" and is in a number of sessions.

This current week we did "Engagement, Motivation and Goal Setting". Part of this was a "Know You" question and we were asked to write down our own "Values Inventory"

This might or might not be something you spend time thinking about, or you may act according to a set of self imposed set of things that you feel you "just have" or "just are."

I like these things because they test your capacity to understand you and challenges you to think about where you are in the big scheme of things.

Anyway as affirmation I went online to find some self assessments for my own Personal Values Inventory. and I found a simple one that offered up some possibilities. A simple paired statement comparison - A or B, A or B pick one. They cycle through some choices and then you get a result.

And boy am I miffed!

When you then get to the end of the assessment, where you pick on of the paired statements over the other you transfer them to a tick sheet.

Answer 9 relates to :  RELIGION (Guided by God or other higher power)

Not INTEGRITY, or AUTHENTICITY or HONESTY but RELIGION.

Well excuse me if you think that "my beliefs" that I would rather do the right thing other than have people think well of me means that I have some hat tip to a deity. What utter nonsense. The fact that I'm atheist shouldn't stand in the way of a good result right.

Choose God or being tidy.. what?

According to this particular self assessment then I'm very big on

• SERVICE (helping other people)


• FAMILY RELATIONS


• RELIGION (guided by God or other higher power)


• INDEPENDENCE (doing thing by myself)


• ADVENTURE (taking risks)

and I'm really not so big on

• INFLUENCE/STATUS (leading through experience)


• ORDERLINESS


• FRIENDS

So either I was having a strange day, or the results of this particular version of the pop quiz are a bit iffy.

Related articles

• Knowing Yourself First, Part I (mondaymentor.wordpress.com)


• 3 steps to sustainable leadership, high levels of engagement and great results (markgrantlondon.wordpress.com)

The one where schools drop Bible class as interest falls

This is a story that isn't quite like what it seems like Schools drop Bible as interest falls - National - NZ Herald News.

In the article it says

"Browns Bay principal Roger Harnett said parents had been withdrawing their children from the Churches Education Commission programme.

Last year, about 50 students dropped out from a roll of 500, but Mr Harnett said complaints increased when students saw their friends choosing to opt out and persuaded their own parents to let them drop the class too.

This year, the board of trustees decided to cancel the programme because they were having a problem catering for the increasing number of students withdrawing. It made the decision after a review of all non-curriculum activities."

Which says that the school can't resource correctly for children not being taught from the book of the sky god, not that teaching from the book of the sky god is wrong, inappropriate or outdated thinking, but that having to find a teacher or activities to replace indoctrination means that they have to come up with some alternative thing. They'd still be doing the indoctrination if less parents were exercising their choice, this is a decision forced on the school by the parents and not some brave decision by the school to change their thinking and delivery of education.

There's nothing wrong with fables and lessons on doing the right thing, but you don't have to have specific religiosity to do that, you don't need a book of a mystical being to be able to instill a moral compass, and to affirm that things like, say, killing someone, is wrong, or that theft isn't really what you do in a civilised society.

Couple of amusing things in the story

"Robin Palmer, of Browns Bay Presbyterian Church, was concerned that children whose schools did not use the Bible in Schools programme would be at a disadvantage. "We regard the programme as adding value to the school, and it's been around for many years."

So that makes it o.k., appropriate, correct, and relevant? no!, and  I fail to see how it disadvantages people. I'd hate to think what would happen if the school expanded the religious lessons to include the Koran, or teaching from Buddhism. Actually you know what, I was just being an egg.

The other quote I like is this one

"Parents have ample opportunity to teach children about the Bible outside school time"

And I agree.  Bible isn't for school. Science is for school, Maths and English are for school. Instilling the values of society, the right and wrong, that's for parents, and in my house the Bible wasn't part of that.

Related articles

• The antidote for public-school indoctrination (wnd.com)


• Teach children the Bible is not about them (thebereanway.wordpress.com)


• Christians target schools in 'mission' (stuff.co.nz)

The facination of the media for Redemption

re·demp·tion:

• 
  
  An act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.


• 
  
  Deliverance; rescue.


• 
  
  Theology. deliverance from sin; salvation.


• 
  
  Atonement for guilt.


• 
  
  Repurchase, as of something sold

One of the online media sites in New Zealand,  Stuff.co.nz, uses "redemption" at the drop of a hat.

A quick search returns About 2,590 results on their website which is a little on high side don't ya think?

Redemption and Sport return 2,090 results !! which is a little on the high side don't ya think ?

The other online site The New Zealand Herald returns only about 1,000 results. Redemption and sports gets a paltry 70 results.

So either the Journalists at Stuff are a Pious bunch who have some intimate knowledge of the religiosity of the people they are writing about,  or someone at these media outlets doesn't think "Redemption" means what they think it means.

In the context that the media use it, mostly, it's for sport. And what they don't divulge is what it is that they are seeking or  receiving or asking redemption for?

A Redemption from what wrong or misdeed that they've done, aside from being an abject failure at their earlier attempt at something. They are mostly professional sportspeople, they've been paid, or are getting paid to do what they do. It's not like they have to give the money back for their failure.

Are they seeking to apologise and show they are worthy of adulation and adoration, and the cash that they comes with it, and to prove that we should throw more money their way?

Worst cases are they don't get paid as much next time, or they don't get another opportunity. Either way it's not a redemptive situation is it?

Sure as an individual it could be that they are trying to redeem their good name then, regain their cachet with their adoring public, from who they crave admiration, seek redress to the bad publicity that comes with some act or other on or off the sporting field. But that does not excuse the media for running over 2000 stories of redemption under any circumstance that I can think of.

If I'm wrong however I'll seek redemption at the earliest opportunity

Related articles

• College Football Powerhouses That Will Experience Redemption in 2012 (bleacherreport.com)


• Redemption Is Near by Roger Edwards (thebarnabascenter.wordpress.com)


• The Redemption. (crittyjoy.com)


• The Redemption Story (catherinekaputa.typepad.com)


• Best of 2007: The Best Look of Redemption (fabsugar.com)


• Redemption (feministperspective.wordpress.com)

13th July : Today the NZ Stuff website ran another story about redemption and sports 

 

As I get older I get different – #3

The one thing that I learned from Twitter is that you have to talk about Religion, Politics, Finance and the weather.



And so Religion.  I don't think it's a secret that I'm Atheist. Dead set I am. But I don't think that it's something that I have to share in public, or in conversation, nor do I have to justify my position.

And I have  full respect for anyone that is "of the faith", any faith and has the need to have a "God" that they worship. I do.

My parents raised me Church of England, which in an of itself is a breakaway church, which makes me smile. When I say "raised" I mean sent me to Sunday School. I don't actually recall attending church on a regular basis at any time. I doubt that we did, despite my sketchy memory of my early childhood. I did R.I. at school, and had parts in the annual nativity at primary school. Fully grounded then in all aspects :0)

What I'm not comfortable with is bagging people of the faith. On a personal level. I'm happy to talk about the irrelevance, the inconsistency and stupidity of religious dogma, but I shy away from confrontation. It's not that important. But also what I'm uncomfortable with is having a label, even if it's "atheist", as if having a label makes it more legitimate for scorn or derision.  I feel the same way about my stand on climate change, and my own belief that despite what you think I'm sure in my own way that it's not man made,  and that because I have that belief I don't enjoy being called a "Denier", I don't deny climate change, just that man did it.

I enjoy learning about the aforementioned inconsistencies in religious teaching to reaffirm that I'm not just a bit weird.  The more you read, and absorb logical and reasoned argument, the further you get away from a belief in a "supreme being".

I wish I could pinpoint the day when I realised that I didn't have to believe in a sky god and that it wasn't going to end in tears. I know it was a long time ago, and that as I get older, and experience more things, and witness more pain, heartache, illness and death I realise that there in fact can't be a caring God, and that confirmation bias just does's cut it.

Related articles

• I had a better impression of Canadians before I read that tripe (freethoughtblogs.com)


• Atheism is not a Religion (kingmidgetramblings.wordpress.com)


• Why I am an atheist - Anonymous (freethoughtblogs.com)


• My Deconversion Story: Living After Faith (mindi.authormeanders.com)


• What Faith Is... (acommonsea.wordpress.com)

As I get older I get different – #2

Space, the final frontier. What a wonderful concept, infinity. UFO's. How romantic are they when you're 14, 15, 16.... the idea that flashing lights in the sky are visitors, from another planet. Stoked by such films as "The Day the Earth Stood Still", and "Close Encounters", TV series such as Gerry Anderson's UFO, and Space 1999, and of course Star Trek and Star Wars.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300"] 2 Gerry Anderson UFO series aliens on a desert planet. I made the image with CGI. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)[/caption]

And how can you not believe? How can you possibly not look at the sky and wonder who it can be that there isn't life on other planets. A long way away planets, a long long way away. But plants, aliens, visitors.

Aliens, ancient aliens, greys, reptoids, blues, blond nordics, chupacabras... you name they've been everywhere.

Of course they've all been to Earth, why not, we're significant, we're rulers of a planet, with resources.  They've all been here, mostly at night, mostly to prod things up our backside, dismember sheep, implant tracking devices or breed. Of course.

And then one day perhaps not. After you read some books, and thought about it, the question was "How?, followed by "Why?". Two important questions, two of the very best.

And so the slightly older me smiles when people talk of Alien visitations, visitors, abductions, formations of spacecraft in the sky.

Now I know there are enough wonders in the back yard to keep me occupied, without having to have a feeling that there is something out there.

And I think this goes hand in hand with my Atheism.  Sort of.  Except that there must be other planets, and there must be life somewhere else. It's an infinite universe with infinite suns,sort of. Infinite in the sense that there must be an edge somewhere, a long long way away and I can't quite grasp the distance to Alpha Centauri for instance, and so the other side of the universe must be a long way away, infinitely far.

And whilst it's understandable that some people think that Aliens must walk amongst us, there are people that think there is an imaginary sky god. They're not so different. That they both are in out imagination is all they have in common.

So I've changed, we are alone, all alone, at least on this planet, and possibly alien me thinks the same thing.

My love of science fiction films is in no way diminished by my beliefs, it's in fact the opposite.

Related articles

• Space: 1999 Reboot Threatened (mikecanex.wordpress.com)


• Aliens & UFOs - Welcome to Planet Earth (disclose.tv)


• Saturn Is a Giant Ufo! (weeklyworldnews.com)


• U.f.o (urbanhype101.wordpress.com)


• Our Close Encounters: Meet the Alien Abductees - and the Pictures They Drew to Prove they weren't Imagining It all... (the2012scenario.com)


• That's one small tweet for a man, one giant tweet for mankind (suicidalsuburbanite.wordpress.com)


• Your Spouse May Be an Alien! (weeklyworldnews.com)

My own personal Jesus

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: "To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs." (Photo credit: Wikipedia)"][/caption]

It only really just occurred to me that the whole Catholic faith is as a result of extrapolation of a few words and sentence. Whole churches and thousands of followers extrapolated from a bunch of words. Words that have been changed and re-ordered, texts that contain contradictions and statements that can't apply two thousand years after they were written. The fact that there are almost as many variations on churches as there are words in the Catholic Bible should ring alarm bells, but it doesn't.

That might be true of most religions.

That you can write whole treatises on a sentence or placement of a word seem core to the continuation of the ministry of faith.

Religion is intensely and totally a personal thing, your own personal Jesus is yours and yours alone. I don’t think that there would be two people who would share, in total, the whole concept and nuance of their faith. It is very subjective.

I’m atheist, and I have no problem with acceptance of a natural order of things, nor am I beholden to a core belief that I am not self-reliant or self-sufficient in and of myself. I’m content with the fact that when I die I die. I’m not happy about it, death, nor am I prepared for it. In fact some days I’m downright petrified by the prospect of an end.

But not having a continuance doesn’t bother me, why should it? Why should it bother anyone? Who really has had a life whereby a continuance would make a difference to anything? Anything other than a personal relationship or relationships group that is, ie partners or wider family.

Sure there are historical figures that we draw on for inspiration and hold as examples of change-makers. We’re pretty selective in what we remember and why, and what bits we celebrate and hold true. We’re not prepared to peek behind the curtain lest we see a reflection of ourselves.

The vocal religious types, On the whole, tend to be a bit self-centered and frankly a bit ignorant. A few sentences from a religious tract does not make it righteous. A selective, or enhanced, quotation does not prove your point, nor should it guide your moral compass. And you shouldn’t expect it to guide anyone else. Defending your faith aloud tends to draw attention to yourself and in doing so you call into question the depth of your faith, and your critical thinking. And this is where you leave yourself open to criticism and correction by the often slightly more educated atheist.

After all since the believers are labeling someone as a non-believer then the non-believer has to have a number of counter-arguments and reasoning’s, and trust me they’re all used and have been used, researched and investigated for use. All for naught though since if you have faith then you have it. You can’t stop having faith, you can choose to critically think about the faith you have and understand it’s fallacy.

On Twitter I follow a number of atheist tweeters, I’ve also followed and still do religious tweeters. The atheist twitter accounts, that I follow, tend to be more argumentative. The atheists don’t seem to get the live and let live of religion. It’s unlikely that religion or religious dogma would intrude upon their lives. And where it does ridicule and scorn don’t appear to be an effective counter argument.

It really does seem unlikely that there would be a middle ground, and religion and religious teachings account for a large portion of money, influence and sway in society, in many countries, and that’s not going to change any time soon.

Is religion wrong? Some of the teachings and some of the application of teachings is very wrong. These are human failings and interpretations, and there are vested interests in making sure that the status quo and balance is maintained. Change is slow and constant.

I'd be comfortable with your faith if you were as comfortable as I am with mine, but just don's ask me to defend your position.

Related articles

• If Christians own the Witch Burnings, Atheists have to own Stalin, Pol Pot & Hitler .... uh? (veganfeministpirate.wordpress.com)


• "Mixed marriages" - How exactly does THAT work?!?! (atinctureofmadness.wordpress.com)


• Atheists Need to Do a Better Job of Communication (patheos.com)


• Atheists of Different Types (docatheist.wordpress.com)

What Atheists Have to Believe.

I got listening to a couple of podcasts and the subject of atheism comes up now and again.

But the answer to "What atheists HAVE to belive" can be summed up in a couple of words. Well no that's not true, the answer is not in the question which isn't worded particularly well. The thing that I, an atheist, has believe in,  and this is all, is that "There is no God".

That is it. I don't have to not belive in the Christian God, any God will do not to belive in.

I dont have to believe in  Zeus, Hermes, Hades, Hera, Aphrodite,
or Iuppiter, Mors,  Terra,
or Odin, Thor, Loki, Njordr,
or Krishna,  Vishnu, Kali, Ishvara,
or Shangdi, Mazu, Shou  Xing, Tu Di Gong,
or Izanagi-no-Mikoto,  Izanami-no-Mikoto,
or Cernunnos, Damona, Epona,
or Ra, Isis, Anubis, Osiris,
or An, Ki,  Enlil, Enki,
or Sin, Marduk, Ishtar, Nabu,
or Simurgh, Rostam, Gaokerena,
or Bunyip, Kurreah, Mutjinga etc

not a one do I have to belive in. There is no God.

Being an Atheist does not mean I have no moral standards, or moral code of right and wrong, I don't find it odd to help my fellow-man, nor do I covet my neighbour's wife or oxen most of the time.

I have one thing as an atheist to belive in. That is all.

I don't have to apologise for evolution, I don't have to explain the uncausable cause of the big bang, I don't have to belive in an eternal after-life anywhere for any reason. I don't have to belive that what I think or what I do has any repercussion other than to me and those my actions affect. I don't have to belive in a judgement book.

Mostly however I don't have to belive that I will vilify you, ridicule you or otherwise insult your belief in something. If you have personal experience of a God then good for you!, but that's you and what you saw, I can't measure it, you can't replicate or prove it, but I'm not about that you prove it to me, especially not with a Bible of doubtful origin and content, that would be circular reasoning.

Should a God come visit with me and prove they are God then I'll happily change my mind.  In the meantime I believe that you have a right to what you think, even if you have no basis for that belief, and I'll continue with mine, based on what I've reasoned to be a reasonable position. After all "God did it" is not a reasonable excuse for anything that happens to you, anyone you know or any event in the world that you are too ignorant to think through an explain. Is it?

Related articles

• Atheist vs. Atheist - What?!


• Atheists require blind faith

 

Bible-bangers aren't the brightest, study shows

The more religious you are, the less likely you are to be intelligent, a new scientific study has found.

via Bible-bangers aren't the brightest, study shows - Education - NZ Herald News.

According to researchers, Christians - particularly fundamentalists who believe the Bible is God's word - have a lower IQ than those who are less religious.

A possible reason behind the finding was a tendency for more intelligent people to challenge religious claims, said one of the researchers, New Zealand psychologist Professor Tim Bates.

"If you believe in religion, you haven't really questioned things," he said. "Brighter people were less likely to feel that religion plays a dominant role in their life."

The findings of the University of Edinburgh study were "a bit hilarious", said Auckland Bishop Patrick Dunn. "The suggestion that the less intelligent you are the more religious you would be seems to be degrading and insulting," he said.

However, he did agree that less intelligent people of all faiths tended to be more fundamental in their thinking, "whether they claim to be Christians or atheists or Muslims or whatever".

Conspiracy Theory #1 in a series

I make no secret of the fact that I'm really not sure that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon as advertised.

JFK was shot by a lone gunman, there is no bigfoot, we are not ruled by Aliens, 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Rosewell wasn't aliens, Area 51 does not house spacecraft or aliens, vaccinations are good. Princess Diana had a car crash.

I don't believe it's man-mad climate change, and I'm against fluoridation of water. And as for the nonsense that was folic acid in bread!

For a conspiracy to be attractive you have to be at the point where you believe in a counter position, or to be sufficiently disbelieving of the stated facts, that your own belief  carries more weigh and your conviction.

Like going to the moon. I'm not convinced that the Saturn V rocket worked first time, and every time afterwards. I'm just not. There are a billion websites and a billion counter websites that go over the arguments for and against, from the dodgy photographs to the physics, I'm just not going to repeat them here. Of course it could be that you just believe that we did, and that the records are correct without question. in no time in history has there ever been falsehood in any account.

The thing is that you don't have to have that many people "in" on the conspiracy, it wouldn't be difficult to stage. It appeals because it's an elegant alternative to someone who has incredulity about the 'actual' event.

Sure many conspiracies unravel over time, but many endure. Is it the grand scale of the moon landings that means I'm wrong, I didn't say I had proofs either way. Besides which I don't know if asked "What would lead you to believe that it was true" that I could give any answer except fly me up there to show me the footprints.

Enduring conspiracies include, of course, religion, and the whole myth and dogma surrounding jesus. But that's not a conspiracy in the sense that a government is trying to fool all of the people all of the time.

On death, dying and the ever after.

Personally speaking aside from brief moments of fear there isn't much else but death. Death in it's finality. The end.

We're on the earth to make more of us. That's all. More of us by procreation. Ensuring the existence and continuation of the species. That is all.

No big plan, no grand design. And no ever-after.

We're remembered if we're lucky for a few years or so, by an large, unless you're someone famous, and then your name and deeds may live on in folklore.

However ashes to ashes and all that, and that's all there is. There is no other place we go to, no afterlife where we hang around handing out cryptic messages to dodgy people who claim to be able to talk to the dead, none of that.

We stop, it's over. We lived we died, we laughed, we cried. That's all there is.

And I think that's where we hang our hat on the after-life or reincarnation or whatever our personal belief system is. We think we're more significant, special, and that means that there must be more right? Nope.

I get the need to believe that there is more, I get that some people think they can talk in cryptic to the dead, I do. However you're all having a laugh, and you need to exercise you're imagination a little to ponder why it should be that after your four score and ten on the earth you get a couple billion years in some other place?

Oh of course I could be wrong, but then it'll be that's pleasantly surprised and if I'm right we'll never know.

Not beliving in...

Many things.

I'm an atheist. I think I've always been one. It's always been obvious to me that god isn't watching from the sky. And he doesn't talk to people. All of that.

The bible. Either you believe it, in toto, or you don't. You can't believe bits of it. You have to belive in creation, adam, eve, the talking snake, burning bushes, pillars of salt, arks and all that begetting. It's the rules.

You also have to belive it's the whole and only true word of either god or jesus, depends on where you start.

I can't. It's ludicrous to think that the words therein have remained the same, since writ. There are 'standardised' versions of course, but these can be shown to have been changed to fit current dogma.

I can't belive in miracles that have left no evidence. I can't belive that there was light in the east and the wide men from the east followed it, that's a fantastically awkward journey.

I can't belive that the bible is, as is, a self enclosed document, not plagiarised, or lifted from other sources or beliefs, I just can't.

But I can belive that the basic fundamentals of the teachings are collected wisdom. Don't kill someone, that seems reasonable. Don't steal from someone, pretty much dead on the money. Don't lie, again I'm down with that.

Can't agree with the first 4, about belive only in the one god, make no images, don't work on the weekend and don't use god or jesus as an epithet.  And #10 the bit about coveting, that just destroyed the consumer society, so no.

Pasta Rune Enoe kindly says this about the ten commandments and what you can expect if you break any of them, the pastor even questions the order they are given, he's a bit of a wag.  http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=16785

Anyway for instance
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. , the punishment is "severe" which  means that you'll be up for Genocide. Entire cities with men, women, children and animals
must be killed. (Deuteronomy 2:33-34, Numbers 21:34-35, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 6:21. Joshua 10:40) In some cases you can keep the girls alive for raping. (Numbers 31:15-18)

So that's why I can't belive in the whole thing, some of it is patent nonsense, fiction and shambolic. Am I worried about death? Aren't we all. And when I'm dead you'll remember me and then one day you won't.  And that's the bottom line.

Things to belive in - Part one the First

I've been listening to a number of skeptical podcasts, that is podcasts that have a skeptical look at things. I'd recommend the Righteous Indignation podcasts, they've been interviewing 'believers' in a very sympathetic way.

Anyways. Thing is. Climate change. Again.

I don't believe it's a man-made thing. I still believe this. I believe in climate change, it's obvious, or seems obvious with age. Seasons are later then I remember as a child, and summer seems to last longer into the new year. So it seems.

What troubles me still is the 'man made' bit. I've blogged a bit on this before, so this is not a new position for me.

Where do I sit then when people want to throw out labels such as 'climate change denier'. Skeptical podcasters do this, somehow they've elevated themselves to label makers. Of course I side with them about Homeopathy, Psychics and UFOlogists, but they are just different thinkers.

But "denier" gets my heckles up in an angry way. I don't deny it, I just deny that man did it.

I don't believe man went to the moon either. Just don't believe they had the technology.

I don't believe that there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, that Dianna was assassinated or that Lizards are the true rulers of the planet.

I believe that injections for vaccination are good things, I don't believe that fluoride in the water is a good thing - mass medication seems wrong, like putting folic acid in bread for the tiny number of pregnant women that have a deficiency - just seems wrong in an overkill way.

I don't believe in God, Heaven or Hell (I do capitalize just in case :-) )

Athiesm and Man made climate change

I don't believe there is a god. That's pretty much it. I don't have to believe there is one, and I find it hard to reconcile while people have this crushing need to believe there is one, when it is clearly contrary to all the evidence. Then of course we read it through different eyes.

I don't believe in man made climate change. I believe in climate change of course, you'd be daft not to at least grasp that there has been a progression of the seasons, and that there appears to be growing extremes of weather.

Religious types. particularly the Christian types, are pretty much the same as Climate Changists. They both cast you as "unbeliever" thereby labelling you as someone who is counter or contrary the "norm". It is not normal to be a Christian, ask any Buddhist or Muslim for instance.

and man "must be" "has to be" responsible for climate change, no if's but's or maybe's about it. Definitively and absolutely it's man. Man has to be the centre of things, it's what God would have wanted.

I find it unpalatable to be labelled unbeliever, as I would be if I was labelled "unclean" or "underclass" for instance, as I am sure it was unpalatable to be labelled "Jew" in 1940's Germany.

It's somewhat like the Ford/Holden thing that is prevelant in Australia/New Zealand. One side believes without a doubt that one V8 is better than the other. Regardless of any other cars made by them it's just about the name. There is no lucid argument as to why one is better than the other, it's based on personal preference and the winning capabilities of either on race day - in race cars that bear only passing resemblance to the road car version. But you get labelled as "Ford" person or "Holden" person even if you are driving a Mitsubishi - which quite frankly is what most of them do drive. Just illogical.

Just as it's illogical to be distainfull of theists or those that don't actually belive 'man' has broken the planet just based on your own preference.