Dear Martin,

How nice to receive your splendid e-mail! I have updated my web page to include your URL. You have an excellent web site and I have greatly enjoyed reading it, your turn of phrase is splendid. As someone who has hardly ever written anything before the turn of the last century, your eloquence and knowledge can be something that I can aspire to. It is good to know that there is someone 'out there' who considers organised religion in roughly the same manner as myself. Nevertheless, as you know, the situation in our country is no where near as bad as it is in North America.

You wonder why I think I have to air my views? The web pages were written to 'vent my spleen' - simply put, I am sick and tired of religion. Martin, there are people out there who actually believe there is a great big god watching over them and we live amongst them. Religion is worthy of ridicule and 'The English Atheist' is my personal attempt at that. I feel that the message of religion is demeaning, unproductive, backward looking, unscientific, born of ignorance... whoa! Let's say I feel strongly about it. As I was writing my 'Why I am an Atheist' page it made me feel very good. I am glad that I have done it, and it matters not a jot that only a few will alight upon my rantings. Over time the web pages will grow, but it does not bother this writer that he will remain almost totally anonymous. There is a pleasure in the act of writing, something I have not experienced up to this time. Putting my thoughts 'on paper' is an unburdoning act. It is said that 'there is a novel in all of us', the web pages are, and will be, my novel. My only regret is that I am not competent in the construction of what I believe, or indeed the artistic side of the pages themselves. I suspect that the reasons for broadcasting my Atheistic thoughts are not too disimlilar to your own. Hey, I too was born in the north of England - in Northwich. And currently I live in the county of Suffolk - near Cambridge.

I would dearly like to incorportate an English flag onto my web page - but I feel that I cannot - I don't want to be associated with those lunatic Nazi types. It seems to me that the English have been denied their patriotism. And nothing can be done about it.

I wonder if you know of any clubs or societies in England devoted to Atheism? I would love to get together with like minded folk. Even though I know a few people who are not too sure of their religious beliefs, I don't really know anyone who openly professes and proclaims their Atheism. It would be a great relief to 'bump horns' with a few like minded non-believers. I don't think that the British Humanist Association is my bag.

I didn't quite get what you were trying to say on my GuestBook. Have you got something to say? Do you want to tell me? Your current GuestBook. entry is cut off.

Do you want to try again and I will delete the first one? If you have a lot to say you could do an article for the Guest Zone.

Good day Sir. I posted a comment in your GuestBook. section but because the ending was cut off, my point was not delivered. I can only hope that you were not offended by this. I apologize. The last part of the comment should have read this; "I have yet to locate error in your postings with the exception of the fact that you use the word BELIEVE when you should be using the word KNOW. Do not second guess yourself simply because there is opposition. They are wrong, not you." I also E-mailed you about a week ago. The content of this regarded my theorem on "Quantitive and Qualitive Intelligence" I am still awaiting your reply.... - or +.

PS- feel free to add the rest of my comment to the GuestBook. and correct the one spelling mistake already there.

Thanks for the comments. I will have a play with the GuestBook. some time, but it will probably wait until I have something scurrilous to remove.

I can find no record of any message about Quantitative and Qualitative Intelligence. Perhaps you sent it to the wrong address, perhaps I accidentally deleted it or mistook it for spam, but that is unlikely if that was the title. But whatever the reason I have no message to reply to. If you still have a copy I suggest you open it, copy the contents and paste them into a reply to this message, that way it is bound to be correctly addressed.

One spelling mistake? Is that metaphysically instead of metaphysical? I am not sure if I can edit the comments, I know I can delete them. Where or what is Kanata? Please explain. As far as making mistakes goes I do sometimes. I could not defend every word on my site. As time goes on I amend pieces but I never reach satisfaction, I just run out of time. Many of my pages were written in about an hour from first thought to final draft. There is bound to be error in them.

I feel more comfortable with talking about beliefs than knowledge. I have changed my opinions too many times for me to ever be that confident about my thoughts. It is not that I think that I am wrong and others are right, more that I think I may change my own ideas later and don't want to have too much explaining to do. Saying that you know something is being a hostage to fortune. Most of my beliefs are very strong beliefs with little reason to doubt, but I am human and I know I have been wrong before. As far as the big one goes though I see very little prospect of me ever believing in God, that is as strong a belief as I have. I suppose that means I only have beliefs, no knowledge at all!

Everything in my brain is a working hypothesis. But that is not to say that I doubt everything all the time and trust nothing. I just have no faith, only belief. Is that any clearer? I think I'm right, but I am never totally sure.

(Nobody in England says Good day Sir, unless they are taking the piss.)

Martin

Howdy partner. It's me. To clarify, Kanata is the original spelling and pronunciation of Canada (native Indian). I was feeling a nit bit giddy when I signed your GuestBook. I assumed it easy to "crack the code" because I occasionally forget that the INTERnet is INTERnational and not confined to Canadian borders. My foible.

Anyway, I'm a little disappointed with you. A little over a week ago I sent you an E-mail, the contents of which were very important (to me). I am certain that it reached you because I used one of your "E-mail me" links to open it, so your address was automatically installed. I haven't another copy to send you, nor can I rewrite what I said, so I shall hang my head and leave it be........ for now. I only request that you not be so quick to delete your messages.

I feel that we did not get off to the start that I had anticipated. Ever since I first got my computer/Internet, I have been on a mad search for another sound mind. I've scanned through Atheist site after Atheist site, but, I was able to locate error within seconds. Yours was the first that truly pleased me in the most profound way. I could detect no religious residue on your brain or in your words, even after the most extensive analysis. We are much more similar than you may think. Don't be shocked. It's like this; you either subscribe to reality, or you do not. Those that do will inevitably be basically the same. Those that do not are infected with *errored* thoughts. They however, come in many a form.

Graciously S. M. J. B.

Thanks for the explanation of Kanata, I felt reasonably certain it was Canada but I wasn't sure if it had some other significance; I speculated about French Canada, Gay Canada, Feminist Canada, Socialist Canada, but then I thought I had better ask instead.

I am sorry that I didn't see your original mail. I keep all my messages, incoming and outgoing with the exception of spam (incoming and outgoing). I have checked right back and I can find no trace. The only other thing I can do is to check with my ISP, I have a webmail facility, I have never used it, but it might still have a copy on the server, I will give it a try. I really do try to answer every e-mail, it can be quite an effort. Perhaps you should also keep your outgoing messages, at least until they have received a reply, just a suggestion.

Another suggestion is to use plain text for e-mail messages when you first contact somebody. An HTML message might contain any kind of script, macro, worm or virus. I don't remember if I deleted any such messages recently but sometimes if I get suspicious of an unsolicited message in HTML, particularly if it has an attachment, I do delete it. It is probably good netiquette to always use plain text at first, the equivalent of not exchanging bodily fluids on a first date. Plain text e-mail cannot trigger any form of virus attack unless the recipient is dumb enough to turn unsolicited code into an executable file.

To me communicating with young adult atheists is the most exciting part of what I do on the computer. Children are too gullible and open to any influence, older people can be too set in their thinking. You are at an age now when you have plenty of curiosity, probably too much gullibility, but you will be improving. To help you keep your mind focussed on rational thinking is a real pleasure. You will never be totally clear in your thinking, I think that is impossible. The important thing is to always seek to improve your thinking as the most important part of you. Academics tend to get fossilized in the public perception of themselves. They almost become a fictional character to themselves, they spend their lives being what they are supposed to be, thinking like they have said that they think, rather than actually being free to think.

I love intellectual freedom. My site gives me it. I can change my pages two or three times a day if I want to. Sometimes I do. I could never do that as an academic, politician or priest.

If I find the original message I will let you know as soon as I do. Basically the only possibility is for me to find it on the server when I go online this evening, within ten minutes of you receiving this message. If I don't let you know that I have found it then the only way for me to reply to it would be for you to re-write it. But if you do why not do it in a form suitable for my Guest Zone? That way you can give it a wider airing as well.

Your friend from Angle-Land

Martin

Hello Martin.

It's SMJB

I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on a particular subject. Well.......infact several subjects that inter-relate. For starters I will ask you (and/or your viewers) if you know of any wild animal that, when capable of reproducing, does not attempt to?(hierarchies and opposition not withstanding) I have searched many a medium in efforts to find an exception but have been unsuccessful. Actually, human beings seem to be the only species that counter-acts this apparent natural law. Go figure!!! Anyways, my contention is that human parents, predominantly in the west, are tardy with regards to how they manipulate and nurture the maturity levels of their children. That is to say, a twelve year old "girl", is supposed to be as mature as a twenty year old women. The evidence speaks for itself. If twelve year olds were not supposed to have children, then evolution would not have provided the package necessary to do so (at that age)

I don't want to get into great detail here but it is important that I add a few more points. This mistake in child raising is also responsible for the "conflict years" that most teen-agers experience. Most people assume that this rebellion stage is part of a natural growth process that prepares a teen for the adult world. This is false. The rebellious behavior is actually a RESULT of the mistake. When the biological program is raring to go, but the aquired information is not up to par, these things are bound to happen.

The best explanation that I can find for why this mistake is occurring is this; if the child acts and appears younger, then the parent may also feel younger. Simple and sick as that. The sexual years are the most important years of any animals life cycle. The kids are striving to get there, the adults are striving to stay there, and the elders spend the rest of their days wishing they were still there. This is an efficient and effective system of operations. Lets not tamper with it.

I think you are right. Animals breed when they can. At times they may reduce brood sizes when times seem hard but their behaviour seems geared to maximizing the number of surviving offspring. The reason why is quite simple, this is the behaviour that maximizes the copies of the genes that maximize their numbers. It almost sounds like tautology, but that should not be taken as a criticism. It is true by definition. Patterns of genes that maximize their survival (as copies in organisms) out-compete those packages of genes that do not.

"Actually, human beings seem to be the only species that counter-acts this apparent natural law. Go figure!!!" That is because the interests of people and the interests of people-genes are not the same. It is perfectly possible to have a fabulously happy life and not have children. But for the genes inside you your great grandparents who struggled to bring up ten children were much more successful at doing their bidding.

If you haven't already done so I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, the best book I have ever read. It will make all this clear. It is a wonderfully well written book and will make you feel like you have a whole new set of ideas to understand the world.

To wake up and throw off the tyranny of the selfish replicators is what we must do, that is why it is the opening screen on my website.

"Anyways, my contention is that human parents, predominantly in the west, are tardy with regards to how they manipulate and nurture the maturity levels of their children. That is to say, a twelve year old "girl", is supposed to be as mature as a twenty year old women. The evidence speaks for itself. If twelve year olds were not supposed to have children, then evolution would not have provided the package necessary to do so (at that age)" I disagree.

Nature has not given us puberty at age 12 because it is right or good, only because it has worked so far. Puberty before the optimum age for breeding is a risky strategy but it seems to have worked, otherwise we would not be here. Perhaps it is simply not possible to ripen a woman's body in another sequence, or else late fertility puberty simply was not an adaptation that arose and was open to evolution to work on. I don't want to get into great detail here but it is important that I add a few more points.

"This mistake in child raising is also responsible for the "conflict years" that most teen-agers experience. Most people assume that this rebellion stage is part of a natural growth process that prepares a teen for the adult world. This is false. The rebellious behavior is actually a RESULT of the mistake. When the biological program is raring to go, but the aquired information is not up to par, these things are bound to happen. The best explanation that I can find for why this mistake is occurring is this; if the child acts and appears younger, then the parent may also feel younger. Simple and sick as that. The sexual years are the most important years of any animals life cycle. The kids are striving to get there, the adults are striving to stay there, and the elders spend the rest of their days wishing they were still there. This is an efficient and effective system of operations. Lets not tamper with it." I disagree.

I would like us to do exactly that, interfere with the process to delay physical maturity, and especially the final stages that lead to full fertility, until later in a child's development. Somehow prolong the latency period during which children are neither well equipped physically or emotionally for sex until we can educate them further. This will be an excellent way to continue the trajectory that evolution had us on. Homo erectus was sexually mature at about 9. That age has got later as we have developed. Only in the last 50 years has this process reversed, with the dawning of the age of technology being the effective death of natural evolution, certainly any form of trajectory towards "progress."

Modern man has to be born severely premature, before the brain becomes too large to allow birth through bipedal hips. That then naturally leads to a long period of relative helplessness for the child but in a much more stimulating environment than a warm fluid filled sack. Our brains have taken advantage of this period of infancy to grow more in both bulk and complexity. Our brains are similar in size to that of a dolphin at the same age since fertilization, but with many times more connections in the axons. Those connections were made during the period when the baby was helpless but the dolphin did not make the same number of connections while it was still a foetus. Modern man is clever because of infancy and childhood.

Most animals lose all sense of curiosity with sexual maturity. The exceptions are interesting, domestic cats, effectively neotonized by our behaviour to them, they are arrested in the stage of playful kittens. Wild adult cats are not curious, just efficient.

My proposal is to prolong that period of sexual latency but intense desire to learn. Have puberty delayed by five years. I don't quite know what the mechanism would be, probably something to slow the clock in the brain. An unwanted side effect to watch out for would be any tendency to grow ugly. I'm serious. Look at pygmies. They are effectively neotonized* people. Smaller and more childlike in many ways. Their women have breasts like young teenagers. They are pretty people, even though they are short and have features that are not exactly to our tastes.

A prolonging of one stage of development would have some effect on our appearance. If we decided to go for neotony* without reduced stature then we could end up ugly. Have you ever seen a woman with excess human growth hormone? Arnie Schwartzenegger in drag is sexier.

Well you wanted to start something... So, broadly, I think the future should be smaller and brighter. Think of all those top eastern bloc "women" gymnasts. Pert breast buds under college graduation gowns. Bending down to kiss our great grandchildren, and not having a hope in hell of being able to help them with their studies. I am having fantasies about Japanese schoolgirls now. Small, bright, attractive but not sexually available. We may end up looking like the classic small alien. I suppose if we all look like that we will find it attractive. We do tend to look for a wife that looks a bit like mother or big sister.

If we can achieve this by slowing the clock we might be able to get an extra five years of childhood without losing any time in the middle years. As you rightly say, the good bits, when you are actually fully educated (as much as you can be) and sexually capable. For some reason we seem to think that being bright is a good thing, so why not be more bright? We know the recipe, more childhood.

Thanks. You shifted my writer's block. This is really going to make a good page soon. Maybe a little more thinking required though.

Martin

* neoteny / n. Zool.

1 the retention of juvenile features in the adult; paedomorphosis.

2 sexual maturity of an animal still in a larval stage, e.g. an axolotl.

neotenic // adj. neotenous adj. [German Neotenie (as neo- + Greek teino 'extend')]

G'day Sir.

I've been frequenting your site for several months now and, like I've stated before, I'm usually in compliance with what you say. However, you wrote in your advice sleeve (concerning teen impressionability) that marijuana was "a good drug" and that you "recommend it". Granted weed has its medicinal uses but it is not without faults.

When matter is burned, a high proportion of carbon gas is produced. CARBON IS DEATH (to all animals). That is why we breath it out and not in. It takes one hell of a toll on our heart by lessening the percentage of oxygen in our blood. The heart tries to pump faster but it too, is starved of oxygen. This creates an awful lot of stress on the cardio and respiratory system.

The common misconception (between mindless potheads) is that marijuana is a relaxant. Well....... this is true. But a relaxed state can be achieved in 2 ways. You can either over work your body from activities and endurance, or, you can starve your body of the necessary amount of required oxygen it needs for the task at hand. The former is healthy. The latter is suicide. If you do not feel that I've made a valid case, simply say so and I will be happy to make additions. If however you agree with me then please make the appropriate changes to the column.

Graciously

SMJB

I strongly suspect that your knowledge of medicine and chemistry is not up to the task in hand.

You are making the assumption that I am suggesting cannabis should be smoked. This is a mistake, one I will correct next time I have a go at the site. That page has been messed with a few times and is not right yet.

Smoking is unhealthy. Any form of smoking puts carbon monoxide into the blood, a poisonous gas that we do not breathe out, a gas that haemoglobin takes up in preference to oxygen. Carbon monoxide is bad news for the body.

Smoking cannabis is more damaging than smoking tobacco, and especially damaging if taken with tobacco, this damage is caused by many different compounds, many carcinogenic, in the lungs. As a simple drug cannabis has less bad effects than alcohol or tobacco. It is a reasonably safe recreational drug. A few people are badly affected by it but ask any nurse or doctor on an emergency department about dangerous drugs and they will tell you that the problems of alcohol and personality disorders is far more acute and serious.

I think a new page on cannabis is almost certain to appear soon which should clear up the points. Basically smoking is bad. Nicotine is bad. Cannabis is not good for you but it is a powerful drug, it does have an effect on you, an effect that is worth the health risks of consuming it. It is a good recreational drug, it performs that role well, it relaxes and induces a feeling of well being that enables people to enjoy themselves while at the same time counteracting the ill effects of too much testosterone, which is probably the most dangerous substance around from the viewpoint of the whole society.

I think the line "Carbon is Death" is crazy. Carbon is life. Animals, plants and bacteria are all organic, based on the chemistry of carbon. All our food is based on carbon, and all our drugs too, including alcohol which is C2H5OH, two carbon atoms at the heart of the molecule surrounded by five hydrogen atoms and one hydroxyl radical.

Confessions of a Middle Aged English Hashish Eater (only three years late)

I haven't much to say, really. In fact, I simply want to suggest a few topics for you to write about. As well, I want to see what you think. One issue in particular that holds my thoughts for extended periods of time is such; have you ever noticed that the number of degenerative, deformed human beings is disproportionately higher than most (if not all) other animals in nature. Seems to me that because our weakest are not snuffed out in their early years, they grow to procreate. And in doing so, their "bad genes" succeed when they shouldn't have. I know that two people with form problems are capable of having perfectly healthy offspring, but in the long run the effects show themselves as negative. Just a thought

Oh wait.......here comes another one

And what about this third world starvation deal. How did these people manage to survive this long? Even though the western world has intervened, the situation is critical. It makes me wonder how bad the situation was before we stepped in. ~OR~, perhaps it's our intervention that has soured their state. Maybe these women shoot out 10 babies per year because they feel that (we) will pick up the slack like western baby-sitters. It may be possible that before they had us to fall back on, they moderated their birth rate more responsibly. I am without the facts, but I do know that the situation needs to be remedied.....IMMEDIATELY.

The eastern third worlds are nothing but drain pipes. How do we implement a plug?

And the last thing I will throw your way is this; I am trying to think of an appropriate day to celebrate science and progress. Human advancement is wonderful and should be encouraged throughout the planet. It would be a constructive holiday that instills self-worth (not pride. I have issues with pride) in people. It would probably receive quite a bit of resistance, but in time would creep through the back door with positive effects. I'm thinking maybe Thomas Edisons birthday. He certainly pulled his weight in this field. Was it on your site that it was suggested that we celebrate solstice? Well I would have to decline on those. Global positioning has little value to me. I would however appreciate any other suggestions you may have. Perhaps a date. Or a name for this holiday. I've been pondering "world progress day" but I can't, for the life of me think of any jingles to go along with it.

Ciao

Progress Day

The day to celebrate science and progress? Obvious, tomorrow. But as tomorrow is always a day away why not do it today? Everyday. Action, this day.

What an excellent idea, I'll drink to that one!

Cripples

Yes, of course I have noticed that our species has more deformed and crippled individuals. This is because we have developed the notion that they have the right to life and if that means the rest of us carry them, literally or figuratively, then that is what we do. Part of the reason why this has come about is because of our success. If we were literally living from hand to mouth we could not afford the luxury of such care, but we can generate a surplus of time and resources and it is quite easy for a few interested or self interested individuals to persuade us to carry that burden. There are few votes in drowning cripples, far more are to be had for keeping them alive regardless of cost. It is one of the many examples of the asymmetry of democracy. It many ways it would be in the best interests of the majority and therefore of society as a whole to do away with inadequate people just as the Nazis proposed and did. But this rarely happens because of asymmetry. The cripples and their families will make a very big deal about it, the majority will not be that bothered and so the minority prevails. Then the majority decides that it hasn't been defeated, it is happy with the burden. It is better to feel that you are magnanimous than that you are too weak to pursue your own self interest.

No, of course that is not exactly what I believe, at least, not all the time. I do see the argument for looking after the weaker members of society. We become stronger morally by doing so. But we should also be aware of the pitfalls. Supporting a sick person is one thing, permitting the genetically diseased and disadvantaged to breed as they see fit is supreme folly.

For several years now I have been contemplating a remedy to this problem in the form of universal genetic screening. We should all be rendered sterile by default and have to contract in to conception, rather than being fertile by default and having to chose contraception. A welfare state and total freedom to breed at will are incompatible. The state, the community, the society, the wider whole, us - has a voice in the future of our species. Having children is not a self-regarding action with no social consequences. If we could establish the public interest in the genetic health of our species we could help create a better world.

I do not propose trying to evolve into better people, simply avoiding degenerating into unhealthy and extremely variable people. Obvious genetic disease should be wiped out but so should tendencies to develop cancer or heart disease or loose teeth or the use of joints prematurely. We will live longer lives, a great proportion of our lives will be beyond the reach of natural selection. Natural selection could never have removed the gene my father carries for a tendency to develop heart disease past the age of fifty five, by the time anybody knew about this condition he had two children and seven grandchildren, any, or even all, may have severely reduced life chances as a result. If such disease is preventable it should be prevented. How can it be prevented? By freezing genetic material of people in their late teens and using that to build children after the donors have completed long, happy and healthy lives. It would not be a good idea to use this technique to maximize lifespan, that is a worthless and self-destructive goal. I doubt that this strategy could win public approval, despite its advantages. However some modified form of genetic screening should be used to ensure healthy children free of preventable illness.

The poor

My solution to third world poverty is quite simple. We abolish all countries and boundaries. We extend our care to all. In such a world the capacity to care will be reduced. It will mean a massive decline in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. This will not, however, matter very much at all.

There is plenty of wealth available in our world for everybody to be provided for and to live a full life. There could never be enough to satisfy a single capitalist on a measly single planet. Happiness and wealth are not linked like you have been indoctrinated. Freedom does not get you happiness.

If I was to ask you how much money you needed to make you happy could you give me a confident answer? In contrast I bet we could sit down and work out quite accurately exactly how much you needed to ensure your freedom from financial misery. Money cannot make you happy, although a lack of it can make you unhappy. The same goes for freedom.

It is fairly obvious to most people that watching your children starve to death in front of you is not going to help make you happy. It is not so obvious at all that allowing a millionaire to retain an extra 5% of his earnings will have any affect on his level of happiness, or workrate either. This is a world of asymmetry. More money does not make you happy, no money makes you unhappy. Isn't it fairly obvious that more people will be happier with a more equal distribution of wealth?