[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaCGoSTMHyc&w=700] Why a ring effect is produced when certain liquids dry. Stunning. Via B3TA.

The wondrous moment of our meeting... 

The wondrous moment of our meeting... Still I remember you appear Before me like a vision fleeting, A beauty's angel pure and clear.

In hopeless ennui surrounding The worldly bustle, to my ear For long your tender voice kept sounding, For long in dreams came features dear.

Time passed. Unruly storms confounded Old dreams, and I from year to year Forgot how tender you had sounded, Your heavenly features once so dear.

My backwoods days dragged slow and quiet -- Dull fence around, dark vault above -- Devoid of God and uninspired, Devoid of tears, of fire, of love.

Sleep from my soul began retreating, And here you once again appear Before me like a vision fleeting, A beauty's angel pure and clear.

In ecstasy my heart is beating, Old joys for it anew revive; Inspired and God-filled, it is greeting The fire, and tears, and love alive.

"I loved you..."

I loved you, and I probably still do, And for a while the feeling may remain... But let my love no longer trouble you, I do not wish to cause you any pain. I loved you; and the hopelessness I knew, The jealousy, the shyness - though in vain - Made up a love so tender and so true As may God grant you to be loved again.

Not sure she's quite taking it in, etc etc.

From those lemon flowersSet free By the light of the moon From that Odor of a love Frustrated, Sunken in fragrance, There came From the Lemon tree its yellow, From its planetary system The lemons came down to the earth.

Tender merchandise! Our shores filled up with it, The markets Of light, of gold From a tree, And we open up The two halves Of a miracle, Congealed acid Which ran From the hemispheres Of a star And the most profound liquor In nature, Unchanging, alive, Indestructible, Born from the freshness Of the lemon, From its fragrant house, From its acid, secret symmetry.

Inside the lemon the knives Cut A small Cathedral, The window hidden behind the altars Opened to the light its glassy acids, And in drops Like topazes they were dripped Onto the altars By the architecture of freshness.

So when your hand Squeezes the hemisphere Of the cut Lemon onto your plate, A universe of gold, You have poured out One Yellow cup Full of miracles One of the sweet-smelling nipples Of the breast of the earth, A ray of light that became a fruit, The diminutive fire of a planet.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShbC5yVqOdI&w=700] By far my favourite film from the stunning Concrete Circus documentary was this one, Danny Macaskill playing with trains, to a soundtrack by Ben Howard (new favourite song). Director: Stu Thomson.

“My Klout score is an 83, which makes me a Thought Leader. There’s a lot of pressure to stay relevant and forward thinking, when you’re that influential. A few sub-par tweets and I could be downgraded to Specialist. I mean, not that there’s anything wrong with being a Specialist… you’re not a Specialist, are you?” - - - “I know you’re a complete stranger, but I’d gladly waste one of my Spotify invitations on you. Give me your number and I’ll throw in a Google+ invite. I’d put you in my ‘Babe’ Circle.”

- - - “That gorgeous woman over there keeps looking this way, like she recognizes me or something. I do maintain a mildly successful YouTube account with over sixty subscribers, so I’m used to this sort of unwelcome attention. Are you an actress?”

- - - “You’ve been published by The Atlantic? That’s cool. My name is frequently used as a tag on Tumblr. We have all the makings of a modern power couple.”

- - - “My U.S. Alexa ranking is 22K, which is fairly impressive for a blog about soft cheeses. It’s not always smooth sailing, though. It can be difficult coming up with compelling content. Brie sort of loses its luster after a few years, you know? How many times can one reinvent mascarpone? I feel optimistic, though – I’ve received great feedback from prospective advertisers and I really think things are about to take off. What I’m saying is, I’d love to take a look at your website and give you a few pointers. If you want.”

- - - “According to this app, only four people in the past sixteen hours have found me so tedious that they’ve found it necessary to unfollow me on Twitter. Just saying.”

- - - “As of now, my mother doesn’t have a Facebook account so, if we were to take this thing to the next level, you wouldn’t have to worry about rejecting her inappropriate Family Request.”

- - - “I’d dance to Cher, if it got you that much closer to affording a new Turntable.fm outfit. You deserve the best.”

- - - “Do you come here often? I do. I’m the Foursquare mayor, actually, which means I come here more than anyone else. That reminds me, I need to check-in. Can I have your Twitter handle? You’re so attractive, I want to Shout it from multiple applications. Simultaneously.”

= = =

Stephanie Georgopulos wrote this for the excellent McSweeny's.

(via)

Man, Geoff Love knew his way around a soundtrack adaptation. Nice to hear one that's not all disco too. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUs1UdEqL5g&w=700]

Taking home electronics to a whole new level, Ericaknit on Etsy has made this AMAZING R2-D2 jumper. Merino wool, $450 (plus postage), all I have to say is YES. And thank god she didn't do C3PO. Click here to see more images.

These are the coins you're looking for. On Niue, a tiny island country that sits 1,500 miles northeast of New Zealand, this November “Star Wars” fans will be able to purchase limited mint copies of silver-plated coins featuring Luke, Leia, Han Solo, and the gang. A $2 coin will cost $117 to purchase, which is worth it just for the Millennium Falcon carrying case alone.

Finally, the geniuses who bought you the Han Solo coffee table have been working tirelessly on one based on the Millennium Falcom. It's pretty. It's $1,500. And it's sold. Look at those smooth lines, that beautiful texture. Would look great with a stack of copies of World of Interiors and Elle Decoration.

ps - you have to listen to this too - you might want to forward to 2.50: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CQedUjHW5A&w=700]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msjDrqEKGX0&w=700] Lovely lovely lovely thing. Starts to kick in at about 1.45.

Indonesian officials are scrambling to find a solution to the latest dangerous trend in Jakarta: people who roam the city's railway tracks looking for free "electric therapy."

As many as several dozen people per day intentionally try to electrocute themselves along the rails, according to local media reports, because they believe it can cure all kinds of diseases, from diabetes to high-blood pressure to insomnia. When trains approach, people briefly step aside but rush back quickly into a sleeping position on the tracks to feel electrical currents they believe will cure their ailments.

Residents say the unorthodox—and dangerous—practice started with a local rumor about a man who tried to kill himself by lying on the tracks. He was fed up after suffering paralysis from a stroke and medical treatment failed to cure his symptoms. He allegedly decided that being crushed by a train would be better than continuing his misery. But while lying on the tracks, he suddenly felt cured, according to the hearsay. It's unclear whether any elements of the story were true.

As word of the supposed miracle spread, train tracks in slum areas in northern Jakarta became trendy as impromptu clinics. Until recently, more than 50 people would show up at the city's Rawa Buaya tracks every day. The numbers have dropped recently, since police and the state-run railroad erected a warning sign, but some people still come, convinced the tracks can cure them.

[full story and photo slideshow HERE]

(via)

You might also like this bad boy, a dramatisation of Miyamoto Musashi VS Sasaki Kojiro on Ganryu island in 1612. This is probably one of the most famous duels in Japanese history. Musashi, a cantankerous purist, fought with a long wooden sword (made from an oar); Kojiro, the young pretender, with a 3-feet iron sword.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj1iI68AQo8&w=700]

There are various versions, but all have the same ending. Miyamoto Musashi killed more than 80 men in duels, and is now considered the greatest samurai to ever live. When Musashi was alive, there was only one warrior that he felt was his equal - an arrogant man by the name of Sasaki Kojiro. The two were rivals for the title of Kensai or “sword saint” for many years. Finally events led to their epic duel on Ganryu island.

Legend has it that the duel was supposed to take place at dawn. Kojiro and most of royal Japan was there waiting. Musashi was still in bed. He woke up an hour after the fight was supposed to have started and painted for a time. Kojiro spent the day furious and bemoaned Musashi as a coward.

Eventually, with the sun high in the sky, Musashi got in his rowboat and his man began the journey to the island. Musashi did not take his long blade. Rather he took only a bokken (wooden sword) he had whittled himself. It was six inches longer than Kojiro’s weapon.

When he arrived at the island, Musashi pulled his boat up so that the sun was in Kojiro’s eyes as he approached. Driven to the point of near madness by anger and anticipation, Kojiro furiously ran towards Musashi, called him a coward, unsheathed his sword and threw his scabbard onto the beach.

Musashi responded, "Kojiro you have already lost." Kojiro laughed at him and asked him why he thought that. Musashi responded, "Only a man who knows he is about to die would throw his scabbard away." Kojiro was completely thrown off by the comment, and in a rage did not follow his protocol of gauging distance and circling, instead choosing to rush Musashi.

Both men charged - Kojiro with his Katana and Musashi with his club. They both leapt, and it appeared, connected. The onlookers thought both men had killed each other. An eternal instant later, Kojiro fell to the ground lifeless, his brain crushed in from Musashi's club. Musashi landed on the ground, and his topknot landed in front of him, on the ground. It had been severed…six inches from his face.

Musashi claimed no one else he would ever fight would reach Kojiro's level and vowed never to fight again, which he did not. Instead, he retired to the mountains, lived in isolation, and wrote the definitive warrior’s handbook – The Book of Five Rings.

"In a time that is more and more defined by mechanisms of surveillance the 'gaze of the Big Brother' seems ever more omnipresent," says artist Simon Menner. "What it really is that the Big Brother sees. Can the terror such a repressive system spreads be found in these images? Or is the 'gaze of evil' pretty banal and we have to attach the terror ourselves?" Mostly the results of surveillance remain hidden, he continues, but the East German Stasi were not only obsessive in their record-keeping, but are also now widely accessible since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Menner has done an incredible research job through the Stasi's vaults and come up with this fantastic collection of images which, he says, "can broaden our understanding of the function of surveillance and repression".

There's all sorts of things hidden away in the pictures. Stasi agents would take polaroids of people's flats as they (secretly) searched them, there's a set of instructional images showing how to wear plain clothes and blend in, there's even a great set on countersurveillance, called "spies taking pictures of spies taking pictures of spies taking pictures of spies..."' See the whole lot for yourself here, I've put some of my favourites below by way of a teaser.

[slideshow]

Some of his other work is fantastic too - I really like Camouflage - a series of landscapes which each have a real army sniper hidden in them. Dope.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIl4LkHYRkg&w=700] Man just keeps getting better and better.

Andrew Zak Williams has had two features published in the New Statesman recently. One in which he asks prominent public figures and scientists why they have faith, the second asking atheists why they don't. I've put most of them here, but you should read the whole lot (and make up your own mind). Full pieces are here (for) and here (against).

It's interesting to think that, under the inquisition, not just all of the "againsts" but also a lot of the believers here would have been heretics, burnt at the stake and all that horrible stuff.

Cherie Blair, barrister It's been a journey from my upbringing to an understanding of something that my head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.

Jeremy Vine, broadcaster There is a subjective reason and an objective reason. The subjective reason is that I find consolation in my faith. The objective reason is that the story of the gospels has stood the test of time and Christ comes across as a totally captivating figure. In moments of weariness or cynicism, I tell myself I only believe because my parents did; and the Christian faith poses more questions than it answers.

But I still return to believing, as if that is more natural than not doing so. Richard Swinburne, emeritus professor of philosophy, University of Oxford To suppose that there is a God explains why there is a physical universe at all; why there are the scientific laws there are; why animals and then human beings have evolved; why human beings have the opportunity to mould their character and those of their fellow humans for good or ill and to change the environment in which we live; why we have the well-authenticated account of Christ's life, death and resurrection; why throughout the centuries millions of people (other than ourselves) have had the apparent experience of being in touch with and guided by God; and so much else. In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience and it does so better than any other explanation that can be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true. Peter Hitchens, journalist I believe in God because I choose to do so. I believe in the Christian faith because I prefer to do so. The existence of God offers an explanation of many of the mysteries of the universe - es­pecially "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and the questions which follow from that. It requires our lives to have a purpose, and our actions to be measurable against a higher standard than their immediate, observable effect. Having chosen belief in a God over unbelief, I find the Christian gospels more per­suasive and the Christian moral system more powerful than any other religious belief. I was, it is true, brought up as a Christian, but ceased to be one for many years. When I returned to belief I could have chosen any, but did not.

Jonathan Aitken, former politician I believe in God because I have searched for Him and found Him in the crucible of brokenness. Some years ago I went through an all-too-well-publicised drama of defeat, disgrace, divorce, bankruptcy and jail. In the course of that saga I discovered a loving God who answers prayers, forgives and redeems.

James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool One word: Jesus. All that you imagine God would be, He is. His life and His love are compelling, His wisdom convincing.

Richard Chartres, Bishop of London I believe in God because He has both revealed and hidden Himself in so many different ways: in the created world, the Holy Bible, the man Jesus Christ; in the Church and men and women of God through the ages; in human relationships, in culture and beauty, life and death, pain and suffering; in immortal longings, in my faltering prayers and relationship with Him. There is nothing conclusive to force me into believing, but everything sug­gestive, and constantly drawing me on into the love of Christ and to "cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt".

Professor Stephen R L Clark, philosopher I believe in God because the alternatives are worse. Not believing in God would mean that we have no good reason to think that creatures such as us human beings (accidentally generated in a world without any overall purpose) have any capacity - still less any duty - to discover what the world is like. Denying that "God exists" while still maintaining a belief in the power of reason is, in my view, ridiculous. My belief is that we need to add both that God is at least possibly incarnate among us, and that the better description of God (with all possible caveats about the difficulty of speaking about the infinite source of all being and value) is as something like a society. In other words, the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, and of the trinity, have the philosophical edge. And once those doctrines are included, it is possible to see that other parts of that tradition are important.

Stephen Green, director of the fundamentalist pressure group Christian Voice I came to faith in God through seeing the ducks on a pond in People's Park, Grimsby. It struck me that they were all doing a similar job, but had different plumage. Why was that? Why did the coot have a white beak and the moorhen a red one? Being a hard-nosed engineer, I needed an explanation that worked and the evolutionary model seemed too far-fetched and needful of too much faith! I mean, what could possibly be the evolutionary purpose of the bars on the hen mallard's wings, which can only be seen when she flies? Or the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? So I was drawn logically to see them as designed like that. I suppose I believed in an intelligent designer long before the idea became fashionable. So, that left me as a sort of a deist. But God gradually became more personal to me and I was drawn against all my adolescent atheist beliefs deeper and deeper into faith in Jesus Christ. Professor Derek Burke, biochemist and former president of Christians in Science There are several reasons why I believe in God. First of all, as a scientist who has been privileged to live in a time of amazing scientific discoveries (I received my PhD in 1953, the year Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA), I have been overwhelmed by wonder at the order and intricacy of the world around us. It is like peeling skins off an onion: every time you peel off a layer, there is another one underneath, equally marvellously intricate. Surely this could not have arisen by chance? Then my belief is strengthened by reading the New Testament especially, with the accounts of that amazing person, Jesus, His teaching, His compassion, His analysis of the human condition, but above all by His resurrection. Third, I'm deeply impressed by the many Christians whom I have met who have lived often difficult lives with compassion and love. They are an inspiration to me.

Peter J Bussey, particle physicist God is the ultimate explanation, and this includes the explanation for the existence of physical reality, for laws of nature and everything. Let me at this point deal with a commonly encountered "problem" with the existence of God, one that Richard Dawkins and others have employed. It goes that if God is the ultimate cause or the ultimate explanation, what then is the cause of God, or the explanation for God? My reply is that, even in our own world, it is improper to repeat the same investigatory question an indefinite number of times. For example, we ask, "Who designed St Paul's Cathedral?" and receive the reply: "Sir Christopher Wren." But, "No help whatever," objects the sceptic, "because, in that case, who then designed Sir Christopher Wren?" To this, our response will now be that it is an inappropriate question and anyone except a Martian would know that. Different questions will be relevant now. So, likewise, it is very unlikely that we know the appropriate questions, if any, to ask about God, who is presumably outside time, and is the source of the selfsame rationality that we presume to employ to understand the universe and to frame questions about God. What should perhaps be underlined is that, in the absence of total proof, belief in God will be to some extent a matter of choice.

Peter Richmond, theoretical physicist Today most people reject the supernatural but there can be no doubt that the teachings of Jesus are still relevant. And here I would differentiate these from some of the preaching of authoritarian churches, which has no doubt been the source of much that could be considered to be evil over the years. Even today, we see conflict in places such as Africa or the Middle East - killings made in the name of religion, for example. As Christians, we recognise these for what they are - evil acts perpetrated by the misguided. At a more domestic level, the marginalisation of women in the Church is another example that should be exposed for what it is: sheer prejudice by the present incumbents of the Church hierarchy. But as Christians, we can choose to make our case to change things as we try to follow the social teachings of Jesus. Compared to pagan idols, Jesus offered hope, comfort and inspiration, values that are as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago.

David Myers, professor of psychology, Hope College, Michigan [Our] spirituality, rooted in the developing biblical wisdom and in a faith tradition that crosses the centuries, helps make sense of the universe, gives meaning to life, opens us to the transcendent, connects us in supportive communities, provides a mandate for morality and selflessness and offers hope in the face of adversity and death.

Kenneth Miller, professor of biology, Brown University I regard scientific rationality as the key to understanding the material basis of our existence as well as our history as a species. That's the reason why I have fought so hard against the "creationists" and those who advocate "intelligent design". They deny science and oppose scientific rationality, and I regard their ideas as a threat to a society such as ours that has been so hospitable to the scientific enterprise. There are, however, certain questions that science cannot answer - not because we haven't figured them out yet (there are lots of those), but because they are not scientific questions at all. As the Greek philosophers used to ask, what is the good life? What is the nature of good and evil? What is the purpose to existence? My friend Richard Dawkins would ask, in response, why we should think that such questions are even important. But to most of us, I would respond, these are the most important questions of all. What I can tell you is that the world I see, including the world I know about from science, makes more sense to me in the light of a spiritual understanding of existence and the hypo­thesis of God. Specifically, I see a moral polarity to life, a sense that "good" and "evil" are actual qualities, not social constructions, and that choosing the good life (as the Greeks meant it) is the central question of existence. Given that, the hypothesis of God conforms to what I know about the material world from science and gives that world a depth of meaning that I would find impossible without it. Now, I certainly do not "know" that the spirit is real in the sense that you and I can agree on the evidence that DNA is real and that it is the chemical basis of genetic information. There is, after all, a reason religious belief is called "faith", and not "certainty". But it is a faith that fits, a faith that is congruent with science, and even provides a reason why science works and is of such value - because science explores that rationality of existence, a rationality that itself derives from the source of that existence. In any case, I am happy to confess that I am a believer, and that for me, the Christian faith is the one that resonates. What I do not claim is that my religious belief, or anyone's, can meet a scientific test.

Nick Brewin, molecular biologist A crucial component of the question depends on the definition of "God". As a scientist, the "God" that I believe in is not the same God(s) that I used to believe in. It is not the same God that my wife believes in; nor is it the same God that my six-year-old granddaughter believes in; nor is it the God that my brain-damaged and physically disabled brother believes in. Each person has their own concept of what gives value and purpose to their life. This concept of "God" is based on a combination of direct and indirect experience. Humankind has become Godlike, in the sense that it has acquired the power to store and manipulate information. Language, books, computers and DNA genomics provide just a few illustrations of the amazing range of technologies at our fingertips. Was this all merely chance? Or should we try to make sense of the signs and wonders that are embedded in a "revealed religion"? Perhaps by returning to the "faith" position of children or disabled adults, scientists can extend their own appreciation of the value and purpose of individual human existence. Science and religion are mutually complementary.

Steve Fuller, philosopher/professor of sociology, University of Warwick I am a product of a Jesuit education (before university), and my formal academic training is in history and philosophy of science, which is the field credited with showing the tight links between science and religion. While I have never been an avid churchgoer, I am strongly moved by the liberatory vision of Jesus promoted by left-wing Christians. I take seriously the idea that we are created in the image and likeness of God, and that we may come to exercise the sorts of powers that are associated with divinity. In this regard, I am sympathetic to the dissenting, anticlerical schools of Christianity - especially Unitarianism, deism and transcendentalism, idealism and humanism. I believe that it is this general position that has informed the progressive scientific spirit. People such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens like to think of themselves as promoting a progressive view of humanity, but I really do not see how Darwinism allows that at all, given its species-egalitarian view of nature (that is, humans are just one more species - no more privileged than the rest of them). As I see it, the New Atheists live a schizoid existence, where they clearly want to privilege humanity but have no metaphysical basis for doing so.

Michael J Behe, scientific advocate of intelligent design Two primary reasons: 1) that anything exists; and 2) that we human beings can comprehend and reason. I think both of those point to God.

Denis Alexander, director, Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, Cambridge I believe in the existence of a personal God. Viewing the universe as a creation renders it more coherent than viewing its existence as without cause. It is the intelligibility of the world that requires explanation. Second, I am intellectually persuaded by the historical life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, that He is indeed the Son of God. Jesus is most readily explicable by understanding Him as the Son of God. Third, having been a Christian for more than five decades, I have experienced God through Christ over this period in worship, answered prayer and through His love. These experiences are more coherent based on the assumption that God does exist.

Mike Hulme, professor of climate change, University of East Anglia There are many reasons - lines of evidence, if you will - all of which weave together to point me in a certain direction (much as a scientist or a jury might do before reaching a considered judgement), which we call a belief. [I believe] because there is non-trivial historical evidence that a person called Jesus of Naza­reth rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, and it just so happens that He predicted that He would . . . I believe because of the testimony of billions of believers, just a few of whom are known to me and in whom I trust (and hence trust their testimony). I believe because of my ineradicable sense that certain things I see and hear about in the world warrant the non-arbitrary categories of "good" or "evil". I believe because I have not discovered a better explanation of beauty, truth and love than that they emerge in a world created - willed into being - by a God who personifies beauty, truth and love.

Maryam Namazie, human rights activist I don't remember exactly when I stopped believing in God. Having been raised in a fairly open-minded family in Iran, I had no encounter with Islam that mattered until the Islamic movement took power on the back of a defeated revolution in Iran. I was 12 at the time. I suppose people can go through an entire lifetime without questioning God and a religion that they were born into (out of no choice of their own), especially if it doesn't have much of a say in their lives. If you live in France or Britain, there may never be a need to renounce God actively or come out as an atheist. But when the state sends a "Hezbollah" (the generic term for Islamist) to your school to ensure that you don't mix with your friends who are boys, stops you from swimming, forces you to be veiled, deems males and females separate and unequal, prescribes different books for you and your girlfriends from those read by boys, denies certain fields of study to you because you are female, and starts killing in­discriminately, then you have no choice but to question, discredit and confront it - all of it. And that is what I did.

Philip Pullman, author The main reason I don't believe in God is the missing evidence. There could logically be no evidence that he doesn't exist, so I can only go by the fact that, so far, I've discovered no evidence that he does: I have had no personal experience of being spoken to by God and I see nothing in the world around me, wherever I look in history or science or art or anywhere else, to persuade me that it was the work of God rather than of nature. To that extent, I'm an atheist. I would have to agree, though, that God might exist but be in hiding (and I can understand why - with his record, so would I be). If I knew more, I'd be able to make an informed guess about that. But the amount of things I do know is the merest tiny flicker of a solitary spark in the vast encircling darkness that represents all the things I don't know, so he might well be out there in the dark. As I can't say for certain that he isn't, I'd have to say I am an agnostic.

Kenan Malik, neurobiologist, writer and broadcaster I am an atheist because I see no need for God. Without God, it is said, we cannot explain the creation of the cosmos, anchor our moral values or infuse our lives with meaning and purpose. I disagree. Invoking God at best highlights what we cannot yet explain about the physical universe, and at worst exploits that ignorance to mystify. Moral values do not come prepackaged from God, but have to be worked out by human beings through a combination of empathy, reasoning and dialogue. This is true of believers, too: they, after all, have to decide for themselves which values in their holy books they accept and which ones they reject. And it is not God that gives meaning to our lives, but our relationships with fellow human beings and the goals and obligations that derive from them. God is at best redundant, at worst an obstruction. Why do I need him?

Susan Blackmore, psychologist and author What reason for belief could I possibly have? To explain suffering? He doesn't. Unless, that is, you buy in to his giving us free will, which conflicts with all we know about human decision-making. To give me hope of an afterlife? My 30 years of parapsychological research threw that hope out. To explain the mystical, spiritual and out-of-body experiences I have had? No: our rapidly improving knowledge of the brain is providing much better explanations than religious reasoning. To explain the existence and complexity of the wonderful world I see around me? No - and this is really the main one. God is supposed (at least in some versions of the story) to have created us all. Yet the Creator (any creator) is simply redundant. Every living thing on this planet evolved by processes that require no designer, no plans, no guidance and no foresight. We need no God to do this work. Where would he fit in? What would he do? And why? If he did have any role in our creation, he would have to be immensely devious, finickity, deceitful and mind-bogglingly cruel, which would be a very odd kind of God to believe in. So I don't.

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist I don't believe in leprechauns, pixies, werewolves, jujus, Thor, Poseidon, Yahweh, Allah or the Trinity. For the same reason in every case: there is not the tiniest shred of evidence for any of them, and the burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe. Even given no evidence for specific gods, could we make a case for some unspecified "intelligent designer" or "prime mover" or begetter of "something rather than nothing"? By far the most appealing version of this argument is the biological one - living things do present a powerful illusion of design. But that is the very version that Darwin destroyed. Any theist who appeals to "design" of living creatures simply betrays his ignorance of biology. Go away and read a book. And any theist who appeals to biblical evidence betrays his ignorance of modern scholarship. Go away and read another book. As for the cosmological argument, whose God goes under names such as Prime Mover or First Cause, the physicists are closing in, with spellbinding results. Even if there remain unanswered questions - where do the fundamental laws and constants of physics come from? - obviously it cannot help to postulate a designer whose existence poses bigger questions than he purports to solve. If science fails, our best hope is to build a better science. The answer will lie neither in theology nor - its exact equivalent - reading tea leaves. In any case, it is a fatuously illogical jump from deistic Unmoved Mover to Christian Trinity, with the Son being tortured and murdered because the Father, for all his omniscience and omnipotence, couldn't think of a better way to forgive "sin". Equally unconvincing are those who believe because it comforts them (why should truth be consoling?) or because it "feels right". Cherie Blair ["I'm a believer", above] may stand for the "feels right" brigade. She bases her belief on "an understanding of something that my head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true". She aspires to be a judge. M'lud, I cannot provide the evidence you require. My head cannot explain why, but my heart knows it to be true. Why is religion immune from the critical standards that we apply not just in courts of law, but in every other sphere of life?

Paula Kirby, writer I stopped being a believer when it became clear to me that the various versions of Christianity were mutually contradictory and that none had empirical evidence to support it. From the recognition that "knowing in my heart" was an unreliable guide to reality, I began to explore other types of explanation for life, the universe and everything, and discovered in science - biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, psychology - answers that genuinely explain, as opposed to those of religion, whose aim is to shroud their lack of substance in a cloak of mystery and metaphor. All-importantly, these scientific answers, even when tentative, are supported by evidence. That they are also far more thrilling, far more awe-inspiring, than anything religion can offer, and that I find life fuller, richer and more satisfying when it's looked firmly in the eye and wholeheartedly embraced for the transient and finite wonder that it is, is a happy bonus. Sam Harris, neuroscientist The most common impediment to clear thinking that a non-believer must confront is the idea that the burden of proof can be fairly placed on his shoulders: "How do you know there is no God? Can you prove it? You atheists are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalists you criticise." This is nonsense: even the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own. Every Christian can confidently judge the God of Zoroaster to be a creature of fiction, without first scouring the universe for evidence of his absence. Absence of evidence is all one ever needs to banish false knowledge. And bad evidence, proffered in a swoon of wishful thinking, is just as damning. But honest reasoning can lead us further into the fields of unbelief, for we can prove that books such as the Bible and the Quran bear no trace of divine authorship. We know far too much about the history of these texts to accept what they say about their own origins. And just imagine how good a book would be if it had been written by an omniscient Being. The moment one views the contents of scripture in this light, one can reject the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam definitively. The true authors of God's eternal Word knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between mind and brain, the causes of illness, or how best to create a viable, global civilisation in the 21st century. That alone should resolve every conflict between religion and science in the latter's favour, until the end of the world. In fact, the notion that any ancient book could be an infallible guide to living in the present gets my vote for being the most dangerously stupid idea on earth. What remains for us to discover, now and always, are those truths about our world that will allow us to survive and fully flourish. For this, we need only well-intentioned and honest inquiry - love and reason. Faith, if it is ever right about anything, is right by accident.

Daniel Dennett, philosopher The concept of God has gradually retreated from the concept of an anthropomorphic creator figure, judge and overseer to a mystery-shrouded Wonderful Something-or-Other utterly beyond human ken. It is impossible for me to believe in any of the anthropomorphic gods, because they are simply ridiculous, and so obviously the fantasy-projections of scientifically ignorant minds trying to understand the world. It is impossible for me to believe in the laundered versions, because they are systematically incomprehensible. It would be like trying to believe in the existence of wodgifoop - what's that? Don't ask; it's beyond saying. But why try anyway? There is no obligation to try to believe in God; that's a particularly pernicious myth left over from the days when organised religions created the belief in belief. One can be good without God, obviously. Many people feel very strongly that one should try to believe in God, so as not to upset Granny, or so as to encourage others to do likewise, or because it makes you nicer or nobler. So they go through the motions. Usually it doesn't work. I am in awe of the universe itself, and very grateful to be a part of it. That is enough.

Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics I do not believe in God - an intelligent, all-powerful being who cares about human beings - because the idea seems to me to be silly. The positive arguments that have been given for belief in God all appear to me as silly as the proposition they are intended to prove. Fortunately, in some parts of the world, religious belief has weakened enough so that people no longer kill each other over differences in this silliness. It is past time that the human race should grow up, enjoying what is good in life, including the pleasure of learning how the world works, and freeing ourselves altogether from supernatural silliness in facing the real problems and tragedies of our lives.

Jim al-Khalili, theoretical physicist It is often said that religious faith is about mankind's search for a deeper meaning to existence. But just because we search for it does not mean it is there. My faith is in humanity itself, without attaching any metaphysical baggage.

Polly Toynbee, journalist and president, British Humanist Association The only time I am ever tempted, momentarily, to believe in a God is when I shake an angry fist at him for some monstrous suffering inflicted on the world for no reason whatever. The Greeks and Romans and other pagans probably produced the most convincing gods - petulant, childish, selfish - demanding sacrifices to their vanity and inflicting random furies. At least that's a logical explanation. But an all-powerful God of goodness and love is evidently impossible. He would be a monster. Voltaire said so after the Lisbon earthquake. Victor Stenger, particle physicist I not only do not believe in God, I am almost 100 per cent certain the God of Abraham worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims does not exist. This God supposedly plays such an important role in the universe that there should be evidence he exists. There is nothing in the realm of human knowledge that requires anything supernatural, anything beyond matter, to describe our observations. Furthermore, religion is immoral. It is bad for individuals and bad for society.

Jerry Coyne, biologist There is simply no good data pointing to a supernatural being who either takes an interest in the world or actively affects it. Isn't it curious that all the big miracles, resurrections and ascensions to heaven occurred in the distant past, documented by single, dubious books? Besides, the "truth claims" of the various faiths about prophets, virgin births, angels, heaven and the like are not only scientifically unbelievable, but conflicting, so that most or all of them must be wrong. To Christians, Jesus is absolutely the scion and substance of God; to Muslims, that's blasphemy, punishable by execution. The more science learns about the world, the less room there is for God. Natural selection dispelled the last biology-based argument for divinity - the "design" of plants and animals. Now physics is displacing other claims, showing how the universe could have begun from "nothing" without celestial help. There's not only an absence of evidence for God, but good evidence against him. To the open-minded, religions were clearly invented by human beings to support their fervent wishes for what they wanted to be true. Our very world testifies constantly against God. Take natural selection, a process that is cruel, painful and wasteful. After Darwin's idea displaced Genesis-based creationism, the theological sausage-grinder - designed to transform scientific necessities into religious virtues - rationalised why it was better for God to have used natural selection to produce human beings. Needless to say, that argument doesn't fit with an all-loving God. Equally feeble are theological explanations for other suffering in the world. If there is a God, the evidence points to one who is apathetic - or even a bit malicious. To believers, testing the "God hypothesis" is not an option because they will accept no observations that disprove it. While I can imagine scientific evidence for God, even evidence that would make me a believer (a reappearing Jesus who instantly restores the limbs of amputees would do), there is no evidence - not even the Holocaust - which can dispel their faith in a good and loving God.

Stephen Hawking, physicist I am not claiming there is no God. The scientific account is complete, but it does not predict human behaviour, because there are too many equations to solve.One therefore uses a different model, which can include free will and God. Michael Shermer. publisher of Skeptic magazine I do not believe in God for four reasons. First, there is not enough evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe and ourselves and hands down moral laws and offers us eternal life. Second, any such being that was supernatural would by definition be outside the purview of our knowledge of the natural world and would necessarily have to be part of the natural world if we did discover such an entity. This brings me to the third reason, Shermer's Last Law, which is that any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God. (Because of Moore's law [of increasing computer power] and Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns, we ourselves will be able to engineer life, solar systems and even universes, given enough time.) Fourth, there is overwhelming evidence from history, anthropology, sociology and psychology that human beings created God, not vice versa. In the past 10,000 years there have been roughly 10,000 religions and 1,000 different gods. What are the chances that one group of people discovered the One True God while everyone else believed in 9,999 false gods? A likelier explanation is that all gods and religion are socially and psychologically constructed. We created gods.

Richard Wiseman, psychologist I do not believe in God because it seems both illogical and unnecessary. According to the believers, their God is an all-powerful and almighty force. However, despite this, their God allows for huge amounts of suffering and disease. Also, if I were to believe in God, logically speaking I would have to believe in a wide range of other entities for which there is no evidence, including pixies, goblins and gnomes, etc. It's a long list and I don't have room in my head for all of them. So, I am happy to believe that there is no God. We are just insignificant lumps of carbon flying through a tiny section of the universe. Our destiny is totally in our own hands, and it is up to each of us to make the best of our life. Let's stop worrying about mythical entities and start living.

P Z Myers, biologist I am accustomed to the idea that truth claims ought to be justified with some reasonable evidence: if one is going to claim, for instance, that a Jewish carpenter was the son of a God, or that there is a place called heaven where some ineffable, magical part of you goes when you die, then there ought to be some credible reason to believe that. And that reason ought to be more substantial than that it says so in a big book. Religious claims all seem to short-circuit the rational process of evidence-gathering and testing and the sad thing is that many people don't see a problem with that, and even consider it a virtue. It is why I don't just reject religion, but actively oppose it in all its forms - because it is fundamentally a poison for the mind that undermines our critical faculties. Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren't, a God will set you on fire for all eternity. These are ridiculous propositions. The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin' moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behaviour, and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an in­visible big kahuna. It's not just fact-free, it's all nonsense.

Andrew Copson, chief executive, British Humanist Association I don't believe in any gods or goddesses, because they are so obviously human inventions. Desert-dwellers have severe, austere and dry gods; suffering and oppressed people have loving and merciful gods; farmers have gods of rain and fruitfulness; and I have never met a liberal who believed in a conservative God or a conservative who believed in a liberal one. Every God I have ever heard of bears the indelible marks of human manufacture, and through history we can explain how and why we invented them.

Andrew Zak Williams has written for the Humanist, the Independent and Skeptic. His email address is: andrewbelief@gmail.com

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3j2m31S6U&w=700]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_6-IwMPjM&w=700]

=

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak-Vh-8hAAQ&w=700]

I posted another poem by this guy in early February. It was called The Good News. He's an amazing writer, Buddhist monk and general wise man. Something here for everyone - a nice meditation. If you like this, It's Not What You Think is a website that collects thoughtful quotes, poems and the like. The Tea Ceremony

You must be completely awake in the present to enjoy the tea. Only in the awareness of the present, can your hands feel the pleasant warmth of the cup. Only in the present, can you savor the aroma, taste the sweetness, appreciate the delicacy. If you are ruminating about the past, or worrying about the future, you will completely miss the experience of enjoying the cup of tea. You will look down at the cup, and the tea will be gone. Life is like that. If you are not fully present, you will look around and it will be gone. You will have missed the feel, the aroma, the delicacy and beauty of life. It will seem to be speeding past you. The past is finished. Learn from it and let it go. The future is not even here yet. Plan for it, but do not waste your time worrying about it. Worrying is worthless. When you stop ruminating about what has already happened, when you stop worrying about what might never happen, then you will be in the present moment. Then you will begin to experience joy in life.

— Thich Nhat Hanh