I got a fax the other day. It informed me that the Bible had been decoded (again) and that if I did the right thing, I could be one of the lucky fewwho get to chill in Heaven when the Armageddon shit hits the fan. Well, that's all very nice, but this fax was unsolicited.

And junk faxes suck. In the US they have legislation to prevent idiots like this from wasting your money (in the form of paper, ink and machine wear) by sending you unsolicited faxes. In the UK, we have to put up with it.

So… I wouldn't normally critique a site like this. I really couldn't be arsed, and anyway, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Send me a junk fax, however, and you are fair game. (Not in the Scientology sense - I won't make it my mission to destroy you. I will, however, comment upon your site.)

Despite their grand claims, this isn't 'decoding' sensu the Bible Code. At least the folks responsible for that nonsense first had to think up a good wheeze. This turned out to be a bag of post hoc interpretative cack. I was disappointed, but on the author's advice I checked out the 'Help & Basics' section, where they give guidance to those of us who don't know any better. Here is the first paragraph, on evolution (their text in bold):

Darwins theory of evolution as an explanation of the origins of Species has been in trouble for some time and is nowhere near universal acceptance (see www3.mistral.co.uk).

In trouble with whom? The Police? Its parents? If the authors mean that there is a continuing and lively scientific debate on the mechanism of evolution (as opposed to the existence of evolution, which does have 'near universal acceptance' amongst scientists) then, yes, it's in BIG trouble. And it will probably get its arse smacked and its pocket money stopped.

Ironically Darwin studied Theology at Christ's College Cambridge, going up in 1828, before he became interested in biology!

'Ironically'? Biology and theism are not mutually exclusive. In any case, it is well documented that Darwin had an interest in science and natural history from an early age.

A species is a group of animals or plants that can bread [sic] with each other.

No. This is a simplistic interpretation of one of many species concepts. This particular concept, however, is not especially useful in explaining speciation, which is no doubt why the authors chose it.

One can split all of nature up into specific breeding groups, these are the species:

Again, not true. Ever heard of hybrids? What about other species concepts? The authors either have absolutely no grasp of evolutionary biology, or are deliberately misrepresenting it to further their position.

The authors then go on to regurgitate every fallacy, every misinterpretation, and every blatant creationist lie on the subject: argument by design; evolution is random; mutations cannot be beneficial; lack of representation in the fossil record; no beneficial part adaptations; special pleading; straw man fallacy; blah blah blah. The lot. Jesus H. Christ, it's tiresome - it's as if they studied the Creation Science Debunked pages and then purposely wrote the opposite in order to make themselves look like twats.

So that's it. I did intend to critique the whole site, but after just one paragraph I realised that it would be less painful to clamp my head in a vice and planish it with a 12oz ball-pein hammer. Ironically, the site almost gives me cause to be born-again, because I find it hard to believe that you can write shite like this without some sort of divine intervention.

By the way, if any Angels of Armageddon are reading this - come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. I'll rip yer sodding wings off.

A recent TV documentary about mountain survival featured father and son skiers who had strayed from the piste and were lost on a mountain for nine days before rescue. The father was convinced that they had survived because the "Good Lord" was looking after them. (Of course, I personally think that it had more to do with his survival training in the US forces, but that isn't the point here.)

What really bemused me was that if the "Good Lord" was involved in some way, why did he put them in that position in the first place? Was it to test their faith? Did it amuse him to look on while two of his followers prayed to him not to let them die? Why did he let them suffer for nine days? If I was that omnipotent, omniscient being, I would have made sure they quickly came upon a nice snug log cabin, with lashings of steaming Bovril and all the hot, buttered crumpets they could eat. I certainly wouldn't have let them develop extremely painful and permanently disfiguring frostbite or a belief that they would never see their family again. Yet these simple issues didn't seem to trouble this chap, such was his blind faith.

I know this is well-trampled ground, but it just brought home how selective and self-deceiving people can be. All the bad stuff that happens to them is clearly their own fault; all the good stuff is down to god. And when you ask them why he didn't help them out when they were in the shit, you always get the old special pleading chestnut back: "God moves in mysterious ways". Doesn't he just?

I was recently charged by a friend with having 'extreme views'. Now, if having opinions and sharing these (at any opportunity, sometimes loudly :) is extreme, then I am guilty. But I do not consider my views themselves to be 'extreme'. So here is a wee quiz - in each case, see if you can determine which view is more extreme.

Most people are fairly discerning about what they put into their bodies. We read the nutrition labels on supermarket goods; we try to conform to certain dietary recommendations; and we test food before eating it - if it smells off or looks mouldy then it is discarded. And yet when it comes to our brains, most of us will gladly ingest any old shite. There are no entry criteria whatsoever, despite there being adequate tools that would allow us to decide whether an idea, proposition or belief should be given houseroom in our bonces.

Granted, an irrational belief may not be as virulent as a dodgy tin of salmon (although people have died as a result of both), but that doesn't obviate you from a responsibility to think for yourself.

Believers are the antithesis of the rational sceptic. They accept things without reason or evidence. For a sceptic, talking to a believer is like banging your head against a brick wall. Their beliefs are not based on reason, and so no amount of reasoning will make them change their mind.

To illustrate how frustrating this can be, here is the gist of a conversation I had recently with a friend:

Friend: My friend once saw a halo above someone's head.
Happy Sceptic: No-one else saw it?
F: No, but she is sensitive to such things.
HS: And you believe her.
F: Yes, she never lies, why would she lie?
HS: Perhaps she was mistaken, it may have been a trick of the light?
F: No - she is certain: she knows what she saw.
HS: Oooookaaay - there is a halo above your head now - I can see it. It's beautiful, all golden and glowing.
F: Now you are being disrespectful to my friend. She saw it, and I believe her, she doesn't lie.
HS: I'm your friend and I swear that you have a halo. Why don't you believe me? You take her word, why not mine? There is exactly the same amount of evidence in both cases.
F: You are not taking it seriously. You can't prove she didn't see it. She has a gift....
HS: I'm sensitive, too! Look ... seriously, I'm just trying to establish a principle here.
F: No, it's totally different. You're making it up, but she saw it. You are just a closed-minded cynic with no imagination, you cannot disprove it etc. etc. etc.

Bang. Ouch. Bang. Ouch. Bang. Ouch. Bang..........