Such an outsider, ‘cause in my heart, I don’t believe in anything.

Through definition as a petite sceptique, I have a very cynical nature. However, sometimes my scepticism far surpasses people’s expectations. If I want to enter an argument with somebody, I usually just have to mention my disbelief in one of two things: evil or love.

I don’t believe in the existence of evil because I think that everything that can be perceived as evil by some can be alternatively viewed by others. To try and explain this analogically, I have a serious (and of course, utterly irrational) phobia of fish. Were someone to show me a picture of a fish, I would find it extremely scary. If Malia looked at the same image, she would be wholly unperturbed. Just because I find the picture scary, it doesn’t mean that it is; that’s just my perception of it. Similarly, someone may see a certain act as being one of moral evil, but there is undoubtedly someone with the opposite viewpoint to deny this.

“But what about Hitler?” people always ask. “He was evil.”

Unbelievable though it may seem to some, I do not agree with that statement. I would like to clarify that I do not condone Hitler’s actions towards the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, mentally disabled, or any of the other ‘minorities’ whose deaths he ordered in WWII, and as a pacifist I think he went about things in entirely the wrong way, but I do not think he was evil per se, just misguided. I realise that that sounds incredibly cold and harsh, but I shall continue: Hitler believed he was doing the right thing for Germany; he believed that what he was doing was good. Whilst he may have commanded the occurrence of many atrocities, he did not do so believing that what he was doing was bad, and it is for this reason that I would not describe his actions as evil: like the Buddhist principle of kusala or akusala being based on cetana, I think that for something to be evil, it would have to have been done with purely ill intention. Evil, as far as I am concerned, is premeditated inconsiderate action based on negative desires, with no immediate wholesome consequences and no intention of anything good coming from the action at any point thereinafter. To my knowledge, something fulfilling this criteria has not yet happened, therefore as of yet, I do not believe in evil. Theists often talk of ‘natural evil’ – things such as tornadoes and earthquakes – which have dreadful outcomes, but nature cannot be premeditated, and even if it can be predicted, it cannot be prevented, so I also disregard this classification of evil.

My scepticism regarding love is much simpler, but people don’t like to hear it: I think that the concept of love is one created by people to make life seem more positive. Though it is obviously not only atheists who believe in love, atheists have more to gain from the concept: many theists believe that after this life they will have eternal peace in some afterlife, and therefore have something positive to look forward to. For an atheist, with no cheerful ‘life after death’ to look forward to, actual life can be seen as quite depressing: from an existential viewpoint, there is no point to our presence here on earth and nothing positive to motivate us to keep on going. With the idea of love being so widely accepted, everybody can look forward to finding ‘that special someone’ with whom everything will ‘just click’ and happiness will ensue. I think it is no coincidence that the verb which is used for the creation of romantic feelings is also one used for deception: one can fall in love, and fall for a trick. Both require the victim to be gullible and both can cause the victim to feel humiliated. However, when one is experiencing ‘love’, they are doing what almost every female-orientated piece of media (and many which are male-orientated too) tells them they should do – ensuring that they are not alone in their life. People in today’s culture are expected to fall in love with someone, and the extent of society’s infatuation with romance has led to the indoctrination of children as well as those who are older – infants of very young ages come home from school announcing excitedly that they have got a boyfriend or girlfriend, and even if to them all it means is that somebody will give them a crisp for free at playtime, they are still being led to believe that this is how their lives should be: constantly intertwined with another’s. With this constant pressure to be romantically attached to somebody, and the inherent desire possessed by many individuals to conform to the expectations of society, people will decide that they have fallen in love with someone, when in actuality, they have found somebody with whom they would feel acceptable to conform to societal requirements and not be ‘lonely’. Love, therefore, is a manmade concept to encourage people to feel positive and happy, and has the unfortunate repercussions of damaging the self-esteem and general well-being of anyone not ‘in love’ in a manner not unlike the idea of self-fulfilling prophecy – people are told that they cannot be happy without a romantic partner, so when they have no romantic partner, they feel unhappy. Love is like an institutionalised religion, but with far fewer non-believers.

~Tamsyn.

"We are twelve billion light years from the edge, That's a guess, No-one can ever say it's true"

I've got two things to talk about this blog: NaNoWriMo and Freecycle. A little unrelated, but here we go.

1.NaNoWriMo
I've read a lot about this on other blogs, but it wasn't those which made me decide to attempt NaNoWriMo. I have a few literary friends: I don't really understand this, I'm a scientific brain, but one of them managed to use her persuasive powers to make me do attempt NaNoWriMo. In case you haven't heard, it's 50,000 words in 30 days.

I'm writing on the 18th November. And I've been sitting on over 50k for 2 days. In Nano terminology, that means I've "won". To be honest, it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. Not that it wasn't difficult, of course writing over 3,000 words a night for 16 nights in a row was. I haven't seen a television program, haven't read a book, and my long luxurious baths have gone out of the window.

I'm a planner: a massive planner. In the week before November 1st, I wrote a handwritten plan in bullet points that was over 50 pages long. This has helped me massively, and I feel that I would have been lost without it. Sure, I've deviated, but in  the end I kept the general plot in the plan.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not finished yet. I reckon I will end around 60,000 words,  but I don't quite know. I'm sure that what I have written in the main is utter rubbish, but that isn't important. I have no intention of publishing what I have written, or allowing anyone to read it other than a few close friends.

No, the most important thing to me is that I've challenged myself and "won". I've written something that is at least 5 times longer than anything else I've written in 18 days. That requires some dedication. If I can do that, I'll think twice next time I see something as "impossible", and perhaps this is the moral of NaNoWriMo for me.

2. Freegle


Freegle, is a pretty well known phenomenon. Many groups used to be part of freecycle, but in a series of event that I can't quite be bothered to understand, Freegle split from Freecycle. That isn't really my point, though.

I love Freegle. Many commentators plead that society is collapsing with technology: people spend less and less time with each other and become less and less charitable.  Many blame this on the Internet.

I don't agree: last week I was in need of a desk (see NaNoWriMo above). Looking up prices online, I saw them close to the £50 mark. This seemed ridiculous for a basic desk that I wasn't really bothered about looking good. So I posted on my local Freegle group.

Within 24 hours, I got a reply: someone had one, could I collect? They even enclosed a photo. It was just what I needed, and I felt so pleased that someone had given up even a little of their time to do something nice for no reward.

Not that I haven't posted things for others on there myself, but somehow I seemed to be astounded that someone else would do the same for me. Maybe the tabloid headlines are having an effect.

Either way, and even though I've emailed you, I would like to thank you, freegler- you've really showed me that perhaps there's some reason to believe that perhaps there are people out there who aren't just selfish after all.


November has been a great month already, but perhaps it's taught me more than I've learnt in a while. And perhaps David Cameron should study freegle for his "Big Society."

~Malia

Because he talks to the part of us which insists on drawing profiles on prison walls

I was gifted a rare treat today. A copy of The Times. A Saturday edition, not as good as The Sunday Times but not bad. I await the day when my finances can handle the £6 a week annual subscription.
Whilst scoffing at the overinflated prices of the recommended "capes", (a coat that appears to have no arms, in case you're interested, but I'm certainly not), I came across an advert in the Magazine. (page 37 if you happen to have a copy at this present time).

The limited edition Dyson Ball machine celebrates the fascination of engineering. Dyson spent three years questioning, testing and developing the advanced cyclones and a vacuum cleaner riding on a ball. The result is an entirely new type of steering mechanism.

Yes. A limited edition vacuum cleaner.
Now, I don't really agree with the whole 'limited edition' thing anyway. I think it's just a money-making scheme for musicians and film-makers in that last, often fruitful, attempt to extort even more money out of you. However, at least in games and CDs, it makes sense: you get your hands on something that not many others have and, in a few years, you might own something that will contribute towards your pension. If you're lucky. They're the perfect gift for a geek: give them a limited edition of their latest obsession, and they'll be there for you next time your computer breaks down. In my case, anything Star Trek related will do.

However, what exactly are you supposed to do with a L.E. vacuum cleaner? They're not really that collectable. I suppose someone collects them, but it'd be a little difficult once you'd collected more than 15 if you don't live in a Cowell style mansion.

I'm not anti-Dyson, in fact I wouldn't have any other vacuum cleaner, but this idea just seems ridiculous. Household appliances perform a function. Whilst some people think that AGAs show their sophistication and yummy-mummy status, to the rest of us it appears as a step forward rather than a step back. One cannot brag about the fact that only 2,000 other people in the world own their particular brand of Dyson at a dinner party, because, quite frankly, nobody cares. At least with physics (my favourite subject) you are likely to meet a fellow geek who also wants to avoid everyone else and talk about the latest developments in G.U.T.

So, please Dyson and anybody else who wishes to attempt this, forget this ridiculous plan and go back to what you do best: great design and engineering.

~Malia

I need to find someone who can heal my mind.

When roughly every other sentence anybody says sounds like innuendo, which is worse: the fact that your mind is evidently very far in the gutter, or the fact that 50% of everything you hear sounds perfectly normal?

~Tamsyn.

Straight from the poster town of scorn and ritz

I am known for my strong opinions about pretty much everything, and Formula 1 is no exception to this rule.

My love with the sport began at a very young age: it's one of those sentimental memories which we all view through somewhat rose tinted spectacles. It was always on the television during my Sunday afternoon visits to my grandfather and I was intrigued by the technical and tactical sides in particular.
However, at the moment I am disgusted by the blatant lack of clarity in regards to one area: Team Orders.

Ferrari are known for being one of the most famous and best teams in F1. They should represent the sport in all ways. Their recent actions were, in my opinion,  a blatant violation of this.

I don't know whether there is a section in the much lauded F1 'rulebook' that explicitly bans team orders. I doubt there is, but this doesn't matter. What Ferrari did was morally wrong- it makes the sport less competitive in a way other than the ability of the driver to race his car or the team to develop the technology or the efficiency to put him there.

Not only this, but it discourages teams from having one better driver and one worse driver in the aim of improving the latter one's skills through having direct contact with a more experienced team mate. It also encourages the growth of a two or three tier system- this has already been growing with the introduction of 'rookie' teams such as Virgin- and this is not the way in which I believe Formula One should go. If the gap continues to grow, F1 may as well be split in half- there's no need for Ferrari and McLaren to compete with teams that are seconds and seconds behind them.

It's not just Ferrari who I am disgusted with: the FIA haven't behaved correctly in my opinion either. Yes, the stewards may have hit Ferrari with a £65,100 fine, but this is breadcrumbs to any F1 team, never mind that it's Ferrari. Their decision to take no further action has set a landmark- team orders will be condoned in Formula 1. They claim that they decided not to punish Ferrari any further, despite the fact that they accepted that team orders had been issued, as other teams had used them in the past. Surely this is a sign of their failings in the past to police F1, not a valid excuse for their actions in this case.

Ferrari, in its defence, claimed that no direct team orders had been issued. Technically correct, but they'd concealed them in a 'code' so basic that even non-F1 watchers could understand it instantly. This only makes it worse in my mind: they wanted to do something that they obviously did not see as cheating but couldn't even be open about it. It also puts their second driver in a difficult position: Massa couldn't say 'no' to his team's 'coded' request whilst ensuring his seat in the future, but he did cement his position as number two driver with a lesser shot at the title.

As I write, the FIA are currently considering clarifying the rule on team orders. None too soon. It will require a great amount of 'clarification' to blow away the black storm clouds consisting of scandals ending in the suffix -gate that refuse to disperse any time soon.

~Malia

For this I pray: we’ve got to shake the faith.

I am an atheist, but I have often considered which religion I regard most highly. Were I to have to become religious myself, Buddhism would be my first choice, due to its lack of a deity, but if this were not an option, perhaps due to the fact that it is regarded by some as more of a philosophy than a religion, then I would probably become Christian, simply because I have attended Christian schools and have therefore been most indoctrinated by Christian teachings.

Christianity has several branches, though, so I still have choices. In the most basic form, the options are Catholicism or Protestantism, the former being the more traditional form of Christianity and the latter being a more modern version. As somebody who is usually very open-minded (there are exceptions), it would seem that Protestantism would be the more appropriate choice to make, as Protestants are typically more lenient with their rules. However, I have fundamental issues with Protestantism: the Bible is their guide, as it is in Catholicism, but Protestant beliefs change to fit the times, whereas Catholic principles remain pretty much constant. This seems to be positive regarding the Protestants – indeed, I consider it better that things like the ordination of female bishops are now permitted in Anglican churches, in keeping with the modern views on equality, but I think it goes against the faith: Protestantism, to me, seems to be a case of:

“Here’s our holy book, everything it says is right.”

x years later:

“This bit isn’t actually quite right.”

Another x years later:

“We’ve changed this bit too.”

A further x years later:

“We’ve also changed our minds about this part.”

Catholicism, on the other hand, says, “Here is our book, these are our beliefs, and we’re sticking to them!” and whilst some of the views may not fit with the times, at least they are consistent. I have more respect for the people who follow what their Bible says as much as they can, rather than those who follow the Bible’s guidance to some extent and then do other things simply to fit in with society. I see Catholicism as Christians who truly believe in their faith, and want to adhere to the rules as closely as they can, but Protestantism, I think, is religion for cowards: they simply try to uphold moral values typical of most people in modern society and give it a religious title, meaning that they get to go to heaven at the end of it.

Whilst I may disagree with some of the viewpoints held by Catholics, I think they are the better, more real religion. For this reason, if I had to choose a faith to follow, Catholicism would be it. However, most definitely now and in the foreseeable future, I think atheism suits me perfectly.

~Tamsyn.