This article is in today's Beacon, a local Whakatane paper. We have really been making the headlines here of late with the controversy over the Christian Liberty!!! Trust offering interest free loans, which then tie you to the church forever after!!! Then we have the largest number of idiots outside Auckland flocking to hear Brian Tamaki. And now this!!!

'Psychics to help clean up after Rena

Mediums will revisit the past and clairvoyants will foretell the future in Whakatane on Saturday, February 25 — all in a bid to help clean up Motiti Island... '

It's nearly becoming too much for me, just when I thought that now in the third millennium, we were finally leaving the 'Dark Ages!!!' These people are perfectly ignorant to the fact that the reef the Rena plowed into bears the name 'Astrolab', an invention of the brilliant Hypatia who was most brutally murdered by the mob of similar persuasions to what we have here, and who went on to destroy the great Library of Alexandria in the fourth century. I wonder where humanity might be today if it hadn't been for this terrible atrocity and the thousand years plus of darkness that is still lingering!!!

This event is of course because of the oil spill and an environmental disaster caused by the container ship Rena grounding on a reef. No doubt you're thinking that this is great, these psychics can save us from any and all future oil spills. But you'd be wrong. They have made no suggestion that they will warn us of future disasters. What they want to do is help with the Rena disaster that has already happened. While this is admirable, you may have realised that you don't have to be psychic to discuss or help with events that have already happened and are well known. Evidently what the psychics have proposed is that they will publicly perform some of their silly party tricks, charging a fee roughly twice that of a movie admission, and that some undisclosed proportion of this fee will be donated to the beach cleanup effort.

It's too late for the Rena, but surely there is a far better use we can put these psychics to than simply raising a few measly dollars after disasters have struck? Let's remember that they confidently assert that they are psychics, mediums and/or clairvoyants, and one of their psychic powers is to be able to foretell the future.

So you'd think that if they were really psychic, as they claim, they'd have warned us of the Rena threat BEFORE it struck the reef, rather than simply perform some silly party tricks to raise money for the cleanup AFTER it has happened. Why is it that psychics are just as surprised when unexpected events happen as the rest of us are? No psychic had any inkling of the Christchurch earthquakes, the Pike River mine explosion, the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the 9/11 terrorist attacks or even the sudden deaths of Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, Amy Winehouse or Whitney Houston. Why is it that psychics can never tell us anything of importance, can never warn us of disasters, can never locate missing people and items, and can never solve murders and mysteries? All they seem to be able to do is repeat, after the event, what they see on the news, just like the rest of us. Or make banal predictions that in the future there will be a severe weather event, disaster or death of a well-known person, somewhere, just not sure exactly where, when or who. This is as worthless as saying that tomorrow there will be weather. And yet it is depressingly surprising the number of people who are sucked in by these silly predictions and will no doubt throw away their hard-earned money to attend this Whakatane scam run by three psychics.

On the bright side, if 100 gullible idiots attend, that's $3,000 raised for the beach cleanup that the rest of us taxpayers don't have to find, although we note that the organisers fail to mention just what proportion of the proceeds go to the environment. We're all familiar with devious fundraisers where sometimes even less than 5% of funds raised actually go to the published cause, with the majority being claimed as expenses to run the event. Let's hope that the Wairaka Women's Welfare League are true to their word and that most, if not all, of the money wasted and thrown away on these silly psychics does actually end up doing something positive.

Raising money to help the beach cleanup is an admirable cause, it's just a shame that in this case an audience has to be lied to and have their ignorance increased in the process. The rhetorical question was asked of where humanity, and civilisation, might now be if it weren't for the primitive and superstitious masses in society that continually impede our progress, putting all their energy behind nonsense that was dreamed up thousands of years ago. And it didn't work then either. Why do people want to fill their homes with 21st century gadgets and yet fill their minds with Stone Age beliefs? And why can't they grasp that their silly beliefs are ridiculous and quite lacking in any support? Mainly because they only talk with like-minded souls, shunning discussion with anyone that might shoot holes in their gossamer thin belief balloon. Psychics, and their supporters, challenge skeptics to attend their readings, and then attack them when they do, refusing to interact, instead fleeing out the back door into the fog of delusion.

Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post

An Indonesian man who said that God did not exist in a posting on a Facebook page for atheists could face jail. Civil servant Alexander Aan, 31, is now in protective police custody after he was attacked by an angry mob earlier this week. He may also lose his job over his posting on the social networking site.

Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia — the world's most populous Muslim nation — recognises the right to practice five other religions aside from Islam, says the BBC's Karishma Vaswani in Jakarta.

Local media said a mob attacked Mr Aan when he arrived for work at a government office on Wednesday. Police said that according to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tried to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in prison. The Facebook page where he made his comments is now unavailable. Supporters of Mr An have urged police to release him.

But this example from Indonesia does show that when you're travelling overseas, Kiwis must remember that our freedom to openly laugh at the notion of gods doesn't extend beyond our borders. There are many countries where giggling at belief in Jehovah or Allah or Zeus will see you being violently assaulted and/or arrested. And it's not just Islamic countries, even in certain US states it is unwise to openly admit that you're not a god-fearing minion.

And we in NZ can't be complacent either, we must be vigilant to ensure our liberties aren't eroded. As more cultures and religions move to NZ, many will expect the same oppressive protection for their religion that they left behind, and will argue for those laws to be implemented here. We've seen it already with Muslims protesting in the streets over our freedom to criticise religion, specifically their religion. They abuse our freedoms so that they can carry placards inciting believers to 'Butcher the Infidels'. And in other Western countries, such as Britain, we see Muslims arguing to have Islamic Sharia law introduced for British Muslims and Muslim communities. Of course Sharia law would also place oppressive restrictions on non-Muslims as well, it would not operate in a vacuum. Easily offended Christians in NZ are annoying, but they are a spent force, reduced to whining about 'South Park' episodes, vandalising a church billboard in Auckland and defending pedophile priests. It's radical Muslims and their outdated beliefs that present the real threat to NZ, and of course every country that doesn't want to be ruled by Muslims. Only a minority of Christians and Jews still believe that they will soon rule the world, and justly deserve to, by divine decree. Most gave up that silly illusion centuries ago, but now it is the turn of radical Islam, with Islamists worldwide plotting world domination. And fanatically turning into cold-blooded killers to achieve it. And laws like those in Indonesia that make it illegal to express thoughts of doubt about gods are only helping the killers, keeping people ignorant of reality.

Hi John, have you thought about giving light to this delusional crap about children being born in the Year of the Dragon. I saw a Malay Chinese woman on TV the other night who is going to find a sperm donor so she can give birth during the year, obviously to a child of supreme intelligence with fantastic social skills who is going to save the world from itself, not. The TV presenter then went off on a tangent telling us about all the wonderful people born during the Year of the Dragon. As though if you weren't born during that year you are a knuckle dragging cretan. In fact they are expecting an upsurge in births amongst Asians as they give us their wonder children. What a lot of hoo haa and b/s.

This post is about typical astrology (not Ring's corrupted version of it), the belief that our time of birth compared to what's happening in the cosmos dictates our personality and our destiny. The various forms of astrology have been around for thousands of years, and there is a Western and an Eastern version. They both follow the same belief that the positions of cosmic bodies dictate our personality and destiny, but differ greatly on what bodies, at what times, cause what effects in us humans. The Western version that most Kiwis are familiar with features in horoscopes in numerous magazines, newspapers and books. Whether they believe in it or not, most people know their astrological star sign, whether they are a Leo, Aries, Gemini or whatever. However, unbeknownst to most people, because the zodiac of star signs has moved over the millennia, they are all completely wrong as to what their star sign really is. The reason that this major, major flaw in astrology hasn't impacted on our lives is of course because astrology is complete bullshit. People can keep reading their horoscope in the 'Woman's Weakly' — the wrong one — secure in the knowledge that it doesn't matter a hoot. It's all just nonsense, or as the astrologers now often say themselves, for entertainment purposes only. (For some links, see our post: No Evidence for Astrology.

But few people know their birth sign in Eastern astrology. Like the Western version, they also have 12 different signs, but rather than being spread over 12 months, they are spread over 12 years. Western signs are drawn from constellations of the zodiac, whereas the Eastern signs are drawn from animals. They are the Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat (or Sheep), Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig. So in Eastern astrology a sign extends over an entire year, rather than just a month, and every 12 years the cycle repeats. 2011 was the Year of the Rabbit. 2012 is the Year of the Dragon. You'll be aware that each Western star sign has specific characteristics allocated to it, for example Leos are prolific gamblers, Scorpios are good with computer games, Libras are terrible drivers, and Virgos are destined to remain virgins. Or similar such nonsense. And it's the same with Eastern signs, they each have different personalities tied to them. Your personality, which impacts on your destiny, comes to you courtesy of the sign you were born under. And of course if we had a choice, who wouldn't want to be born under a favourable sign, and so guarantee a successful and happy future? And in Eastern astrology, the Year of the Dragon is an excellent sign to be born under. Given an entire year to get pregnant and give birth, mothers can therefore try and ensure their child is born under a sign of their choice.

The TV3 news item began:

'It is nearly the beginning of a new year in the Chinese calendar, and superstitious Chinese all over the world are getting clucky. They want their babies to be born in the upcoming year of the dragon - and some are prepared to go to great lengths to make sure it happens.'

This Wikipedia article lists the characteristics of a Dragon child: 'Magnanimous, stately, vigorous, strong, self-assured, proud, noble, direct, dignified, eccentric, intellectual, fiery, passionate, decisive, pioneering, artistic, generous, loyal'. Well that all sounds pretty good, who wouldn't want a child like that? But then it goes on to say that a Dragon 'Can be tactless, arrogant, imperious, tyrannical, demanding, intolerant, dogmatic, violent, impetuous, brash'.

Further on we are told that Dragons, along with Rats and Monkeys, 'are intense and powerful individuals, capable of great good or great evil. They make great leaders, but... Frustrated when hampered, these signs are ruled by highly potent energy and unpredictability. At their worst... Dragons are inflexible megalomaniacs and narcissists... They are intelligent, magnanimous, charismatic, charming, authoritative, confident, eloquent, and artistic. They can also be tyrannical, bombastic, prejudiced, deceitful, imperious, and ruthless'. So you might get a child with the qualities of both Mahatma Ghandi and Adolf Hitler. Personally I'd be avoiding the Year of the Dragon solely because of the negative traits that it provides. Who wants their child to be a leader if there's an even chance he'll be a violent, tyrannical leader?

Worse still, having gone to all this bother to have a Dragon baby, it appears that they may not even be a Dragon baby after all. The Wikipedia article notes that 'It is a common misconception that the animals assigned by year are the only signs and many western descriptions of Chinese astrology draw solely on this system. In fact, there are also animal signs assigned by month (called inner animals), by day (called true animals) and hours (called secret animals). While a person might appear to be a Dragon because they were born in the year of the Dragon, they might also be a Snake internally, an Ox truly and Sheep secretively... The secret animal is thought to be a person's truest representation, since this animal is determined by the smallest denominator: a person's birth hour'. So just as Westerners are reading the personality traits of the wrong star sign, believers in Eastern astrology are following a simplified — and incorrect — version of astrology. Of course we don't mean by this that there is a 'correct' version of astrology, one that works and makes sense, Western or Eastern. We mean merely that your typical follower of astrology is ignorant of the fact that they don't understand how their astrology is 'supposed' to work according to the astrologers. A lot like religion, where the ordinary believer believes things that priests and theologians don't, the typical astrology believer doesn't realise how simplistic and different their belief often is compared to those that call themselves professionals, the astrologers. Of course this difference in crucial details doesn't matter because what the astrologers (and priests) believe, although different, is also completely wrong. The position of the cosmic bodies doesn't affect us, so whether you use the simplistic — and wrong — version as used by your magazine horoscope, or the complicated — and wrong — version as used by professional astrologers, which ever you use, neither will help you one iota. Ignorance is still ignorance, whether you get it free from a radio astrologer or have to pay for it from a professional astrologer.

The TV3 item told us that the list of 'famous dragons already includes Sigmund Freud, Florence Nightingale and Beatles John Lennon and Ringo Starr'. The Herald article came up with their own list: 'Bruce Lee, Russell Crowe, Joan of Arc, John Lennon, Al Pacino, Nicolas Cage, Sandra Bullock and Shirley Temple'. Now quickly pick out the great leaders from those lists. Evidently they should all be if it worked. Yet millions to chose from, all born in a year of dragon, and this was all they could find? Sigmund Freud was famous for a while for his psychoanalysis which has now been discredited. Bruce Lee and Joan of Arc both died young, and while Joan may have been the only one that did any leading, even her sanity is now questionable. Florence Nightingale made an important advance in medicine, but doesn't make the list of great leaders. The rest are mere actors and musicians, and while talented, they have many, many equals who evidently weren't born in the Year of the Dragon. If we stick with recent history as these lists did, what of some of the world's actual recognised leaders, such as Mahatma Ghandi, Mao Zedong, J F Kennedy and Barack Obama, and evil but still powerful leaders, such as Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein? How can they have been leaders without the benefit of being born in a Year of the Dragon?

Of course, for both Eastern and Western astrology, there is no good evidence whatsoever that the position of the sun, moon and planets at the time of birth impacts on the personality traits and destiny of babies, and much evidence that it doesn't. For example, why isn't every baby worldwide born in the year of the Dragon a born leader? Why when these kids get to school do we not have entire classes that all want to be in charge of any group or team they are part of, and all want to be politicians and CEOs when they grow up? And similarly for Western astrology, why aren't non-identical twins at least identical in their personalities and abilities if all this is real, since they were both born under the same sign? Why are they usually no more alike than their other siblings, born under different signs? And why weren't any of the recognised great leaders of history — Alexandra the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln etc — not born in the Year of the Dragon? Furthermore there is no theory as to what type of unknown energy or force could be coming from these cosmic bodies and how it might hardwire the human brain and plot out our fate.

Of course with the recent infamy of Ken Ring and his support of astrology, confused supporters of his and of astrology will insist cosmic bodies, especially the moon, do indeed affect humans and the earth. The moon and the sun do of course have a noticeable effect on our oceans, creating the tides, but they do not affect humans directly, eg causing people to become more violent on a full moon or dictating an auspicious time to wash your hair. Nor do they cause major earthquakes or create our weather, all these things of which Ring believes. The tides are caused by gravity, which is well understood by astronomy, as is the movement, physical make-up and the energy fields that cosmic bodies emit. Although it is astronomy, physics, biology and other sciences that understand the interaction between humans and cosmic bodies, followers of astrology, Ken Ring included, reject modern knowledge and revert back to ancient astrology in an attempt to understand what those shiny things in the sky might be and how they might affect us.

In a recent article, Ring falsely informs readers that 'As the sciences became larger in themselves and needed to fractionalise, astrology morphed into medicine, pharmacy, meteorology, animal husbandry, biology and astronomy. You would not call a doctor an astrologer these days, although once your medicine could only be administered by a qualified astrologer and gulped down perhaps when Venus was in the 4th House. Nor is today's quantum physicist an astrologer, yet the fathers of modern physics; Galileo, Kepler and Newton, all called themselves astrologers'. But claiming that 'Galileo, Kepler and Newton all called themselves astrologers' is as misleading and utterly false as if I was to insist that Albert Einstein called himself a musician, just because he played the violin as a hobby. We all know that Einstein is famous and respected for one reason, and only one reason, his scientific theories, not his dabbling in music. Likewise Galileo, Kepler and Newton are famous for their work in astronomy, mathematics and physics, definitely not astrology. We have also personally pointed out to Ring that, while Galileo and Kepler did dabble in astrology, Isaac Newton was not an astrologer. And yet Ring continues to tell people, even though he now knows better, that Newton was an astrologer. The truth doesn't matter to Ring, he simply wants his followers to believe, falsely, that all the founders of modern science were astrologers. Yes, medicine and astrology have been intertwined in ancient times, and many doctors would have consulted astrology charts. Ring told us that 'all meteorologists were once astrologers, as were all doctors, scientists and all mathematicians'. And as we replied, so what? All humans were once cave dwellers who had never heard of soap. We've moved on, it's called progress. Ring, astrologers and believers in astrology refuse to move on. Refuse to drag themselves into the 21st century.

Before we leave Ring, he also insists that we don't understand what astrology really is. He writes that 'What is known today as astrology is not what it still means in nonwestern societies... ' By this he means that astrology does not involve explaining a person's personality or fate, and never has been used in this way, and non-western societies, eg Asians, don't see astrology the way the 'Woman's Weakly' or Western astrologers now portray it. And yet contrary to Ring's naive beliefs, this Eastern belief in the Year of the Dragon, and the other year signs, shows that a great many in these societies believe in exactly the same prophetic type of astrology that determines human personality and destiny as does gullible Westerners. Contrary to Ring's claims, and as this Dragon baby news item proves, 'A laborious system of computing one's fate and destiny based on one's birthday, birth season, and birth hours... is still used regularly in modern day Chinese astrology to divine one's fortune'.

In China this upcoming phenomenon is called the 'dragon-baby boom'. This Taipei Times article: Dragon baby fever taking hold at fertility centers, stated that 'Statistics from the Ministry of the Interior showed that the first dragon-baby boom in Taiwan occurred in 1976, with a total of 425,000 babies born that year — 50,000 more than in 1975. In the next year of the dragon, 1988, 342,000 babies were born, 208,000 more than in 1987. In 2000, the most recent year of the dragon, 202,000 more babies were born than in 1999'. So it's clear that astrology still has a powerful influence on many Eastern societies, and those of recent Eastern descent in countries like NZ, probably far more so than those Westerners still following it. We all know people that casually read their horoscopes, and promptly forget and ignore them if they say don't something meaningful, but how many in the West really plan their lives through an astrological reading? How many would suddenly plan to get pregnant with a sperm donor based solely on the claimed personality traits of a child born in a specific month? How many would be that gullible, foolhardy, irresponsible, and frankly, stupid?

Depressingly it appears that there might be more than we think. Perhaps there might not be many Kiwis of Western descent that would go as far as having a baby based on their belief in astrology, but we have met many that do base their relationships on claimed astrological compatibility, and plan their holidays and even their careers on what their astrologer saw in their stars. That apparently intelligent people with access to modern knowledge can still follow and argue for primitive superstitions suggests that they aren't as intelligent as they appear, or they're just extremely lazy and prefer to fill their heads and desires with easily believed nonsense. Of course it's not just astrology nonsense. Just yesterday I met in one group a woman who claimed that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids, a guy who reckoned that continental drift was a crock. Evidently 'God the Creator' occasionally popped land up and down, but it didn't move around the globe. And there's always one in every group, a guy who reckoned the 'Moon Man' knew what he was talking about.

And we should point out that, unlike the rest of NZ, the weather in the lower South Island has been absolutely brilliant, the hottest summer we've had for years. Although not if you're reliant on rain, such as farmers, since we're told that for Southland this is the driest it's been since 1947. And once again, not surprisingly, Ken Ring missed all this. Any Southlander that followed Ring's advice probably spent their holidays huddled with screaming kids in a flooded tent in Nelson. And then had to rush home to tend to stock that had run out of water, even though Ring had predicted more rain than average while they were away.

The weather over the Xmas/New Year break has obviously been unseasonable, miserable for many and devastating for some. And completely unpredicted by Ken Ring. But this is what he does, this is his claim to fame and what people pay him money for, to predict what the future weather will be. As we've often said, if Ring can't predict extreme weather that disrupts events and/or destroys property, of what real use are his silly predictions? Who cares if he once predicted a light drizzle that wet someone's washing a decade ago, if he is always utterly ignorant of snow storms and floods and droughts that devastate communities?

We have consulted Ring's Almanac for the weather he was confident NZ would receive over the Xmas/New Year break. If it wasn't for the fact that he kept naming NZ locations, one would swear that they were reading weather predictions for a completely different country, or for NZ in some other year. Name almost any place and the weather Ring predicted for it, compare it to what actually occurred in the real world, and it was like trying to get a square peg to fit into a round hole. We won't bore you with prediction quotes (although we will if Ring insists, as he usually does, that he did predict the actual weather). You can consult his Almanac yourself, but rest assured that there is no obvious reference to the weather that NZ has actually experienced. And it's no good Ring claiming that a veiled warning was buried in an appendix or graph at the back of the book. Ring's Almanacs are designed for and sold to the layperson, like us, and if we can't glean obvious weather warnings from its pages, then it is worthless.

We would like to say that we've never seen Ring get it so wrong before, but we have, many times. If one could win acclaim for making a multitude of false predictions, Ring would be voted 'Outstanding New Zealander of the Year', year after year. No one else seems to make the number of false predictions as does Ken, not even silly psychics and mediums, and few people have become infamous for convincing people to pay good money for their erroneous predictions.

You've got to be joking? A visitor from Wellington, using the suspect argument along the lines of "I'm not a racist, but... ", wrote that "I am no prude, but... ", telling the Herald that he and his partner were confronted by 'naked men whom he described as "prancing exhibitionists, offensively strutting their stuff"', and that he didn't 'wish to have this exhibitionism inflicted upon me or my children'.

And yet the Herald called them nudists in their article heading, so were they nudists or exhibitionists? There is a major difference. Nudists are not flashers or sexual exhibitionists. It's like confusing pedophiles with homosexuals, homeopaths with doctors, atheists with agnostics or magicians with witches. One of our group happen to know a couple who are nudists and who insist that your typical nudist, or naturist as some prefer to be called, definitely isn't an exhibitionist. In fact most belong to private clubs and practice their nudism in secluded grounds, not in public. Most would never go about 'strutting their stuff' in public, and even if on a public nude beach, they would not behave offensively. They would behave no differently to couples sunbathing or swimming in skimpy bikinis or speedos. I've been on beaches in Europe where most women were topless and some, male and female, completely naked. And yet, amazingly, no children were running around traumatised, shocked by this nudity. Individuals, groups of friends, couples and families sunbathed, swam, picnicked, played games and were evidently oblivious to the shock and horror of naked flesh. None shielded their children's eyes, screaming 'That's gross and offensive', as they ran from the beach. As laid back and open as we Kiwis claim to be, Europeans in general seem to have a far more relaxed attitude towards nudity than do Kiwis (or Aussies, the British and Americans for that matter). Click here for a cartoon exposing the hypocrisy of beach prudes.

The public, including the media, need to learn to tell the difference between exhibitionists and nudists, just as they need to tell the difference between a young woman in a mini skirt and a prostitute. There is nothing shocking, gross or offensive about the naked human body. I see mine in the shower every morning and have never felt that I should look away in disgust. Likewise many people have seen me naked over the years and none have run from the room dry retching or threatening to call the police.

The Herald asked readers for their opinion: 'Should nude bathers be allowed at Ladies Bay?' Well of course they should, and on any other beach as well. Again, there is nothing gross or offensive with nude bathers. In fact, and maybe we're a little weird here, but we find the naked body (most especially that of the opposite sex), very attractive and not the least bit gross. Of course if the Herald asked a question more suited to the complaints in their article, such as 'Should sexual exhibitionists and overt sexual acts be allowed on public beaches?', then we would answer no. Again, nudity in itself is not gross or offensive, but behaviour while nude (or clothed) can be. And of course behaviour of this nature needs to be policed, but nude beaches and innocent nude bathers shouldn't be confused with a red light district. Unfortunately far too many people immediately associate the thought or sight of nudity with sex. If you're naked then you're about to have sex, are actually having sex, have just had sex or are trying to encourage someone to have sex. If someone is spotted naked on a beach then this is what they're about. Yeah right! This says more about the shocked and offended beach goer than it does about the nude bather, that the sight of nudity causes them to immediately start fantasising about obscene sex acts. One wonders what they must think when they catch sight of themselves in the bathroom mirror or others in the changing room at their local pool.

We should take no notice of ignorant prudes who scream offence at all manner of innocent things, from breastfeeding in public and a comedy South Park episode featuring the Virgin Mary to the theory of evolution and an atheist saying gods don't exist. And now, naked bodies. Again, we are all for the removal of sexual deviants from our beaches, but clothing optional beaches shouldn't be made illegal or innocent nude bathers harassed and prosecuted simply because of the devious intent of a few. Have all churches and scout groups been closed and made illegal simply because pedophiles have used them to gain access to children? Churches have a shameful and proven record of sexual abuse of children, with the nudity hidden behind closed doors, and yet they remain open and supported by the masses. Nude beaches, which are perfectly legal and well supported in many countries, have no history of sexual abuse that we are aware of — of adults or children — and yet it is the beaches that protestors insist should have warning signs rather than churches and scout dens.

And what about the children? This silly belief that nudity will shock little children is just ridiculous nonsense. Children spend the first part of their lives mauling and sucking on naked female breasts. Should nursing mothers put fluffy sock puppets over their breasts so children don't see what they're feeding from? And young children often bathe with their mother, and mothers take their male children into the likes of the changing rooms at the swimming baths. This frequent exposure to nudity doesn't seem to harm them psychologically. In fact most young children don't even understand nudity and are perfectly happy running around naked or in various stages of undress. Parents often have to force clothes on to them. The fact is that children have to be taught to be shocked and offended by nudity, their own and that of others, even their own family. If some children are genuinely shocked by nudity on a beach it is because their parents have hidden the reality of naked bodies from them and have continually brainwashed them into believing that nudity is offensive and wrong. It is this bogus conditioning, usually with a religious basis, that generates their response. This conditioning ensures that they are shocked by a topless woman or a mother breastfeeding, but not a man naked above the waist. Why is a woman in a skimpy bikini ignored, and yet according to a Muslim or the moral standards of the Victorian era, she is practically naked? It is prudish adults that are offended, not the children, who are merely acting like robots under programming from their parents. If children stare at naked bodies on a nude beach, it's most likely because they are curious, since their parents have hidden these perfectly natural sights from them. It's not because they are shocked and offended. Unless of course, the indoctrination has been so successful that they now truly believe that the sight of bare breasts, bums or pubic hair is offensive, the same way that many are convinced as children that there is a god and a Hell.

We've often said that we are all born atheists, and now we can also add that we're all born nudists as well. We are born with no belief in gods and no aversion to nudity. But unfortunately the majority of us have these natural (and correct) beliefs corrupted by our parents and society. We are taught from a young and impressionable age that there is a god that takes a very intimate interest in our behaviour, and our body, especially the 'naughty' bits. We are also taught that various parts of the human body (depending on the religion and culture) are to be kept covered in public, and even in most private situations.

On seeing my 'Born Again Atheist' badge, some people have told me that it must take a good degree of self-confidence to be publicly open that one is an atheist. My mother accepts that I'm an atheist, and these days is probably quite close to being one herself, but she can't understand why I have to tell people, why I can't keep it a secret. We imagine it must be the same to admit that one is a nudist.

Following on from these two tags that people seldom admit to — atheist and nudist — it was suggested by a friend that at least a nudist wouldn't be as offensive to God as an atheist is. Don't many argue that God has no problem with nudity, since weren't Adam and Eve the world's first nudists? Would God have created the Garden of Eden, the world's first nudist resort — with not a clothing store in sight — if naked bodies were to be covered up? I was asked how Christianity (and also Judaism and Islam) figures in all this. Our guess is that most nudists and those on nude beaches couldn't care less what God thinks about nudity, and that truly devout Christians are most likely the prudes that are complaining to the authorities on sighting a bare bum on a remote beach. But what does the Christian manual say about nudists and nude beaches?

Is it safer to be a nudist than an atheist, or is nudity equally evil according to the Bible? The quote that god-fearing nudists and liberal believers would use to support their belief that God doesn't find the naked human body offensive is from Genesis 2:25. It appears just after God had created Adam and Eve: 'The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame'. This clearly states that they were not ashamed in being naked, and implies that God their creator approved of this state of affairs. Let's remember that having created them naked, God apparently intended that they remain naked, that nudity was natural and normal and nothing to be ashamed of. He made no attempt to clothe them.

But this is where we trip over one of the major flaws with all religion and what is written in their holy books. If people only quote Genesis 2:25, then they can confidently claim that God approves of nudity, that he designed us to be unclothed, and would prefer us to emulate Adam and Eve and wander around unashamedly naked. Public nudity will take us to Heaven, not Hell. Unlike the atheist, the nudist has nothing to fear from God.

But all is not good for believing nudists. This major flaw we speak of is for holy books, of which the Bible is no exception, to place untold contradictions within their pages. For example, the Bible contradicts itself by telling us that God is all-good versus God created evil. No one has seen God versus some people have. Does god tempt people?, yes and no. Does god change his mind?, yes and no. Should we kill, lie or steal?, yes and no. God is all powerful versus God isn't. Should we own slaves?, yes and no. God loves us all versus God hates homosexuals, witches and atheists. On and on the contradictions go. No matter what view you wish to promote, for example, for or against slavery or homosexuality, you can selectively quote a passage from the Bible to support your stance, while ignoring passages that contradict your stance. So the above quote quite clearly states that God is a fan of nudity, and is excellent support for nudism if you are a god-fearing skinny dipper. But just a few verses further on things take a complete reversal.

As you will know Adam and Eve, happily frolicking naked as jaybirds in their garden paradise, chose to eat a tempting forbidden fruit, which for some moronic reason God placed right in front of them. This was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and on eating it we're told that: 'the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves' GE 3:7. They then hear God walking in the garden and so hide, and when discovered Adam says they hid because 'I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.' God then asks 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?'

Now these passages contradict the initial claim that Adam and Eve were not ashamed that they were naked. These now claim that initially Adam and Eve had no idea that they were naked at all or what nudity even was. So the second part of the claim that 'The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame', is false. Yes they were naked, from our perspective, but since nakedness was meaningless to them, they could not have had any opinion on whether they should have felt shame or not. If this first passage is true that they felt no shame, then the following ones about hiding from God are not, and vice versa. They both can't be true.

If the second group of passages is correct, then God evidently knew he could only keep Adam and Eve naked by keeping them ignorant of what nakedness was. As soon as they disobeyed him and gained knowledge of good and evil, they realised that they were naked and that nudity was shameful. They immediately covered up and hid when they heard him approaching. They now knew what was good and what was evil, and their actions showed that they now believed nudity was evil. And God didn't disagree with them, he was just extremely peeved that they both weren't innocent, natural, ignorant — and naked — anymore. We also take it from these passages that God himself was a nudist when he visited the Garden of Eden. We're told that God was in the habit of walking with Adam and Eve, obviously in human form, as we're also told that 'God created man in his own image' GE 1:27. Ignorant as they were of what nudity was, we're sure they would have noticed if God was decked out in flowing, colourful robes and lots of bling, while all they had on their bodies was floppy bits and bodyhair. We never hear Eve asking God: 'Aren't you hot in all that get up?' Only if God was naked himself could a naked Adam conclude that he was made in God's image.

Anyhow, God didn't even attempt to persuade Adam and Eve that nudity was in fact good rather than evil, and that they should be proud of their naked bodies, he simply cursed them and banished them from the Garden of Eden. But not before he improved on their childish attempt to cover their nudity: 'The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them'. GE 3:21 So here God is saying that in the real world nudity is totally unacceptable, even between a man and his wife. And remember that there were no other people in the world, so their clothes were to hide their nakedness from each other, not non-existent others. And their clothes were not for God's benefit either, remember he wanted them as naked playthings forever, only they insisted on getting dressed and ruining his nudist paradise.

So in God's perfect world, as he intended it, we should all be naked all the time, and obviously the weather and the environment would have supported this. But God seems to also acknowledge that the small world that he created, his nudist resort and petting zoo that he called the Garden of Eden, where he happily strolled naked with Adam and Eve, was an immoral world. God wanted guilt-free nudity, yet seemingly in the real world that God was hiding from, nudity was shameful, evil and immoral. Within religious debates there is the question of whether God creates morality, that he decides what is right and wrong, or whether morality is independent of God. That is, he doesn't make the rules, but as a knowledgeable being he merely explains what they are, what is right and what is wrong, and that he is as constrained by independent morals as we are. It appears that even within the Bible this second option is running the show. God wanted a nudist paradise, but when Adam and Eve discovered that this was immoral, even God could do nothing but agree that they were right and release them suitably clothed into the real world. God seemingly had no power to insist nudity was moral and good, even thought that is the world he had desired.

So where do we stand, who is more likely to go to hell, an atheist or a nudist? If you believe in God and that the Bible is his true word, then in God's eye nudity is both moral and immoral, right and wrong. Of course this makes no sense. Certainly not from a perfect God who can't make mistakes or fail to communicate his wishes clearly. As we've explained, the contradictory passages about Adam and Eve's reaction to their nudity can't both be correct. And if one is a lie, why can't they both be a lie? The Bible verses about nudity can only serve your argument if you quote one and ignore the contradictory view. And whichever stance you adopt, for or against, the fact that there is a contradictory view demonstrates that it is a nonsense that a perfect god could have made these claims, and therefore all can be rejected out of hand. Not only that, the entire Bible can be safely thrown into the recycling bin. But what if you just can't let God go? Let's assume for the moment that God did indeed create male and female bodies, with the initial, innate conviction that we should not be ashamed to be naked around others, then if we are comfortable and relaxed with nakedness then that mental state is his deliberate creation. A just and loving God can hardly punish us for behaviour that he implanted in us. Can he?

Of course Jews, Christians and Muslims have indeed spent centuries proclaiming that God can and will punish us for not realising that nudity is shameful, all based on a biased and very selective reading of holy books written by primitive, ignorant, desert nomads. The fact is that we should take no more notice about what they say about nudity than we do about their comments on science, history and ethics.

A nudist is no more going to Hell than is an atheist, since there is no Hell, nor a Heaven. Embrace life, become a born again atheist and a born again nudist and discover the freedom and peace of mind that results from the knowledge that there is no deviant being in the clouds watching your every move. You're wasting your life if you're spending it in some church reading a Bible rather than experiencing the real, natural world, and forgoing a moonlit skinny dip through a fear of a fictional Hell.

Do you believe that young children that claim God is talking to them are telling the truth, or are they simply deluded? When these children produce items for sale insisting that they have the hand of God on them, is it anything but a scam to make money from gullible Christians?

Last week Oliver sent us the following comments:

I recently stumbled across something you may be interested in, a girl named Akiane Kramarik who is known as a child prodigy. She claims she has been guided by 'God' to paint well, and her parents claim they were atheists until they noticed her heavenly 'visions' of 'God' and then they became Christians. It sounds like a huge amount of BS to me...

It seems many people are supporting her not because of the art particularly, but simply because they think their God is involved. Many Christians would buy a burnt piece of toast if they thought it had a blurry image of Jesus or Mary on it. But the problem goes beyond God's dubious involvement. While rational people can readily accept the reality of child prodigies, and simply reject the delusional source of her skills, there is considerable doubt over whether she even is a prodigy, whether she is the actual artist.

Is it all a scam? There are two separate points to consider regarding her claims. One, is she really the artist or are others doing the paintings, either completely or partially? Two, if she is the artist, is she communicating with god and being tutored by him?

First let's consider whether she is the true artist. The most embarrassing and telling problem that Akiane has is that she and her family refuse to let the public see Akiane complete a painting from start to finish. They have released video of Akiane painting, but only a few seconds at a time, and in each segment the painting has progressed, until we are finally shown the finished painting. But the major work on the paintings is performed when the camera is off, and we have no idea who might have worked on it.

Journalists who interviewed Akiane wrote the following:

'This is where our story takes a turn. When we spent the day with Akiane, we noticed a few minor things that concerned us. For instance, the family wouldn't allow us to interview the model who posed for Christ. And when we were told we could take a video recording of her painting, Akiane pulled out a painting that was almost finished and did some touch up work. "We didn't feel we truly saw Akiane create a piece of art, so we asked the family if we could return, and get record a video of her painting a small simple image from start to finish. They declined, telling us that it wouldn't be a fair representation of her work. But they sent us this tape of her painting "The Prince of Peace" in time lapse. It was heavily edited so we asked two experts to view the tape for their reaction. [...] "With all due respect, it looks like God didn't take an art history class in school," says Sam Wilson. "That's not the correct way to paint an oil painting". Sam Wilson and Kim Martinez are painters and art professors at the University of Utah. They viewed the tape the family sent and the video we shot to see if they could determine whether Akiane is painting. "She's just pushing paint around that's already there," says Kim Martinez.[...] They say the video provides no proof that she's creating this art by herself. "I think she gets some help and I think she's doing part of it too," says Sam Wilson. They say if Akiane is doing the work, she does possess some technical skill at a young age, but genius? They say, no way". We found no proof that Akiane is really creating this art by herself.'

Akiane's website tells us that she is 'considered one of the most versatile and accomplished fine artists of all time' and that her paintings are 'Considered an international treasure — the crown jewel of the world's finest art'. Obviously whoever is doing the paintings is skilful, producing works that most people couldn't, but calling them the 'world's finest art' is like calling a cheese sandwich fine cuisine. Look at her paintings, while technically difficult for most people, are they anything you would actually pay good money for? Some examples are shown on the right, more can be viewed here, priced from $5,000 to $3 million. They are typical of something you find going for ten dollars at some New Age weekend market. I once watched a pavement artist at Venice Beach, California, paint realistic looking outer space scenes in a few minutes, using only aerosol paint cans. And they were just as good as similar scenes by Akiane. And yet the family claim that Akiane's originals sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that 'Many of the world's leaders, royalty, scientists, media, CEOs, entrepreneurs, and celebrities have been acquainted with Akiane's art or [are] collecting it'. Yeah right, sure they are.

It would be amazing if a seven- or ten-year-old painted them, but that would be their novelty, not their artistic value. As each year passes and Akiane gets older, and her painting style stays the same, their value plummets, since numerous average artists turn out similar paintings by the thousands. So why are people, probably very few people since she only paints 8 to 20 paintings each year, still interested in buying crap art? Her real business probably revolves around selling cheap prints. As we've said, it appears that those that see something special in these paintings are seduced by the claimed connection with God, rather than the artistic value, as these comments from an internet forum suggest: 'Absolutely amazing!! What stunning pictures. She is truly a gift from God' and 'Akiane is God's gift to our world , her painting is indescribably beautiful'.

So if the paintings are of dubious artistic value, and ignoring the likelihood that Akiane is not the artist, is it worth buying them simply because God inspired them? Is that at all likely, or is that a scam too?

Of course the rational view is that there is no god, so obviously Akiane can no more have met him than she has the Tooth Fairy. End of story. But Christians aren't rational, they form beliefs based on faith not reason. So let's for a minute help them with a bit of reason.

What would you think if you were told that God's master plan to alleviate suffering in the world, especially things like eliminating hunger and disease in Africa, was to secretly contact a three-year-old girl in the US, whose parents were atheists, and tell her that her mission in life was to become the world's greatest painter? With God tutoring her in the skills needed to paint and providing the visions of the scenes she would paint, she would then sell these paintings and part of the profit, but certainly not all or even most, would go to international charities working in Africa etc. Realistically, how much could she hope to raise to help the world's poor? On her website she claims to give 'thousands of dollars each year to needy people across the globe through auctions and art exhibits'. Yet while claiming to sell her paintings for hundreds of thousands of dollars each, it's also claimed that she 'sold paintings worth $3M USD at age 7', plus income from her exhibits and books, she still only gives thousands to charity. She perhaps donates no more than 5% of what she claims to earn. While this of course would be admirable for most people, let's remember that Akaine's sole purpose in painting is to do god's work by raising money to help the needy around the world, so why does she keep 95% of what she earns for herself, and just throws the poor some loose change?

And if god's purpose is to make big bucks to funnel to the poor and suffering, why didn't god tell her how to do something more profitable? Perhaps how to invent a quantum computer, a nuclear fusion energy source or a cure for cancer that she could patent and make trillions from (not to mention being far more beneficial to mankind than worthless art) rather than teaching her to paint mediocre paintings, from which she makes a relative pittance, and donates even less?

This plan to produce art works of dubious quality, if we are to believe this young girl and her family, is seemingly the best that an all-powerful and all-knowing god could think of to cure the world's ills. This is a god that could bring rain where there is drought, that could cause crops to flourish where there is famine, that could eradicate illness where there is disease, that could stop impregnating women where there is overpopulation, that could prevent violence where there is unrest, that could quieten areas where natural disasters threatened. This god with one wave of his wispy tentacle could instantly erase the world's ills. Suffering and fear would be a thing of the past. And yet this god is choosing to do none of this. He instead puts the huge responsibility of changing the world for the better onto the shoulders of a three-year-old girl, who has no supernatural powers. Haven't we seen this sort of thing before, where instead of sorting out his own problems, problems that he created, this god tells someone else to fix it all? The last baby he picked on was called Jesus. You'd think that his horrific and abject failure would have told god something about the futility of getting mere humans to fix supernatural stuff-ups! But no, god refuses to learn from history.

And just as we are suspicious of whether Akiane is the actual artist because of her family's secrecy, there are also numerous problems with the stories they tell regarding Akiane and her connection with god. For one, the accounts that are offered to various media are not consistent.

In the book 'Akiane: her life, her art, her poetry', written by Akiane and her mother, they write: ' "Today I met God." Akiane was just four years old when she made that bold announcement to her formerly faithless family'. And yet in an interview they gave to 'Christianity Today', we're told that 'Akiane says she first met God when she was 3'. Was Akiane 3 or 4? Surely the family would remember when their daughter met the creator of the universe? Another age contradiction is this: 'Akiane began working in pastels when she was 5', and completed her first painting at 7', and yet another article states that 'When she was six years old, she began using color pastels, and moved to acrylics when she was seven'. And yet on Akiane's own website, she states 'Began drawing at 4, and painting at 6'. Why do they keep giving different ages?

What about Akiane's schooling? This comment is typical of the impression that the family wants the public to have of Akiane: 'Because Akiane was home-schooled, and had never been out of their sight, the parents were certain that no one else could have influenced Akiane's sudden and detailed visions about the spiritual realm'. And yet on Akiane's own website they note: 'Having attended both public and private schools, now is home-schooled'. So Akiane was not solely home-schooled, and the family also states that they sent Akiane to art classes but after one day she refused to go back. But why would her parents even waste money on art classes taught by mere humans if they believed god was her private art tutor, and was working for free? In another article Akiane's mother claims that 'We were with the kids all the time, and so these words from Akiane about God didn't come from the outside — we knew that. But there suddenly were intense conversations about God's love, His place [in our lives], and she would describe everything in detail'. What unbelievable nonsense that Akiane had never been out of their care or sight, and that no one or nothing else could have influenced her — what about her day at art class? Did neither parent go to work or ever leave the home? She says 'we' which implies that both parents, not just one of them, were always with the kids, and yet her husband did go out to work. They evidently had no TV, but what about radio, and did Akiane never play with the neighbourhood kids or visiting cousins or friends? Were the books and magazines in her house all censored of religious images? Did her family never visit others that had a TV? Did she never go to the local mall or supermarket with her parents? She lived in the US remember, which is often awash with religious imagery, especially around Xmas, Easter etc.

Then we have the typical claim that 'both her parents were atheist at the time', which suggests that Akiane's visions must have been extremely powerful and authentic to convert them to Christianity. In the 'Christianity Today' article we're told that Forelli, Aliane's mother, 'had been raised as an unbeliever, in an atheistic family from Lithuania. "And my husband was a former Catholic and did not share in the family beliefs. We didn't pray together, there was no discussion about God, and we didn't go to church. Then all of a sudden, Akiane was starting to talk about God". She doesn't say Akiane's father was an atheist, just 'a former Catholic'. We know many former Catholics who definitely aren't atheists. On Akiane's website, we're told that she was 'Born underwater at home... to the atheistic stay-at-home Lithuanian homemaker mother, and an American father'. Again the father is not identified as an atheist, and yet in their book, there is this comment: 'Overwhelmed by her stories of the supernatural, yet unable to find any other explanation for her indisputable artistic ability, the atheistic Kramariks faced a dilemma: either they believe her or remain in skepticism and doubt'. Now they want us to believe that both parents were atheists. And Forelli never actually says that she was an atheist either, but merely that she 'had been raised as an unbeliever, in an atheistic family'. Being in an atheist family doesn't make you an atheist, anymore than being raised in a farming family makes you a farmer. One person who claims to have been a neighbour to the family states that Akiane's mother was involved in a New Age organisation called Urantia when Akiane was small, which they suggest might explain the New Age feel to many of the paintings.

Another article states that Akiane's 'family was atheistic and rarely talked about spiritual matters'. Note that it is now claimed that they 'rarely' talked about god, not never as earlier claimed, so in this version Akiane would have been exposed to ideas of god within the family. Also if a family wants to be viewed as an atheistic family, it is only reasonable to conclude that the parents would have discussed this view with their children, which of course involves discussions about god, angels, prayer, heaven and hell. To believe that atheistic parents — not ambivalent, agnostic or couldn't-care-less parents — but atheistic parents, never discussed the existence of god with their children is as unbelievable as suggesting that Christian parents never discuss god's existence with their children. A 2006 CNN video clip on Akiane noted that: 'Her mother remarkably was an atheist. The concept of God [was] never discussed in their home'. We are asked to believe that not only was god not discussed, the very concept of what gods even were was never discussed. No one proudly and openly identifies themselves as an atheist and yet refuses to tell their children what the word even means. Unless she was kept locked in a closet, no one could grow up in the US without being exposed to images and claims regarding God, Jesus, heaven etc. It's inconceivable that neither Akiane or her siblings never asked their parents what this god talk was about, and when they did, her proud atheistic parents refused to discuss the matter.

Also Forelli claimed that Akiane 'would describe everything in detail' when talking about God, heaven and Christianity. As an atheist who didn't believe heaven even existed, how could Forelli listen to her daughter's description of it and then reply in all seriousness that it appeared amazingly accurate? Of course a child can accurately describe Santa Claus to us, but this doesn't lead us to believe that he must be real after all. Christians believe they can describe what heaven looks like, but atheists can't because we don't care to study the details of fantasies. As atheists none of us can 'describe everything in detail' when discussing the numerous beliefs and rituals of Christianity, or even tell an Anglican priest from a Catholic one. To us it appears that Akiane's parents have always been believers, maybe only lukewarm believers initially, but certainly not atheists.

And note that Akiane's parents claim to have rejected their skepticism since they were 'unable to find any other explanation for her indisputable artistic ability', and so opted for the silly god explanation. Does this mean that every prodigy throughout history — be it in maths, music, art or golf — can only be explained by god? Is there no such thing as natural ability? Evidently not in the Kramarik family. But look how easily these skeptical and atheistic parents are swayed by utter nonsense: 'When asked how she knows that it's God who is speaking to her, she replies, "Because I can hear His voice. His voice is quiet and beautiful" '. Note that she doesn't say the voice has ever identified himself as god, she merely assumes it is god because he has a quiet and beautiful voice. But where is it written that god has such a voice, certainly not in the Bible? How could her parents be so stupid as to believe such an empty claim from a three-year-old? The article goes on to state that 'Although she was 3 at the time, she'll always remember God's first message to her. "He said, 'You have to do this, and I'll help you.' He said, 'Now you can help people.' I said, 'Yes, I will.' ' We don't understand, god said she will have to do what exactly? Obviously this can't have been god's first message, which she obviously doesn't remember, which must have been something along the lines of, 'I want you to do some paintings and then sell them to raise money to help my suffering children in Africa. I'd do it myself but I'm not very artistic in a practical sense. I know the theory but all my attempts come out looking like deformed Smurfs'.

We read that 'Akiane also has another dream that she believes God has given her... "I really want to help needy people in Africa and other places," she says. "Especially the Lithuanian people — the 'garbage children' is what they are called. They live in the garbage, and 2- and 3-year-olds are being killed for the first place in the food line," she says'. More childish nonsense. As if you would have to kill a two-year-old to take their place in a food line. Just push them away, who are they going to complain to? And how did these toddlers beat adults to the front of the line anyway? And note that God wants her to help the Lithuanians especially. Is it not a little suspicious that her mother is from Lithuania, and so perhaps it is her mother that really wants to help Lithuanians and not god?

One of Akiane's better known paintings is one of Jesus called the 'Prince of Peace', supposedly done when she was eight. After finding a model to paint, we're told that 'Akiane took pictures, studied his face, made sketches, used her imagination and photo references'. Sorry, what was that again, photo references? What photos are there of Jesus? There are no drawings, paintings or even descriptions of Jesus, let alone photos. If he even existed, no one knows what he looked like, and it's highly unlikely he looked anything like Akiane and other Christians have portrayed him through the centuries. As for her quest to find a model to paint, Akiane had trouble finding one and so asked the family to pray for help from god. It's strange that god apparently didn't know she was having problems finding a model, and that she couldn't tell him for some reason. She had to get her family to ask for help. We're then told that 'The day that they prayed, a very tall carpenter — yes, a carpenter — came to their door looking for work', and, after another intervention by god, he became her model. But is this really what happened, as in another article we learn that after getting her family to pray, 'The very next day an acquaintance brought her friend, a carpenter who stood almost seven feet tall, to meet Akiane'. In the first version of the story the model turns up the same day as they prayed looking for carpentry work. But in the second version the model arrives the next day, and he isn't looking for work but is deliberately brought by an acquaintance solely to be considered as a model. This is just another blatant example of the stories concerning Akiane and her painting changing each time they are told in another interview. This is also a key indicator of a scam, the inability to keep your stories consistent.

Another weird element of the model story is that initially, in one version of the tale, the carpenter declined to be a model, saying that 'he wasn't worthy to represent his Master'. As an aside, isn't it depressing that Christians always see themselves in a master and slave relationship with their god, and never good enough? But anyway, Akiane 'prayed that God would change his mind', and sure enough the carpenter called back 'saying that God wanted him to pose for the painting, although he felt it was unusual'. Surely god speaking to a carpenter is a big news story in itself, but it's just mentioned as part of Akiane's story. God, the creator of the universe, life and sunsets pops in to visit this carpenter and asks him to pose for a portrait of Jesus and evidently his only reaction was, 'Well... that was a little unusual'.

OK, so you know what Christians think Jesus looked like — white and European — but do you know what god himself looks like? Evidently Akiane 'describes him as a ball of light with eyes'. Why would a ball of light need eyes? And if it needs eyes to see, why not a mouth to speak, ears to hear, a nose to breath etc? This is just another example of the childish thinking exhibited by religious people.

So in our view Oliver is right, this nonsense of a child painting amazing art guided by some god is just bullshit. It is doubtful if Akiane is the sole artist, and the paintings, no matter who painted them, are very mediocre. There is nothing to set them apart from mass-produced artwork that thousands of ordinary artists worldwide churn out and sell for peanuts to people with plastic pink flamingos on their front lawn. Akiane has said about her visits to heaven 'All the colors were out of this world. There are hundreds and millions of more colors that we don't know yet'. So why doesn't she use some of these new colours in her paintings and give them a unique, otherworldly quality to make them stand out from all the third rate art in the world? God is supposedly guiding her brush and providing the visions that she commits to canvas. For Christians to suggest that their god is limited to this sort of inferior art, which is easily and greatly surpassed by mere human artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Rembrandt, is to imply that their god is a pretty pathetic god, with cheap tastes and limited skills. And to what end? To throw a few dollars at the world's suffering? Why can't an all-powerful god just stop playing around with little girls when their parents aren't around, and get off his arse and alleviate world suffering himself? It never fails to amaze us just how weak and ineffectual a being most believers have turned their god into, and they don't even realise it. At one time in the distant, dim past god could create universes and life itself, now he's limited to being an old art tutor, and a failed art tutor at that. Once people feared god and would never think of crossing him, and yet when his student keeps for herself most of the money she raises rather than giving it to charity as his plan proposed, god does nothing. No plagues, no outbreak of leprosy in the Kramarik family, no divine retribution whatsoever. And Akiane and her family (and the Pope and other religious leaders for that matter) seemingly aren't at all concerned that god might ask why most of the money raised isn't going to alleviate the world's ills.