We need homophobic Christian volunteers to undergo "heterosexual conversion therapy" in order to make them homosexual. This would provide definitive scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

We know from science that "gay conversion therapy"  does not work and that you cannot "pray the gay away" yet it may be possible to change heterosexual homophobic Christians to homosexuality as that has not yet been attempted.

"Heterosexual Conversion Therapy" would have steps such as:

(1) Participate in art museums, opera, symphonies, etc.

(2) Avoid activities considered of interest to heterosexuals, such as sports activities.

(3) Avoid men unless it is for romantic contact.

(4) Increase time spent with homosexual men in order to learn to mimic homosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting with other homosexual men.

(5) Avoid church and join a gay community group

(6) Attend heterosexual reparative therapy group to discuss progress, or slips back into heterosexuality.

(7) Become more assertive with men through flirting and dating,

(8) Begin homosexual dating,

(9) Engage in homosexual intercourse.

(10) Enter into heterosexual marriage (when it becomes legal in your country).


I LOVE YOU (For Bev)

My latest song "I Love You (For Bev)" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at


Like my Facebook Musician page at and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.


I love you

I love you with all my heart

I love you with all my soul

I love you with all my strength

I love you with all my life


I want you (I love you)



It is well-known that there is no positive argument for atheism. Atheism only has negative arguments against theism.


From William J. O'Malley "God The Oldest Question (A Fresh Look at Belief and Unbelief and Why the Choice Matters)" (Loyola Press:2000)

There are really only four persuasive arguments for a world without a Mind Behind It All.

The first argument - the most convincing - is the problem of pain: How can a good, knowing all-competent God allow the anguish of innocents?

The second argument - the most appealing to those with a naive idea of science - is Occam's razor: Beings are not to be postulated unless they are inescapable; to be truthful, we don't need a God.

The third argument - the most abstruse - is the meaningless of the term God, which denotes an objectively unvalidated entity, like unicorn or Santa.

The fourth argument is the most comforting for those with (often justifiable) complaints about organized religion: the negative consequences of  belief. If we can cure ourselves of the illusion of God, we can take back our human dignity and autonomy from the hands of a tyrannical Bogeyman and an arrogant clergy.  pp. 21-22

Just like theism, atheism is an act of faith - a calculated risk. No-one knows there is no God, nor can anyone prove that even the concept of God is contradictory. p. 31


Even if the four negative arguments were valid (they are not) the default position would not automatically be atheism. It would be agnosticism which is neutral. Atheism is not a neutral position but the direct opposite of theism as the etymology of the word suggests. Atheism would be correct only if there were definite proof that there was no God. Absolute proof that there definitely is no God is impossible to collect as one would have to have infinite knowledge of the infinite universe in order to know that God was not anywhere in the universe in any form whatsoever. (Of course, the atheist demand for empirical evidence of a non-empirical God is a category and doomed to failure from the start. The atheist would also have to provide absolute proof that there is no non-empirical God.)

Why does this matter? Why would one bother with a position with no positive argument for its validity if there was an alternative such as nontheism which does has a positive argument for its validity? Positive arguments for a position are far better than negative arguments against an opposing position. Positive arguments elucidate positive factors for the validity of a position and demonstrate benefits for holding and following that specific position. Negative arguments are only examples of why an opposing view is incorrect and shouldn't be held or followed.  A negative argument does not positively prove a specific alternative position.  It only demonstrates that the opposing view is incorrect. It is logically possible for both theism and atheism to be incorrect.


From J. Angelo Corlett "The Errors Of Atheism" (Continuum:2010) p. 225

... the errors of atheism.

First, they commit the straw person fallacy of thinking that theism is best understood in terms of the hyperbolic orthodox Christian conception of God’s nature (e.g., omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, etc.) and function.

Second, atheists tend also to commit the bifurcation fallacy in thinking that either orthodox Christian theism is sound, or atheism must be the result, when in fact there are more plausible conceptions of theism than the orthodox Christian one.

Third, they often tend to commit a fallacy of equivocation between atheism and agnosticism in attempting to stipulatively define “atheism” in probabilistic terms, and arbitrarily, when in fact agnosticism just is the view that construes the existence of God (among other things) probabilistically.

Finally, they tend also to commit the fallacy of hasty conclusion insofar as atheists reason that the orthodox Christian theistic view of the nature of God is representative, with its numerous attendant problems, of what a viable theism must be vis-à-vis the nature of God.


My latest song "I'm Hiding" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Listen or download as free mp3 at


Like my Facebook Musician page at
and get more updates and information regarding my own original music plus music in general.





I’m hiding
You can’t find me
You can’t see the forest for all the trees

I’m in plain sight, your eyes can’t see
Camouflaged, reach out and through me

I’m hiding
I’m hiding from you


//:F / C/ G / C://
G / C / G / C
F / C / G / C



My latest song "I Want To Be A Movie" from the 2013 album "Urban Dreams". Taken from a quote by Jimi Hendrix.

Listen or download as free mp3 at




I want to be a movie
Caress the screen with my shining light




E G B D(G) C#(F#) D(G)
E G B E(A) D(G) E(A)

Em D9 A7
Em D9 A7
Em D9 A7
Em D9 A7

Bridge Riff: E(A) D(G) C#(F#) B(E) A(D) G(B) G6

Middle: Em7


RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE: Atheists / Theists / Agnostics / Etc - Facebook Group

I have created a new group for those interested. Join the group, add members and participate in the dialogue.

RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE is a safe haven for respectful dialogue between atheists, theists, agnostics etc.

1. No personal insult of members or individuals.
2. No insult of deities / prophets / spokespeople
3. No flooding threads with off topic posts.
4. No posting threads irrelevant to the aim of the group.

Not adhering to the rules will result in a permanent ban.

Why you should avoid Justin Brierly's "UNBELIEVABLE" on Facebook

These following 4 threads were posted on Justin Brierly's "Unbelievable" group on Facebook after I had blocked several atheist trolls for personal insults and repeatedly going off on a tangent in my threads.  The 4 threads were solely about me and nothing to do with the supposed aims of the group.

The group has these rules:

Justin Brierley

Hi, I'm Justin and I am the admin on this group (which is an offshoot of a radio show/podcast that I host). ...


In order to try to make this group an enjoyable place to contribute, wherever you come from on the faith spectrum, here is a list of rules which members must abide by:


2. Aggressive/offensive language or behaviour. This is obviously a very subjective area. Again, I will be the one to decide whether behaviour is aggressive or offensive. Again, extreme cases will result in an immediate ban. In most cases it will result in a warning and deletion of the comment (or OP if that is where it takes place). If the offence is repeated, the user will be banned.

3. Posts and comments that are intended to vilify or demean a person or point of view, especially without any supporting argumentation. These are liable to be deleted without consultation as I see appropriate. A warning will be issued. If the offence is repeated, the user will be banned.

4. Use of inflammatory / condescending / OTT / purely emotive language may also result in a warning, deletions or a ban.


6. Posts and comments that do not contribute to a discussion or are irrelevant to the aim of discussing topics of interest to believers and non believers may also be deleted, and persistent behavior may result in a ban (this includes just quoting Bible verses or spiritual quoatations without any accompanying conversation starter).

7. Users can block any other users they wish. Any user blocking me as admin will be banned.



1. Avoid language that is tends to "wind up" the other side - such as accusations of lying or "intellectual dishonesty". Hot button words like "abusive" or "delusional" etc. Try to be as generous as you can be in your estimation of another person's character. It can be hard to read tone and intention on facebook

2. Try to avoid psychologising other individuals. Respond to their arguments without branding them as an individual.

3. ...  I need you the users of the group to be my eyes and ears. Please do get in touch in the aforementioned ways if there are issues that you feel need to be brought to my attention. Most of the time I hope not to have to do anything as people will just be getting on with each other.

Thankyou and enjoy the group.


My posts were about the major two problems with atheism:
1. The fact that there is not a positive argument for atheism.
2. The category error of atheists demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical God.

These two threads invoked an avalanche of atheist trolls who called me every swear word under the sun and took every possible opportunity to change the subject to their pet atheist hobby horses. They merely kept stating the same old weary brain-dead atheist slogans and mantras which was what I was eager to avoid. I wanted them to critique their own views. Apparently they thought that their swearing made up for a lack of a decent argument and a lack of education.  Most could not even comprehend the what the topic was about. Some thought Christians, Jews and Muslims worshiped an empirical God. Others thought that a negative argument against theism was actually a positive argument for atheism. (It isn't.)

I blocked a number of atheist trolls in discussion on the group for:
- Insults
- Not sticking to the OP.

Apparently the following blocked atheist trolls don't comprehend what an insult is or what going off topic is and instead try to justify themselves in these 4 threads dedicated to criticising me. They keep stating how wonderful they are. Their self praise is absolutely sickening and far from the truth.

After having four threads on the group by the atheist trolls dedicated to solely discussing myself, all made by blocked atheist trolls who had either insulted me or kept flooding my threads with off topic posts, this is Justin Brierly's repy to my concerns that above rules had been breached:

Justin Brierley

I'm afraid to get anywhere on this forum you will need to grow a thick skin Mark, none of these strike me as offences worthy of discipline. Also if you've blocked someone then I should just ignore them.

These are some of the posts and threads written by the atheist trolls after I had blocked them and that I objected to. The poor little atheist trolls are upset that I blocked them.



Huw Pryce

I do believe *[MT] has either blocked me or deleted a thread of several hours. I offered no abuse and debated in a civilized and reasonably courteous manner. If the thread has gone - well that was a waste of time - and what a poor loser! If it's still visible to other people (I really don't know the niceties of being blocked etc. It doesn't happen to me very often). Judge for yourself how well his argument holds up.

I think I gave he and Matthew a thorough spanking. Matthew went to bed and
*[MT] seems to have blocked me. Such is the nature of sophistry. If you adopt
a dishonest position in your initial premise, anyone, regardless of skill or intellect will expose you and make
Neil Gough *[Ex-Facebook friend]

I'm hugely amused at *[MT]. he was on my list until i corrected some of his libellous rants on local politics.>
Mike Reinke Ha! That pussy blocked me too cause I said his stupid was
starting to show through on my own thread.
Huw Pryce Sounds like he's having a bit of a meltdown. Poor lambie.
Dave Elleman I was blocked too, for trying to argue that the claim of *[MT]'s OP was incoherent.

Mike Reinke - I apologise to you for continuing the discussion on *[MT]'s thread, as it probably would have been more constructive if we'd continued on yours, rather than having *[MT] set himself up as God on a new thread and block everyone that challenged his assertions.
Sam Tunmore He blocked me because, by existing, I proved his arguement as a
Stuart Round *[MT] has blocked most of the group I think by now. He can probably only see his own posts and those of people who agree with him. It's no way to conduct a debate. He either insists you stick rigidly to his definition of the question, which seems to be the same one over and over, or he blocks you.


John Humberstone

"I hope that these rules will be followed and ask for the thread to be deleted." *[MT] It seem to me that *[MT] would be better taking a leaf out of Matthew's book and go start his own groups up elsewhere. He could then have complete control and authority to manage it and the people who join, however he likes.
Neil Gough My, he is a delicate little Petal isn't he?



Ben Morris

*[MT] is a baby. Someone get his momma to change his diaper, and feed him.



Peter Roger

Insults have now resulted in you being blocked. Bye.
I didn't use any names that you didn't use on yourself and just cause i  called you out on your claim to be a "Philosopher" which is plainly a lie cause you don't know the basics frm 101 on.ok see ya.
Peter Roger im here it seems.
Later though i don't seem to be able to see *[MT] at all.I guess he did as good as run away then. Ok then *[MT] it must be one nil to me


If you join Justin Brierly's "Unbelieveable" group on Facebook and are not an atheist you too may be the victim of atheist ad hominem.


A satisfied customer may tell 3 – 5 people about their experience.

A dissatisfied customer may tell 8 – 10 people about their experience.

The average business never hears from 96% of its unhappy customers.

For every complaint received the average company in fact has 26 customers with similar complaints, 6 of which are serious problems. Of the customers who register a complaint as many as 70% will do business again with your business if the complaint is effectively resolved. That figure goes up to a staggering 95% if the customer feels that their complaint was resolved quickly.

It costs 6 times as much to attract a new customer as it does to keep an existing customer.

1 complaining customer & 26 other dissatisfied customers = 27 unhappy customers

27 complaining customers will each tell up to 20 others = 540 people may have heard complaints about your company.

(Source: AussieHost)


As a result of Justin Brierly's hypocrisy I am sure that many people will now read this negative review of his page and avoid it. I have left the group as I don't have to tolerate repeated insults and flooding of my threads with off topic rants by ignorant atheists.