Can two men raise a child?

Having been involved in raising a child of my own, i find it impossible to imagine how difficult it must be for two men to raise a child. I found myself utterly clueless at newborn stage and what came naturally to my wife, was a bigger mystery than the alleged holy trinity to me. My wife, for example, could hear certain tones in the babies voice and instantly knew that it needs comfort, food, is tired or just wants some attention. It makes complete sense when you think about it. She had been carrying this child for 9 months prior, forming what is arguably the strongest bond known to the animal kingdom, that is the bond between a mother and her baby.

Of course it is possible for men to raise children these days and cater for the physical needs of a baby with formula milk now readily available at every supermarket and they can obviously comfort them to a certain extent, but what effect could it have on that child not having a mother (or mother figure) in their lives. Can a father replace the role of a mother? To many the answer is so blindingly obvious that they have probably stopped reading by now, however, there is a growing number of ideologists who are attempting to push their selfish and irrational ideas into the very policies which govern us through the state.

The real question in this article which i will attempt to answer is this: What effect would it have on a child if he or she is raised by two men?

Comfort & Security

Those of us lucky enough to have been raised primarily by our mother during the early years of our lives will likely have remembered the comfort and security provided. If we hurt our leg jumping off rocks, it was our mothers who knew just how to comfort us and it was mainly through her words and touch that we felt better.

While some fathers do a reasonably good job of this (nowhere near as good as mothers), it is more about who the words and the comfort comes from. An example of what i mean can be found in adulthood, we choose to confide in friends and family because their words mean a lot more than a strangers. It’s the same with mothers when young. Her words mean more to us than anyone elses, even if they say the exact same thing as that other person did.

Imagine having that wonderful bond taken away at such a vulnerable age. Children without mothers do not develop half as well emotionally and they tend to struggle to form relationships later on in life.

Maternal Instinct

As sure as you can be that birds will migrate south for the winter, so too, does a mother look after her young. They have what is best described as the maternal instinct, they know perfectly well what is best for their babies at all times and for them (most of them) it is built into their sub consciousness so much that they just do it, without having to think about what they are doing.

Whether its a god given gift or has developed over the course of millions of years is irrelevant. It is without a doubt the biggest advantage a mother has when raising their young.

Men do not possess this wonderful trait. Try as we might (and we do try incredibly hard) we constantly get things wrong and make the wrong judgement calls.

This obviously takes its toll on the child who ends up distressed and confused if not given what they need, when they need it.

Women WANT to be the primary caregivers

Another truism which gets purposely forgotten in this debate is the fact that, by and large, women want to look after their children and men often don’t want to do it alone.

When someone actually wants to do something, they generally do a far better job of it than an opposing person who does not want to.

This is evidentially true when you look into the numbers of single mothers. They often choose to be the primary carers of the children while the men are only too willing to oblige and see them at the weekends!


So there we have it. Of course two men could, in theory raise a child but the reality is that he/she would be at a serious disadvantage if they did.

Have you see anything that you disagree with? Drop your comment below.


The Legalization Of Cannabis Debate 

The debate surrounding the legalization of cannabis is an interesting and heated one. It could have serious implications for the whole of our society and depending on which side of the fence you sit on, it is good or bad.

The debate surrounding the legalization of cannabis is an important one for all of us to be aware of. If cannabis was legalized, it would have major implications for the whole of our society.

Let’s have a quick debrief of the main debating points in this very heated debate.

Does decriminalization mean less use overall?

A common belief among the pro-cannabis lobby is that if you were to decriminalize cannabis, then it would ultimately lead to less use overall. They use examples in Portugal to back this claim that decriminalization will reduce the usage within the population.

Opposers of the legalization of cannabis will reject this and point out that just because the use of cannabis is not reported through law enforcement, that certainly does not mean it is not being used within society.

The fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal has not done anything to slow down their usage within our society, even though we all know using these substances is bad for us.

If it doesn’t affect anyone else…


Those who advocate widespread cannabis use will argue that if it does not affect anyone else then why shouldn’t we be able to make the decision to smoke cannabis, even if it is bad for us?

If we, as a society, can smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol knowing it is bad for us, then why shouldn’t we be able to consume an arguably less harmful product?

No Cannabis

The no cannabis lobby will argue that using it would affect everyone around you. If you become mentally ill from using cannabis, then who is going to look after you other than your family or the government?

This puts a strain on everyone involved in the users care because they selfishly consumed a product knowing that it could potentially cause everlasting harm to them.

They will use Portugal as a prime example. Cannabis use is treated as a medical problem, and their healthcare bill has hit the roof since 2001. Even though we don’t immediately see the effects of this, we will either through higher taxes or a less able healthcare system.

The failed War On Drugs


Advocates of cannabis use will point out that the war on drugs has failed miserably. Ever since it began, there has been nothing but gang wars, deaths, addiction and failure of the police force to catch those involved in the illegal trading of drugs.

For this reason, they argue that legalizing it and monitoring the sale of the drugs will make it safer for the user and will get rid of the crime relating to the sale of cannabis.

No Cannabis

Opposers of cannabis will argue that the war on drugs has failed because law enforcement has been targetting the wrong people. They have been going after the supply rather than the demand.

Attempting to track down a group of drug dealers when you have no leads is a difficult thing which takes a lot of effort, it is important but should certainly not be the polices first port of call.

Rather than targeting the drug dealers, they should look to treat people caught with the possession of cannabis as committing a criminal offence. We are currently too soft on people caught with this on their person and if the police force would only enforce the law, then we would have far less cannabis use in society.

What do you think?

Most people today have had an experience with the drug cannabis. Some experiences are good while others are bad. We would love to hear your opinion on this very important matter so please comment below to have your say.

Why Atheism Is A Religion 

Atheism has all of the hallmarks of a religion. It has a loyal following, it is an unproven belief and many congregate to listen and take encouragement from their ‘leaders’.

If you have ever had the misfortune of having to defend your religion against an atheist, you should remind them that they are also part of a mainstream religion with its own set of beliefs and its own special following.

This of course will produce a lot of sarcasm and laughter, however, atheism ticks all of the boxes to fit the definition of a religion. Their denial of this is a complete lack of regard for logic.

Lets take a look at the main reasons why atheism is very much a religious group.

Atheism is a belief

The reality of atheism, despite what they say, is that it is a belief. Atheism is just as unproven as theism and so in order to call yourself an atheist, you must admit that you believe that there is no God.

They try to deny this by reasoning that atheism is a lack of belief in God, rather than believing that he does not exist. Unfortunately for them, they still need to come up with an alternative. If they do not accept that a God created the universe then they at least have to admit that it was ‘something else’ and because they do not know what that would be, they must put faith that there actually is ‘something else’ capable of explaining how everything got here.

Atheists will use the ‘lack of belief’ line as an argument against theists also. They say that atheism is a lack of belief in God, therefore the burden of proof is on the theists as they make the claim that there is a God.

Theists can easily flip this on atheists however. They can just as easily state that theism is a lack of belief in a random, purposeless universe and the burden of proof is on the atheist to show how this universe could come about by purely natural means.

New Atheists Preach The Word Zealously

Have you noticed that atheists have become incredibly vocal in recent years? There is a new kind of atheist in our midst, they are vocal about their beliefs and want everyone to know that if they disagree with them, then they are unscientific and frankly, stupid.

With people such as Richard Dawkins, The late Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss and the like, new atheists have a newfound confidence about their message. They have spread the word throughout the western world in universities and all over the media outlets, the fruits of their labours are paying off as their following is rising rapidly.

But it is not just within the universities that atheists are preaching their message. Disciples of atheism can now be found in most places within our society, previously they would not be so vocal about their beliefs but they now seem to be proud of the message they preach.

Atheists Have A Church

Believing in atheism requires constant faith building from other atheists. They usually congregate online, usually on twitter where they verbally abuse everyone who disagree with them but also on Facebook and other social media outlets.

I have been the victim of a flurry of abuse made by literally hundreds of atheists. I’m not the only one of course, but the point is that when one atheist comments, it seems that hundreds upon hundreds of other loyal followers are not far behind to throw their ten pence piece in. Strength in numbers!

Don’t get me wrong, many atheists simply use social media to share links about their faith and encourage one another by sharing their knowledge and talking with others who hold their convictions.

Without this encouragement from fellow believers, they would sway. It is the exact same concept as in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Believers in something need encouragement from their peers otherwise they could ‘lose their faith’ in their long-held belief.

Is Evolution Evidence Of Gods Existence?

Does evolution disprove God or is it yet more evidence of his existence? Evolution is a very complex system, and where there is complexity there is usually a mind behind it.

It is widely believed that the theory of evolution is evidence that the diversity of life on this planet does not require a creator. However, the more we learn about the wonders of evolution, the weaker this argument becomes.

Those who believe in God have nothing to fear from evolution and would do well to study it if they want to learn more about him. For all of the hysteria created about evolution by atheists such as Richard Dawkins, the facts do not reflect the assertion that evolution disproves the need for a creator.

Evolution Is Wonderfully Complex

The first thing we need to remember about evolution is that it is by no means a simple process. It works in complete conjunction with the earths natural cycles and without the properties of the earth being as they are, evolution would not be possible at all. Evolution is a fine tuned mechanism, much like most of the laws of this universe. It is irreducibly complex by its very nature. After all, you cannot have evolution without the laws of physics as well as the natural cycles of this wonderful earth. If you take away just one of those incredibly complex mechanisms, then you cannot have evolution.

Evolution by natural selection is truly amazing when you think about it. It reacts to the world around us in such a powerful way. If a finch requires a stronger beak to pierce different foods, than evolution will provide this. If an animal requires camouflage in order to remain unseen by potential predators then evolution has the ability to change that animals genetic makeup for its benefit.

This is a truly remarkable system and shows incredible intelligence. Far from disproving the need for a creator, the process of evolution itself requires explanation. It was once thought that evolution was a purely random process and that it was only effective after millions of years. That idea has now been debunked, especially now that we have seen modern examples proving that evolution is by no means hit and miss and manages to adapt a species within one or two generations, not millions of years.

Knowing what we now do about the process of evolution, can we really say without question, that it is evidence against God rather than for God? Personally, i don’t see it. Where there is complexity, there is usually a mind behind it and evolution is no exception to that rule.


Does Evolution Ever Get It Wrong?

Perhaps the most surprising thing for students of the theory of evolution is that there are not many examples of evolution getting it wrong for the animals. This is true both in the fossil record and with modern-day examples of adaptation.

When we observe species from one generation to the next, we see change but that change is almost never a negative change unless we interfere. Previous thought was that evolutionary change would ‘fail’ a lot before it succeeded, but now we realise that when a species adapts, the general rule is that the change is for the benefit of the species.

The fact that evolution doesn’t seem to get it wrong very often is exactly what you would expect from a created universe. If it was completely random and unintelligible then yes, you probably wouldn’t assert that any kind of intelligent mind had anything to do with it, but it isn’t.

This is important because again it refutes the notion that evolution is an unintelligible force but it also makes perfect sense that a creator of life would make them adaptable in an ever-changing world.

The Limitations Of Evolution

Transitional fossils between species are notoriously difficult to find. This is because evolution has its limits. While it can create amazing diversity and change within a species, it cannot go past the ‘blueprint’ and create an entirely separate species from what there currently is.

Evolutionary Scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould admit that for evolution to create an entirely new species, it would require a massive leap in the evolutionary cycle in order for it to be able to happen.

There is no evidence to suggest that a new species could develop over millions of years, only that animals can evolve within their own genetic makeup.

This limit of evolution provides evidence that you cannot use it to explain how all life on this planet managed to emerge from a single-celled organism, far from it. Rather, it shows that there is plenty of room for a creator.

Reopening the council of Nicaea: Is Jesus God?

The council of Nicaea needs to be reopened with a fresh pair of unbiased eyes. Does the bible really teach that Jesus is God?

The council of nicaea was ultimately decided by a pagan emporer who had an incredibly limited knowledge of the holy scriptures. Since then, we have never really questioned possibly one of the most important, yet well-hidden secrets of the truth of Christianity.

Is it really wise for a seeker of truth to take the word of a Civilization well known for it’s pagan Gods and not question such an assertion made by them over a thousand years ago?

Let’s take a look at some basic arguments which directly contradict the doctrine of the trinity.

Father Greater Than The Son?

New International Version – “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

The problem here is obvious. If Jesus is God, then how can someone be greater than him? It makes no sense whatsoever that Jesus could be the almighty God, the alpha, and omega if there is something greater than him.

This statement cannot be justified by Trinitarians either as they believe that Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are equal, separate but as one at the same time. Clearly then, as we look at this scripture at face value, as it is written, then we cannot justify calling Jesus the almighty God. 

Believing that Jesus is God is tantamount to calling him a liar. It is impossible to call yourself a Christian, and at the same time believe that Jesus is God. That is by no means to diminish the importance of Jesus in God’s plans, but we should not give him all of the glory when it belongs to another.

Origins of the unholy Trinity

The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod – Tammuz – and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” – The first divine incomprehensible trinity.” — (The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop, p. 51)

It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that the origins of three Gods in one are by no means unique to Christendom. It has been used many times in history, not least with Babylon, which is commonly referred to as false religion in the Bible.

Do you believe that Jesus would promote such a belief system? There is only one, a vague scripture which connects the father, the son, and the holy spirit together but even that certainly does not stipulate that they are 3 persons in one.

Matthew 28:19

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .”

This by no means makes God and Jesus equal, nor does it prove the unequalness of the holy spirit.

Perhaps the most powerful and most used evidence that Jesus and God are separate can be found in John.

John 17:3

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

God sent Jesus to us. God did not send himself to us, otherwise, he surely would have said that. We can clearly see the closeness that Jesus shares with God in the scriptures quoted, but does that mean that they are one? certainly not.

Does John 1:1 Prove That Jesus Is God Almighty?

John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The way that this is translated, it does seem at first glance as though it supports the divinity of Jesus. However, many bible translators chose not to use the phrase ‘the word was God’ based on their knowledge of biblical greek they rendered that it should be translated as ‘The word was a God’. God simply means might one and does not refer to the only true God.

Whatever the case, one scripture out of the literally hundreds which contradict the idea that Jesus is God does not make a major difference in the debate.

God Has A Name?

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the doctrine of the trinity is that God almighty has been partitioned from Jesus in one very important way. Not only does he have a separate title, but he also has a name which has only ever been used to describe God the Father.

Exodus 6:3 King James Version (KJV)

“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name, Jehovah was I not known to them.”

Psalm 83:18 King James Version (KJV)

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.”

Isaiah 12:2 King James Version (KJV)

“Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.”

It is estimated that the name of God, Yahweh (translated into English as Jehovah) can be found in the original texts of the Bible nearly 7,000 times. 

Unfortunately, the original texts have been masked by trinitarian scholars over the years, however, no serious bible scholar could dispute that God almighty has a name that is completely separate from Jesus.

Brexit Debate – The Good And The Bad

the brexit debate is an important one and not just for the United Kingdom. It paves the way for the whole of the eu to debate their futures and the world.

Great Britain’s decision to leave has sparked endless heated debate all over the country. Pro Europeans believe that it was the single most devastating decision this country has made in recent history, while the brexiteers welcome the change believing it will bring new opportunities to our wonderful nation.

In the end, both parties are probably half right. There are good opportunities and bad consequences following the decision in June.

Lets take a look at the good and bad that will probably come out of our decision to leave the European council.

The Good

We Control Our Borders

The ability to control our borders brings a lot of potential benefits to our society. We could ensure that the labour market does not get saturated with workers, meaning we could afford a real minimum wage. This would be a fantastic result for the working class who are currently slaves to the system.

Those on minimum wage at the moment can barely afford to live, all of the monthly allowance goes on rent, utility bills and food with no hope of being able to save for their own homes one day.

We can also ensure that we, as a country, can defend against terrorism more effectively if we have the ability to close the doors to potential dangers to our society. Currently, it is not hard for anyone to sneak into Europe since there are multiple access points. Once they’re in, they can gain citizenship without declaring who they are, especially if they are asylum seekers.

We control our laws

Currently, we are bound by a lot of red tape forced upon us by the European council. Once we set ourselves free, we can decide which laws we would like to keep and which ones are unneccessary. This of course could be good or bad depending on what our government decides to do, but having the choice is definitely a good thing.

While i understand the concept of trying to find a consensus of laws for the whole world to follow, unfortunately countries need to run their own laws for numerous reasons. For example, there is no point in making a law on how much fish a country can farm Europe wide because some countries (such as Britain) are more blessed with a surplus of this kind of resource.

All countries are blessed with different resources so they should be able to take advantage of this, otherwise they will be disadvantaged and all because of pointless red tape.

Less “multiculturalism”

multicultural is no culture. Unfortunately, having multiple different cultures within our society has not worked and this is because nobody knows how to behave. It creates divisions between religions and ways of life.

When we say multiculturalism, we really mean multi-religion or multi-faith. These are very fiery topics with no room for compromise because a lot of the time, there is no room for it.

Those following the faith of Islam for example, tend to treat females as inferior, can you see a feminist and a Muslim coming to a compromise any time soon?

And that is just one example of many as to why compromise is impossible between ideologies and faiths. The only glue sticking us together is tolerance, however the signs of the times are telling us that this tolerance is wearing thin.

The Bad

Nationalism is on the rise

Nationalism is one of the most poisonous ideologies within any society. It creates war, racism and division against anyone who is not ‘from that country’ and is a great divider of people. It is especially dangerous in a country such as Britain which has people of different backgrounds everywhere.

Unfortunately, the signs are that since our decision to leave Europe, we as a country, have become more nationalistic. We don’t know where that nationalism will lead us to, however what we do know is that in the past nationalism has led to nothing but persecution and murder on a large-scale.

Europe Hates Us Even More

If you thought our chances of winning the Eurovision song contest was bad before, we have just destroyed our chances of ever winning in the future, we may not even be allowed to enter!

But on a more serious note the countries of Europe, especially those who still believe in the European project do not like us one bit. We have never been their favourite neighbours, but now that we have left at a point when they are on the brink of financial ruin, they feel even more betrayed by our decision to leave.

This could make future trade deals with Europe bothersome to say the least. If we ever find ourselves in a bind sometime in the future, we probably will not be able to rely on our closest neighbours for help.

The World Feels More Divided

When Great Britain, an influential nation makes a decision as important as we have done, the world takes notice. This may produce a domino effect within Europe and even the entire world. Nations around the world are already feeling the pressure of economic difficulties and believe that independence may be the way to break free from their troubles.

America has recently just made one of the most momentous decisions in electing Donald Trump, a man who has talked very strongly about independence and has very divisive views.

The world is at the cusp of a major change. That change so far, does not look so great and is showing all the signs of division and separatism. Hopefully that won’t happen, but we will have to wait and see.


Which is more dangerous – Atheism or Christianity? 

the dangers of atheism and Christianity are real for our whole society. Each could be easily twisted and used for the personal gain of others.

Generally speaking, atheists and Christians alike are peace loving people. However, multiple times in history, both sides have been used in order to justify some horrific atrocities throughout the ages.

Although you cannot blame either Christianity or Atheism completely, both world views have been at the heart of countries and kingdoms which have gone on to commit some of the most evil acts against their fellow man.

To be clear, it is not Atheism or Christianity on their own that can become a danger to our society, but it is the ideologies that can be built around them which can, and have posed a serious threat to the world we live in.

Let’s examine why each could potentially become dangerous and then we can come to a conclusion as to which is potentially more poisonous for our society.

The Dangers Of Christianity

We will start with Christianity since it has proven to be misused by zealots much earlier than atheism has. Christianity has been a source for good on numerous occasions and it can be hard to understand how it could ever be used for bad.

However, history shows us that even the most commendable beliefs can be twisted by the powers that be in order for them to get their own way.

The Crusades

The crusades are a prime example of what can happen when people abuse an ideology that is widely renowned by a large following. It shows that even the most peaceful and well meaning of ideas can be corrupted by power.

The crusades became a battle between religions – Both Islam and Christians would fight for what they believed to be the ‘holy land’, Jerusalem. Countries across Europe would travel from their homeland to Jerusalem in order to retake it from the heathens that occupied it.

In return, the soldiers were promised by the pope himself, that he would cleanse all of their sins and guarantee their entry into the kingdom of heavens. This ignores completely the concept of Christianity, which is that only Jesus can forgive sins and he does that through his ransom sacrifice, making all sins forgivable. The pope also ignored the fact that violence is widely condemned by Jesus in all forms.

Baby Baptism

Baby baptism is and was, for years, the most effective form of brainwash this world has seen. Again, the Catholic church (as well as the church of England) used threats in order to make the population obey. If they did not baptize their babies then they could end up in purgatory.

This ensured that they would always have a loyal following throughout the ages since they would be indoctrinated to believe from birth. This in itself is not dangerous, but if you take away a persons ability to think critically, then you could get them to believe in anything.

The Doctrine Of Hell

Possibly the most effective form of population control that the earth has seen was the doctrine of hell. If you went against the church, sin, or question the teachings of the church then you would be classed as a heathen and would spend an eternity in hell for your sins.

You can imagine how effective that would be in a world full of people who believed in an afterlife and feared the consequences of their actions. Again, this kind of teaching is a fantastic way to convince a generation of believers into doing whatever you want them to do.

The church used this power to accrue donations and support for their unholy wars in Jerusalem and surrounding areas. The amount of control that the church had on the dwellers of Europe was mind boggling and it lasted for almost 1,000 years.

The Dangers Of Atheism

There can be no doubt that atheism has the potential to be a serious threat to our society. Let’s examine why we could end up in a very dark world hypothetically if atheism was the ideology of the world.

Survival Of The Fittest

Atheism is closely linked with the belief in survival of the fittest. This term is used in the animal kingdom generally but is also used when referring to human societies. It breeds competition everywhere and when translating that into modern life, we can see that this part of atheism could cause serious social problems. 

If every country adopted this trend, then there would be massive exploitation of resources and land. Even within societies themselves, it causes endless social problems. Unhealthy competition between our fellow man encourages us to want what is someone else. Whether that be a job, a partner, their livelihoods or anything else, survival of the fittest is a very dangerous concept indeed. 

It is true that the survival of the fittest attitude in humans exists regardless of whether it is taught or not, but imagine how much worse it could get if we condoned such action.


If everyone truly believed that there was no afterlife and that you only lived once, then this has the potential to destroy a nation. Hopelessness is what eventually destroyed the soviet union. The people of that country could not see a future for themselves or their children and so they gave up, this ultimately led to the surrender of the soviet union and the end of the cold war.

Imagine an entire world which believed that they only have one life. Many would still go on to live normal, happy and peaceful lives but a lot more may end up ‘living life to the full’ and at the expense of others.

No Culpability

The logical conclusion to atheism is anarchy. If there is nothing higher, then we cannot be judged for our actions by someone who is equal to us. The law is based on religious values and without those guidelines, who knows where we could end up? We could easily argue that if there is nothing higher, then how can anyone tell us what is right and what is wrong?

This is clearly a dangerous road to go down, from here we could justify anything and everything in our own minds to get what we want. Again, many people would still go on to apply the ‘golden rule’ of life, but there would be many more who would opportunistically and self righteously apply their own rules to their own existence.