God and TV Cookery

Howdy y'all!

I've pondered wrtiting about religion here before, but I usually chicken out. No-one wants to read a poorly planned essay on the subject anyway. But I will give a couple of reasons why I'm an atheist, as I feel they should be vocalised (or textualised). These ideas don't logically imply the non-existence of God, but I find them incredibly persuasive. The fact that they are grounded in intuition rather than reasoned argument meant that I could never put them in any academic essay, but as blogs are about as reliable as the twitchy man with blood on his hands and animal hair in his mouth telling you he hasn't seen your dog, I think it's safe to voice them here.

1) There aren't any convincing reasons for me to believe in God, but there are so many good reasons why the human race might have invented Him. That doesn't mean they're right, but does tip my instinctive scales. God as a way of explaining the unexplainable, as a means of social control, as a compensation for the facts of death, as a moral arbiter, as a good luck charm, as an agrandising element for the human race, as punisher (not him), as sanctuary.

Of course the human race would invent a God. I'd be surprised if they didn't. But the need for Him doesn't entail His existence. I can't get past the fact that I have so many good reasons for the existence the concept of God, but no reasons for the existence of the being Himself.
(Sorry for all this 'him' talk; but I might as well combine misogynist and theist delusions here)

2) When studying my philosophy course, and reading the various reasons for God's existence, it struck me that theist's have to work so hard to convinve people. The ontological argument seems like such an elaborate, round-the-houses piece of gymnastic reasoning. Surely if God existed, he'd make things a bit easier for His followers.

Sorry about that, but I think that has bought me a few entries of crude jokes and TV talk.

***

Why are TV chefs always so weird? They're always either incredibly annoying or seem like they come from a different planet.

Anthony Worrall Thompson is like some seedy, sleazy, dead-beat dad. Charlie Brooker is right when he says he has 'a voice so nasal he sounds like a bee playing a kazoo in an envelope'.

Nigella is not of this world. I think she was invented by a team of pipe-smoking inventors in the 1950s: glazed, euphoric eyes; breasts like zeppelins; a well-spoken and indulgent baking engine. But she rebelled. Probably killed one of her creators (drowned him in butterscotch sauce), and they unplugged her and buried her underground like Burgos's Human Torch. In the nineties, she escaped somehow, perhaps excavated by desperate TV executives, and is now trying to live a normal life, even though everyone can tell she could kill a rhino with her bare hands. And she has a kid who looks like Frodo Baggins.

In a similar vein is Rachel Allen. Lucy and I enjoy watching her programme on Saturday mornings. She is the ideal Irish, homely woman. She's attractive and seems competent, but there's something about her that makes you wonder what lurks underneath. If I found out that she'd flipped out, stripped naked and run around scalding passers-by with hot stew, I wouldn't be surprised.

Aroused, certainly. But not surprised.

Why the profession of 'TV chef' attract so many weirdos? Perhaps they realise that the beauty of food is mainly conveyed through smell and taste, and that televison is unable to convey this, so they made a pact with Satan to allow them to communicate the its goodness through telepathy, but it didn't work, and just made their brains vibrate at a different frequency to the rest of humanity, so they can't conduct normal conversations or understand hats.

I think so.