Why are there atheists? Saying you're an atheist merely tells people you don't believe in any god or gods. So why say it at all? And why, somebody asked today, are there no aleprechaunists, fiercely claiming that leprechauns do not exist?

Here's why, in a comment I just posted in response to a video by someone asking exactly that kind of question:

If people believed in leprechauns and went around trying to convert you to their ridiculous deity God O'Murphy, ostracised you if you didn't believe in the pot of gold, and wanted to put giant pictures of shamrocks in schools and courthouses, I guarantee you there would be aleprechaunists. As nobody believes in leprechauns, you'll instead find atheists, speaking out when your equally silly beliefs in God contradict and contend with their lives and notion of what is real.

Sometimes YouTube's 500-character limit is just about enough to say all you need to say.

Just a small example of what happens when you allow religious groups to take charge of a country's legal system:

Turkish women attack clothing law

About 70 Turkish women have protested in Istanbul after a court found a woman guilty of exhibitionism for fishing in what was termed "improper clothing".

Turkish newspapers quote court documents as saying she was wearing a lightweight outfit like a nightdress, which blew up in the wind.

Last week a judge upheld the men's complaints.

The AK Party - which is led by devout Muslims - has been in power since 2002. Some are concerned Turkey is becoming more conservative under its rule.

Perhaps the most telling part of the story is this:

Men who groped a woman on Taksim Square last New Year's Eve were fined 57 lira ($45, £23).

The fisherwoman in a flimsy dress was given a five-month suspended prison sentence for exhibitionism.

Man committing sexual assault: $45

Woman wearing a dress on a windy day: five-month suspended prison sentence

Muslim discrimination against women: priceless

It's the fourth of July. So what? I'm British and I don't give a flying fuck what the date is, mainly because it has no significance here whatsoever. What would I like to celebrate today? Being part of England, Britain and Europe, that's what! Our Independence Day is... oh, that's right, we don't have one because we were the ones in charge and everyone else became independent of us! Meanwhile, we have to wait until the fifth of November to set off our fireworks... and burn effigies of a Catholic traitor on our bonfires! Woohoo! God save the Queen!

You want some hate? I'll show you hate: Christian attitudes to homosexuality. Look no further, because if you want evidence of real intolerance, serious discrimination, undeniable hatred for living, breathing people just going about their lives in their own way, you'll find it among those Christians who would do anything, anything to rid the world of homosexuality.

So what brought this up today? After all, I've made a few videos about the subject, and it's no secret that this is one religious prejudice which raises my anger to boiling point. What's new? Well, this article is new:

AFA calls for McDonald's boycott
The founder of the American Family Association (AFA) says the McDonald's Corporation's refusal to be neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality has resulted in their declaration of a boycott against the popular fast-food chain.

AFA founder Don Wildmon says they went to McDonald's after learning several months ago that the company had joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. And following a $20,000 donation to that group, one of McDonald's executives was placed on the Chamber's board of directors.

"We contacted McDonald's and showed them what they were doing -- that is, helping to support the homosexual agenda," explains Wildmon. "...[O]ne of the primary purposes of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce is to promote homosexual marriage."

After meeting with Wildmon, the corporation refused to withdraw their support for the Chamber. "...In fact, McDonald's strongly told us that they are reaffirming their commitment to -- they called it -- 'diversity,'" he continues.

Wildmon says that reaffirmation means throwing the corporation's full weight into the cultural battle on the side of homosexuality -- which is why AFA is calling for consumers not to help McDonald's do it with their dollars.

Yes, for once I am proud to say that I stand shoulder to shoulder with that great American belly-expanding institute, McDonald's. But what really gets me angry is the comments section, the target audience for this news story - the Christians who are showing their true feelings. Take a look at the page for the full view, but first a few choice quotes from some of the people who supposedly 'hate the sin but love the sinner':

• Let's all let the sodomite's support McDonald's. They say they are 10% of the population. The last I heard they were 2% of the population. Then we can watch McDonald's go under. The next place we have to boycott because of sodomite support would be shaking in their boots.

• Most of us already quit McDonalds when we heard about their perversion push. It is families with children that made them what they are today so we can also take them down. I doubt many homos will continue eating there if there are no children to "convert" or molest. I say let the fruits have it - the food is horrible and why buy nasty food when you can buy good food next door that you can actually take your children inside the place! NO to the perverts!

• Homosexuality is a choice to follow a deviant sexual lifestyle... Fortunately, there are plenty of clinics that successfully help people who want to get rid of same-sex attraction. It is not discrimination to tell the truth to confused people. Normal people seek other normals and confused people think they're suffering discrimination when all that is happening is the law of nature seeking after its own. Homosexuals need therapy, not tolerance. And plenty of prayer. . .

• If McDonalds will support a racist agenda, it only figures it will support a homosexual one as well.
  Note: incredibly, this idiot is condemning one prejudice (racism) while supporting another (hatred of homosexuality), probably without a second thought

• Colonel Sanders was a Christian man and gave God the glory for leading him to found his business. He will be getting all of my business from now on.
  Note: Okay, that one is funny! Kill yourself with Christian chicken instead of gay beef!

• Most people I know do not support discrimination against homosexuals nor more than we would a person with cancer or an alcoholic. All three have a sickness and should be prayed for. What I do object to is the idea that the pro homosexual agenda wants society to "accept" their behavior as morally ok and to silence those of us who do not agree.
  Note: So, you don't want to discriminate against them but you object to anything which would allow them to be accepted into society? Riiiiight...

• I started boycotting McDonald's about a month ago, the moment I heard about their support of the homosexual lifestyle. This boycott is about denying McDonald's my money to spend on deviant behavior.

• No to McDonalds. No to diversity. No to political correctness.

If that's love, I wouldn't like to see what happens if they started to get mildly annoyed with someone. Let's end with a voice of reason, again from the comments:

• So.. We will continue to support McDonald's when they lure children with their advertising to transfatty oil, mystery meat Burgers of Death... but when they support a GLBT cause, we refuse to buy their disease-causing "food" for our kids anymore? Boy, those are SOME priorities.

---

Footnote:
Imagine if all the fast-food restaurants in the USA openly supported GLBT causes. Then imagine all the world's Christians suddenly stopped eating there because of their hatred of homosexuality. There would be massively fewer deaths and far more slim, healthy Christians. Needless to say, I'm hoping this boycott fails. Fat, cholesterol-guzzling Christians get off this planet and up to Heaven all the quicker! (Or not, obviously.)

---

Update:
Saw this. Had to share:

Look at these two statements:

1. I believe that God exists
2. I do not believe that God exists

On the face of it they appear to be two sides of the same coin. They are opposites. Or are they? In reality, what the first statement, the position of Christians, Muslims and other theists, is telling us is this: a person who believes in God has come to this position by being convinced in some way that God exists. Meanwhile the second statement, the position of atheists, is that he or she has not been convinced, and therefore does not believe in the existence of God.

All an atheist claims is 'I do not believe that God exists' and this in itself is an undeniably true statement because it says nothing about proof of the existence of God, only that the person does not believe. In the same way, theists undeniably do believe that God exists. But as before, this does not have anything to do with proof of God's existence.

Proof is, however, an important aspect when considering why anyone does or does not believe in the existence of God.

Theists, those who believe in God, must bring forward reasons for their belief in God. This is because their belief, their faith, is a belief in a specific definition of God. For Christians it is the God whose actions are described in the Bible. For Muslims the Qur'an shapes their understanding of what God is. When saying 'I believe that God exists', it is therefore an absolutely fundamental requirement that you must bring to the table your reasons for holding this belief. If there were no reason to believe in the Christian God, why not believe in the Norse Gods instead?

Are these 'reasons to believe' proof for the existence of God? A Christian will tell you that they are. So will those of other religions. Even something as seemingly straightforward as 'creation proves that God exists' is a statement of several things:

1. I believe that God exists
2. I present this observation/evidence to you as proof of God's existence
3. This is one of the reasons I believe in the God described by my religion

Atheists, however, are absolutely not required to prove that God does not exist. Why not? Because any such assertions would, of necessity, have to be in terms of the claims made by theists. Let's take the previous example: 'creation proves that God exists'. An atheist might say simply, 'I am not convinced by your argument'. Yes, both sides might go into more detail, but it is detail which must be provided by the theist, and which an atheist will (if he continues to be an atheist) reject as proof of God's existence, for whatever reason.

Yes, atheists can and do provide proof that particular claims made by theists are incorrect, but we do not have to provide cast-iron proof of the non-existence of God. The existence of God isn't something an atheist thought up in the first place, so why even attempt to prove that a god, any god does not exist? The only reason atheists debate with Christians is to refute Christian dogma. There is no atheistic proof for the non-existence of God, just as there is no atheistic proof for the non-existence of fire-breathing dragons. All we assert is that there is a lack of evidence to support any such claims (for God or dragons). Then given this absence of evidence, why should atheists believe in God?

Evolution, despite what theists vehemently claim, is not something used by atheists to attempt to prove that God does not exist. Evolution says nothing about God, nothing at all. Physics, biology, chemistry, and all the other sciences so readily attacked by theists, are not atheistic plots to prove that God is not there. Atheists do defend the sciences, but this is because theists try to discredit them so frequently. In and of itself, defending science is nothing to do with the existence of God.

If atheists were required to provide proof of something in which they do not believe, where would this end? Would Christians be required to prove that their God is not purple if someone claimed he was? Would Muslims have to present evidence that Allah does not eat chocolate cake on Wednesdays? The burden of proof is always, always on the person making the claim. 'A purple God' may seem ridiculous to Christians. But 'God' seems equally preposterous to atheists.

Theists believe that God exists, so let them prove it, and when the proof is convincing enough, atheists will readily accept that proof. That almost goes without saying - I don't believe in God, but if you provide enough proof to convince me that he exists, I will believe in him. Conversely, theists do believe in God, and provide their reasons, their 'proof' that this is so, and it follows that if each one of their reasons is examined and proved to be incorrect, the theist should become an atheist, simply because they will have no valid reason to believe.

This is partly why there is such debate between theists and atheists. Theists present their evidence, knowing that if any part of that evidence convinces someone that God exists there will be one less atheist in the world. Atheists have a seemingly far tougher job - they must dismantle everything which convinces a theist of God's existence. (It's often the case that once you undermine one part of a person's faith in God, the whole thing falls like a house of cards, but that isn't something for discussion here.)

The burden of proof has to be on theists, purely because it is the theists who define who/what/where/why their particular God is. If someone asks you to prove that God does not exist, all that is necessary is to respond with 'define your God'. If they refuse to do so, you would be perfectly within your rights to make up your own definition of God and easily refute it... which of course the theists would love you to do because they then say, 'But that's not who God is. God is...' and go on to define what they mean when they say 'God'.

If all else fails, if someone tells you that you, an atheist, must provide proof that God does not exist, that it is your burden of proof to do so, here's one simple response: 'Sorry, I don't believe that either'.

At some point that title will no doubt find its way into my 'Holy Fucking Bible' series, perhaps as a pre-cum, er, prequel, but for now I'm just writing about the following passage I found when I was pondering the question, "What was God doing before he made the universe?" (that was actually what I typed into Google). Well, according to some Christians, he was just fiddling with his genitalia, or so it seems:

What was God doing before He created the universe?

As we all know, those batty Christians think that God is a kind of three-in-one sandwich, the BLT of divinity, except in this case it's GJH. However, that's not such a snappy acronym and, sadly for the Jews, involves a lot less bacon. Before they had the big universe idea God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit existed, according to the aforementioned web page, "in perfect harmony and flawlessness, having all they needed in one another" - similar to the feeling you get when you realise you now own every episode of Xena and Hercules on DVD (though that might just apply to me). How lovely for them. But the question remains: before the Big Bang what was/were he/they actually doing?

No surprise: God having hot sex with his three separate but individual parts. Those parts being parts of himself. So basically, God was masturbating. The evidence is all there on the web page:

• The preincarnate Christ was intimately united with the Father
  (incest, possibly paedophilia, depends if 'preincarnate' means 'under the age of consent')

• Before creation, God felt complete joy and fulfillment as He perfectly beheld and communed with Himself
  (by syphoning the python, bashing the bishop, straining the spuds, etc)

• God has and always will experience complete joy because He has complete and perfect knowledge of Himself
  (by looking up his own arse in the mirror)

• Before He created the universe, God experienced absolute satisfaction in Himself
  (by constantly jacking off)

• These three were together in fellowship with one another from all eternity. They loved each other
  (and what stronger affirmation of gay pride do you need?)

One God: masturbation. Three parts: gay sex. Conclusion: God created the universe because he was actually bi-curious and wanted to get jiggy with a virgin from the old-time Middle East. Hey, it's a Christian web site and they never get it wrong do they?

---

Footnote:
Today's prize 'Unintelligibly tangled grammatical weirdness' goes to this line:

"And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

Pardon?