If anyone has ever criticised Islam, chances are they will at some point be called racist. But...

• Is Islam a race? No.

• If Islam allows people of all races into it, then it is not a race and I cannot be racist.

• If Islam did not allow people of all races in to join it then Islam itself would be racist.

So how can I be a racist for criticising Islam? Answer: race and religion are not connected. At all. It's not really all that difficult to understand... is it?

God, you wanker. You fucking idiot. You twat. You've fucked up the whole world with your stupid, stupid fucking religion. If nobody believed in you we'd all be happily going along thinking, "This is all there is so we'd better make the most of it," and, "Fuck me, we've got one planet and if we don't look after it we're in deep shit." But no. No. You had to be there didn't you. Or make that 'you had to make people think you're there'. Even though you're not there, but if you were... well, how fucked up does it have to get for you to just shout down and say to us all, "Look, you little human bastards, this is how I want to be worshipped," and then send down a list of all the things we have to do to make you happy, so that we all know what the crack is, we all have the same religion and we're not all fighting with the ones who believe in different ways.

Because it's like this isn't it: there's this book, and apparently you put it into people's heads, so they wrote it down and we're all supposed to believe it. Nope. No can do. For one thing it's too fucking long, for another it's too fucking weird, and for a third thing it's so out of date it would be illegal to sell it if it was food and it would probably poison everyone. Which, by sheer coincidence (not) is exactly what the book does. No fucker understands it. No, let's be more specific. Everyone who reads it understands it in a different way from everyone else. So what's the point? Are you proud of that, God? Are you proud of writing a book which isn't even intelligible to the people who want to believe it?

Let's do a comparison: the people who write the manuals for putting together a Boeing 747 are pretty specific. If they missed something out or they were a bit vague, or worse still if something could be interpreted in two or more ways, the whole flying hunk of metal would probably come crashing down or maybe never even get up in the air in the first place. There are some seriously accurate specifications in the tech manuals for a commercial airliner. Fuck, even Ikea do instruction manuals well enough so that most people can put up their weird hippy bedroom furniture without turning it into a pile of sticks and an amateur modern art project. But the Bible? Vague. Fucking vague. Jeebus even admits that he wants to be vague by talking in parables so that most people are confused and haven't got a fucking clue what he's jabbering on about. Why? Who knows?

If there was no Bible we'd be cool. We'd all be pagans again, believing in all the gods all the time, a bit like the Hindus, maybe a bit like the Greeks and Romans and whoever - before the intolerant monotheist motherfuckers came along the Romans were cool. "Hey, whatever religion you want, whatever gods you have, that's okay, so long as you respect everyone else's gods we'll respect yours." That's what it was like, but the Christians weren't having any of it. Not a bit of it. Fuck that say the Jesus freaks, it's the one God and nobody else's and we're not respecting your religion because that's what we're like - intolerant tossers who just want it our way and can't stand seeing you have a good time.

And you wonder why the Christians were persecuted? Not for them the 'live and let live', and where the fuck is 'turn the other cheek' when it comes to letting other people have their own set of beliefs? "Sorry, when we get into power you're all fucked," say the Christians (except they probably didn't use the bad words, and it was probably all in Latin, or maybe Greek). Soon as they're in, pagan religions get persecuted and wiped out. Bastards.

So God, back to you. You sent down this book, apparently, and not just one book, there were 66 of em, and they all got smushed together and now people think it's the word of God. The confusing word of God. If it was supposed to be a manual so that people could live better lives, why does it need thousands and thousands of preachers and philosophers to make sense of it all? Shouldn't it be easy? Shouldn't we just be able to open it and work out what to do without someone else interpreting it for us?

"I'm a bit anxious, what do I do, God." Ooo, let's turn to Psalm 46 (says my Gideon Bible stolen from a hotel). I've literally picked this out at random - see the footnote which indicates my current mental state, so this is probably typical of the 'help' you'll find elsewhere. Now you'd think that Psalm 46 would give me some advice about my anxiety. Sort of like Dr Phil, but much more emphasis on the white beard, flowing robes and ability to create/destroy universes at will. So what do we get? Here it is, God's everlasting wisdom (aka the usual Bible bollocks):

1. God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
2. Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;
3. Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.
4. There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.
5. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.
6. The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.
7. The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
8. Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.
9. He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
10. Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
11. The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

WHAT. THE. FUCK?

Look, God, I'm fucking anxious. I have some serious debts and the credit crunch means I'm about to lose my house. What am I going to do? Bible says: "There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High." Wah?! What use is that? What use to me is any of this crap, at all, ever?

Worse than that is the fact that the same book means different things to different people, purely because it means nothing. Literally nothing. So we're all arguing, we're all disagreeing, we're all responding and reacting in different ways, because the book, which is supposed to be inspired by God, is saying fuck all so that the people reading it have to make up some shit and get a handle on their own lives. Which of course they could just as easily do if they didn't even have the Bible in the first place.

It's not even the only book. Fuck me, God, you gave a different book to a different set of people! Dodgy. Very dodgy. Well okay, this book has some detail, I'll give you that. The Qur'an and and hadith even explain which hand to wipe your arse with after a shit, and tell you all about spooky spirits called genies (I'll add links when the drink wears off... not, but for now, trust me, Islam really does have rules for all that). So you'd think that all these detailed instructions would be so easy to follow that everyone would say, "Hmm, okay, well that's God's word then, we'll all do it." Are you fucking crazy? Who in their right minds is going to follow that bullshit when it's so strict, so controlling, and so totally alien to the way of life you could have if you followed (however loosely) the stuff in the Bible? I mean, no drink? No bacon? No thanks! And those are just small things.

If God was up there, you'd seriously think he would sort this one out. Not all of these different ways of living can be the right ones, surely. It's impossible - they are to a lesser or greater extent mutually exclusive. Of course they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong, which means one of two things:

1. There is no God.

2. God exists but he's loving the trouble he's caused by not making it all any clearer. God is a wanker.

I'll go for option one any day, but if you believe in God (you idiot) you have to see the sense in option two. Any God who sets up a system like this just wants it to fail, wants to see people running around killing each other because they believe different things, because they can't agree on what the true religion is and what everyone should do. They all think they know, but they can't all be right, so they kick seven shades of shit, blood and bile out of each other, among other things.

They're all wrong. And if they're not, then I'm telling him straight: God, you're a wanker. So fuck off and leave us alone. At least until you decide to sort things out. And this time... no watery, flood-based genocides please, okay?

---

Footnote:
Written under the influence of massive quantities of neat whisky (not the good stuff, either), which is all the more impressive because I managed to put in the HTML codes manually and upload it to the right place with my FTP software. I am the dog's bollocks of all atheist web designers, I kid you not :o) And now I have the munchies...

Take a look at the following list, which shows just a small selection of the methods used by religious people to 'prove' that their God exists:

• Cosmological argument
• Teleological argument
• Ontological argument
• Anthropic argument
• Moral argument
• Transcendental argument
• Witness argument
• Majority argument
• Argument from a Proper Basis

There are many, many more, and I recommend taking a look at the Existence of God article at Wikipedia, which is a good starting point. Many of these 'proofs' are incredibly detailed, using extremely complex philosophical arguments and logical acrobatics to make their case. Theists go to enormous lengths to prove that God exists - some of the greatest minds of the last 2000 years and more have taken up this challenge and set out their ideas as to how God must exist because of their particular proof.

Isn't this a little odd?

Surely the fact that so many great (and not so great) philosophers have tackled this problem speaks volumes about the truth of the statement 'God exists'. If God exists, why would anyone actually need to go to so much trouble trying to prove it? Take a look at any of the 'proofs' in the list - they all link to quite lengthy articles, quoting such lofty minds as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas... these are no two-bit Christians making YouTube videos, they are serious intellectual heavyweights whose writings have stood the test of time - after all, their arguments are still quoted today, so they obviously knew what they were talking about. And yet they each had to put in huge efforts to make sure their argument of choice would be totally water-tight, would have no room for doubt, contain no flaws of logic, so that there would be no way to refute their case.

The complexity of these arguments suggests two things to me:

1. The more difficult it is to prove that God exists, the more unlikely it is that God does actually exist. (Although note that this is not at all proof that God does not exist.)

2. More importantly, it seems to show a lack of faith. Who exactly are these people trying to convince? To re-work a common saying, 'Methinks the philosopher doth protest too much' - if God is so obvious, why is it so difficult to prove his existence? And if his existence isn't so obvious... why not?

God, if he existed, would be the most important 'thing' ever, bar none. That much is plain. If he exists, would there be any doubt at all about his existence? Would there be any need for teleological, ontological or anthropic arguments to be formulated? Moreover, these arguments, being highly complex in some cases, are not so easy to understand - many people are not able to grasp the finer details of Aquinas' great theological treatises, for example. You'd think that something as big as God would need to be proven beyond doubt to us 'lesser mortals', those who don't want to study theology for years in order to prove God's existence.

If God existed, wouldn't he just be, well... obvious? You'd think that someone who apparently wants us to believe in him, and who will punish us if we don't, would not require the efforts of history's greatest theological minds to convince us that he is actually there. Surely something a little simpler would be enough to provide this proof?

Someone once asked me the following question. I had taken great pains to dismantle all his so-called 'proofs' and 'evidence' for the existence of God, and finally he became exasperated and asked:

If there was some evidence which could be put in front of you which would convince you of the existence of God, what would it be?

My answer was just a single word:

God.

This can all be distilled very neatly into something which I proudly present to the world as (wait for it):

The argument from potato
1. I have a potato in my hand.
2. I can prove to you that I have a potato in my hand.
3. Here it is.

When someone can bring God forward and put him where I, and indeed everyone else in the world, can see him, only then will we have a valid proof of God's existence. If you're out there, God, just come out of hiding - it would save us all a whole lot of time and trouble, believe me.

Consider this to be a little follow-on from my previous blog, Who does it harm?

So, Christians, let's discuss crime and let's see how you feel how people should be dealt with when they commit various crimes:

1. Murder - Arrested and charged? Agreed.

2. Theft - Arrested and charged? Agreed.

3. Child Abuse - Arrested and charged? Agreed.

4. Homosexuality - Arrested and charged?

If you said 'agreed' to the last one, just check for a moment the laws of your country. Homosexuality is legal in all the western democracies I can think of, and that's a lot of countries. So in your country, the country in which you live and work and, if you're a Christian, in which you pray, there is no penalty at all for the so-called (at least by Christians) 'crime' of homosexuality.

Why is that? Might it be because the majority of societies have no problem at all with homosexuality? Could be, could be. But surely in the Bible God specifically calls homosexuality an abomination:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 18:22

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

Whereas he doesn't mention child abuse at all and yet we all know that's a crime.

So we have these things:

• God sets out rules defining what he thinks are crimes and we ignore them
• We know certain things are crimes, even though God never said they are
• Coveting your neighbour's wife is apparently far worse than raping her (coveting is in the 10 Commandments, rape is not)
• This is all arbitrary and modern laws do not reflect the Bible in any way at all
• This is because the legal system is in no way related to Christianity
• ...because Christianity makes no sense

And yet despite this, despite the fact that, in law, 'gay is okay', we still have gay-bashing Christians. Go figure. However my point is this: if homosexuality is an abomination against God (and that would be a really bad thing, right?), why is it legal? And why are the vast majority of Christians (rather than the usual few fundie fucktards) not voting for it to be outlawed? If Christians really do believe that homosexuality is wrong, why is it not banned in every country where Christians are in a majority? Why no bills passing through the UK Parliament or the US Senate?

The answer (and again I refer you to my previous blog) is this: homosexuality hurts no-one. When someone steals, there is a victim. When someone is murdered, there is a victim. When someone has gay sex... there is NO victim.

No victim = no crime. So despite what the fundamentalists may lead you to believe, the majority of Christians seem to be okay with homosexuality not being a crime. This would be encouraging, but for the extremely vocal minority who whip up the homophobia into a creamy, frothy, hateful frenzy. And let's not forget Muslims, who nearly ALL hate gays - in ALL Muslims countries homosexuality really is illegal.

It seems we all have more work to do.

Religion puts great store in the idea that certain actions are sinful or immoral. Much on this list of 'bad things' is beyond dispute: murder, stealing, child abuse are without question all things which are wrong. Why are they wrong? Because they cause harm to other people. Furthermore, only because they cause harm to others are they wrong. You could, for example, 'kill' a life-like plastic doll and it would harm no-one. You could 'steal' a piec of driftwood floating on the sea, and (because it has no owner) there would be no harm done. Neither of these things is wrong because nothing else, nobody else, is hurt by these actions, or has in any way a reduced quality of life because of them. When your actions interfere with the life of another person in a negative way is when something starts to become 'wrong'.

In essence, this is simply an extension of the so-called 'golden rule', also known as the 'ethic of reciprocity':

Treat others as you would like to be treated

In other words, if you'd rather something didn't happen to you, don't to it to someone else. Not many people like a punch in the mouth, so punching someone in the mouth is considered to be wrong. In most cases it's simple common sense.

Of course Christians will tell you that this is morality, that it comes from the Bible, that God laid down these laws, and even if you're an atheist you're living by God's rules... etc, etc. The trouble is, religions have longer lists of wrongdoings, much longer lists, containing actions which, though they hurt absolutely no-one, are still considered to be wrong. I'm going to look at just a few of these, examining why religion says they are 'a bad thing' and why I consider them to be not a bad thing.

Homosexuality
Homosexuality is condemned by pretty much the majority of the active Christian and Muslim world. Why? Because, they say, it is an abomination, it goes against the teachings of their respective holy books, and, the clincher, 'because God says it's wrong'. However saying that something is wrong because 'God says so' does not in any way explain why homosexuality is wrong. Who does it harm?

Are the people in a gay relationship harmed? No. They are happy to be in that relationship in exactly the same way that two people of the opposite sex would be happy to be in their relationship. Their love for each other is as strong as that which exists in any heterosexual coupling. If they fall out of love, they separate, as do hetero couples. That's just relationships for you - morality is not at all in the equation because if it was then it would be wrong for people of the opposite sex to get together just in case they risked hurting each other's feelings at some point.

Does the coming together of two people as a homosexual couple harm anyone else? Again, no. Anti-gay protestors don't like seeing gay couples together, and may find it offensive, but is that hurting them? Their own mental barriers to such actions mean that they themselves are making this imaginary mental 'harm' for themselves. By all means, accept that this is something you yourself would prefer not to do, but leave it at that. I personally would prefer not to watch cricket, ever, under any circumstances - I can't see why people enjoy it or what purpose it serves - but people want to do it, and it doesn't affect my life in any way. Not in any way. So where's the harm?

Children. Ah yes, gay people can't have children. So? Neither can old people. Old people get together all the time and they can't have children either. Is that wrinkly sex immoral too? Of course not, because it's not hurting anyone. The Christian position is that God made us to have children, but is not having children (and remember, some people choose not to do so) hurting anyone? Of course not. Who is hurt when a child is not born?

It's just ridiculous to say that homosexuality is wrong. It harms nobody. It harms nothing. Indeed it brings great satisfaction to the happy same-sex couples who ignore the religious slurs and just get on with their lives - hurting nobody.

Sex before marriage
Sex before marriage hurts no-one, simply because sex before marriage is exactly the same as sex within marriage. The mechanics are the same - things go up and in, and it's all over until the next time. Good or bad, sex is sex. Why is it considered wrong by religions? Again, it's because 'God said so'. But who does it harm?

It doesn't harm the people involved. They want to do it, so they do it. It's a choice they make. Remember the 'treat others as you would like to be treated' ethic? Think of it like this: 'have sex with someone if you want them to have sex with you'. Harm? None. Where only one side wants the sex, of course that's different, but then the situation is 'would you want someone to force you to have sex?'. Of course the answer is no, so there is harm involved. In that case it becomes wrong.

If sex is sex, why does marriage have to be involved? Probably because the preachers of religion want to enforce you to behave in a way they deem acceptable. After all, marriage shows a good level of commitment to a relationship doesn't it? But does not being in a long-term relationship but still having sex cause harm? How can it if both parties are agreeable to the situation? You can go bowling before marriage, so why should sex be any different? Where's the harm? I don't see it.

Masturbation
See the pattern of religious 'crimes' developing here? Most of the taboos are based around sex. Masturbation is actually the least dangerous sexual activity you can undertake - nobody else is around (usually) so nobody can even see what you're doing. How could jacking off ever be seen as immoral? Who else is harmed? Nobody.

Contraception
Not all religions outlaw contraception, but the big one does - the Roman Catholics are so against contraception they will mobilise at a moment's notice if it appears that any attempt is made to distribute condoms where they don't want them to go. However, where they are 'not wanted' by the Catholic Church is often where they would do the most good. One of the world's greatest scandals is that at a time when huge areas of Africa are seeing the spread of HIV/AIDS, the Pope still continues to reject the distribution of contraception for the people of these countries, simply because 'God says so'. God, apparently, would rather have millions of people die of a terrible disease if it means that a man's penis can enter a woman's vagina without protection against infection.

Who is harmed when contraception is used? Not the man. Not the woman. The religious will say 'it stops the creation of a life', but that implies that every sperm and every egg is useful. It isn't. Even if you don't masturbate, billions of sperm live and die inside and outside a man in his lifetime. Women have their periods - more 'potential life' is gone. So manual prevention of pregnancy is in no way any different from the natural order - people are simply choosing not to create a life (which harms no-one) and, as a beneficial by-product, are protecting themselves from the risk of infection from sexually transmitted diseases. Where is the harm in using contraception? There is none. On the contrary, the benefits are abundantly obvious.

Thought crimes
Here's where it gets silly. Here's where we go into Orwellian 'Big Brother' territory. Christians, Muslims, and some other religions, think that certain thoughts are wrong. If you think them, if you allow them to so much as cross your mind, you are committing a sin, an immoral act, something for which you must pray to be forgiven.

One of the Bible's Ten Commandments tells you not to covet your neighbour's house, wife, slave, ox, donkey, or anything else that belongs to your them. To covet is 'to wish for longingly'. In other words, if you see that your neighbour has a better house than you, it's immoral to think 'I wish I could have that house'. Just thinking something is wrong? Again, the acid test: how does thinking that thought hurt anyone? In fact how does thinking any thought hurt anyone?

Let's go further. I'm essentially saying that no thought is bad because, obviously, thoughts cannot affect the lives of others. So if someone dreams about killing, or (let's go to extremes to make this point) if someone thinks about how nice it would be to have sex with a child, is the act of thinking these thoughts immoral.

I say no.

And I say no because the act of thinking is in no way the same as the act of doing. Yes, if you think about murder and then go on to kill someone, that would be wrong. But it would be the act of murder, not the initial thought which was wrong. I have at times entertained thoughts of killing a particularly hateful person, but those thoughts inflicted no pain, no suffering, no death, on that person. He did not even know when or where those thoughts came into my head. He is now dead (from natural causes!) and yes, I am glad he's dead, the evil son-of-a-bitch! Is it wrong for me to think that? No. Who is harmed? Thoughts do not harm anyone. Only actions harm people. Thoughts are never, and I really do mean never harmful to others.

Self-harm
Is harming yourself wrong? Is suicide, the ultimate self-harm, wrong? That's a tricky one because by hurting or killing yourself you may of course cause emotional distress to those around you - friends, family or loved ones. But your life is your own, your body is your own, so ultimately you should be able to do with it whatever you wished. Ultimately, it is not for anyone else to decide what you should or should not do with your own body. I still maintain that if you hurt someone, it would be wrong, but if you hurt no-one it cannot be wrong.

Assisted suicide (euthanasia)
Helping someone else to die when they themselves have asked for your assistance, usually because they are in a weakened state and cannot do it themselves, is not wrong. Again, let's go back to the golden rule: 'treat others as you would like to be treated'. You may not want someone to kill you, but then that is not the situation in which the other person finds themselves. That person, for whatever reason, and it's usually because they have some incurable disease causing them a great deal of pain and suffering, is asking you to help put an end to their suffering. They are not in any way saying 'kill someone who does not want to be killed'.

Is there harm? Harm in the sense that you will be actively helping someone to die? Yes. But the alternative is this: if the person is not allowed to die, the harm may be many times greater, the pain far, far worse. Would you condemn someone to endless suffering, or release them from their pain with a quick end to their life? In this case, I personally would assist someone who wanted to die. Unlike the other examples I've dealt with, it would not be a case of 'is there harm in doing this?'. Instead the question to ask is 'is there harm in not doing this?

But if the person is suffering terribly and does not ask for help to die, should you then use the justification of 'is there harm in not doing this?'. Absolutely not. The only judge of what is right and wrong with respect to the ending of someone's life, at least if they still have the mental capacity to make a decision, lies with the person whose life it is. If a person is suffering but does not want to die, they have made that choice and it should not be denied them.

There are other possibilities, such as when someone leaves specific instructions to end their suffering if they become unable to make the decision for themselves, but that still falls under the heading of 'a person must be able to choose what to do with their own life'.

To me, euthanasia is almost the same as a situation where you have a diseased organ or limb, and to leave it attached would cause more harm than good. In this case you would remove it, so as to prevent further suffering. The difference is that with euthanasia you are removing every limb and organ from the equation, ending the suffering in the only way possibly, by ending the life of the sufferer.

---

To wrap this up, I'll end by saying that it's my opinion that morals are, in most cases, very straightforward things to determine. In fact, rather than the Christian Bible, you might easily take every single moral decision you make by following one of the basic teaching of another religion:

An it harm none, do what ye will

This is the Wiccan Rede, and although in my opinion Wicca itself is a weird 20th century made-up religion consisting of bunch of new-age mumbo-jumbo, that single line really encapsulates everything I am trying to espouse in this article. Another (less archaic) way of saying it would be 'do what you will, so long as it harms none'. Although there are some grey areas, such as the conflict caused by removing someone's suffering by ending their life, but one thing living by this ethic does not do is to treat countless thoughts or actions, which are in no way harmful to anyone, as crimes.

Thinking in this way encapsulates both the idea that some morals are relative (actions may or may not be wrong, depending on the situation) and that morals may be absolute (applying in all cases). Christians often cite the example of Nazi Germany: if morals are relative, and change according to the culture, politics and social mores of the time, then the extermination of the Jews would be 'right' and therefore moral, in the eyes of the Nazis. But killing Jews harms Jews. What simpler way can there be to explain how wrong the Holocaust was?

To take a different example, is sex outside marriage always okay, given that I've already said that you don't need to be married to have sex? The answer is: no. If you have extra-marital sex with a third party when you are already in a relationship, knowing that your partner would not, if they knew about it, be accepting of it, is wrong. Why? Because finding out about it would cause emotional harm to your partner. What if they didn't find out about it? Well, that then becomes an issue of conscience - are you willing to take the risk? Or perhaps it goes back to the golden rule - don't screw around if you'd rather your own partner wasn't also screwing around.

I'm starting to pick at the edges of my own certainties and unravel a few of what I thought were tightly-constructed arguments, so that, I'm afraid, is where I'm going to leave it!

---

Abortion - Not discussed here
This is perhaps one of the toughest subjects for which anyone can make a case, either for or against. I need to address this in more detail, because adding it into the above-described mix of actions which are, to me at least, far more clear-cut, would be to give the subject significantly less weight than it deserves. Abortion, to many, is the unnecessary, and thereby immoral, ending of a life, and to some is described as nothing less than murder. Needless to say, I do not agree with either position.

If by saying that I would rather not discuss abortion here that sounds like a cop-out, it probably is. I have wanted to write down something about this subject for a long time, but it's difficult for me to set out reasons and justifications for my position. Which is? Well, I am 100% supportive of anyone who elects to have an abortion.

I promise I'll come back to this.

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?