iERA and so-called "Islamophobia"

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the University College London (UCL) event that featured Lawrence Krauss (or Lawrence the Bauss) and Hazma Tzortzis- it was a saga I sorely missed. The organisation hosting the event, iERA (little "i"!) was apparently banned from hosting future events at the campus (clicky: UCL's response). I can't comment much on the issue as I was not there. iERA video uploaded onto YouTube that was merely time lapse photography and it's not easy to discern if there's any gender segregation going on. What's interesting to note is when "voluntary" gender segregation was called for, the women had to sit at the BACK of the room as opposed to the adacent end of the room (i.e. men on the left, women on the right).

So what was the response to this ban? Whining from iERA's Yusuf Chambers, the claim that the ban is "Islamophobic" and that Muslims if they wish to practise their religion must either move out or they must ditch Islam.

Clicky: http://www.studentrights.org.uk/article/2060/iera_s_yusuf_chambers_claims_ucl_ban_is_islamophobic


People are able to practise their religion as long as they do not promote hate speech or discrimination. But what really irritates me, is his rhetoric. He has the audacity to claim IslamoPHOBIA. This is a commonly thrown around word against those who critical of Islam, even if their criticisms are perfectly valid.

Here's the general definition of "phobia":
"An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something"


Do black Americans have a "phobia" that racial discrimination still takes place or is their concern actually warranted? When you consider the history of black oppression across the globe, it's perfectly rational, understandable, the concerns that black people have regarding racial discrimination.

Similarly, considering the historic treatment of homosexuals, apostates and non-theists by the hands of Christians and Muslims, it's perfectly reasonable to understand why there's a concern about allowing the promotion of ideologies that forstered such hostile environments. Hence, not Islamophobic.

Also, Islam wasn't banned from UCL, iERA was...

No one is saying that we should throw Muslims off hills or murder those who convert to Islam, no one... Well, actually, we DO have Muslims who'd say those very things about homosexuals, atheists, apostates, etc, and they would even quote religious scripture that advocates such behaviour. If you have a strong stomach for this nonsense, you'll find that Yusuf Chambers and "Dr" Zakir Naik had a discussion that's available online (click mee!) condoning the murder of homosexuals. If you want examples of "phobia", you'll find that Yusuf Chambers and Zakir Naik are perfect examples of such:
-phobia of homosexuals
-phobia of those who deconvert from Islam
-phobia of those atheists/skeptics who criticise their cherished beliefs.

Realising that a religion is a threat to human rights and criticising it for this, is not by any means "phobic". I find it strange how being critical of Christianity hasn't earned skeptics the title of "Christianity-phobic", yet you already have a word "Islamophobic" regarding Islam. I see it merely as a strategy to try to discredit critics of Islam.

Unfortunately, Islamophobia isn't the only word thrown around at those critical of the religion. Occassionally we even see accusations of racism, even when racism is not present or not even hinted at the slightest by the critics. I have also been accused of being "racist" when I was openly critical of Islam in an online argument (I promised myself to disengage from online discourse when I couldn't distinguish trolls from the genuinely stupid, but I miserably failed)- the problem being that this was coming from a white individual. Despite my several attempts to point out that being critical of an ideology doesn't make one racist even if proponents of such ideologies predominantly belong to a particular ethnicity, he failed to grasp this even when I used my perfectly constructed analogy (how dare he!):
 Being critical of communism (which he certainly was), even though many of its proponents/followers are non-white, doesn't make you a racist. If I had attacked the ethnicity and not the IDEAS, you'd be perfectly justified to accuse me of racism. We weren't born with these ideologies like we are born with our physical form- skin colour and all, we are indoctrinated into them.

I find the way of thinking of those who throw around the word "racist" so cheaply, to be extremely offensive. I find it devalues the word, makes it have less impact for when REAL racism occurs. I've been attacked (physically) for looking different (if you haven't guessed from the name of the blog and where I'm going with this, I'm not white...) and would even hear jives regarding my ethnicity thrown at me. Yet this pudgy white American felt he could tell me  what racism is! I stopped responding to him altogether as I certainly wasn't willing to have my face uploaded on the interwebs for him.

I feel like I have rambled, but I do find this rather therapeutic, even if no one reads the blog.

I do have one last thing to point out about the iERA event at UCL, the first video clip released in the debate was an interesting choice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-m2efCzeMA

It's about incest... The response was also quite amusing, it's as if the debate wasn't meant for an academic audience, but for a teenage one. I remember hearing that kind of cheering when we got into "cussing matches" at highschool: yo mamma this (oooooooh!), but yo mamma that (ooooaaah!). It's interesting to hear the audience react in such a way considering the incest between Adam and Eve which is justified by Islamic "scholars" (scholars in inverted brackets: you really can't call yourself a scholar if all you do is study one book) and maybe even in the koran/hadiths(?), and the common occurences of incest in some Muslim families...

You'll find a review of the debate by StopSpamming1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsJXFtoE8RU


Unphobically yours,
Mr Phobia.

Why religions deserve no respect.

 Every so often, I come across articles which leave me scratching my head... Badly... I think I'll end up bald very soon...

CAIRO — Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood sharply criticized an anticipated U.N. document on combatting violence against women, saying on Wednesday that it was “deceitful,” clashed with Islamic principles and undermined family values. 

Interested? If so, clicky: Wash-po

"The text of the document has not been published because negotiations are continuing, regarding how to address sexual violence and rights of women to control their sexuality as well as sexual and reproductive health and rights."

 In plain English: they're having a debate on whether women should have the right to control their own bodies (i.e. when to have a baby). You'd almost think that reptile-brained Republicans were at these so-called negotiations...
 

"In its strongly worded statement, the Brotherhood also decried the document’s defense of homosexual rights, which are not recognized in Islam..."

If all reference to religion had been removed from that article, the people in it would be labelled homophobic bigots, and rightfully so. But it appears that in the case of religion, you are granted somewhat of a pass from being called a "homophobe", if not that, your views are some what respected which I find rather depressing.

"...and the equating between children born in and out of wedlock."

 And what would you have us do? KILL the parents? Wait, I shouldn't have asked that!

The Brotherhood, which won Egypt’s presidency and controls parliament, called on other Muslim nations, women’s groups and Islamic organizations to reject the document. It called it an infringement on the thought, culture and uniqueness of Islamic societies.

Holy ****! I've heard people being accused of being condescending and egotistical, I'm not being condescending and egotistical: these guys REALLY are stupid! They can't see the irony in such a sentiment even if it were dancing naked! Maybe it's because the irony has been covered up with a burka, who knows? This kind of double think has me wondering if religion truly does damage the brain PHYSICALLY. How is it that followers of a religion that infringe on the thought and culture of those of other religions and those of no religion, talk about their thought and culture being infringed on?

"Differences over sex education, a woman’s right to reproductive health, and demands for an exception for traditional, cultural and religious practices stymied an accord.The Brotherhood’s statement appeared to reflect those persistent differences, saying that religious traditions and values are threatened by such a universal document."

And there we have it. In a simple sentence: why I no longer respect religion. Efforts to promote human rights are being slowed because those most afraid of death, the religious, have allowed their fairy tales to dictate their morals rather than empathy and compassion.

And what's really sad, is when I come across many Muslims who tell ME their religion is peaceful and tolerant. If you truly believe that, you would not be telling it to me. Instead, you would be telling it to your religious brethren who murder those who leave the religion, and stifle even the mildest of criticisms of their religion. The first thing I would've done, would be to fight those who did bad in my religion's name. It's what I would've done- and I say this as I was once extremely religious. The biggest offenders of my religion at the time weren't the critics of it, but those who perpetrated atrocities in its name. I think my brain wasn't damaged enough by religion back then, probably why I left it with much of my faculties intact.

Anyway, living here in Europe I consider myself lucky. Lucky not to have been born in a religiously oppressive country, to have escaped religion. But it's not all luck though. A few hundred years ago, Europe was worse, far worse, than the violence and hate-ridden cesspits in the middle east. So things can get better, much better- we don't burn witches alive here anymore, nor do we execute apostates and unweds! We do have priests molesting boys unfortunately, but it's not like that's legal now, is it?

But that shouldn't mean that we should be complacent. Europe wasn't changed by sitting on our butts. Slavery, racism, discrimination against females, freedom of thought and freedom of religion did not come cheap- people had to lay their lives for us to get this far. We are fortunate that we don't have to risk as much as those of the past to maintain what we have now.

If you think it's not possible for enlightened countries to revert back- I suggest you look at Iran, Iraq, Egypt. At some point in time, it was possible to be an atheist, you even had women walking the streets fine- your life wouldn't be at risk. In 2013, these countries would have you jailed if not executed if you dare criticise the favoured religion. And don't forget, you're only okay as a female as long as you've dressed like the Ku Klux Klan.

Islamists are afraid. Don't believe me? Look at how violently they react against anyone who supports rights for homosexuals, reproductive rights for women, and those who are skeptical of their religion. Anyone who is skeptical of what I say and believe, will not receive violent reactions from me. I'm not afraid of your criticisms. If I'm wrong, I really want to know, and I expect you to convince me- that's because I don't have a story (religion, ideology) to sell. If human rights, free inquiry, etc, were promoted- religion withers and dies. Anjem Choudary made that pretty clear. We've seen it in Europe where you had the most barbaric of people, EU Christians, yet now, the religion has become a joke. However, it did take a few hundred years...No one said it was going to be easy.

>Rant off

Shooting at Wisconsin gurdwara

Less than a day ago, a gurdwara ("house of the guru", Sikh place of worship) in Wisconsin was attacked. Upon watching video reports about the attack on the Youtubes, I noticed a few disturbing trends in the comments section which I can't ignore without mentioning them somewhere. Sadly, many YouTube users abuse their anonymity to troll people on tragedies- something I doubt they would ever do face to face with anyone, so I'll ignore the trolling comments, as hard as it is to distinguish a troll from a genuinely ignorant person:

"Sikhs are not Muslims!"

Well of course Sikhs aren't Muslims. Sikhism and Islam, though both are monotheistic religions, are very different. Since 9/11 (Islam's "publicity stunt"), people have associated turban wearers with Islam. It's an association born of ignorance of world religions and the history of the turban- which by the way, predates Islam by centuries. In response to 9/11, racists, "patriots", or should I just say "ignorant bigots", have carried out attacks on civilians who "look like terrorists". In other words, if you have dark skin, and maybe wear a turban- you're a terrorist and a threat. Not all Muslims wear turbans, and not all turban wearers are Muslims.

But here's my main problem with the "Sikhs are not Muslims!" comment: it implies it's okay to kill Muslims.
Chances are the most people who try to point out that Sikhs are not Muslims, aren't advocating killing of Muslims, but one would come to that conclusion when considering the context of the scenario.

Granted, that Islam isn't exactly a tolerant religion, but that in no ways justifies killing the followers who by in large- don't carry out all the crap that's in the koran and the hadiths. Here's an example I think most of us would understand: look at Christians- their bibles are full of hate and violence, yet a majority of Christians aren't out there stoning people to death (literally and metaphorically- i.e. getting "really high") for adultery, nor are they killing those who deconvert and begin to preach other religions/gods. But it's quite disturbing to see a number of comments lean towards the direction that I'm afraid of.

"False flag operations!11"

Yes, as if we haven't seen enough of conspiracies, virtually every tragedy that occurs, you'll find that there are fairly significant and vocal bunch of nuts who will see patterns in EVERYTHING. I'm hearing accusations that the police were in on it, that the FBI has a hand in this, and the inconsistencies of witness reports renders the whole thing suspicious- though inconsistencies are expected in witness reports, we are not great record keepers (especially when you're being shot at). So, this is a false flag operation by the government to remove your 2nd amendment rights...If the government wanted to imprison the American people (haven't the government and corporations already done this?), they'd just send in the army who are far well equipped and trained to take out flag+bible toting hicks.

Though the murder rate in USA has dropped since 1990 (Bureau of Justice Statistics), media reports like these make you think that things are getting a hell of a lot worse.  One needs to put everything in perspective- the media are by nature, sensationalist, I'm not saying that tragedies aren't worth the attention, but the way the media runs, you would think the world is about to come to an end. And the thing is, virtually every generation thought that the time they were living in were the end times, or things were getting worse.

From the latest reports (while writing the post), 7 dead at this shooting, 14,500 murders in the USA per year (2010/2011 figures)- those that died in that shooting are 0.05%, or 1 in 2,000 of the total 14,500, out of the population of 300,000,000. I know some people will look at this as me looking at humans as "mere numbers", I'm trying to make the point that it's incredibly rare to be a murder victim (though I'm sure loved ones of the victims will disagree with me on this- and I would agree that murder shouldn't be happening at all), but bear in mind that people can get paranoid, thinking that there's a psycho-serial killer at every street corner, or that they can't make the most of their lives like they once did- which I think is wrong.

It's a given that in a population of millions, hundreds of millions, that there will be a tiny fraction of loons out there who would go on murdering rampages if they could- and we should do whatever we can to ensure that they can't. I guess I can see myself advocating some kind of measures for gun control, perhaps more thorough background checks, but I guess I'm in on the conspiracy too then, a government paid shill...

My apologies for not writing a more "productive" post, I have my excuses of being sleep-deprived and impatient :/

Draw Muhammad Day gripers

Anticipating the upcoming "Draw Muhammad Day", Pakistan blocks Twitter access as it did not remove material deemed offensive to Islam. Considering the intellectual vacuum Pakistan happens to be, in a way I expected this to happen, but not so soon! At least I have my own Muhammad depiction ready anyways:

 0-|-<

 Evil kuffar's blasphemous depiction of Muhammad (peace be upon ALL mankind). 

Note: religious dimwits may find this image more offensive than murder itself- author cannot be held responsible for the crimes others commit, regardless of their excuse.

To me, this just demonstrates the fragility of Islam, or any other ideology which gets so touchy feely when someone criticises or dare mocks it. Islam isn't alone when it comes to censoring opposing views or anything that exposes it for the superstitious fraud that it is- $cientology is another example, or for the Muslims who want an example of why censorship is a naughty thing; you can mention the US government censoring or covering up crimes they've participated in.

Above: Thunderf00t vs Saudi Arabia's greatest actor

I would have posted something with more thought and interesting material, but right now I'm exhausted and busy with IRL stuff! But I have been spending a bit of time reading apologist material, mainly Muslim and Sikh stuff, which I might address when I get time =)

Back again!

It has been more than a year since I last made a blog post, I was extremely busy with my university thesis (and I'm very satisfied with it too!) so I had no time for my militant atheist "activism" aka writing about the writings of other people.

My vampiric fangs will sink into my first victim: Michael Hays (Ph.D., English- sadly, we will see that having a Ph.D. will not immunise you from perpetuating fallacies or misrepresenting the views of the opposition). He's not just any old "agnostic", but one of those annoying agnostics that Matt Dillahunty hates with passion (you'll find out why later). He recently wrote an article titled "Their View: Atheism wrong and does no good; faith can do good", on the Las Cruces Sun-News website.

"Richard Dawkins is a fine evolutionary biologist, but a feeble theologian."

It is true that our holy pope, Richard Dawkins, is a fine evolutionary biologist. However, his lack of a university degree in theology doesn't render his criticisms of religion meritless. For example, an astronomer need not have toiled for decades studying astrology to provide valid criticisms of it.

"But I would say two things: one, he, like other atheists, cannot prove the non-existence of God; and, two, he, like other atheists, accepts the non-existence of God as, ironically, a matter of faith."

Here Michael attempts to shift the burden of proof and accuses Dawkins of having "faith" for not accepting theistic claims. First of all, if we care whether or not our beliefs are true, we must set standards of evidence alongside having burden of proof resting on those asserting positive claims. That is, if you want to have as few false beliefs as possible and as many true beliefs as possible, you must only accept claims that are based on good evidence while rejecting propositions unsupported by evidence. Dawkins's reasoning for rejecting the existence of god(s) is the lack of evidence supporting the existence of god(s). Secondly, when we consider what the word "faith" means and its use in common parlance, we find that it refers to having a belief in a proposition in the absence of evidence or even when evidence contradicts the belief.

Simply put:
It is not necessary to prove the non-existence of a teapot orbiting the Sun to not accept Sun-orbiting teapots, nor does it require faith.

"But what is true of atheists is equally true of theists. They have every right to be theists, to promote theism and persuade others to be theists, and to urge others to admire religion and accept one religion. I would never say that they should not exercise these rights. But I would say two things: one, they cannot prove the existence of God; and, two, they accept the existence of God as, appropriately, a matter of faith....My agnosticism assumes the impossibility of proving or disproving God's existence or anything about His or Her nature."

If it hasn't become obvious already, I'll point it out:
Michael is trying to paint those who reject faith with the faith paintbrush in order to make them look just like the theists, while trying to come across as the objective viewer...Michael is the kind of agnostic that criticises "both sides" for making assertions that there are or aren't god(s), yet himself, asserts that it's impossible to know whether god(s) exist or not, and that it's impossible to learn anything about the nature of such a being.

 

"The single negative faith of atheists is stultifying; the many positive faiths of theists are stimulating."

Holy carp!!1

"...Their diversity suggests that theism has no obvious answers to obvious questions"

Atheism, theism, deism, pantheism, etc, address only one thing: the belief in the existence of god(s). That's it! It doesn't regard itself about the origin of life, the universe and marshmallows, but that's because it's not supposed to! Michael is conflating theism with religion (many of which claim to have the answer to the mysteries of life), though I can understand a layperson making this mistake, this is inexcusable for someone who is supposedly highly educated!

"What is unknowable as a matter of fact is not necessarily unbelievable or unworthy as a matter of faith."

In other words: faith can allow us to believe in things we can't ever know anything about, without reason, without evidence.

You do realise this can be used to justify beliefs all kinds of nonsense, like fairytales and all, right? Beliefs in pixies, goblins, leprechauns, Santa Claus (prove to me the guy doesn't exist, visit the icey poles, dig every cubic meter of snow to check for his base of operations, I double dare you motherf****r!), invisible dragons, Lord Voldemort (EEEK!), etc...

"Thus, Christians (and Jews) believe that He or She is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and all-merciful."

Have any of those attributes been demonstrated/verified? Oh wait, we're talking about "faith" here, that means you can believe in all kinds of unproven things. And if you don't accept those claims because there's no evidence supporting them, then, according to Michael Hays, you too have faith and are equally as wacked! Tadaa!

"Christians...but God, they say, operates in mysterious ways — which means that God saves whom He or She chooses among those with faith in Jesus."

It's a way of shutting up critics, getting them to stop judging god. Who can blame them? It must be a real head scratcher!

"I do not understand why God chooses only among those with faith in Jesus."

I'm curious, how about a little thought experiment? Let's consider a brief look at human history. What kind of a being (human or otherwise) asks for complete devotion, accepting their authority without question, and if their devotion/authority is not accepted, they threaten you with death or torture?

"From my perspective, religious faith deserves respect when it prompts good will and good deeds toward others year-round, not just at Christmas; and provides comfort or hope in times of need, and beauty and serenity at all times."

I'm going to side with Sam Harris here (surprise!) when he talks about "doing good things for GOOD reasons", especially consider that good reasons are already available and have been for a long time. Donating to charity may be a good thing, but doing it because you're earning brownie points with the big man isn't exactly a good reason to donate to charity in the first place...Empathic reasons/concern for the well being of your fellow humans have predated religion, religion deserves no respect for stealing credit for the good humans may do.

I'm done for now, I'll be back for another bloodmeal later.

~Evangelical atheist who has faith but lacks it in the same time

What’s the point of this blog?

Well, it’s quite obvious, to bash on religions and to enforce the worship of Satan...Or so that’s what we’re told by Christians & Muslims. 

The aim of this blog is to voice my militant atheism! No wait!

"In order to be called a militant atheist, all you have to do is write a book or have a blog. If you're religious and you want people to call you militant, you have to blow stuff up and shoot people." -Martin Wagner

First, let’s try to see what the common definition/understanding of the term “freethinker” is:

1. Free-thinker - Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.
2. A person who has formed their opinions using reason and rational enquiry; somebody who has rejected dogma, especially with regard to religion
3. Freethinking - freethinkers rejected dogma or religion on the grounds that the truth can be ascertained only through science and rational thinking. They advocated secularization and the integral separation of Church and State  

Look! No Satan worshipping involved! Unless of course, you believe that in the context of religion, that “scepticism is a sin”, in which case you may as well just call us the spawn of Satan for all we care.

It’s understandable why our fellow bible/quran thumping buddies see us as religion bashing Satanists. Freethinkers are well known for questioning religious dogma, voicing their opposition to the herd-like mentality that religious thinking promotes. Some of the reasons why freethinkers question religious dogma:

• Religions (or any other dogma for that matter) do not hesitate in violating human rights
• Use of censorship to hide criticism/sceptical inquiry of said religion e.g. Scientology and Islam.
• Accepting claims uncritically can lead to mistakes that cost us dearly in the future, take for example the fact that we have people with 7^th century mentality with access to weapons of mass destruction (as mentioned by the MILITANT secularist Sam Harris). Another example would be faith healing, where the flock throw away their medicines as charlatans like Peter Popoff leech money off the vulnerable having “cured” them.
  
  
  

Photographic proof and evidence that is accurate and correct, that Sam Harris is a cross between Ben Stiller and Seth Green, I smell a conspiracy! It must be those godless scientists conjuring up clones to spread their evil secularist agenda!

I, and many others, would like to see people think for themselves, to evaluate claims, particularly absurd claims, critically before accepting potentially life changing world views. This blog will be one way in which I can communicate, perhaps encourage freethought especially in the Desi community, in turn, perhaps I shall be encouraged even more by others out there. Why Desi community? Well first of all, I live in an area which is predominantly populated with Desi folk, I also happen to be a Desi guy myself, so it should be a no brainer. The second reason, in response to an article I read on Richard Dawkins website, about “the accidental exclusion of non-white atheists”.

 “I have been contacted by a number of Asian people who don't believe in God but feel they have to carry on the pretence of being a Muslim because they genuinely fear that the consequences of "coming out" would be unbearable. They fear being ostracised from their family and friends, and "not being able to get married" - Alom Shaha

Pretty much all of that said above is true, even the thing about the marriage- that’s coming from personal experience :D However this can’t just be applied to Muslims, but also Sikhs and Hindus (arranged marriages are common here as well).

So wherever you freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, secularists, etc are, it's time to wakeup and save humanity from the noxious flames of superstition!

~Evangelical Desi Freetinker

So wherever you Desi freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, masala skeptics are, it's time to spread the word and wakeup our brothers and sisters from the noxious fumes of religion.