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