Catholic Cult Of Mind

I know someone in person, who I used to have on my friends list on Facebook before he removed me. He's a "proud Catholic" and he tried, and failed, to debate me on religion all the time.

I think what made him finally remove me was on the issue of condoms, and how the Pope further proved himself a hypocrite when he recently said that condoms were OK 'some of the time'. This person was trying to make the point that abstinence was the most effective way of preventing STD's, but what he could not understand was that its just not in humans' nature to be abstinent; a nature which he would believe God created.

He was arguing that because condoms are NOT 100% effective at preventing STD's, by promoting the use of condoms, that I was condemning millions of people to death. A moron, right?

But when I asked him "How long has the Catholic church been promoting abstinence?", which is thousands of years and given the fact that it has not worked, condoms are the next best thing. He finally quit and then removed me.

You see, as a person, he's fine. He and others like him who have been brainwashed [he doesn't think he's been brainwashed] to argue for and defend the Catholic cult from an early age, despite all evidence linking them to child RAPE, protecting paedophile priests, obscene wealth, and subjugation and discrimination of women for thousands of years.

How anyone can call themselves a "proud Catholic" is beyond belief to me. But there are, and I am moved to feel physically sick.

Secularism as Religion’s New Home

We are all too aware of acts and atrocities carried out by religious authority in the past and even in the present, as well as those verses in scripture that justified them. So is it no surprise therefore, that there are people who act on them? The apologist may argue that there may always be violent and dangerous people, but if one were to remove scripture as a source for ‘morality’ then in the very least, such people would no longer have a base to justify their actions. It would mean that their source that justifies their actions would no longer exist. But its really a non-starter because the argument presumes that 'people' and 'religion' are not mutually exclusive, when there is very little way of knowing that.

But while the fact that religion causes so much violence and hate is a good point to make, for me, it comes secondary to my first argument against it, which is "Is it actually true?" Because if it isn't true, as it most surely isn't, then people fighting, sentencing homosexuals to death, forcing women against their human rights, mutilating children's genitals, etc, only serves to make it look even more pathetic and stupid.

And this whole idea "Oh I have the true interpretation of religion 'X'! All those people committing genocide and atrocities in the name of religion 'X' have got it wrong!" is absolutely pathetic, and that's the most respect I can give to that argument.

'Liberal theology' actually derives its values far more from secular (and Humanist) practices and moral progresses, not from religion. Why Christians today don't stone to death disobedient children [Deuteronomy 21:18-21] or keep slaves [1 Corinthians 7:20-24] etc, is not because the Bible says not to [because it most surely does!] but because of secular moral progress - that is, progress IN SPITE of religion. The entire idea that somehow someone is against slavery because they think it what their God or holy book says, is completely, utterly, totally, absolutely wrong, completely wrong. There are no two sides to this. They'll make excuses and pass it off as much as they want, but they are wrong.

I can appreciate that there are decent, civil, kind, generous, warm-hearted people who, at least would like to think, that they're religious believers. I have family members who think like this myself, and I still love them dearly. But I simply argue that they're not really Christian, because Christianity at least, has come so far removed from itself now, that Christianity today would not recognisably be called 'Christianity' hundreds of years ago. 'Moderate Christians' would be classed as heretics or even atheists, heaven forbid [pun intended].

But religion doesn't have a self-correcting mechanism like science does. There isn't any way of changing the 'word of God', is there? The word of God is the word of God, as it is written in the holy books. Instead, it jumps on the back of the secular moral persuasion, which is self-correcting, and then claims that it's somehow 'grown up' or 'not so bad any more'. The so-called 'fundamentalist Christians' are simply the more 'theologically honest Christians'.

In a secular society, we need to make ourselves aware of this, and to not treat religion as some kind of rejuvenated or enlightened instruction manual on 'How to be a good person'. Its not. Religious people in more secular societies are actually far more secular [non-religious] than they realise.

Rotten To The Core

When we go back to the very beginning in the Bible with the Adam and Eve story, God banished them from paradise because they disobeyed God’s command, which was not to eat from the forbidden tree, which is called 'Original Sin'. But how is this by any stretch of the imagination, passed off and socially accepted? My suspicion is that they don’t imagine. But religious apologists often cite that it was because of Mankind’s ‘free will’ despite the logical inevitability that God knew all along that they would commit the Original Sin.

But the problem that I have the most is how can God justifiably ‘punish’ his alleged favourite creations for acquiring knowledge of good and evil, when they had no prior knowledge of good and evil? It would be like telling a 2-month-old baby that she’s not allowed to play with a certain toy. Then assuming she understood what you just said to her, walking out the room, coming back to find her playing with the toy, and then saying “I told you!” and booting her out of the house because she disobeyed you. It’s insane. You wouldn’t find it morally acceptable in any other context, would you? The issue of ‘free will’ aside, it still wouldn’t be morally justified even if Adam and Eve (and Mankind) did (does) have free will.

But it doesn’t matter whether the story is true or not. The point is that it’s the beginning of concept behind the Christian ideology. Jesus then came to forgive us of our sins, which stems from Original Sin. The central core behind Christianity, and indeed all the Abrahamic faiths, is that “You are created sick, and commanded to be well” as Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it. I find it morally repugnant and offensive to human dignity.

‘You cannot be ‘well’ if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour’, is the rotten foul stench that has revolted me most about Christian dogma. Anyone who wishes to accept this as a moral basis to their life or to pretend that it makes them a better person because of it is a fool and wishes to be a slave. The entire point as to why Jesus died on the cross is because humans are foul sinful and shameless beings, which God allegedly created in the first place.

And above everything else, it gets even more stupid once you realise the inevitable conclusion that God doesn’t exist.

God in the Brain

Part One:


Playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C4C38FD8924789B9

Some thoughts on children’s vulnerability to non-think and evolution.

All children are born 'atheists' by definition, since there don't have any beliefs anyway. That's not to say atheists don't believe in anything, but by de facto, all babies are atheists.

Children's brains have evolved to believe anything they are told, for very good evolutionary reasons. For our ancestors, any child who didn't listen to his/her parents/elders about not going near the swamp where there are crocodiles, for example, would be dead. Any child, in that kind of environment, who applied a scientific experimental approach, would have died long before they were able to pass on their genes.

One can picture the scenario where there is a man and his son thousands and thousands of years ago going hunting, and the man will teach his son all the 'science' in catching prey; how to look for footprints and how old the footprints are, for instance. Also knowing that the prey is likely to be near the waterhole at high sun, et cetera.

But when they catch or kill an animal, the man then turns to his son and tells him "Now we have to give thanks and pray to the forest gods." The child simply cannot tell the difference between VALUABLE information and NONSENSE.

Evolution is a fact. Anyone would realise this if they only went to the fantastic straining lengths of opening up a biology text book.

It’s not that I 'want' evolution to be true. It’s not that I have a deeper need to feel good and better about myself by believing that it is true. Its that, it IS true. Demonstrably! If you can't accept evolution, then that's your problem. Evolutionary theory is the basis for ALL modern medicine, resting on the fundamental FACT that life EVOLVES, and hence, so do viruses. If you can't accept this and yet still go to the doctors for medicine, then you're a complete hypocrite.

I am an atheist because a) there is no evidence for the existence of god (convincing yourself in private is not evidence), and b) I see no reason to believe. Even if a god *could* be demonstrated and tested, and shown to exist, then so what?

It’s like a rock star that everyone wants to get in the picture frame with just to make themselves feel special. The difference is that a rock star gloats about it, but actually exists, and god doesn't gloat about it precisely because he doesn't exist.

The 'A's vs. The 'R's

Atheists and Agnostics know more about religion than religious people.

Having your cake and eating it too

The believers in the god of Abraham love to have it both ways. They entertain the idea that the god that they believe in is both simultaneously all-loving/all-merciful and all-powerful. This claim is self-refuting, meaning that such a god cannot exist by definition.

If this were true we'd really be living in an Alice In Wonderland kind of world. You can't just say that 'God is all-loving' and yet make excuses why the world contains genocide, murder, rape, torture, etc. Think about it. Are there any circumstances with which an all-loving being, of any kind, would be content with a creation that contains so much hatred? Likewise, if this god is also all-powerful, then 'His Will' (love, kindness, tolerance) could and would be imposed universally.

The issue of free will with the existence of such a being also has a major flaw. If God's omniscience (all-knowingness) is true, and that this god has knowledge of what WILL happen, then logically it is impossible to accept that such a god is all-loving. If such a god is simply an 'observer' and sees what IS going on and what IS going to happen, then what power does he really have? He would be simply bone-idol and doesn't see it fit to act.

And is free will really worth it? The police would have more power and morals than god. Say, for instance, there is something terrible happening, like a rape. Is this god so firm and supportive of human free will that he would say "Oh, there's a rape happening. But I shouldn't interfere because I don't want to intrude on the rapist's free will." It's pathetic. You and I have more morals than such a god. At least we would either try to stop it happening or alert the authorities.

The idea that God is both all-loving and all-powerful just does not make sense, once one grasps reality. And that's the underlining issue here. The god of Abraham does NOT exist by definition. It is logically untenable. If a god does exist, then he is either all-powerful (can perform miracles, etc) but not all-loving (not concerned with human well-being), or all-loving but not all-powerful. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Richard Dawkins in Manchester

This is actually something I wrote about a year ago and put up on my Facebook page, but I think it's more deserving place is on here :)

About a year ago, I met up with some close friends of mine at the Grand Central pub in Manchester, which is our favourite pub (due to the amount of heavy metal they play!). I arrived just after 5 and the event would commence at 7. Usually we meet there before we go to a gig just down the road at the Manchester Uni Academy or elsewhere, but this was like no other gig! It was Richard Dawkins! But before I go into the Dawkins Talk I must put this across.

I cannot overstate what impact Dawkins has had on me. Years ago, before I knew about him, I turned the TV on one day and flicked over to a random channel, which had a debate/discussion programme where the topic was ''Does God exist?'. I can't recall at the time whether I regarded myself an atheist back then. I was probably very sceptical, but on the programme there was a man with grey hair (its gone completely white now lol) wearing a suit and glasses, and his answers were spot on.

Every answer he gave was *exactly* how I was feeling, with the thoughts going through my head. Mind you, at the time, I had never discussed my thoughts with anyone so I was unaware that there was someone else, just someone, who thought as I do. It was, in a very poetic way, like a 'lease of life' because until then I had felt very isolated in my thoughts, but now I could put them into constructive and concise arguments. It was a profound moment and I later learned that his name was Richard Dawkins. How great science is eh? Making television sets n all!

So anyway, as I was sitting there in the pub, it finally hit me. This wasn't just 'another' gig. It was Richard Dawkins, also giving a talk on an issue that interests me greatly; evolutionary biology. Dawkins has published his new book titled 'The Greatest Show On Earth: The evidence for evolution' where he outlines the evidence for it. I don't only admire Dawkins for his outspoken 'atheism', never being told to 'keep quiet' but for his work on biology and evolution, which I am also passionate about.

The talk was held at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester and we took our seats. The talk began with Dawkins reading a short passage from his new book, and then after Anjana Ahuja from The Times newspaper, who had written a review of Dawkins' new book, asked questions to Dawkins on matters of evolution and the abundance of evidence for it. He made jokes but with a strong sense of seriousness about the ignorance of creationists. Everyone laughed. I've never been in a room of so many freethinkers and sceptics before, so it was a very pleasing experience. Dawkins made the comparison to creationists as like a History teacher having to handle well-supported and well-financed conspiracy theorists claiming the Romans or the empire of Rome never existed. It sounds just plain old rubbish, doesn't it? But we're talking here about a conspiracy on a much grander scale! Once again, Dawkins was spot on just as I saw him on TV for the first time.

So the talk ended just after an hour and we queued up to have our book signed. I had brought with me my paperback copies of 'River Out Of Eden' (1995), 'A Devil's Chaplain' (2003), 'The God Delusion' (2006), and my new hardback copy I picked up there 'The Greatest Show On Earth' (2009). The queue didn't take as long as I thought it would, but when I met him, I was rather speechless. He signed all my books, but I forgotten to bring with me my copy of 'The Selfish Gene' (1976) because I was in a rush and had picked the books off from my bookshelf but was reading 'The Selfish Gene' so it was on my bedside table. I'm a dumbass, lol!

It felt so strange. Here was one of the most well-known, outspoken, and influential atheists who had helped me understand my own thoughts, but also a fantastic scientist on the topic that takes my interest the most. Dawkins is such a nice guy though. A true gentleman, and should be an inspiration to us all.

Peace.

Acidic Sceptic.

Dear Fundamentalist Muslim

Dear Fundamentalist Muslim,

Do you really want to take on the West? Do you really want to bring a fight against the United States and Her Allies? Is violence and hate-speech your only language? Because if so, then I will speak to you in the language you understand. Let me tell you something that hopefully will sink into that thick skull of yours. You will lose!! Utterly.

If the United States and Her Allies felt remotely inclined to take up your challenge, She will put you back into the Stone Age. The US will destroy you and eat you for breakfast even during Ramadan. You are merely a midget throwing your fists aimlessly against an 8ft giant with one of his hands on your head keeping you at arm’s length. Even if you get in a punch, the retaliation against you will be ten fold.

Now, I’m not saying that Western society is perfect. Far from it. But what makes it superior to yours, is that it NOT based on Sharia Law. Where Human Rights (to an extent?) are protected. Where Freedom of Speech is sacred and NOT Bronze Aged tribalism. Where women’s rights are equal to that of a man’s, and scripture is not the absolute source of moral guidance. Yes, we have problems with this way of thinking in our own society, but the majority of our citizens, even the self-professed devoutly religious, have looked beyond these ideals.

Let me reiterate. You are up against a giant you cannot possibly win. If the US felt like it needed to retaliate with full force, you will die. Your actions and words will only provoke this, and give the US reason to come at you with its fullest and most powerful arsenal.

The alternative however, is to reconcile, to compromise, and to recognise that we all share this beautiful planet together and must learn to live with one another, love one another, and respect one another. I’d expect these kinds of values to be universal and values that we can all share. All your words and actions will provide, is your own doom.

Yours truly,

Acidic Skeptic.

It OFFENDS me that...

You want to talk to me about being offensive? Fine. Here's my top ten reasons to find religion offensive in no particular order.

It OFFENDS me that…

1. Children are brought up to share the same (religious) beliefs as their parents and not given the chance or choice to think for themselves on matters concerning human existence and the natural world that we all share.

2. The idea that faith is used (and arguably quite rightly according to scripture) as a means against scientific, rational, and logical thinking.

3. Millions upon millions of women in Islamic countries are still forced by their husbands and families to disguise themselves in public.

4. As research polls show, Atheists and non-believers are still regarded as the least-trusted (and sometimes ‘evil’ and ‘amoral’) group in society.

5. Gay marriage and other civil liberties have to be ‘voted on’ because of other peoples' sincerely held religious beliefs.

6. Faith schools receive endorsements and financial support from the government, straight out of the taxpayer’s pocket, also meaning that non-believer parents are forced to send their children to such schools because they’re financially and hence resourcefully better. Where are THEIR rights to bring up their children how they want to?

7. The Theory of Evolution is still regarded as a legitimate topic for debate when it has been demonstrated, observed, predictions been made, tested through countless papers of peer reviewed journals and studies BECAUSE the majority of religious people cannot square it with their religious convictions. (However, I believe that they’re right to do this, based on what scripture tells them.)

8. The Bible and other religious scripture is regarded as a legitimate moral instruction manual and framework to base one’s life upon, when the ‘message’ and 'God's Word' is ambiguous at its best.

9. Religion still hasn’t (and probably will never) pluck out the courage to be criticised, often citing such acts as ‘offensive’ because it has nowhere else to run and hide.

10. People in a free democratic society leap to defend ideologies that were used for totalitarian theocracies, and often accuse me and people like me, as being the monster.

Why Criticise Religion? (Part 2)

I was never convinced by any of it. I reached the age of reason at about 8, and was never brought up religiously. But I had a brief month of believing when my grandmother died, who had been a rock in my life. That's not to say that I'm 'angry at God' or what have you. Its just that I really don't think a god exists. I have tried believing and given the state of the world, it cannot be the work of a supreme being who is both all-powerful (not restrained by anything) and all-loving (takes a keen interest in human affairs). The concept is self-refuting.

But more specifically I oppose religion because I accept science. I see religious claims contradictory to science, and anyone who doesn't agree is a fool or a liar. Quite often both.

'The Wise Man knows what he doesn't know.' and this is a principle that science works with. Scientists KNOW they don't know everything, and they admit that. It's a good way to look at the world, being humble and a continuing search for exploration and truth. There is a reason why science hasn't answered a lot of big questions. You want to know why?

Because those questions are bigger questions than religion can ever imagine or could imagine. There are scientists (probably as you are reading this) who have been up all night and fell asleep on their desks or in their labs trying to work out a particular equation or problem. If they took a religious approach, then why bother?

Religion does the exact opposite. It asserts things for which there is no evidence whatsoever and furthermore, red-stamps them as 'sacred truths'. I see this as the highest form of ignorance. Anyone with the smallest sense of reason and logic, will agree with me.

Also, given that the only reason I was taught about Christianity in school was because I was born in a predominantly Christian country. If was born in Afghanistan I'd be taught about Islam. If was born in India, I'd be taught about Hinduism, etc. There is absolutely no reason to accept the religion you were brought up in, which is by the sheerest accident, and then call it 'True'.

From an early age, even children can see through the bullshit, unless they are brainwashed by it early on, which is another reason to loathe religion.

"The only true thing about religion is that it is false." - Pat Condell.

Atheism and Purpose.

People often ask, “What does Atheism have to offer?” and the response is rather simple really. And that is that the question is stupid. The question presupposes that you or people generally are entitled to gain something from a particular worldview. You’re not. I find such an attitude to be a rather self-centred thing to assume.

This is an important point that I’d like to make regarding 'meaning' and 'purpose'. They are values, which I believe we come to ourselves. It can be a long and sometimes difficult process. But not by some packaged and ready-to-ship product like 'religion' that has already set instructions on what 'meaning' and 'purpose' are.

This is a fundamental pet peeve that I've always had about religion. It's so easy. It's a bit like answering 'yes' or 'no' to an essay question. Purpose and meaning are huge undertakings that we, as humans, search within ourselves. And then most people are perfectly happy for religion to come along by thinking it can solve these big underlining issues as if it's 'cracked the puzzle'. And furthermore, it did it centuries or thousands of years ago, even before you were born.

I genuinely think religious people are weak. It's for weak individuals who refuse to admit that they're weak. And what’s more, it KEEPS them weak. Why else would they need an imagined father figure such as the 'Almighty'? They like to compensate. What they need to do is look beyond that.

It's a bit like buying a supermarket ready-meal instead of cooking a meal from scratch, examining all the ingredients and selecting them carefully. The result is a better dish, and what is more, YOU made it yourself and being proud that you did so rather than grabbing a quick-fix ready-to-serve but tasteless meal from a supermarket shelf.

No. Atheism doesn't give us 'purpose', but it sure does open the gates for bigger challenges and a wider worldview, passed way beyond the narrow scope of scripture, which is neatly parcelled up for minds of faith and blindness.

Banning The Burqa

So the government of France has taken the commendable steps to rid the wearing of this disgusting garment. I cannot fathom for one second how any free woman in a free society, who calls herself a feminist can actively support and condone the wearing of the veil/burqa. I just can’t.

The burqa is more than ‘an item of clothing’. It is a symbol. It is completely closed minded and anti-feminist to ignore the FACT that there are women in Islamic societies who have NO choice but to wear it. Places where their rights AS WOMEN are seen as secondary to men, where they’re not allowed to drive or even walk the streets without a man present.

And then these racist-crying, victim-card-holders who support women’s ‘right’ to wear the burqa moan and whine that these steps are taking away their ‘natural right’ to wear what they please. Yes, in theory I support women’s right to wear what they like, and the same goes for men. But when something is used as a means to SUPPRESS rights, how do these people not see the contradiction?

And the case made about the backlash and uproar is futile. Out of 3.5 million Muslims in France, only 2,000 women wear it. There is no reason to suggest there will be some kind of civil war about it. But the emotional and sensitiveness of this issue I find baffling beyond words. These pro-burqa activists might as well be wearing a yellow star, because they support a symbol that represents oppression. I say again, that women who support the wearing of the burqa are traitors to their gender.

However, I do think though that banning it is not the most effective method for its extinction. I am not a racist. I believe in equal treatment for everyone, but Islam is NOT a race. It’s an ideology under the disguise of a faith (excuse the pun). There are, as a matter of fact, white, black, Asian people who are Muslims. But whatever way is used to oppose it, I will support it. At least for the time being.

Why Criticise Religion?

For those who may be against or may feel slightly uncomfortable about my outspoken atheism and opposition to religion, well, diddums! I LIKE ripping on religion. In the very least it deserves it for making itself such an easy target.

If there were any remote truth and sound argumentation behind religious faith, then it wouldn’t need to be criticised so heavily. But the fact that people are so quick to leap on top of it like a ticking bomb, shielding it from scrutiny and criticism shouting and chanting “No, no, no! You can’t criticise it!” needs to wake the fuck up before they get blown to bits!

I am sick and tired of this notion that religion outright deserves to be respected. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the refusal to be openly scrutinised in open discourse is one of the reasons it has persisted for so long? The very fact that even now in the 21st century, it still finds it difficult to be criticised is evident enough of its baloney claims. And then there’s the issue of fundamentalists.

Let me clear something up right away. On theological grounds, the fundamentalists are right, or in the least they have a fair point to make. If for example, Jesus really IS the Messiah (John 14:6 KJV), then it is the fundamentalists, based on this assumption, who are acting accordingly to their faith. If Jesus really IS the Messiah, then the Muslims have fabricated His Word and the Jews, by killing Jesus, have done the most gruesome, terrible, treacherous thing ever conceivable. And what’s more, they don’t even have the shame about it by staying Jewish and not converting to Christianity.

The moderates will protest saying that that was a long time ago, but is Jesus the Messiah or is he not? Make up your mind!

I see the need to criticise religion because I see it as a lie, based on myths, which were plausible for their time, but now are rendered meaningless with massive scientific advance in the past century. Plus, given the fact that one of the top reasons (if not THE top reason) given for violence, genocide, persecution of homosexuals, etc, etc, are based on religious grounds, how can any reasonable person able to see this NOT be outspoken against religion?

History is showing that societies, especially in the West, are becoming less religious anyway. So why stop now? Join in! If only for the 'lulz'.

I expect better from Ms Gillard

I was pleased to learn and as many of you are already aware, that the newly elected Australian prime minister is an atheist. She was quoted as saying to the media "I've made decisions in my adult life about my own views." She was quite clear; she told an interviewer: ''I'm of course a great respecter of religious beliefs but they're not my beliefs.''

But my hopes were short-lived. I was beginning to think that Australia can now to start paving the way for progress. But instead only about a week into her role as prime minister she has expressed her views against same-sex marriage.

"We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples," Ms Gillard said. And then when she was asked if that was also her personal opinion, Ms Gillard said it was.

Shocking. "Equalise treatment for gay couples"?! You could equalise treatment for gay couples by allowing them to get married, for a start!

I'm not for or against marriage. I'm actually very neutral on this issue. But I'm certainly pro-freedom. If two consenting adults, of the same sex or not, want to get married and have it recognised by the state, then who is to say they can't or shouldn't? There is no valid reason for the state to block peoples rights and freedoms that is of no one else's concern.

What saddens me for the most part is that this comes from an atheist, not a right wing Christian or a Muslim or Mormon, but someone I had hoped to spoil the party for them, not join it! But maybe this is the dirty game of politics. With 64% of the Australian population recorded in 2007 to be Christians, her outspoken atheism has perhaps already gathered bad rep, and so she has to lean at least somewhat towards their side to keep office.

Who knows.

God is an Atheist

If God exists, then God is an Atheist by definition simply because he/she/it does not believe or worship any supernatural power higher than him/her/itself. It really does show that disbelief is inevitable at some point, even applying to the Almighty himself.

So all those pious church-going believing devout followers all follow and worship an atheist by definition. The Abrahamic god even admits that other gods exist saying in the Ten Commandments “Thou shalt not have any gods before me” meaning that other gods do exist, but we must not follow them. So the argument that god is the one and only god is false also.

There’s no escaping pure logical and rational thinking. Be an Atheist, just like your god.

Facebook vs. Islamic Pakistan

So the Pakistani government has moved to block Facebook today in its country entirely, because some of its users decided enough is enough after the South Park incident and created pages called 'Draw Muhammad Day' for 20th May. After a scare that this event/page had been removed from Facebook, I'm pleased that Facebook hasn't cowered and caved in to Islam, although I will not be surprised if they still do.

It would make sense, from a business point of view, that Facebook would remove those anti-Islam groups/pages and images of Muhammad, so they can appease Pakistan and get Pakistanis back on Facebook.

But Facebook has made its multi-millions already and can afford to let those Muslims ruin the fun for everyone else in Pakistan, so let's really see how popular the block of Facebook becomes. Maybe Facebook are holding out to see what happens, but nevertheless it would be a disgrace for a social networking site, where people are allowed to express themselves as they wish, to cave into a pressure from a group who want to restrict freedom of speech and expression.

I am hasten to add, that this 'movement' (if it may be called that) is not explicitly designed to serve as 'Islamophobia' (I'm pleased that that word comes up as a spelling error on my word processor, because its not even a real word). It is a genuine reaction for years, decades even, of violence from Islamic fundamentalists who think that their beliefs are so sacred and important that people should die for criticising them.

Let them remain in the Bronze Age. If they want to stay there, let them. And in doing so, how about they give back all their computers, cars, mobile phones, and other technologies, which scientific progress has lead to, and invented and manufactured by SECULAR nations? If they truly followed their outdated views, they should still be getting about on donkey-back with a push-cart for extra measure.

This is NOT a discussion on race and ethnicity, since there are as a matter of fact Black, White, and Oriental (Asian for Americans) Muslims to name a few. This is explicitly about a 'belief' having no superiority over anyone else's belief. Nothing more. Arguing that these depictions of Muhammad are 'racist' is laughable to say the least, and only counts to prove the point that they have no point to prove.

In Memory of Theo.

Peace.

Is Atheism a Religion?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines religion as such:

religion:

noun.

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2. a particular system of faith and worship.

3. a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

The closest one can achieve to calling Atheism a ‘religion’ is the third definition of religion, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. But it comes down to a fundamental question: Does 'passion' for an idea or cause, make the idea / cause a religion?

In some cases, yes. It does. Human behaviour, and indeed, all animal behaviour, can be given a lot of its credit from its genes. We are, even if we're not conscious of it, playing out our genetic make-up. If you see someone you find attractive on TV it might change your decision-making for whether you will buy the product, for example. Your genetic impulse to reproduce is used to affect your decisions and choices.

So when you see 'New Atheists' coming together, writing books, performing public speeches, you are tempted to associate 'passion' with 'religion', and this is a fundamental error.

The 'New Atheist' movement, if you wish to call it that, is a lot like the 'Gay Activist' movement of the 1980s. People started to come out of the closet and speak about it more and be open with themselves, which for so long, have been shunned by society. The ‘New Atheist’ movement is quite simply the natural progression society will take, once the churches and the establishment have had their grip and influence on society loosened.

In order for an idea to be classed as a religion, it must entrust certain basic principles to define it as such, illustrated in the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of religion. 'New Atheism' possess none or little of these, so its unreasonable and illogical to tarnish it as a religion. It is a movement, yes. But not every 'movement' is a religion, even if the context of what it is addressing is theology.

I'm proud to be an Atheist. Its progressive, forward-thinking, and representative of the scientific community at large, with some 90% plus of the world's leading scientists being atheists or sceptics. Contrastingly, about 90% or so of the population at large do profess at least some kind of religious faith, so that is certainly a strong indicator that science is either not being advocated enough or is generally ignored. I’d say this is where my admiration for the likes of Prof. Richard Dawkins and Prof. Brian Cox stems from. Science in a mild form is apathetic to religion (and god). At the smallest of levels, it doesn't care. Its not concerned.

But science at its strongest and its highest potency, is atheistic. 'God' has no value in science, for the simple reason that it explains nothing. If scientists were in the least bit tempted to use 'god' to explain unexplainable phenomena, then there is no reason to carry on doing science; meaning there would be no reason to carry on exploring, to investigate, and to implement the scientific method because those 'gaps' in knowledge would have been filled.

It is for these reasons, at least at a fundamental level, why I am an atheist and for why Atheism itself is not a religion. If anything, Atheism is a natural second phase of a more progressively scientific and non-religious society.

It’s a frickin cartoon!

When will Muslims grow up and join the 21st century? Some have. Some are indifferent to the latest drawings of the Prophet Muhammad, and to those Muslims I offer my respect and gratitude. But there is a significant majority who, if not will resort to violence, will at least be outraged and vocal about their prophet being criticised.

It’s long been known that in Islam depictions of Muhammad are forbidden because they can be easily ‘mislead’ and worshiped such as in Christianity with pictures of Jesus Christ. But for a religion that claims to have some of the world’s finest architecture and art, for some reason, drawing an image of Muhammad is out of the question. At least in Christianity works such as the Sixteenth Chappell by Michelangelo and the Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci, which are profound and wonderful pieces of art, would be burned and destroyed along with the deaths of their genius makers if Christianity had taken the same approach as these modern easily-and-wanting-to-be-offended-just-for-something-to-rampage-about Muslims do.

The most recent of events that escalated this whole saga was when a popular adult and satirist cartoon show called ‘South Park’ (which I strongly admire and recommend) received death threats from a radical Muslim group to the creators of ‘South Park’ Trey Parker and Matt Stone, for depicting the Prophet in their show. In the show, Muhammad is one of the ‘Super Best Friends’ who comprise of all the gods and prophets of the world’s major religions, including Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Joseph Smith (from Mormonism) and for extra humour, ‘Sea Man’ (pronounced semen) with his bird-friend ‘Swallow’.

Back in 2001, Muhammad was depicted in this ’Super Best Friends’ and not a word from Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:South_park_muhammad.jpg). Not a peep. Only in the most recent episodes (200th and 201st) were there then death threats. Aside from the largely hypocritical element, isn’t it all just very childish?

The Qur’an forbids idolatry, but does not specifically forbid representative art.

Sura 21, 52 - 54: Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers."

In fact, in history there have been depictions of Muhammad as early as the 14th century. The Investiture of Ali at Ghadir Khumm, MS Arab 161, (AD 1309/8), for starters, as well as art from Muhammad meeting the monk Bahira, from Jami Al-Tawarikh (c.1315), and Muhammad re-dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba, from Jami Al-Tawarikh, c. 1315, et cetera.

Are those OK? Where do we draw (if I may use the pun) the line? At what point is it OK to draw an image and name it ‘Muhammad’? Is it OK to draw a stick man and call it Muhammad, or does it require more artistic merit?

The clash arises from a fundamental difference between cultures. In the West, we believe in Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech. Its what makes us forward-thinking, progressive, and ultimately fairer for all. We don’t take religious faith that seriously in most cases, although there was an incident lately where a so-called ‘Militant’ Atheist left satirical images of Jesus Christ in a chapel at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, despite the inspirational singer/songwriter writing the words “Imagine there’s no heaven … And no religion too.”

Islam has not had or been through a period of Enlightenment yet. It is 600 years younger than Christianity, so its no surprise that it still contains a lot of outdated views. I really wish religion would disappear from this planet forever, but if people must be religious, then please acknowledge that your beliefs are never more important than anyone else’s.

Logic x Reason = Atheism

I do get overcome with joy whenever I see a debate against theologians, because they’re always left trailing. Why is this? To answer, I need to make a very relevant point.

Atheists do NOT get consolation from their atheism. You’ll never hear an Atheist say “I thank no god for my life. Thank no god for the wonderful world that no god created for me.” It sounds preposterous doesn’t it? Exactly! I don’t get consolation for believing that no god exists, but I am persuaded to disbelieve in a god because logic and reason demand disbelief or at the very least, a suspension of judgement.

Religious people on the other hand, DO get consolation from their belief in god. Why else would they believe it? Because there is ‘evidence’? No. If there were evidence in the case for god, then explain why over 90% of the world’s top scientists are non-religious. In my experience when talking to religious people about their faith the only way they attempt to defend their position is by using suggestive and symbolic words, with hints of metaphor for deeper meaning which sounds nice, but in objective terms, it means squat.

They know they’re not going to persuade someone who is in tune with logic, reason and rational thinking, that god exists. So instead, they opt for poetic verses and symbolism. But with each passing day my disbelief grows stronger because I challenge myself more and more, trying to make sense of every argument I can for the existence of a god. But there are none. The very idea of or existence of god gets smaller and smaller the more I think about it.

But once you are persuaded by symbolic poetic metaphors, even remotely, in that very instant, you render yourself a fool. You have been sucked in by unintelligent half-baked nonsense that would fail to hold in a court of law or any institution that promotes logic and reason. It gives no more substance to your claim in god than someone else's claim in fairies.

However, I must add that I’m not criticising literature and poetry, or dampen its importance. I think it’s a wonderful thing because it leaves a blueprint on our culture, just like how our ancestors who drew paintings in caves trying to make sense of the world. I enjoy poetry and yes, even the Bible. You wouldn’t understand the likes of Shakespeare and Blake without at least some knowledge of the Bible. But in order for something to be ‘true’, it would have to be objective and factual, and this is something that poetic and symbolic wordings miss out on. And honestly, for the most part I dislike God. I say this in the same way I dislike Iago in Othello.

The only consolation I can bring myself to mention is that Atheism (disbelief in god) has the strongest material advantage as a default position. But it’s not really consolation at all, because I personally, do not gain from it. Religious people on the contrary, really do think they have something to gain from their belief. But to be frank, believing in a claim that is a lie, is a loss. This is why theologians lose debates. Their entire position relies on an immediate willingness to believe, that is not based on evidence. Sure, they may say it is based on evidence but they're only saying that to provide some weight to a featherweight claim. Its not 'evidence'. If it was evidence, it would be testable, repeatable, verifiable. Not symbolic poetry, which is nice. But believable? Nah.