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 If they truly followed their outdated views, they should still be getting about on donkey-back with a push-cart for extra measure.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.