1. Atheism

Category Archives: Atheism

Muslims targeted in the US

Posted on by

Themurder of three American Muslimsat aUniversity of North Carolina condominium on Tuesday, 10 February, was noordinary murder, nor is the criminal who killed them an ordinary thug.

Thecontext of the killings, the murders themselves and themedia and official responsesto the horrific event is testimony to everything that has gone wrong since theUnited Statesunleashed its war on terror, with itsundeclared, but sometimes-declared enemy; namely, Islam and Muslims.

Horrific as it was, the killing of a husband and wife, DeahShaddy Barakat and Yusor Abu-Salha, and Barakats sister, Razan Abu-Salha,by homegrownterrorist Craig Stephen Hicks is the kind of violence that can only fit intoa greatermediaandofficialnarrative. This narrative designates millionsof innocent Muslims, in the US and across the world, as enemies or potentialterrorists.

In recent years, countless television hours and endless space in numerousmedia have been dedicated to vilify and demonise Muslims. Attempts by Muslims to distance themselves from every militant grouping,ideology and tendency have done them no good. A Muslim is a terrorism suspectuntil proven innocent, especially if he is a bearded, brown-skinned man or a woman wearing a headscarf.

The end result of this dehumanisation has been racism,racial profiling,extrajudicial killingsand war. It was only amatter oftime before that violence reached the nominally safe Muslimcommunities in the US itself.

The episode of dehumanisation is long, complex andprotracted. It is also quite clever, for it involves billion-dollar media outfitsand Hollywood itself, which has an awful track record regardingthe negative and stereotyped representationofArabs andMuslims.

The outcome is a whole industry that is predicated on doublestandards and half-truths.

The ongoingenthusiasm for more military interventionsmeans that the supposed moral awakening inspired by the advent ofPresidentBarack Obama rarely registered in the collective psyche of the nation. While thereis ample evidence that Americansare tired of war, that very war fatigueshould not be conflated with a departure from the type of dialectics thatrationalised warin the first place.

In fact, while cheerleaders for war might changepolitical camps, ideology or even religious philosophy, ultimately they arethe same breed of people: a mostly white, male-dominated and chauvinistic tribeof well-funded politicians and media pundits,with an unquenchable thirst forintervention.

Hicks, the terrorist who killed the three young Muslims,subscribes to a school of thought known as New Atheism, whatreligious scholarReza Aslan refers to as the school of anti-theism. It is, in part, anotherhate-filled platform, and despite itssupposed disdain for all religions,its malicious energy mostly targets Muslims.

View post:

Muslims targeted in the US

North Carolina shootings do not represent Atheism

Posted on by

Anyone who, like myself, does not buy the assertion that the universe must have a creator has probably faced this argument at some point. It goes something like this: Religious people do wars and terrorism, but so do atheists! Stalin and Mao were atheists! They killed more people than Hitler!

Yes, we are all forced to say. However, is that why Stalin and Mao killed so many people? There is a big difference between anti-clericalism for political and ideological dominance over a population, and the ideals of atheism or humanism. Show me a violent mob wielding copies of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion or Christopher Hitchens God is not Great, and Ill go to church this Sunday.

However, on Feb. 12, my views on this matter changed drastically.

While I had been of the belief that nobody would or could kill another person in the name of atheism, the news brought me to bear a sad truth. Three young, bright, innocent Muslim students in North Carolina were inexplicably murdered by a man named Craig Steven Hicks, who does in fact call himself an atheist.

Hicks Facebook page shows a quote from Richard Dawkins, specifically referencing how Dawkins lost all sympathy for the Islamic faith on 9/11. While Hicks shared the quote back in 2012, it would be silly to assume the work of Dawkins and others did not contribute to a festering hatred for Muslims, one which ended in tragedy last week.

My first reaction to this news was the exact same reaction of religious people whenever their texts are used to justify violence or hatred. X has nothing to do with Y. This is a misunderstanding. Nothing in this book justifies the horrific actions Hicks took.

These statements are all true. My initial reaction, like that of everyone else, was that this persons religious beliefs had nothing to do with the fact that this cruel action was taken. It has more to do with personal issues, feelings of isolation or oppression, mental instability, etc.

Again, all this is true. However, let us not fall into the same trap as religion does in the wake of every tragedy. Let us not deny any involvement or try to absolve ourselves of any culpability. Let us own up to the fact that Hicks atheism was one of many factors that contributed to his deep-seated hatred, just like religious terrorists. Let us not deny Hicks was an atheist, despite the fact he calls himself one. Most importantly, let us apologize.

To my Muslim friends, and to everyone: I am sorry for Craig Steven Hicks.

I am sorry he perverted atheism into violent hatred. I do not stand for what he did, and atheism does not explain what he did. There is nothing in this world that explains or justifies hatred or violence. At this point, we can safely say that terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, races, religions and ideologies, including atheism. Let us not condemn all Christians for the actions of Anders Breivik; let us not condemn all Buddhists for militants in Myanmar; let us not condemn all Muslims for the Charlie Hebdo attack.

See the article here:

North Carolina shootings do not represent Atheism

2 reasons why it's a bad week to be an atheist

Posted on by

On a trade mission to London, Walker was asked at an event whether he believed in evolution. He didn't answer. Published Feb. 17, 2015 at 3:05 p.m.

So what's making atheism tough this week? Two things.

One is Scott Walker. And I don't just say that on principle, though I can see why you might think that given my history in this space.

On a trade mission to London, Walker was asked at an event whether he believed in evolution. He didn't answer.

Local yokel Christian Schneider, a professional Walker apologist given free rein to write at the state's largest daily newspaper, tweeted out that "Walker didn't answer the evolution [question] because he was afraid his answer would be twisted."

Huh? It's a yes or no question. I am not sure how a simple yes or no could be "twisted." Twisting happens when politicians evade simple yes or no questions. Not that answering yes or no is always the end of the story think "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" but a coy decision to "punt," in Walker's own word, on the question just simply invites the pile-on.

In fact, Schneider went on in that tweet: "And coverage of his non-answer proves him right." As if we should be surprised a bunch of people wrangling with the fact that a supposedly battle-tested leader like Walker can't muster a single syllable, affirmative or negative, on a basic question like that. Had Walker offered an actual answer, we might not be talking about this still a week later. This is Politics 101 and not even what sets my atheist bones a-rattling.

No, here's what atheists like me hate about this kind of thing: evolution is not something you "believe" in. It's real; whether you believe in it or not, evolution is a simple fact of reality. People of faith sometimes have to figure out how they reconcile that reality with the things that are actual beliefs, sure, but they don't get to substitute that faith for reality.

The question shouldn't even be asked. I mean, would the moderator have asked about anything else that is settled science? "Pardon me, Gov. Walker, but have you heard this thing about the earth revolving around the sun? What do you make of that?"

Asking the question offers legitimacy to the anti-science, anti-reality position, and that's no good for anybody.

Read more here:

2 reasons why it's a bad week to be an atheist

Atheism – New World Encyclopedia – Info:Main Page – New …

Posted on by

From New World Encyclopedia

Atheism (from Greek: a + theos + ismos "not believing in god") refers in its broadest sense to a denial of theism (the belief in the existence of a single deity or deities). Atheism has many shades and types. Some atheists strongly deny the existence of God (or any form of deity) and attack theistic claims. Yet certainty as to the non-existence of God is as much a belief as is religion and rests on equally unprovable claims. Just as religious believers range from the ecumenical to the narrow-minded, atheists range from those for whom it is a matter of personal philosophy to those who are militantly hostile to religion.

Did you know?

"Positive" or "strong" atheism is the assertion that no deities exist while "negative" or "weak" atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of any deity

Atheism often buttresses its case on science, yet many modern scientists, far from being atheists, have argued that science is not incompatible with theism.

Some traditional religious belief systems are said to be "atheist" or "non-theist," but this can be misleading. While Jainism technically can be described as philosophically materialist (and even this is subtle vis--vis the divine), the claim about Buddhism being atheistic is more difficult to make. Metaphysical questions put to the Buddha about whether or not God exists received from him one of his famous "silences." It is inaccurate to deduce from this that the Buddha denied the existence of God. His silence had far more to do with the distracting nature of speculation and dogma than it had to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

Many people living in the West have the impression that atheism is on the rise around the world, and that the belief in God is being replaced with a more secular-oriented worldview. However, this view is not confirmed. Studies have consistently shown that contrary to popular assumptions, religious membership is actually increasing globally.

Atheism is a belief that is held for a variety of reasons.

Some atheists base their stance on philosophical grounds, arguing that their position is based on logical rejection of theistic claims. Indeed, many atheists claim that their view is merely the absence of a certain belief, suggesting that the burden of proving God's existence is upon theists. In this line of thought, it follows that if theism's arguments can be refuted, non-theism becomes the default position. Many atheists have argued for centuries against the most popular "proofs" of God's existence, noting problems in the theist lines of reasoning. Atheists who attack specific forms of theism often claim it as being self-contradictory. One of the most common arguments against the existence of the Christian God is the problem of evil, which Christian apologist William Lane Craig has referred to as "atheism's killer argument." This line of reasoning claims that the presence of evil in the world is logically inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. Instead, atheists claim it is more coherent to conclude that God does not exist than to believe that He/She does exist but readily allows the promulgation of evil.

A form of atheism known as "ignosticism," asserts that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. It is a popular view among many logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who claim that talk of gods is literally nonsensical. For them, theological statements (such as those affirming god's existence) cannot have any truth value, since they lack falsifiability. This refers to the fact that claims of transcendence and of metaphysical properties cannot be tested by empirical means and must therefore be rejected as null hypotheses. In Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer stated that theism, atheism and agnosticism were equally meaningless terms, insofar as they treat the question of the existence of God as a real question. However, despite Ayer's criticism of atheism as a concept (perhaps using the definition typically associated with strong atheism), ignosticism is still considered as a form of atheism in most classifications of religious thought.

The rest is here:

Atheism - New World Encyclopedia - Info:Main Page - New ...

Richard Dawkins slams video that claims to 'destroy atheism'

Posted on by

Reuters

Richard Dawkins has dismissed a Christian video that claims to undo atheist reasoning about God, saying the argument was "pathetic".

In the video a woman tells a dentist that saying you don't believe in God because of suffering in the world is like saying you don't believe in dentists because some people have bad teeth.

"If there are dentists in the world, then why are there so many broken, infected and missing teeth?" the woman asks.

The dentist replies: "I can't help people that don't come to me to have their teeth fixed."

Evangelist Joshua Feuerstein shared the video with his million plus Facebook followers in December, but the video has had renewed interest this month.

Speaking to the Huffington Post, Dawkins said: "If this is the best the faith-heads can do by way of 'demolishing atheism', I hope you will give it maximum publicity in order to demonstrate how pathetic the 'argument' is. It's so weak, no reply is needed. To anyone of any intelligence at all, it replies to itself."

This isn't the first time Dawkins has responded to Feuerstein's claims to unpick atheism. The Arizona-based evangelist shared a three-minute video in May last year in which he said he would "demolish evolution" in three minutes. Dawkins subsequently wrote a detailed rebuttal of Feuserstein's arguments in a post on his website.

Dawkins wrote: "Everybody and their grandma is sending me this clip of some random guy in a facebook video who claims to destroy almost the entire field of biology in three minutes. No studies, no experiments, no peer review, no degree (undergrad or otherwise) in biology, just chillin' in the back of a car taking a selfie. This is an unfathomably arrogant pretension for somebody who tries to sound humble by calling himself a nobody in his twitter bio. But then again, apologists have never been renowned for their humility."

The evolutionary biologist continued with an 18-point critique of the evangelist's arguments.

The rest is here:

Richard Dawkins slams video that claims to 'destroy atheism'


  1. Atheism