I took a screenshot of this image on the Facebook page of someone I know in real life. (Red markings added)
How about
Yeah, fuck you, “concerned student”. I’m god, I can do what I want. And I want to allow psychopaths to mow you down because your government doesn’t let my sheep brainwash you.
Let’s forget about the lousy logic for a minute. The ethical issue here is the ease at which these religious believers are justifying the violence perpetuated on innocent children (the victims of gun violence, rape and other forms of abuse in American schools), to bargain for the right to brainwash them into believing in an imaginary, sadistic, egotistical, tyrant without whom their lives are worthless.
The image above is not an old thread – comments are being added and it continues to be shared on Facebook. Here are the last 5 comments:
Here’s a comment from a Hindu apologist on Facebook:
“A strange place these atheists and their groups and discussions…..they flaunt their language and persuasion and knowledge and reason.. But they fear and tremble before fundamentalist religions like Islam….they don’t even mention it’s name and their prophet…they treat all religions as same and hate them as ‘religion’ and not by their names and specific beliefs… consciously evading the fact that religions and beliefs can be analysed objectively..and some beliefs can be more dangerous and with far reaching consequences than the others…they fear the believers…fearing someone might take offence and retaliate, retaliate not with words but with force. They take pot shots at only those people of religion who they know would not fight back and who would only, at the most, talk back… they criticize the tame magicians who with their cheap tricks spread humanity… they fight the tolerant believers and censor and isolate those who blaspheme the fundamentalists…such is your creed…such is your Atheism.. cheap entertainment and nothing more.”
There’s nothing new about these false arguments; most of them are hurled at us at a regular frequency, and dismissing them has become almost boring, to the point where many of us find it easier to simply link to an earlier shredding of the same flawed reasoning. But in this case I’ll give it an undeserved response in the hope of stalling the zombie apocalypse for a while.
I’ll present a line by line response.
“But they fear and tremble before fundamentalist religions like Islam”
Firstly, all religions have fundamentalist and moderate versions, so this is a false premise. But if you really think that we Indian Atheists are afraid of fundamentalist Islam, you are just plain stupid.
“they don’t even mention it’s na’me and their prophet”
Interestingly, it is this person who fails to mention the pedophile Mohammad. While we’re on the subject, it has come to my attention that this aforementioned pedophile allegedly had a thing for camels. I said ‘allegedly’, don’t quote me on that.
The plain truth is that this moron making the argument doesn’t really care whether we criticize Islam or not, because if he really did he would have searched on our site and found more than 40 articles that are critical of Islam, and he would have known that Nirmukta is probably the only Indian organization that organized and celebrated Everybody Draw Mohammad day last year. What he actually cares about is all the criticism that we heap on his chosen set of stone-age ideas that go under the label Hinduism, and he uses distractions such as the one above to deflect criticism of his beliefs.
“they treat all religions as same and hate them as ‘religion’ and not by their names and specific beliefs”
We have plenty of articles attacking each specific religion that we have turned our focus on. But notice a pattern? It is this accuser who doesn’t name a single Atheist or Atheist/Freethought group, and instead engages in a drive-by-shooting of innocent passers-by, and yet without any self-awareness accuses others of what he is guilty of!
“consciously evading the fact that religions and beliefs can be analysed objectively”
Nirmukta’s stated objective is to objectively analyze “religions and beliefs”. There are plenty of articles on Nirmukta that do just that. This is more drive-by-shooting. Patently absurd argument from an apologist.
“and some beliefs can be more dangerous and with far reaching consequences than the others”
Duh.
“They take pot shots at only those people of religion who they know would not fight back and who would only, at the most, talk back”
I ask anyone who thinks that this is what Indian Atheists do to please be specific. Who is “they”? Who are these “people of religion” that “they” don’t take pot shots at? If these Hindu apologists would be a little less mysterious and be a little specific perhaps we can actually criticize all these religions that we have apparently been ignoring.
“they criticize the tame magicians who with their cheap tricks spread humanity”
Firstly, “magicians” are legitimate and sometimes even beloved members of the skeptics community, because they do not claim supernatural powers. Magicians are conjurers who entertain- people who use tricks and make no bones about it. In fact, the greatest magicians in the world (for example, James Randi, P.C. Sorcar, Darren Brown, and years ago, Harry Houdini) are/were famous for criticizing the type of people that this Hindu apologist is defending- the conmen. What we’re opposed to are these conmen, the godmen and babas who rip off the gullible and line their pockets (and Swiss bank accounts) while using a small portion of their ill-gotten wealth for charity, which then serves as propaganda.
“they fight the tolerant believers and censor and isolate those who blaspheme the fundamentalists”
We fight the tolerant believers? What do these apologists consider “fighting”? Debate? Discourse? Well, in that case, guilty as charged. But of course, that’s a twisted definition of the word “fight”. Religious people use such mis-characterizations because they are so insecure in their beliefs that any criticism is perceived of as an affront on their very existence. This is a pathetic excuse of an argument.
Such is the irrational reactionary attitude cultivated among those who have been subjected to religious indoctrination, that many of these believers are incapable of seeing “outsiders” through unbiased eyes. They fail to address the actual arguments of the atheists and freethinkers, and redefine our existence through the cultural narrative that best fits their twisted worldview, dismissing all of moral progress, scientific enlightenment and humanistic activism as “cheap entertainment”.
The conclusion? Religion turns people into mindless drones.
Note: There are plenty of very good reasons why Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity. This is akin to why Atheists in Italy criticize the Catholic church more than they do Hinduism.
Here are a couple of articles on why Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more:
If you personally would like more criticism of Islam, then do your research and put some effort into writing a coherent article that would appeal to those of us active in the movement towards reason and rationality. Attacking others because the focus of their much needed activism differs from yours, is childish behavior. To those who engage in such behavior, grow the f*^! up.
Satish, Anirudh, Arvind Iyer and 10 others are discussing. Toggle Comments
Right on, Ajita! These hindu apologists are so blinded by their hatred of Islam that they can’t see that the criticisms of Islam they so very “bravely” and “valiantly” levy, at “great risk”, also apply to the beliefs they hold.
its is but natural to fear violent consequences when one uses the free-speech on things like religion. in my understanding its just the natural law of ‘taking the path of least resistance’ . . but more importantly since majority of religions have similar fundamental foolishness at their base, by discrediting one it becomes easier to go for the next in line. so if moses is discredited as a ‘messenger of god’ then case against christianity and islam becomes stronger . .
and since the atheist movement isn’t a dictatorship or something enforced using brute force, but something which propagates through exchange of ideas it is best to adopt an approach/route which allows us to first engage with those who can ‘listen & talk’ , not those who ‘listen and then kill’ ! ! !
but be rest assured . . . sooner or later , reason always prevails
Actually there is plenty of criticism of Islam in general, and more than its share in India given the % of Muslims in India. So I don’t think the “taking the path of least resistance” applies to our activism. Indeed, at every turn we seem to be taking the path that leads to direct confrontation with the beliefs of those most entrenched in religion!
Also, its a false premise that atheist activism requires the believers to listen to us. There are many other rational and humane solutions to the issues that concern us, including legal means and provoking thought through shame and cultural exclusion. We need a pluralistic approach when dealing with religion. http://richarddawkins.net/videos/5414-is-richard-dawkins-arrogant-ridicule-passion-and-the-new-atheists
Dr.H.N.Patwari
3:55 AM on June 5, 2011
Permalink | Reply
Excellent article!I believe that Nirmukta/Indian atheists are honest and sincere and their credentials,practice and perception about all religions are logical.They are genuinly secular.Since Hindu religion happens to be major religion in India,it is quite logical that in comparison ,there is more writeup against Hinduism.Anyhow as for as ground situation is concerned,there are pseudo secularists who can be classified into two groups.”Hindu secularists”who are in forefront to condemn and criticize Islamic fundamentalism only and “Muslim secularists”who leave no stone unturned to offer their criticizm against Hindu fundamentalism.So called communists are classified example of second brand of secularists,who present their best rhetoric against ‘U.S.imperialism’ and ‘reactionary-communal-fundamentalist’ forces,yet they never speak against Bin ladinism.They did not accord permission to Taslima Nasreen for her temporary stay in West Bengal.Their publications testify and reflect their regressive mindset.Your contribution in this regard is appreciable.Keep it up.
It is quite strange that my first post in Delhi freethinkers is in opposition of Ajita Kamal though i myself is part of freethinking movement in Bangalore (particularly IISc); but i justify it because one this is first active thread i encountered on the page and reply by Ajita has serious flaws in it
Let me start with this
1)
//The plain truth is that this moron making the argument doesn’t really care whether we criticize Islam or not, because if he really did he would have searched on our site and found more than 40 articles that are critical of Islam//
Really laughable and sad comment, because if you follow the “more than 40 articles” links (which is just the tag search for Islam on Nirmukta website) and just see what appears you would realize that among these “more than 40 articles” only 3-4 actually criticize Islam.
in fact in this search you will find this article also http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/
which is shamelessly apologetic for Islam
2)
Another interesting feature of the article by Ajita is choice of words (rather gems) for example
//you are just plain stupid//
, //this moron making the argument//,
//yours, is childish behavior//.
//To those who engage in such behavior, grow the f*^! up.//
though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks.
3)
Now about the “good reasons why Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more ”, first the apparent self-contradiction, the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism and in the end shoots himself in the foot by accepting that //Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity// and not only that goes on with flawed analogy of Italy (dear sir in Italy Christian are 92% and hindus 0.2% ratio of 1:460 while in India Hindus to Muslim ratio is 1:6 i.e two orders of magnitude more); heights of irrationality!
4)
Also if we examine why “Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity”
in comment section of the referred article somebody named Kafir has posted an excellent criticism.
//Kaafir says:
April 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm
More than 80% of the Indian population is Hindu. Naturally, more than 80% of our criticism would also be directed against the belief system of Hindus.
=>
A more rational/logical explanation should be the negative impact, damage and number of disruptive events in the society/world caused by adherents of a particular religion. Missing the forest for the trees isn’t helpful.
=>
Second is my familiarity with the religion I was born into. I am more familiar with the beliefs, tenets, rituals, and practices of Hinduism than that of any other religion, and hence I am more confident in criticizing it.
=>
With so much diversity in tenets, beliefs and rituals of Hinduism as well as so many different schools of philosophy which would take some considerable time and effort to study and understand, your familiarity only applies to a very small section of the population. Besides, in my experience, what I’ve found is that most people “rejected” Hinduism based only on their personal negative experience, or because they were forced by their elders to do certain rituals. Extending your specific knowledge to the entire population of Indian Hindus is not rational or logical, and is fraught with inaccuracy.
=>
Third, there is a possibility that the liberalization or secularization of the religion of the majority in a country has a positive impact on the religion of the minority itself.
=>
History does not bear this out completely, given that both Islam and Christianity have been in India for centuries. Yes, Sufism can be cited as an example, but today, even that is being threatened by the Wahabbi strain from outside – we don’t exist in a bubble. Besides, wasn’t it the secular and pluralistic nature of Hinduism that allowed people of different religions to find shelter in India and continue practicing their religion (Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, Dalai Lama), as well as allowed different philosophical schools within Hinduism to flourish and co-exist?
=>
Fourth, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold.
=>
There is some merit to this argument, assuming that the community is open to criticism from inside, and there’s no concept like ‘fitna’ to prevent community members from speaking out and implementing progressive changes. Yet, if you are a Hindu (given that you are part of that community), what’s the basis of your Hindu identity, if not religion? If you consider yourself an Indian and an atheist, then it shouldn’t matter whether you criticize Hindus, Muslims, Baha’is or Sikhs – all are fair game since they’re all Indians, and with access to the internet, lack of knowledge about their tenets or customs or beliefs is not a valid excuse anymore. And if someone could write “Rangeela Rasool” decades ago when there was no internet… =>
The fifth and most important reason is the brutal fact that the Hindu fundamentalist forces (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, etc) have been on the rise since the late 1970s.
=>
Correct. But have you given some thought to the conditions that made it possible for their ascendancy, and who created those conditions, and whether those conditions still exist or not? If you did, it’s not evident in your post. (Hint: so-called “secularism” that was added to the constitution during Emergency as well as its perverted application by all political parties, with Congress showing the path – yet your post doesn’t even mention Congress. Is that rational? Do you by any chance vote for Congress or are sympathetic to it?)
An atheist is an atheist – you seem to be making categories of atheists based on religion.
=>
Are you sure that you didn’t leave out some very obvious reasons (”elephant in the living room,” as they say) for why you don’t criticize Muslims in India and only stick to Hindus?
Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.
Here’s what I think:
1. Universal application of the concept of secularism needs to happen. Currently, its meaning as well as application is nothing but perverted, with all political parties indulging in it.
2. Law-and-order situation needs to change and become stricter.
3. Better journalistic standards – readers jump to conclusions based on faulty and biased reporting.
Once these three are in order, you won’t need to write a post justifying why you only criticize Hinduism, and will be free to criticize any religion//
5)
Finally, to clarify i am not a Islam basher by hobby or any religion basher for that matter; personally i think it is too boring and too easy. But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.
“ just see what appears you would realize that among these “more than 40 articles” only 3-4 actually criticize Islam. ”
Wrong, there are actually 50 articles in the link I posted, because these articles are under the tag Islam. Like I say in the article, over 40 of those are critical of Islam. Going from 40 to 3-4 shows your willingness to distort the truth.
Really? There are quotes from the article: “The unprecedented rise of Islamist fundamentalism in today’s world is a fact. ”
“The Islamic theology do inspire these Islamic terrorists in unleashing homicidal attacks against innocents (not only non-Muslims, but even Muslims who do not share their barbarian views) ”
“It is true, Islam’s holy-book, the Koran, contains verses intolerant of other points of view, which are being selectively used by the peddlers of violence. “
This is what you Likesh consider being shamelessly apologetic of Islam? That one article you pointed out has as defending islam attacks Islam more than you have done in your post. But there is someone else being a shameless apologist here. It is you.
So it seems you are not really concerned that the article doesn’t criticize Islam, because it clearly does. What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. So you are essentially a Hindu apologist.
“though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks. ”
Rational discussion? Do you see any names mentioned? This article wasn’t rational discussion. It was ridicule, made with the intention of having a laugh at some stupid arguments.
“ the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism ”
Nope. All I’m arguing is that we are critical of Islam. No equivalence is necessary. You are creating a straw man by. There is much more need to criticize Hinduism in India today. The stupid and ignorant argument I was responding to was that we DO NOT criticize Islam.
“flawed analogy of Italy ” “(dear sir in Italy Christian are 92% and hindus 0.2% ratio of 1:460 while in India Hindus to Muslim ratio is 1:6 i.e two orders of magnitude more); heights of irrationality! ”
This is just ignorance. I think you are not aware of what an analogy is. The point is to convey the relationship, not the exact values involved. Indian Atheists criticize Islam orders of magnitude more than Italian Atheists criticize Hinduism. How is it that you do not factor that in? But your willingness to bring up this false argument instead of seeing the analogy for what it is clearly marks you as a Hindu apologist.
The comments of someone else to some other article I will ignore. If you’re interested in taking it up with whoever wrote those article, go ahead. I’m not wasting my time responding to arguments made against someone else’s comments.
“Do you consider Muslims as Indians?”
Not all Muslims are Indians, I’m pretty sure.
“If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead.”
Who the hell are you to tell me what I SHOULD do? Why the hell do you assume we are leaving any community7 behind? I know, because you read an article critical of Islam like above. but ignore all the criticism of Islam and only see the criticism of Hinduism. Have you built any such partnerships?
“Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.”
Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons. But I know where you’re coming from. You can’t help but differentiate between ex-Muslim atheists and yourself. In any case, you get some ex-Muslim writers to join Nirmukta. Go ahead, don’t let us stop you. Why is it that you are responding so aggressively to criticism of Hinduism but are not actually doing anything that would add value?
“Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?”
Did you read the article? Because you’re repeating something that was laughed at.
“Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe?”
No. As we have made clear multiple times on Nirmukta, if you were really interested in anything except defending Hinduism, you’d know that we are constantly stressing on the distinction between people and ideas. We criticize ideas, but never attack people as a whole. Now, of course we attack individuals. For example, like in these videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACCPWVS967Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mkfm25ID-U
“1. Universal application of the concept of secularism needs to happen. Currently, its meaning as well as application is nothing but perverted, with all political parties indulging in it.”
Sure, but I don’t see how you are doing that. I have, on the other hand, argued flatly against religion and have written many articles that present a flat criticism of all of religion. Please do something and point to it before assuming that others haven’t done anything in that regard.
“2. Law-and-order situation needs to change and become stricter.”
No doubt.
“3. Better journalistic standards – readers jump to conclusions based on faulty and biased reporting.”
This is very true.
“Once these three are in order, you won’t need to write a post justifying why you only criticize Hinduism, and will be free to criticize any religion”
Straw man. Even after reading the entire article you seem to think it is about “justifying why you only criticize Hinduism”. This clearly points to the fact that you are identifying with the Hindu religion and are being an apologist for it. The entire point of the article was to point out that Islam gets its fair share of the criticism. Yet you still see it as Hindu bashing. You need to see why you are biased first. I am not biased in any way for form. In fact, when I started out with Nirmukta I was more critical of Islam than Hinduism, but it is the pseudo-secularists like you who have showed me that there needs to be a lot more criticis of Hinduism.
“5) Finally, to clarify i am not a Islam basher by hobby or any religion basher for that matter;”
Really, you could have fooled me. It seems that all you are interested in is bashing Islam and excusing Hinduism.
“But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.”
So I guess you should read back your own comment objectively, because not only is it filled with bad arguments, it is pathetically biased.
1. //Wrong, there are actually 50 articles in the link I posted, because these articles are under the tag Islam. Like I say in the article, over 40 of those are critical of Islam. Going from 40 to 3-4 shows your willingness to distort the truth.//
Below, I simply sample articles from the first page of your link. See for yourself how many of them are critical of Islam (in fact, I am bewildered how they were even tagged with the label ‘’Islam” with such titles):
An Alternative To Lokpal System To Deal With Corruption
Stress, The Mind, Belief Systems And Mental Blocks
A New Belief System For The Young Men And Women Of India
Delhi Freethinkers’ Meet – Sunday, March 27, 2011
Zakir Naik Doesn’t Understand Atheism
Managing Life Without God and Religion In The Twenty First Century – Prologue
Buddha, The Sensible Rationalist!
The Great Hero Who Conquered Karma
Keeping The Spotlight On
Philosophy With Selvi #2 – Understanding Logic
2. //This is what you Likesh consider being shamelessly apologetic of Islam? That one article you pointed out has as defending islam attacks Islam more than you have done in your post.//
Instead of quote mining from Manoj’s article as you did, I present paragraph-by-paragraph conclusions from it:
a) First paragraph: Rise of Islamism & Hindutva/Imperialist US is equivalent
b) The second paragraph: period of Islamic violence is relatively recent
c) The third paragraph: Koran is of little importance in explaining Islamism
d) Fourth, fifth, and sixth (excluding quotes): Arabia and Islam had a glorious past
e) The second-last paragraph is the meatiest of all: fundamentalism is ‘just a phase’
f) The author tut-tuts us to be more tolerant
To sum up, the article feigns equivalence between Islamism and other ideologies, harps on the glories of past and downplays the role of Koran in inspiring violence (don’t forget the breath-taking assertion that the “US trained the Taliban”). If you don’t think that is apologist, you are either very bad at inferential reasoning (i.e., comprehension), or don’t know what the word apologist means, or both.
3. //What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. So you are essentially a Hindu apologist.//
Is that who an apologist is?
4. //This is just ignorance. I think you are not aware of what an analogy is. The point is to convey the relationship, not the exact values involved. **Indian Atheists criticize Islam orders of magnitude more than Italian Atheists criticize Hinduism**.//
The last sentence is supposed to be proving the closeness of your analogy?
5. //The comments of someone else to some other article I will ignore. If you’re interested in taking it up with whoever wrote those article, go ahead. I’m not wasting my time responding to arguments made against someone else’s comments.//
And yet you go ahead replying to those very comments. You obviously missed the, “//Kaafir says:
April 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm” in my post above. That shows me what a careful reader you are. Little wonder about your comprehension skills then.
6. In response to the following suggestion (by Kaafir’s misattributed to me): “…you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead.”
You garbled:
//Why the hell do you assume we are leaving any community7 behind? I know, because you read an article critical of Islam like above. but ignore all the criticism of Islam and only see the criticism of Hinduism.//
So according to you, I was worried that you were leaving Muslims behind because you wrote an article critical of Islam. That should make me a Muslim sympathiser, shouldn’t it? At the same time, I am a Hindu fanatic because I ignored all that worrying criticism. You accuse me of far greater split-brained feats than your multiple-personality responses in #7 show you to be.
7. The difference in your answers when (you thought) you replied to me and when you replied to Kaafir speaks volumes about your state of mind. For example, in response to Kaafir’s suggestion to “Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta”, you replied initially (to him):
//I specifically targeted ex-Muslims and women writers in order to create a balance, even if it was to be a contrived balance.//
You replied to me:
//Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons.//
In the previous case, you assumed that the referent for the word “Muslim” is ex-Muslims. In the later comment you show no such charity while ranting like a schoolmarm.
8. //…if you were really interested in anything except defending Hinduism.//
Please quote any sentence where I have even remotely defended Hinduism. No wonder you think I am an apologist (on second thought, I am attributing to much knowledge to you; I don’t think you really know the technical meaning of apologetics as is clear in item. #3).
9. //It seems that all you are interested in is bashing Islam and excusing Hinduism.//
Again, where have I bashed Islam? Quote me one sentence. Even if I am interested in bashing Islam, to say that I am excusing Hinduism, is nothing but conjunction fallacy. Finally, it proves the irony of your comment:
//…you should read back your own comment objectively, because not only is it filled with bad arguments, it is pathetically biased.//
OK, I finally have some time to reply to your comment properly. Here goes.
1. “Below, I simply sample articles from the first page of your link. See for yourself how many of them are critical of Islam (in fact, I am bewildered how they were even tagged with the label ‘’Islam” with such titles)”
So you just read titles and make up your mind. Makes sense why your arguments are nonsensical and biased. Read the damn articles. By the way, are you the Hindu apologist who posted the stupid comments that are being criticized in the article? Because in the article I didn’t say the posts on Nirmukta are tagged with Islam, but I mistakenly did that when initially responding to the comments on Facebook. If you are, then I understand why you entered this conversation attacking me personally, as though the article was a personal attack on you. It still makes you a Hindu apologist. In fact a bigger one, going by the comments I was responding to in the article. But I won’t assume. I just think it odd that you think the articles were tagged with Islam, especially when the top of the page says “Search Results | ‘islam’”.
The fact is, the articles are actually not tagged with ‘Islam’. As I said in the article, if you search on the site you’ll find these articles. And about 40 of them criticize Islam. Of course, not all of them are written with the explicit point of criticism Islam only. Criticism of Islam may be made in passing, but criticism of Islam is made.
And if you had bothered to read the articles instead of making assumptions from the titles, you’d know if Islam is actually mentioned and/or criticized in all of them. And around 40 of them are critical of Islam. There are a few more on this site, Indianatheists.com. Here are the ones from the first page, that you claim to be bewildered by without bother to read.
1. http://nirmukta.com/2011/04/30/an-alternative-to-lokpal-system-to-deal-with-corruption/
“We read elsewhere how the enormous ill-gotten wealth in some of those temple-casinos invited Islamic invaders from Afghanistan to India. No one questioned why their gods did not protect them when Islamic invaders chopped off heads of thousands of Brahmins and hundreds of thousands of civilians; looted and destroyed their temple-casinos, and hauled off enormous wealth to their own countries.”
2. http://nirmukta.com/2011/04/10/stress-the-mind-belief-systems-and-mental-blocks/
This one criticizes contemporary Hindu fundamentalists, for their hatred of Muslims because of past Islamic atrocities. Of course, this is not criticism of Islam directly, but somehow very appropriate here…wonder why.
“The real reason is that they want to wreak vengeance against Muslims for the misdeeds of Islamic kings centuries ago, such as Ala-ud-Din Khilji (ruled 1296- 1316) and Aurangzeb (ruled 1658-1707).”
3. http://nirmukta.com/2011/03/25/a-new-belief-system-for-the-young-men-and-women-of-india/
“We read in my articles on the Gita how during the medieval times temples in places such as Somanath and Mathura amassed enormous wealth, which attracted Islamic invaders from Northwest. This led to a thousand years of foreign rule, and devastation, decimation and destitution of India.”
4. http://nirmukta.com/2011/03/14/delhi-freethinkers-meet-sunday-march-27-2011/
(This one mentioned Islam as part of an address, so let’s exclude it)
5. http://nirmukta.com/2011/02/19/zakir-naik-doesnt-understand-atheism/
This one is obvious. I posted this and another video of Naik that I made, both of which are extremely critical of Islam.
6. http://nirmukta.com/2011/02/09/managing-life-without-religion-in-the-twenty-first-century/
This one is critical of 3 major religions, but of course you will only see the criticism of Hinduism.
“Swamis and Gurus of Hinduism, Ulamas and Mullahs of Islam, and Priests and Pastors of Christianity have diligently taught their followers various rituals, and reinforced them over the centuries, because they are profitable for them and their institutions.”
7. http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-the-sensible-rationalist/
“the rise of Islamic kingdoms” mentioned as one of the causes of the demise of Buddhism in India. And yes, we have also been critical of Buddhism.
“Islamic invasion of India was instigated by the enormous wealth accumulated by various temples. Ghazni and Ghori kings came to India to loot only because Brahmins told people to donate wealth to those temples. Waves after waves of invaders came to India lured by the illicit wealth of temples. 8 centuries of Islamic rule, and devastation followed.”
“Our abhorrence of the machinations of dominant social leadership, whether it be Brahmin, Christian or Islamic has its rightful place in argument and analysis.”
8. http://nirmukta.com/2010/12/07/the-great-hero-who-conquered-karma/
(Excluded- This one is not critical of Islam)
9. http://nirmukta.com/2010/10/24/keeping-the-spotlight-on/
(Excluded- This one is not critical of Islam)
10. http://nirmukta.com/2010/10/06/philosophy-with-selvi-understanding-logic/
The comic strip satirizes Islamic apologists, pointing out Islamic’s terrible history of misogyny.
So, that’s 7 out of the first 10 articles of a total of 50 that are critical of Islam, and if you extrapolate to 50 and count the ones here that’s around 40 articles critical of Islam. Of course you can be pedantic on this point and spend your time going through all articles. I’m done. The point has been made. We criticize Islam. You haven’t done so yourself, and yet find fauly with us for not doing it more. I never intended to go into each article, because I know we’re not biased in our criticism of religion. And now having wasted my time on this nonsense, I am going to move on.
And don’t accuse me of quote mining the above articles. See below for why you’d be wrong.
2. “Instead of quote mining from Manoj’s article as you did, I present paragraph-by-paragraph conclusions from it”
Do you know the meaning of “quote mining”? It is not quote mining to present points from an article that were alleged to not be there. That is, I am responding to an argument that says there is no criticism of Islam. All I need to do is pick a quote to show that there indeed is criticism of Islam.
Like all religious apologists, you are twisting the context to defend your chosen religious identity. Your criticism of Manoj’s article was that it doesn’t “actually criticize Islam”. I presented points from the article that clearly do criticize Islam. And then you summarize each paragraph to exclude the criticism of Islam. Now who is being disingenuous?
3. “Is that who an apologist is?”
Look it up.
4. “The last sentence is supposed to be proving the closeness of your analogy?”
No, it is meant to show your bias. Again, the point of the analogy is clear to anyone who is not biased.
5. “That shows me what a careful reader you are.”
I know not all Hindu apologists are incapable of understanding that one can selectively respond to some irrelevant nonsense, but obviously some are.
6. “That should make me a Muslim sympathiser, shouldn’t it?”
Nope.
“At the same time, I am a Hindu fanatic.”
I didn’t say that. You seem to think apologist means fanatic. Quoting you, “That shows me what a careful reader you are.”
7. “The difference in your answers when (you thought) you replied to me and when you replied to Kaafir speaks volumes about your state of mind. For example, in response to Kaafir’s suggestion to “Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta”, you replied initially (to him):
//I specifically targeted ex-Muslims and women writers in order to create a balance, even if it was to be a contrived balance.//
You replied to me:
//Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons.//”
Firstly, Kaafir wasn’t responding to an article that clearly demonstrated that we were critical of Islam. He was also a Hindu apologist like you, but he was commenting on our site during its early days, before I had heard that argument a hundred times from you Hindu apologists. My patience hadn’t worn thin at that time.
But what’s amusing is that your argument seems to be “you’re being harsher to me than to that other guy”. Perhaps because you deserve it more because of the context?
There is no inconsistency in content here either. You want me to use the same answer every time? The concept is the same. I point out that we feature ex-religious persons, not religious persons. Both you and Kafir show that you are incapable of looking at ex-Muslims objectively as atheists. To you they will always be the “other”, because you are prejudiced against them.
8. “Please quote any sentence where I have even remotely defended Hinduism.”
Did I say you defended Hinduism explicitly? This is a false argument- I have to point you to a case where you explicitly defended Hinduism- I am not allowed to make a logical inference from the facts.
Are you so incapable of self-analysis to the point where you are blind to the implicit defense of Hinduism throughout your comments? I have made it amply clear that I am opposed to Islam, and that Hindu apologists often say we aren’t. And you are here attacking me for somehow not attacking Islam. Why? Is it not obvious to you that the reason you are here is to defend Hinduism implicitly and nothing else? Why else are you commenting here? And don’t fool yourself into thinking its because you’re logical scientific mind simply cannot stand to see an illogical argument. Even if my arguments are illogical, which they are not, there is plenty of much more illogical nonsense that you could be spending your valuable time coming up with fallacious arguments to. The only reason you are here is because you are a Hindu apoligist and seem to be unable to take criticism of Hinduism.
“No wonder you think I am an apologist.”
No wonder.
As I mentioned before, you are free to actually construct a coherent argument against any particular religion. Despite the fact that I have had Hinduism pushed in my face all the time, and that personally I have been negatively affected a lot more because of Hindu beliefs, I am objective enough to criticize Islam a lot. I have written articles and made videos criticizing Islam. What have you done criticizing Islam, other than attack other atheists who do criticize Islam?
When the article clearly points out so many instances of criticizing Islam, actually goes much farther than the quoted comments that it was referring to by actually criticizing the “prophet” of the Muslims and satirizing him without the fear that the comment smeared all atheists with, and even goes so far as to offer a platform for those who present coherent and reasoned criticism of Islam, you see us attacking Hinduism and not attacking Islam. This is being a Hindu apologist in context. You are clearly defending Hinduism implicitly, and using a lot of deception to pretend as though you’re not and that your interests are objective and fair. Bullshit.
9. “Again, where have I bashed Islam?”
I said you are interested in bashing Islam, not that you have bashed Islam (even though anyone can see that you are implicitly bashing Islam). But why are you scared of bashing Islam explicitly? Even now when I bring it up, you run. Are you a coward, scared to criticize Islam, while being a hypocrite and Hindu apologist attacking others who criticize Islam by saying that they do not and that they just attack Hinduism?
I am all for Islam bashing. What you are doing is saying that I should do it more, and that I’m not doing it enough. What I’m saying is that I bash Islam and I bash Hinduism. I bash all religious systems.
“to say that I am excusing Hinduism, is nothing but conjunction fallacy.”
Wrong again. Please do a little more reading before you go around misapplying fallacies to logical inferences. There is clear (even if only implied) evidence that your presence here is solely motivated by your desire to defend Hinduism. But even if it wasn’t, the conjunction fallacy would be irrelevant because the fallacy applies to making the claim that the likelihood of two events is greater than that of either one of them. Your invocation of the fallacy is a false conclusion, making your statement a non sequitur.
Finally, a little note on personal attacks.
My article was shrill and confrontational. But it wasn’t directed at you. No people were names. No one was personally attacked.
You on the other hand, entered the conversation with an extremely confrontational set of personal attacks, and have continued spewing them in your second comment. Too bad that your ego is so delicate that it can’t take a bit of logical refutation. But I’m done talking with you.
//What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. //
I don’t think that’s what he finds wrong. The title of the article says it all. This is an article aimed at explaining to people the author sees as “Hindu apologists” why he criticizes Hinduism the most. The tone of the article is : Yes Islam has its problems, but look it had it’s period of glory and it’s no worse than your religion is.
I will leave it to viewers with an objective mind to judge whether the above looks like something written by a critic or an apologist of Islam.
The point is this. We are actually equally critical of all religious ideologies. But it is you Hindu apologists who are in our face the most. There wouldn’t have been a need to write this article if you weren’t, and there wouldn’t have been a need to respond to your apologetic comments if you were capable of being objective and actually contributing to the conversation. Like I said in the article, if you want to see criticism of Islam, write an article after doing your research. Don’t simply defend Hinduism by labeling all our actions as only attacking Hinduism. If you keep defending Hinduism, we will have no choice but to keep attacking Hinduism. This is the simple truth.
So what criticism do you consider as not shamelessly apologetic for Islam? Narendra Modi’s kind of criticism?
though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks.
Yes there is nothing wrong in calling people names, especially when the premise of the article is ridicule.
first the apparent self-contradiction, the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism
Pray tell us from where did you got that idea. The article was a response to “Teh atheists are afraid of criticizing of Islam”. It doesn’t say it criticizes Islam in the same amount that it does Hinduism.
As to Kaafirs comment,
Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
Nirmukta community has some parallels to the open source communities. For example somebody who uses Linux, but doesn’t contribute anything to the community feels so entitled that he wants the community to do what he wants. At that point the community bluntly tells him to STFU and be the change he wants to be. Kaafir reminds me of such a person.
Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
Too bad Kaafir didn’t stick around to see this. I wonder if he would have done the same. Put up his real name publicly and post those images.
Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.
Again, the sense of entitlement. Who’s stopping Kaafir from posting his criticisms of Islam?
But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.
By your own admission, you are new to group. You did not understand the context of the article, did not want to ask other members, but went straight ahead and did the very same thing the hindu apologist did i.e. misrepresent what this community does.
after reading all these mail exchanges i am not sure if i am sitting in the right group. Atheism to me is a very personal matter which allows me to view things for what they are and allows me to be fair, rational and also do justice to my degrees in science.
What folks on this platform seem to be fighting abt is the social aspect of religion and associated communities.
I dont have anything against any religion till it tries to influence the day-to-day life of individuals in a way that rational thinking takes a bak foot. the problems associated with religions are those which stem from ‘communities’ . . for example talking about islam. . i can guarantee that no follower of sufi islam will ever harm anybdy in the name of jihad or simillar bullshit. all the crooks u see blasting their way around are the ‘wahabis’ or those who are follower of that tribal social system in the middle east which saw the birth of this religion. Sufis dont even advocate or make it cmplsry tht a person follows the so called prophet or any religious practices for tht matter. wahabis on the other hand will try to dictate EVERYTHING in your life , from the size and nature of ur garment to the length of ur beard ! ! and FYI there are no ‘kafirs’ in Sufism . . .
similarly i am yet to come across any violent buddhist for tht matter. the fighting in srilanka was not between buddhism and hinduism . but the srilankan community and the tamil community . . so lets be clear on whts religion and whats community.
also I believe that there is no good gained by name calling and the worst thing you can do to the rational cause is call names to the central figures associated with religions which will guarantee not only instant backlash in form of violence from hot-heads but may also land you in legal troubles.
Instead what i do is confront the practices associated with religions that are pure nonsense by the scientific/critical evaluation. things like horoscopes, astrology, muhurats, vaastu, eating habits, kosher etc etc are weakest points of religions and i dont let go of any chance to blast these at the first opportunity. i agree it may not turn ppl into atheists over night but at least there will be a chance that i wont find the barber’s shop closed on a tuesday ! !
I also question practices like ‘marriage within religion’ , naming a child on basis of parent’s religion, eating veg/non-veg in the name of religion, jhatka/halaal etc .. the list is quite long.
there is no point in trying to discredit mohd or christ or moses or any other person as you will never have sufficient data or authority to carry it thru. What you can do is question the practices and beliefs with reference to todays realities and needs. So I dont claim that full veil for women as introduced in tribal arab region about 1500yrs ago was a bad idea at that time . . .but i do say is that idea has dfnlty become a BAD idea in the 21st century and shud be scrapped/outlawed.
Judging and debating the creation of practices and ideas thousands of years back is a futile exercise, what should be done instead is to evaluate those against the needs of today an then condemn them.
And please forget about ‘demanding’ or even raising the point of equal blasting of diff religions by atheists . . yes, i am an atheist but i cannot disregard my personal safety cause of tht. Atheism decides on wht i believe in , and NOT whom i will lambaste. projecting my ideas infront of others is also governed by limits of decency, manners, laws and consideration for the feelings of others. A person who (may not be christian but has) had a life saving operation free of cost in a mother Teresa sponsored hospital will defntly NOt listen to any criticism of the catholics. . .
As i said I am an atheist but not at the cost of my social life or my physical well being. a dead man cannot be an atheist and the same is true for a socially dead individual. I voice my opinion in a way that the target audience listens to me and identify me as a thinker with a rationalistic mindset. Whether they agree with me or follow me is a secondary consideration.
“Atheism to me is a very personal matter which allows me to view things for what they are and allows me to be fair, rational and also do justice to my degrees in science.”
That is compeltely fine. It is your personal preference. For me, Atheism can have a different personal significance. But I’m more than just an atheist. I am a freethinker, a humanist, a feminist, a naturalist, an Indian, and much much more.
Regarding your views on moderate religion, of course we are all capable of seeing nuance. But the arguments you make are not unanswered. There is a lot of material on the subject. So-called moderate religion prevents much progressive change and moral upliftment form happening. It perpetuates ignorance and forms the cauldron from which fundamentalists emerge and gain strength. Instead of looking upwards into the light it encourages us as a species to be blind to the wonders of the universe revealed to us through reason. Most importantly, Nirmukta doesn’t have a black/white view on religion as you seem to think. We have a nuanced perspective. Just as you see me argue against all religion, I have at various times argued against other atheists that we need to recognize that religions indeed have social benefits. Do not judge anyone by reading one article.
For example, here I argue about the social benefits that religion has conveyed on people, and that freethinkers should develop cultural alternatives to satify those emotional urges that bind us and make us find life worth living. http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/01/sacred-reason-reconciling-science-and-emotion/
Please read the section titled “Can Science Afford to Leave the Emotional Dimension to Religion?” to see that my understanding of facts are not very different from your own, except in a few small ways. I just believe that we can over time reduce the suffering caused by irrational superstitious beliefs.
And you are also mistaken in thinking that my position is that only ridicule is appropriate when dealing with religion. Ridicule is one of the ways in which you raise consciousness, in certain situations. This is a fact. Please read this article in which I argue for a pluralistic strategy in promoting reason. http://nirmukta.com/2010/04/10/is-richard-dawkins-arrogant-ridicule-passion-and-the-new-atheists/
“What kinds of strategies should we take up when promoting science, critical thinking, naturalism and atheism? I submit that we must adopt a pluralistic strategy. Any single advocate for atheism cannot influence every type of individual who believes in the supernatural. This is obvious if you take into account how vastly different people are in their thinking.”
Finally, Nirmukta’s official position on religion is here: http://indianatheists.com/religion/
“There is no doubt that some of the qualities that religions have conferred on humanity have served useful evolutionary functions in the past. But today, in almost every aspect of human culture that religion once held monopoly over, there lies the possibility of better, more effective and ethical alternatives that are the product of reason and compassion. Modern Freethought groups seek out these alternatives. Modern philosophies such as secular Humanism and certain socio-political forms of Naturalistic thought offer the most promising alternatives to religion today.
Some of the most essential functions that religions have traditionally provided involve social organization. Although today we seek out secular alternatives to these social roles filled previously by religion, creating social cohesion through celebration of secular culture remains the greatest challenge that we face going forward.
Building effective systems of thought to replace religious systems that are in place is an extremely complicated process. Between the ancient enlightenment periods in the East and the West, and the more modern and universal scientific enlightenment, it has taken a considerable amount of time and effort by the greatest minds that lived, for the ideas generated by reason and compassion to overcome some of the many religious ideas that served us during our primitive superstitious past. The designation of special status to religions has been a stifling impediment to the evolution of reason-based alternatives to any remaining beneficial properties that religions may have traditionally contained. As we fight these impediments, let us remember that there are great rewards to be found in providing replacements to religion. At a personal scale, these replacements provide Atheists and Freethinkers with social systems that bring them together and give them community- something that they have lacked in any meaningful form for much of human existence. The big picture view is that replacing religions with reason-based alternatives is the only way forward if we humans are to co-exist in a scientifically-literate future.”
Also, in response to this statement:
“Instead what i do is confront the practices associated with religions that are pure nonsense by the scientific/critical evaluation. things like horoscopes, astrology, muhurats, vaastu, eating habits, kosher etc etc are weakest points of religions and i dont let go of any chance to blast these at the first opportunity.”
That is exactly what we have been doing as a team. Are you aware that this website is part of an organization promoting science and freethought in India? http://nirmukta.com
Are you aware that we have been working with professor Narendra Nayak, president of the federation of Indian Rationalist Associations for the past 2 and half years? Let me assure you, we are not unaware of these things, and have in fact written a lot about those things that you say that you criticize. Look at all of prof. Nayak’s blog posts, debunking frauds, astrology, quackery, godmen and all kinds of tricks used to con people. Look at all the articles we have written on superstitious beliefs and pseudoscientific nonsense. Look at our About-Us page.
And read this statement about who we are: http://nirmukta.com/what-is-nirmukta-and-what-do-we-plan-to-do/
Instead what i do is confront the practices associated with religions that are pure nonsense by the scientific/critical evaluation. things like horoscopes, astrology, muhurats, vaastu, eating habits, kosher etc etc are weakest points of religions and i dont let go of any chance to blast these at the first opportunity. i agree it may not turn ppl into atheists over night but at least there will be a chance that i wont find the barber’s shop closed on a tuesday ! !
also I believe that there is no good gained by name calling and the worst thing you can do to the rational cause is call names to the central figures associated with religions which will guarantee not only instant backlash in form of violence from hot-heads but may also land you in legal troubles.
I am glad that you are satisfied by getting the barber’s shop open on Tuesday, but some of us are after different goals. Atheism is just a stepping stone for me (at least), and there are lots of social evils and injustices that large segments of population are subjected to, and its that I am more interested in and passionately fighting for. Some atheistic groups dont mind legal troubles either, and in fact we are happy to fight battles legally as well.
As Ajita has mentioned in his reply, there is a plurality of approaches, and you will find some of us more passionate and into it. Dont let name calling put you off (what do you think, one has never been a moron about anything in life?), you need to see through it and look at the arguments. http://larianlequella.blogspot.com/2010/04/goldenmanes-third-rule-of-public.shtml
This post and its preceding one make an interesting juxtaposition that speaks to the unclear priorities in liberal public discourse. While pages and pages are being filled here, I present for the consideration of the commenters here a news item, which incidentally seems to be one of many,many issues we would rather expend our energies in: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/now-papalal-faces-heat-from-the-neighbours-110878
Hindus obsessing over what a true Hindu should be seem to suggest that adopting an orphan born in a different faith is un-Hindu. How about speaking out against this?
Muslims obsessing over how Muslim a four-year old (FOUR YEAR OLD!) should be seem to suggest that an adoption on humanitarian grounds regardless of faith is somehow unislamic. How about speaking out against this?
While we could well have been speaking out against any of this, here we are….
Atheists obsessing over how vocally atheistic one should be and what particular brand of delusion one must appear to criticize to be certified a genuine atheist! Wouldn’t it be great if the certificate-demanders here were equally voluble fairness-demanders in the public square?
I find this extremely interesting, because here in the UK where I live, we have exactly the same comments from Christians: “you only criticise Christianity, why don’t you criticise Islam? You must be picking on us because we’re so nice and Muslims are so horrible”.
Frankly, I tend to all-but ignore this argument because it really doesn’t address any issues: it is nothing more than a form of obfuscation from either discussion of immorality within their own religion, or an attempt to try and throw you from the debate you are having.
This kind of tactic certainly wouldn’t work in a court of law: “Well yes your honour, I did steal that money, but I know someone who committed murder!” The crimes (real or imagined) of Islam are irrelevant if you are discussing something else.
There are threats and then there are bigger threats.
The rise of the Hindu right-wing has its roots in – Islam.
I have a Muslim girlfriend whom I intend to marry without conversion on her part or mine. I am ant-communalism in all forms, whether it is Hindu or Muslim. In fact, I have broken ties with a few friends in the past who refused to condemn the 2002 Gujarat riots.
I started reading about Islam TO REFUTE by fellow non-Muslim Gujaratis, most of whom are pretty anti-Muslim (they don’t have a clue about Islam though), as you know very well.
Initially I read books on Islam by academics. Then I came across the articles of ex-Muslims like Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasreen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and websites “exposing” Islam. I could not believe what I was reading hence I cross-checked every claim reading the Quran,the six collections of Hadiths (stories of Mohammed)considered authentic by Muslim scholars, and Sira (Mohammed’s biography). I also read about the position of Sharia as held by the four “fiqhs” (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) of Sunni Islam and the only major fiqh of Shia Islam. To my surprise, even the wikipedia entries on “Criticism of Islam” and “Criticism of Mohammed” contains enough facts to make it clear that Islam is ANYTHING BUT a religion of peace, and Mohammed was ANYTHING BUT a prophet of God.
And suddenly, every problem in the Islamic world made sense – it explains why Sunnis persecute Shias(and they retaliate)in many parts of the world, why Ahmediyas and Ba’hais are persecuted by Muslims with official sanction in Iran and elsewhere, the deplorable human rights record in Islamic/Muslim-majority countries (e.g. apostasy in illegal in all of them, and in many punishable by death), the rise of Hindu right-wing, decline in non-Muslim populations in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan, and most importantly – why Islam(not Muslims) is a major topic of debate in Europe and the Americas.
You will also realise, after actually studying the Quran, reading the Hadiths, Sira and Sharia, that the achievements of Islam’s Golden Age had NOTHING to do with Islam.
Long before the Dutch MP Geert Wilders called for a ban on Quran, calling it another “Mein Kampf”, a little-known Hindu scholar filed a petition in Calcutta High Court in 1985 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition
Islam is truly an EVIL CULT, incompatible with modern civilisation. What makes it a real threat is not that it is the only intolerant religion. The God and prophets of Old Testament set the standards in violence and evil. The New Testament, in spite of the teachings of Christ, managed to turn out just a degree less violent.
But Mohammed scaled new heights in violence, misogyny and intolerance which can be seen in the Quran and his actions as reported by Muslim scholars themselves.
Muslims consider this man as the perfect man, a prophet of God, his example is called Sunnah , to be follwed as a role-model for all Muslims for all times to come. The Quran is considered to be the perfect book, immutable and unchangeable for all times to come.
I can NEVER be against innocent people just because they happened to be born in a particular religion. So once again, I request you not to dismiss me as a hateful bigot, another “Islamophobe”.
P.S. Islam has NEVER given non-muslims equal rights. Google “non-muslims/dhimmis” under Ottoman Caliphate/Islam’s Golden Age.
Could you clarify what is the intended purpose of the above comment? To simply inform readers about criticisms of a particular faith or to suggest to the administrators of this website a new focused agenda picking on some faiths over others? You are invited to check out the following posts (1, 2) on this site where no faith is granted exemption from criticism and may help address your concern that criticism of some maybe inadequate. Rest assured there are no defenders of any faith here.
More importantly, you have mentioned
//I started reading about Islam TO REFUTE by fellow non-Muslim Gujaratis…//
Did you come up with successful arguments to change their minds? Can you share tips from your experience of deconverting bigots? That maybe of considerable interest to readers here.
“To simply inform readers about criticisms of a particular faith or to suggest to the administrators of this website a new focused agenda picking on some faiths over others?”
Both. I am all for leaving no religion unexamined.
But if you just take a look at Islamic history, Islam, the Muslim psyche (I am not brushing all muslims with the same brush, I am talking about a typical psyche) and current happenings in Islamic countires and non-Islamic countries having Muslim populations, demographics of Muslims vis-a-vis non-Muslims not just in India but around the world,
it only makes sense to devote more time to criticising Islam and Mohammed.
I can only continue to appeal to my fellow non-Muslim Gujaratis to not stereotype all Muslims, to not condone the Gujarat riots, to not be provoked into mindless violence, hatred and prejudice.
I have always stood for this, and I will always stand for it.
But many of their grievances are legitimate (notice I said complaints, not their methods of redressing them). The Congress government in Gujarat was very lenient in punishing the anti-social Muslims, we all know it has a history of appeasing Muslims, and especially orthodox Muslim clerics.
Where does the Muslim behaviour come from? The Quran, the Hadiths, the Sunna of Mohammed, the Shariah.
The BJP and RSS are making a big mistake : being too harsh on Muslims, being too lenient on Islam. Muslims are the victims of Islam.
Indian secular mainstream media has a responsibility to debate on Islam, Islamic history and the Muslim psyche. Till the time this elephant in the room is not acknowledged and accorded due debate, some Muslims will take Quran and Mohammed seriously, and anti-Muslim sentiments will keep rising. We will have more Gujarats, worse situations, more Andrew Breviks.
I am stating the facts. I am NOT condoning even for a second any kind of anti-Muslim bigotry, but I am not turning a blind eye towards what’s happening and what’s the real cause of it. Its not just in India that “right-wing” sentiments are rising against Islam and Muslims, look at Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, America, Britain, France…
You want to counter Hindu right-wing fanaticism and stop the rising anti-Muslim sentiments in not just our country but around the world? yes, stand up against it on perfectly moral and ethical grounds. But spend your limited time and energy on exposing Islam and reveal Muslims to be the victim of a dangerous cult. That is the only way.
I can see where the Hindu apologists are coming from.
Not all Hindu apologists are religious, several people I know think Hindutva is a secular nationalist movement, buying the Hindu-Indian equation, who view Hindutva as an anti-islam movement and not a pro-Hindu movement.
The dark side, or at least the violent side of Hinduism is taking its inspiration from Islam in a “we should show them that we also can” mentality.
Islam, on the other hand, is motivated by its own doctrine, which IS inherently violent. All religions are not the same and not equally predisposed to violence, as Nirmukta seems to project.
What I find particularly apologetic about the http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/ is that it tries to equate Islam with other faiths, in terms of intolerance, portraying it as a passing phase, saying else they have no future. I think the article understates the issue. What I find ridiculous also is the implication that violence in Islam is cherry-picked, as though verses in the quran are un-ambiguous. This is not true. Islamic doctrine, is violent and totalitarian. There is no middle ground, and the violence that is doctrinally advocated is unparalleled by other religions that Nirmukta criticizes. An examination of islamic theology (the doctrine of abrogation) will clear this up, as opposed to Hindu extremism the bulk of which is pretty much reactionary, and not doctrinally advocated as islam. The Dals and Senas today mostly act out of anger against islamic violence and hardly due to doctrinal study of their Hindu scriptures.
Islam does pose the biggest threat today, not just at a silly superstition level, but actively threating the existence of millions of “non-believers”.
Nirmukta, rightly should address islam with the pressing urgency that it needs today. Islam is the most violent of them all, and other religions, not wanting to be left behind, are trying to catch up.
Sorry to burst your party, but both of you have clearly exposed your pure hatred of Islam. Your “concern” is born out of that rather than out of humanism. At Nirmukta, the latter is preferred over the former.
“Islam does pose the biggest threat today”. Really? Its not global warming, US military occupations which have destabilized whole regions, and financial collapses like that on 2008? Just wow. I’ve commented about the Hindtuva persecution complex elsewhere. You guys exemplify it.
Here are some other sites listing the horrible problems with Islam and Mohammed : http://alisina.org/ (site by an ex-Muslim, you’ll find many such sites through google)
Satish,
I doubt you even read the post.
I think you should appreciate that not all cultures or religions are the same. Saying so would just mean that Jainism is as violent as Islam, which is simply not true, doctrinally.
Islam stands the biggest obstacle to humanism because it resists change with an iron fist. If you think I was a Hindu apologist, you couldn’t be more wrong. But you have to realize that atheists from Islam face mortal danger from their community as opposed to atheists from Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism or any other religion.
And yes I do think Islam is the biggest threat, though not as you think due to my “hatred of islam”. I hate misogyny, barbarism and oppression. Which is why I can live with Ahmadiyya islam.
Islam is dragging us all back to the 7th century, and it is the proverbial elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I believe it is the worst of them all, simply because it had to compete with other religions at its inception and it regrettably hasn’t changed much since. Why do you get so defensive about it?
Was that an ad-hominem? Are you suggesting that I comment without even reading? There’s no need for such pointless distractions.
I think you should appreciate that not all cultures or religions are the same. Saying so would just mean that Jainism is as violent as Islam, which is simply not true, doctrinally.
I am aware of that, but it is a strawman as far as my point is concerned which is:
Islam stands the biggest obstacle to humanism because it resists change with an iron fist.
This is what I was talking about. Just because you fear that Islam is the biggest threat, it doesn’t make it one. To cite another example, poverty in India is not due to Islam. It kills more people than Islamic terrorists do. So go figure. It’s the fear mongering of the Hindutva kind (or to be more generic, the fundamentalist kind. Ex. – read the Daily Mail or watch Fox News) that makes it the biggest threat. Are you suggesting that if Islam is “taken care” of, poverty will go away?
And yes I do think Islam is the biggest threat, though not as you think due to my “hatred of islam”.
When you single out one thing as the biggest threat when there is no evidence for it, it was a reasonable conclusion. But if you assert otherwise , I’ll agree to it.
Islam is dragging us all back to the 7th century, and it is the proverbial elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
Nobody wants to talk about it? What corners of the Internet do you limit yourself to? What social circles do you move in in meatspace? I agree Indian media doesn’t talk about it much, but then the media doesn’t talk about many issues dealing with religion either because sentiments “get hurt”.
Why do you get so defensive about it?
Another distraction and a useless point since I could throw it back at you (why did you comment on this article in the first place if you didn’t want to defend your views?).
Since this topic deals with religion and irrational thinking, I don’t see how comparing islam and poverty is of any use. Isn’t AIDS a bigger threat than poverty? Or aren’t cellphone towers a threat as well? I was obviously limiting myself to the scope of religion and the irrational thinking it produces.
And again, I said “biggest obstacle to humanism”. I personally think atheism is more easily accepted by any other religion other than islam.
And “when there is no evidence”. Are you living in a cave? I think you missed the thousands of terrorist attacks springing from the indoctrination. A simple reality is that islamic scripture is unambiguously violent and too many people take it literally.
Are you changing your stance now? Because I said this earlier:
“Islam does pose the biggest threat today”. Really? Its not global warming, US military occupations which have destabilized whole regions, and financial collapses like that on 2008? Just wow.
And you wrote a comment which didn’t say anything at all about “limiting myself to the scope of religion”. Also, did you think humanism is only about religion? What do you think “biggest obstacle to humanism” means?
But let me give you the benefit of doubt and point you to this:
A unique problem that freethinkers in other parts of the world don’t face is dealing with people who call themselves atheists and at the same time identify with a cultural label that promotes irrationality. But in India the freethought movement has to deal with the problem of Hindu atheists.
They are a problem because in any discourse on the ill effects of Hinduism, they post indignant comments with special pleadings about Hinduism.
You and Deep think Hinduism is so innocent that Nirmukta should stop what it is doing and focus on Islam because you believe that Islam is the biggest threat.
Further down in the same post:
But still, a case can be made for some definitions of Hinduism that preclude the above maladies. Unfortunately for these Hindu atheists, the reasoning process used to arrive at such definitions will also preclude much of the bad stuff in Christianity and Islam that they so readily deride.
I thought it was obvious that I was limiting myself to the scope of irrational thinking AKA religion. Global warming and the financial crisis seem just about as relevant as panda extinction here.
What makes you think I’m a Hindu Atheist? When did I say Hinduism should be excused from scrutiny? I think this forum and Nirmukta have done a great job in dissecting Hinduism and by no means should wane. Maybe I understated that.
Your eagerness to blame this on my supposed “hinduism” bias, when I haven’t defended or resisted scrutiny of Hinduism is unfortunate.
“You and Deep think Hinduism is so innocent that Nirmukta should stop what it is doing and focus on Islam because you believe that Islam is the biggest threat.”
When the hell did I ever say that? If you didn’t my position, it’s that islam needs greater scrutiny than it gets now, not exclusive scrutiny.
It almost seems like you think anyone who is wary of islam is a hindu apologist. Great going.
And? Not all Muslims live by the violent verses. Unless a majority do, Islam doesn’t become the biggest threat. Which is what you and Deep are shying away from saying explicitly.
Then coming to why you are overreacting. From your earlier comments:
Islam, on the other hand, is motivated by its own doctrine, which IS inherently violent. All religions are not the same and not equally predisposed to violence, as Nirmukta seems to project.
No. Nirmukta doesn’t say that. You are imposing your bias.
An examination of islamic theology (the doctrine of abrogation) will clear this up, as opposed to Hindu extremism the bulk of which is pretty much reactionary, and not doctrinally advocated as islam. The Dals and Senas today mostly act out of anger against islamic violence and hardly due to doctrinal study of their Hindu scriptures.
False. The dals and senas act out of intolerance. Not as a reaction to Islam. They are as much opposed to Islam as they are to individual freedoms (“Western” culture), secularism (or sickularism as they fondly call it) and all that.
Nirmukta, rightly should address islam with the pressing urgency that it needs today. Islam is the most violent of them all, and other religions, not wanting to be left behind, are trying to catch up.
This does sound like an excuse for Hindutva – first fear monger about muslims. Then explain away the acts of intolerance and violence because of the fear. Tackling Islam will not make Hindutva go away. Unless people in Bharatavarsha sing the necessary paeans to their glorious Sanatana Dogma, the Hindutva folks won’t stop their acts of intolerance. But you think of it is a reaction to Islam and not as a self-sustaining culture of intolerance.
Nirmukta and other rationalist organizations in India are doing fine with what they are doing now. There are plenty of criticisms of Islam from around the world which one can point to when encountering an Islamic apologist. So your concern about Islam not getting enough attention is misplaced. No point in wasting time reinventing the wheel.
Global warming and the financial crisis seem just about as relevant as panda extinction here.
Both topics come under skepticism. One because of a denialist movement. The other because of a flawed model that thinks humans act mostly rationally. (I know, it’s a nitpick).
What makes you think I’m a Hindu Atheist?
Well, if you agree with the answers in that forum post, I take that back.
Your eagerness to blame this on my supposed “hinduism” bias, when I haven’t defended or resisted scrutiny of Hinduism is unfortunate.
You did try to explain away Hindutva as a reaction to Islam. So I still blame you of that bias. But it was not my intention to blame you for defending the superstitions and myths of Hinduism.
When the hell did I ever say that? If you didn’t my position, it’s that islam needs greater scrutiny than it gets now, not exclusive scrutiny.
Here’s how I see your comments: Nirmukta is spending way too much time criticizing Hinduism. How about giving a significant part of that to criticizing Islam? Tell me I’m wrong in saying that.
It almost seems like you think anyone who is wary of islam is a hindu apologist. Great going.
I’m just wary of people who have been exposed to Hindu right-wing propaganda and revisionism who overstate the threat of Islam (Citing Elst, or Gautier are good signs of the exposure). You might claim to not be one of them, but your comments so far failed to convince me otherwise.
Again, why I think islam is a problem :
1. Islamic scripture is unambiguously violent.
2. A majority of people do believe in it, literally.
I’m not defending the Dals and Senas. They are all just two sides of the same coin. What I meant was not that what the Dals and Senas are opposed to (everything their primitive minds are afraid of), but that it is hardly a reflection of their scripture. That was the point I was trying to make. Dal/Sena violence is not scripturally motivated. They’re just a bunch of thugs.
Hindutva, as Hinduism, started as a reaction to external religions.
“Nirmukta and other rationalist organizations in India are doing fine with what they are doing now. There are plenty of criticisms of Islam from around the world which one can point to when encountering an Islamic apologist. So your concern about Islam not getting enough attention is misplaced. No point in wasting time reinventing the wheel.”
That would be a better explanation, rather than going on the offensive and attacking everyone who thinks so.
The point of this post was that Indian atheists don’t do enough about islam, and that’s fine, since as you pointed out, there’s plenty of stuff to go around. This wasn’t that criticism of Islam isn’t done, it’s just that it isn’t done here.
“Nirmukta is spending way too much time criticizing Hinduism. How about giving a significant part of that to criticizing Islam? Tell me I’m wrong in saying that.”
Yep you’re wrong. You seem to think I want criticism of Hinduism to cease/reduce or that I think it’s a bad thing. Nope I think it’s amazing and a great service. I’m just think you’ve overlooked islam. That’s all.
And LOL, it’s not Hindu right-wing propaganda that states the threat of Islam, but the events of the last ten years.
Hindutva, as Hinduism, started as a reaction to external religions.
The external religions are no longer a threat. Hindutva has a habit of pointing to history and saying ‘our acts are completely justified because of this event in the past’. Let me state another obvious thing – Islam too feeds off the hate generated by Hindutva. So tough chance defeating Islam in India as long as Hindutva exists. Isn’t rhetoric a beautiful thing?
The point of this post was that Indian atheists don’t do enough about islam, and that’s fine, since as you pointed out, there’s plenty of stuff to go around.
Isn’t linking to said criticisms enough? The bigot who was the reason behind this article, was part of a facebook group and you’ll find plenty of Islamic criticism linked to. But of course, that will not be enough for you. Because, as I rightly suspected, you do stereotype Muslims to such an extent that you think a majority are raving jihadis ought to kill the infidels.
“Hindutva, as Hinduism, started as a reaction to external religions.”
*as long as islamic fundamentalism exists, it’s a tough case to defeat Hindutva, simply because they feed on the hate that is generated.
“– Islam too feeds off the hate generated by Hindutva. So tough chance defeating Islam in India as long as Hindutva exists. Isn’t rhetoric a beautiful thing?”
Yup it is. Sort of makes the point that criticism has to be well-rounded, on all fronts.
“Because, as I rightly suspected, you do stereotype Muslims to such an extent that you think a majority are raving jihadis ought to kill the infidels.”
You can stop assuming and suspecting things for me. When I meant violence, I was actually thinking of apostasy. The penalty is death, and you don’t find anyone speaking out against it, simply because it’s core doctrine and yes I do think a majority believe so. I think it’s very hard for atheists from Islam to even lead a safe life.
And nope I couldn’t view the Facebook group or the links. Look I obviously don’t mean to undermine what the community is doing. It’s an invaluable service. I was just trying to put the point that islam seems rather overlooked here.
I agree with your point about reinventing the wheel, though.
Defensive? Repeating myself, there are no defenders of any faith here, nor are they particularly welcome and most here are equal-opportunity offenders as you can see in the posts linked in this earlier comment.
Please read all my posts.
I probably would have reacted the same way as you around 6 months ago. Until I started researching Islam as understood my Islamic scholars. The Koran is meaningless, self-contadictory and the terrorists citing of hateful verses apppears “selective” until you place them in context of the six authentic Hadith collections (most important ones being the ones by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim) and Mohammed’s biography by Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari.
Again, I do not wish to engage in passing personal judgements and neither does aragorn. I want to keep this civil without statements such as “but both of you have clearly exposed your pure hatred of Islam. Your “concern” is born out of that rather than out of humanism.”
Not judging you, no hard feelings, since I’ve been there done that.
Aragorn,
Could I have your e-mail id? As we are one of the rare few who understand whats really wrong with Islam, I’d like to talk to you further about this.
And moderators, Satish now don’t go assuming again about our “Hindutva” or “right-wing extremism” please.
//As we are one of the rare few who understand whats really wrong with Islam//
I wouldn’t say a “rare few”. Islam is probably the most criticized religion right now on the internet.
And since bulk of Indian islam-bashers turn out to be maniacal hindutvavadis, you really can’t be surprised at their wariness.
Join the Nirmukta forums, we can discuss this there.
And moderators, Satish now don’t go assuming again about our “Hindutva” or “right-wing extremism” please.
You do have a characteristic trait of those. That is missing the forest (the enormous harm being caused by Hinduism in India) for the trees (the harm being caused by Islam in India). Read point 4 in this post.
Lol I give up Satish. No matter how conciliatory my approach and no matter how much pains we take that we do not justify or defend the harm caused by Hindutva, you just don’t get it. You’ve made up your mind. Maybe living as an atheist in an Islamic country will help you see the light
Nirmukta criticizes Islam. It criticizes Hinduism. Should be the end of story, right?. But it isn’t. The conclusion I can draw from your comments is that you think Hinduism isn’t much of a threat and hence our efforts should instead be spent on Islam (yes, volunteering is a zero sum game). Tell me it ain’t so.
What’s inexplicable is that all these complaints about ignoring Islam are piling up underneath that very article which pre-empts these complaints!
And for good measure, our style of functioning as equal opportunity offenders is repeatedly on display. In fact, a ‘call-a-spade-a-spade’ evaluation of Jihad is underway in the forums even as we speak!
What triggers these complaints escapes me. The complainants are welcome to start their own blog which hopefully is not as much a giveaway of a sectarian agenda as ‘Satyagni‘ is.
The fact that when one clicks the “more than 40 articles critical of Islam” it has something about a response to B M Hegde on top that mentions Islam in one sentence and almost ONE THIRD of the editorial on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is pretty much a disclaimer doesn’t really help one believe you treat Islam the same.
Arvind Iyer
11:50 PM on April 15, 2012
Permalink | Reply
The complaint is far from addressed. These are articles on the site that have the keyword “Islam” in them – not articles critical of Islam as claimed. Some of them only mention Islam in one sentence. Contained in this list of articles “critical of Islam” are gems like this one:
If it is indeed equal-opportunity offending you are interested in finding here (in fact, I prefer to think of it as equal-opportunity defending of Reason and Humanism against all affronts both homegrown and imported), you can consider reading this or this or this, rather than repeating an earlier quibble about numbers of articles defending reason against your particularly hated brand of unreason.
I’ll tell you what I’m not interested in finding. Lies. You know like the ones when you say you write 40 articles critical of Islam and when one checks those articles and finds bullshit.
Of course for a bigot like you, it will be bullshit. It will stop being bullshit when there is hatred of Muslims instead of just criticism. Go spread your hatred elsewhere.
My complaint is that when you *say* there is criticism of Islam and try to pass of THAT load of articles as evidence (including a piece that’s actually apologist for Islam) you insult people’s intelligence if you think you are fooling anyone. Apparently if your definition for bigot is anyone that can tell the difference between an article containing the keyword Islam and an article critical of Islam then I regret humankind isn’t as stupid as you guys hoped it would be.
Millions of Hindu extremists and us Indian Atheists have something in common. We can all stand together and celebrate our civil-society-given right to be offended.
For Hindu extremists, being offended is nothing new. This time the occasion is a woman in a swimsuit featuring an image of a medieval deity called Lakshmi. For us Atheists, being offended is nothing new either. For centuries we have been celebrating our right to be offended by the collective stupidity of millions of adult human beings who actually believe in a medieval deity called Lakshmi. So you see, we have something in common after all!
The Hindu extremists have, in the past, been offended by paintings, shoes, movies, more shoes, beer… you name it. We Atheists have, for our part, been offended since adulthood by the insistence of Hindu extremists that they have a right to having their ridiculous beliefs respected by all. And we Atheists have been offended by those obnoxious Hindu extremists who think they have a right to NOT be offended. I think its finally time for us Atheists and the Hindu extremists on the other side to reach out and clasp hands in mutually offensive celebration of our right to be offended!
Interestingly, the Hindu extremists chose a new approach to celebrating their offense at the lewd and disgusting caricature of their medieval goddess Lakshmi. They printed out copies of these perverse images and distributed them to anyone interested, with the objective of ensuring that all within sight were able to partake in their inalienable human right to be offended. Together they presented the loathsome images to the cameras for the world to see and be offended by, for that is just the type of good-hearted people they are.
“Even women and children will not be denied their right to be offended by these revolting images”, said one particularly boisterous young man. When asked about what they were going to do with the offensive pictures after the protest, the man said “I will store these disgusting and scandalous photos at home and take them out every time I want to exercise my right to be offended”, deep longing in his voice. It was a very touching moment, when the young man quoted Martin Luther King’s A right delayed is a right denied. “Sometimes we need something to remind ourselves what we’re offended about”, he said.
Arvind Iyer, bijay, aragorn and 7 others are discussing. Toggle Comments
One wonders why these ‘defenders of the Sacred Feminine’ that are able to mobilize crowds, bankroll the printouts and placards and draft the slogans so readily, fail to display similar indignation while opposing say, female foeticide or narcotics cartels. Such hypocrisy on their part is egregious enough to to rankle even card-carrying Right Wing cheerleaders.
Damn right, Arvind. They will defend the image of their blasted goddess and ignore the thousands of flesh and blood women dying around them of preventable causes. I see this phenomenon as an expression of territorial in-group instinct, rather than any real concern about culture or religion.
When burning our flag, we humbly request that you burn from the top left.
That way the union jack goes first, and for a fleeting moment (before the whole thing goes up) it looks quiet nice.
That fact that these tools did in the wrong way suggests they are secretly wishing for the good ol’ days of British Imperial Rule.
Damn it, Ray, why aren’t you offended enough! Seriously though, you’re expecting too much from these morons. If they knew their history they’s probably be less likely to burn flags or books. But then again, religious stupidity can overrule years of education. BTW, do I sense displeasure at the Blue Ensign?…I’d be furious if the Indian flag had the Union Jack on it, but I realize Australia is a lot closer to the UK both politically as well as culturally. What really gets me is the attention the Brit monarchy gets in the colonies. We have a short collective memory!
No, it makes you someone who cannot tell the difference between a real person who is someone’s mother and an imaginary medieval fantasy. So, go ahead, enjoy your fantasies and keep defending this primitive and extremist behavior. As we say on our religion page,
“Religions are comprised of ideas, and as with all ideas that Freethinkers deal with, must be scrutinized and dismissed if found wanting. People, however, have thoughts, desires, foresight and the ability to feel compassion, kindness, pain, sadness and empathy, and so must be treated on a different footing. Simply put, people deserve respect, ideas do not. This simple distinction is lost on many people, both religious and otherwise.”
Apparently that distinction is lost on you as well.
I would like to take this opportunity to announce that anybody denigrating Harry Potter will invite stringent protests. He is the God and hence is father-equivalent.
To Ananth and everyone here, I expect you to show due reverence when you come across a Harry Potter book. Else I’m going to protest you.
This isn’t that bad. They have a right to get offended and protest. You can’t have a law against stupidity. Now when they become a public nuisance and a threat to law and order, sentiment or no-sentiment, they deserve the boot up where it hurts.
What is particularly idiotic is that the world would not have heard of this issue at all, and ignored it had to not been for the self-righteous morons.
fine guys, i dont question the diff ways we promote the rationalistic point of view. Its just tht my approach of ‘path of least resistance’ works out to be the most practical one for me. I feel more satisfied at the small victories so i wud rather talk one-on-one to someone and feel proud if i can make him see the daylight rather than trying to talk to a bunch of blind believers and ending up with 50 ppl chasing me with swords & knives in their hands
when some one is offending your religion your god and though your blood don not boil you are not better than them if you do not follow this religion you do not have to comment firstly let them do this with their belief and god then come to us and we will think about it
The Indian Atheists Page on Facebook provides to its administrators statistical data on Page usage and demographics. I have taken the demographics stats as they currently stand and am making this data available to the community.
Sex-Ratio and Age :
The Indian Atheists Facebook Page community is 19% female and 79% male.
A couple of weeks ago I initiated a private discussion on Facebook regarding the role of women in the Freethought movement. In the course of the discussion I was asked by a friend about the number of women associated with Indian Atheists and its parent organization, Nirmukta. This post was inspired by her question (thanks, Aarti!).
We do not currently have any stats on the Nirmukta Facebook Group. What follows below is a screenshot of the Indian Atheists page demographics on female to male ratio, broken down by age group. I follow this up with some analysis of my own.
(All Z-Values calculated at 90% confidence level and sample size of 2091 members as of March 15th, 2011)
13 – 17 : 3.3
18 – 24 : 20.5
25 – 34 : 17.2
35 – 44 : 8.3
45 – 54 : 8
55 + : 6.6
In simple terms, the Z-Value is a measure of the difference in numbers (on the Indian Atheists Facebook Page) between the sexes, expressed in terms of deviation from the mean. In our case, the higher the number, the more skewed the sex-ratio. We can plot the Z-Values of the sex-ratio across different age groups on a simple graph to demonstrate more clearly what is going on with the sex-ratio on our Facebook Page.
The difference between the sexes in terms of participation in our Indian Atheists community is lowest in the 13 to 17 years age group, indicating that the young women in this age group are fairly well-represented on the Facebook Page relative to the men, when compared to the women : men ratio of the other age groups. As we go up in age, the female participation ratio drops off steeply (although the raw numbers are actually highest for this age demographic), and then begins to rise again in the 35 to 44 age group, a trend that continues into old age.
Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician and invite others to analyze the data more carefully than I have done. I would be careful about extrapolating too much from this analysis that I have presented. The most I can say with confidence is that it is clear that the least represented group of women (relative to men in the same age group, not in terms of raw numbers) are those in their 20s – older students, young professionals, those starting a family and career women. Whatever be the social pressures/social alternatives that prevent the women in this demographic from participating to their full potential in the Freethought movement, they apparently do not adversely affect their male counterparts, and may in fact be the reason why males are relatively more active in those age groups.
Country/City Stats :
The screenshot below, presenting data on the numbers of members from different countries and cities around the world, is pretty straightforward. (Note that Delhi as a whole is actually our most represented city if you take into account the separate categories for New Delhi and Delhi).
Do you see any surprises here? What more can we tell from this data? Is there some way we can use it to promote Atheism and Freethought? How can we increase participation from all demographics of Indians? Please share your comments here and on the Indian Atheists Facebook Page!
sreejith, Bala B, Ajita Kamal and 7 others are discussing. Toggle Comments
its surprising to see, males from 13 -17 age group are also the lowest among all other age groups. maybe at that age group they haven’t started thinking about atheism much.
…why females are just 19% is something to be discussed about. maybe analysis of the 19% member’s demographics can reveal something.. are they independent earners? what’s their education level? what sets them apart etc could be some indicators.
-what makes a person question their religion/faith which is so strongly enforced from childhood would be very revealing. wish you had some qualitative data as well
Well I am not surprised from your statistics. From my personal experience (and I am not being sarcastic) with raising impetus given to materialism, literate economically independent females are more interested towards gaining all materialistic comforts which includes family, house, hi-flying social circuits and so on..so where is the time and energy or inclination to think of Freethought movement ??? and which part of education system first of all inculcates thinking …atleast not in India.. we work like machines and earn degrees to work on machines…
Being an atheist woman aged 26, I feel like you are making a gross generalization here, veena. There are as many men who follow blindly. In fact, I am sitting on a flight right now next to a gentleman reading the quran. Perhaps this data is a result of how long the site has been around, how the site’s popularity has spread, etc.
What veena says resonates with my own personal experience as well (and I am a guy).. and I agree with dee that it applies to men as well. What I say below applies only to those men and women who are liberal minded. I dont know if we can target traditional-minded people for our movement, and I am inclined to say No.
In spite of being open to experience/learning, we are just too focused on our own earning/”struggle in life” (if I may call it that). we need that unpugging-from-the-matrix, but its only chance that brings it. For me, it was the recession. I had plenty of time to pursue other interests (natural science), and that got me thinking… and becoming informed takes a lot of time. Most of my immediate colleagues here are pretty much agnostic, but just go with the cultural flow as opposed to rebelling against it. Their primary passions are elsewhere, such as science fiction, financial markets, video games.
@agreed dee – since the focus was more on female participation drop off I have mentioned about the same – yes its no different where men are concerned. @Astrokid – unplugging-from-the-matrix can happen only when right from childhood we are made to think. Its unfortunate again I bring up the education system – we do not make our children think we are only worried about the end products and not the process.
I remember being an atheist in the 13-17 age group but being at conflict with my self about this new identity. Most atheist kids have no support system and would not share their affiliations on a forum like facebook in plain public view.
I am not surprised that Mumbai ranks high on this list as I do know a large number of people here do not believe, but maybe the size of the population here means that any head count of people on a national group would have us rank pretty high anyway.
Yes Rahul its not exactly a rosy path when you are going against the stream. 13-17 is the age when all human beings start to think as the developmental process is complete and putting them to use begins. Most adolescents begin to think but due to societal pressure wane off by 20′s – a forum of like-minded people like FB actually helps to discuss and make them stronger in their thought processes.
Great points, Veena. Regarding education, our entire focus on freethought and rationalism would be best served if we work alongside groups such as these: http://www.pratham.org/
Be sure to check out the videos on this page: http://pratham.org/Pratham_Video.aspx
I am pretty sure the Nirmukta board would have mulled over this.. billboard advertising may be the best way to reach large numbers. As David Silverman of American Atheists said recently in http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/01/some-further-further-thoughts-about-in.html
“The biggest, A-number-one problem in this whole movement is (say it with me now) awareness — the closeted or unconnected atheist’s ignorance of organized atheism”
Definitely. I’ve had visions of seeing huge billboards in the big cities, for a few years now! I think that such work will eventually come from the regional groups. Nirmukta is currently focussed on registration and management, which will lead to fund-collection drives that can sponsor such activism.
Already had a discussion about this with the chennai group. More than big billboards, ads behind buses and on bus stands seem popular here. And from what I have enquired are not that expensive either.
sreejith
10:58 PM on September 3, 2011
Permalink | Reply
I am searching for a bride preferably an atheist. Seeing that only 19 percent woman are atheists even in this group, I think it will be very difficult to find a partner who is an atheist. Anyway thanks for the info.
At the moment there is a poll on the Indian Atheists facebook page asking people to help choose the name (or rather, the taxonomic format) for the regional groups that have been created by us over the past couple of months. The regional coordinators of these groups are working together to decide on a common taxanomy. A number of regional meets have taken place in the major cities of India, thanks to the initiative and work put in by the regional coordinators, as well as the organizational efforts of the coordinators at Nirmukta and Indian Atheists. Also, a number of cities are lining up to join in this network of regional groups around the country.
As we come together to decide what we will call our groups, I would like to present some facts and draw some logical conclusions on the issue of branding the movement.
Balasubramaniam
1:42 PM on February 1, 2011
Permalink | Reply
There is one more important point missed out in the above. That is there are a number of athiests who do not adopt science, reason and logic as tools for understanding the natural world. So we should keep in mind what this group is going to do, Promote Athiesm or Freethought. Based on that we can name.
Ajita Kamal
2:10 PM on February 1, 2011
Permalink | Reply
Bala, I feel that we can very well promote both atheism and freethought. Can you please say why you think it has to be one or the other?
Also, you say “That is there are a number of athiests who do not adopt science, reason and logic as tools for understanding the natural world”.
I don’t think I have completely missed this point. In fact, I offer an argument that takes this point into consideration:
“Once people identify themselves as atheists and come forward to be part of an organization of freethinkers, it is easier for the movement to provide them with fulfilling social, cultural and intellectual alternatives to religion and superstition. Atheism is the light at the end of the tunnel that leads believers to reason.”
Some atheists are not freethinkers, no doubt, but providing them with the tools to learn to think like freethinkers is one of the most useful functions we can serve.
Balasubramaniam
3:04 PM on February 1, 2011
Permalink | Reply
Ajita, As I had already put in one of our earlier FB post that Atheism is a subset of freethought. When I say I am a freethinker, I am automatically an atheist. My concern is, I have come across people saying I am an Atheist but spiritual. Some Jains, Buddhists, very strong marxists. These people are sometime not ready to use logic and reason in anything other than refusing the existence of god. Anyway I don’t mind your suggestion too. My support to rational thinking in any name will be there.
Ajita Kamal
9:41 AM on February 2, 2011
Permalink | Reply
“My concern is, I have come across people saying I am an Atheist but spiritual. Some Jains, Buddhists, very strong marxists. These people are sometime not ready to use logic and reason in anything other than refusing the existence of god.”
Bala, I think you misunderstood me to mean I didn’t understand what you said. I did. My previous answer took for granted the idea that eventually the goal is to promote a naturalistic, science and reason based way of thinking. This is why I said in the article: ““Once people identify themselves as atheists and come forward to be part of an organization of freethinkers, it is easier for the movement to provide them with fulfilling social, cultural and intellectual alternatives to religion and superstition”.
The fact that some atheists do not think logically and rationally is all the more reason why we make sure that we build a movement that addresses these concerns.
Bala,
You said “there are a number of athiests who do not adopt science, reason and logic as tools for understanding the natural world”. I guess you are talking about some Indians. Out of curiosity, can you gimme some pointers on who these people are? I am curious to know how they reached atheism.
-Thanks
Hi Ajita, Wondering what your view was about using the word ‘Humanist’
Ajita Kamal
9:23 AM on February 2, 2011
Permalink | Reply
I will identify myself as a Humanist in certain situations, like when moral issues are being discussed, but I have reservations about its reach in the community and its range when it comes to the issues we are interested in. Do you prefer the word ‘Humanist’ to the others?
Ajita,
Fully agree with you on the ‘Popular Reach’. Regarding ‘Accuracy of Description’, I think ‘Atheist’ is more accurate, because the current activist focus is on Atheism. As you said so appropriately, “atheism is the first step out of the darkness”, and this is going to be a looonng and most difficult fight.
Secular Humanism is a long way away from an activism perspective. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
for e.g not much we can do about this for now… “We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.”
And so is Naturalism.
Nirmukta can meanwhile continue to serve as the aegis of Freethought, and can spawn off new activist groups at the appropriate time in the future.
i.e All that I am saying is “One Step at a time”.
Ajita Kamal
9:20 AM on February 2, 2011
Permalink | Reply
“I think ‘Atheist’ is more accurate, because the current activist focus is on Atheism.”
I disagree that atheism is our activist focus, although it certainly takes up a lot of our time. For example, there are many science and pseudoscience issues that we are interested in addressing. Add to this the major focus of FIRA and prof Nayak on debunking superstitions (as well as on promoting scientific temper), and our movement’s focus becomes much wider than atheism.
I agree that secular humanism and naturalism are not as popular as atheism, but that is exactly why I think we need to use Atheism to “recruit” those leaving religion, and show them how to think morally, logically and scientifically. As I have said multiple times in my writings, I think the most important function the movement has at this stage is to build alternatives to mainstream religion-influenced culture. As I say in the article, “Once people identify themselves as atheists and come forward to be part of an organization of freethinkers, it is easier for the movement to provide them with fulfilling social, cultural and intellectual alternatives to religion and superstition.”
“All that I am saying is “One Step at a time”.”
I say we must do it right the first time. The logistics involved in forming and organizing such groups are very time-consuming and people-intensive. In fact, right now the movement needs a whole lot of people working to network and promote the work being done.
This is a petition to all Atheists who have an audience on Atheist blogs, websites, podcasts and other media, to stop using the term ‘honor killings’, and use the term Shame Killings instead.
In India and around the world, whenever a young girl or boy (more likely to be a girl) is killed by family members because of behavior considered inappropriate and bringing shame to the family, the news media without fail reports the incident as an ‘Honor Killing’. These incidents, often involving rape, torture and ending in brutal death, take place when illicit inter-religious or inter-caste relationships between young men and women come to light. The family members believe that they have been shamed by the son/daughter/niece,nephew, etc., and that the only way to save the “family name” is murder.
Hopefully, by networking and through our activism we can generate enough momentum to take this re-branding into mainstream media channels.
This re-branding was initiated on a discussion post on the Indian Atheists group on Atheist Nexus, by Richard Francis. Richard questioned the use of the term “honor killing”:
“Can we please find a different name for it. I would suggest vanity killings or ego killings.”
Richard went on to say:
“We have stopped using phrases like ‘happy slapping’ and ‘joy riders’ because language is so important. Let’s do the same thing for this.”
I thought this was a brilliant idea, and suggested ‘Shame Killings’, which Richard liked. I brought up the idea on the Nirmukta forums, and other Nirmukta members agreed that Shame Killings is a good choice.
The idea behind adopting the term ‘Shame Killings’ is to hammer in the notion that the greatest shame is in the despicable act of murder. That society at large will not permit such savage ideas to be tolerated as cultural expressions of an ethnic sub-tradition.
The very idea that murder can alleviate one’s sense of shame must be smashed to bits.
Please ‘Like’ the Facebook page and help promote the re-branding of ‘honour killings’ to Shame Killings.
I’m all for it, but isn’t substituting ”honor killing” with shame killing at least a couple of years old thing? I mean, I don’t know about the popularity of the term but it wasn’t invented this year.
Many classical Indian philosophers, driven to ideological defense of the Vedas as divine manifestation, were among a long tradition of thinkers who ceremoniously presented arguments for the existence of god, first in response to the ancient Carvakas and later to the other Nastika schools that developed strains of Atheistic thought. Of the ones on record, the most sophisticated compilation of arguments came from Udayana (Udayanācārya), the 10th century Indian philosopher who unified and reformed the Old Nyaya and the Vaisheshikaschools of Indian Logic, to found the Navya Nyaya (literally New Nyaya) school. Udayana famously attempted to prove the existence of god using nine arguments. Logic and modern science render these arguments impotent.
It should be noted that all of Udayana’s arguments (listed below) can be rebutted conclusively using nothing but the empiricist logic contained within certain philosophical schools of the period and of the centuries before, such as the later Lokayata school and some traditions of Buddhist thought. Indeed, these arguments for god most certainly were conclusively rebutted by the Atheists of the day, as evidenced by the fact that specific counter-arguments are known to have been quite common in the philosophical discourse of the period. But let’s not allow the fact deny us the satisfaction that comes with shining the light of modern scientific logic and naturalistic philosophy on these ancient arguments for god.
I will list Udayana’s arguments and provide a short rebuttal below each. The arguments are taken from this page on Wikipedia, which cites this book as the source. I understand that all of Udayana’s arguments taken from the above cited source are terse pronouncements presented without any extended context, and I’d be happy to be corrected if my interpretation of any of the arguments turns out to be wrong, provided this correction is devoid of all citation-free claims about the translation/context, evidence-less claims about reality, and common logical fallacies.
So, here we go!
1.Kāryāt (lit. “from effect”): An effect is produced by a cause, and similarly, the universe must also have a cause. Causes (according to Naiyayikas) are of three kinds: Samavayi (in case of the universe, the atoms), Asamavayi (the association of atoms) and Nimitta (which is Ishvara). The active cause of the world must have an absolute knowledge of all the material of creation, and hence it must be god. Hence from the creation, the existence of the Creator is proved.
This argument is also known today as the Cosmological or First Cause argument for god, and is seen in practically all cultures, regardless of whether they had a strong classical tradition or not. Here are some points we can note:
a) If the universe has a cause and that cause is god, then that god must also have a cause. If you look at the entire argument it becomes obvious that such arguments do not really solve the problem posed by the question that the proponents believe to have answered! This is because they just move the question back one nonsensical step, and they do so with no evidence and offering no real information, verifiable data or testable predictions. This problem is known as infinite regress.
God is a mind-block for believers, as evidenced by this argument. The really irrational thing is believing that this supposedly causeless, all-powerful and unobservable thing called god is the reason why everything exists in the observable universe.
As a side note, modern physics suggests that it is meaningless to talk about a time before the universe came into existence, because time in our universe came into existence at the moment of the big bang. Recently a group of physicists led by Roger Penrose have proposed, after observing the patterns of cosmic microwave background found in the universe, that the beginning of our universe was the end of another universe. These conversations continue in the scientific realm. In any case, these scientific discussions do not make god necessary or logically coherent.
b) All we can reasonably infer from the laws of cause and effect is that there probably was a cause to the origin of the universe. Extrapolating from there to god is a logically incoherent leap in reason. Claiming god as the cause of the universe is positing an enormously complex, intelligent and powerful entity that we know nothing about to explain an inanimate universe that we know something about. The principle of parsimony known as Occam’s Razor dictates that this god is much less likely.
c) The argument squeezes god into a gap in our knowledge of the universe while ignoring all the phenomena that were once thought to be the work of god and are now understood in purely naturalistic terms. God as intelligent initiator of the big bang (which today we know as the starting point of our universe) is a “god of the gaps”. Essentially, this argument takes the form “I don’t know how something so complex could have come about through mechanistic processes, so it must have been created by god”. This is a leap in logic. This form of argument is called the argument from ignorance.
d) The premise that “the active cause of the world must have an absolute knowledge of all the material of creation” is false, and the argument is a tautology when used as proof of god- that is, its a circular argument. A tautology, or circular argument, is when at least one of the premises of the proposition under investigation assumes as true that which must be proven. In this case, the argument simply assumes that god must exist, and uses that assumption to “prove” that god exists.
Of the above-noted points (b) Implausibility and (c) god of the gaps errors repeat quite a bit throughout the arguments presented by Udayana. Also, almost all of Udayana’s arguments contain (d) circular reasoning.
2. Āyojanāt (lit., from combination): Atoms are inactive and properties are unphysical. So it must be God who creates the world with his will by causing the atoms to join. Self-combination of inanimate and lifeless things is not possible, otherwise atoms would only combine at random, creating chaos. There is to be seen the hand of a wise organizer behind the systematic grouping of the ultimate atoms into dyads and molecules. That final organizer is God.
In addition to making many of the same errors noted for the previous argument, this above argument is particularly fraught with a certain type of error that can simply be chalked to the fact that the premises underlying the arguments are influenced by beliefs from a pre-scientific period.
Again, positing that a complex intelligent god keeps atoms glued to each other violates Occam’s Razor. And again, god seems to have fallen in the gaps. Its amusing today to watch religious revisionists casually misappropriate the word ‘atom’, as though the scientific conception of the atom was what the mystics and philosophers of ancient India were talking about in the Vedas. To be fair, the word ‘atom’ can indeed be used in a generic form, but this usage is very different from the specific scientifically defined and established physical unit known as the atom.
The practice of science has led to the discoveries of different sub-atomic particles and forces responsible for the various inter and intra-atomic interactions that we know about today. The gap Udayana shoved god into is sealed shut, and all resident gods are dead.
Finally on this point, “self-combination” of inanimate and lifeless “things” happens all the time. It can be beautifully illustrated using crystals which self-combine into ordered and mathematical structures. It happens in the production and action of enzymes- proteins which are essential molecules for life on earth. Indeed, life is “created” by the actions of completely inanimate chemical reactions and processes guided by purely naturalistic organizational principles, as we know now thanks to modern science. We know today about how chemical bonds are formed between elements and molecules. We know a bit about the composition of atoms and how they interact with each other.
Scientists today study complexity as the emergence of unique behavior and organizational structure in a system, by the action of purely stochastic processes. Professor Vinod Wadhawan has written a fantastic series on this new science of complexity, specifically designed for the layperson.
At the time that Udayana’s arguments were made we knew nothing about dyads or molecules, let alone atoms. Which makes one wonder why these particular words were used by the translators. I suppose these particular modern and scientific terms could have been used simply for want of convenient words to describe certain ancient ideas, but the attempt to co-opt modern science here in the modern translations of pre-scientific arguments for god (while misrepresenting science) is unmistakable and even brazen.
3. Dhŗtyādéḥ(lit., from support): Just as a material thing falls off without a support, similarly, God is the supporter and bearer of this world, without which the world would not have remained integrated. This universe is hence superintended within God, which proves his existence.
This argument may seem laughable today, but let’s take it seriously for a bit to see how people’s minds operated at a time when certain facts about the universe were unavailable to them. Today we can comprehend a spherical planet with no objective up or down, and on which all things are pulled to its center. We can comprehend, at least in theory, the force of gravity that keeps us on earth, and the repulsive forces that prevent all the atoms on the planet from collapsing into each other. We can comprehend a vast universe filled with galaxies and planetary systems. And we can imagine how so much of our sensory reality, informed by a brain shaped by evolution on ‘middle earth’, is an illusion. But we can only imagine this ‘more-true’ reality because today we have the greatest amount of information that we humans have ever had about our universe, made available through science.
Science is the most powerful tool and the most magnificent achievement of the human imagination.
God is a failure of the human imagination.
Udayana’s argument from support is nothing but an utterance from ignorance.
4. Padāt (lit., from word): Every word has the capability to represent a certain object. It is the will of God that a thing should be represented by a certain word. Similarly, no knowledge can come to us of the different things here unless there is a source of this knowledge. The origin of all knowledge should be omniscient and, consequently, omnipotent. Such a being is not to be seen in this universe, and so it must be outside it. This being is God.
Udayana is starting to get a bit preachy now, which is usually a good bet that there is fuzziness afoot. This deliberate attempt at confusion creates the perfect smoke-screen for masking circular arguments.
We use words to represent many things, including objects. There is no need to invoke god in order to explain this fact. The entire argument is weirdly imagined. If I’m properly interpreting it, when Udayana talks about knowledge that “comes to us” he is not referring to the empirical (observable sensory) information that can scientifically be verified, but to some mysterious external source of knowledge that is all powerful.
The whole argument is one big tautology. Only if you buy into the idea that “It is the will of God that a thing should be represented by a certain word”, or that “ The origin of all knowledge should be omniscient and, consequently, omnipotent”, can you buy into the rest of the BS. This is begging the question! The argument begins with an assumption that it needs to prove! It is simply not reasonable to accept belief in god as an argument for god’s existence, which is exactly what this argument is asking us to do!
At the end Udayana resorts to a classic theology trick.
“Such a being is not to be seen in this universe, and so it must be outside it. This being is God.”
Let’s just say for argument sake that an omnipotent and omnipresent god is absolutely required for words to have meaning. Even given this ridiculous premise, how can one say anything at all about objects outside of the universe with absolutely certainty? What evidence is available to declare with such impunity that the unlikely being in question is a god? Udayana’s fifth argument doesn’t tell us, but it offers some insight into the motives behind his vigorous, flailing defense of the idea of a supernatural god.
5. Pratyayataḥ (lit, from faith): the Hindu holy scriptures, the Vedas, are regarded as the source of eternal knowledge. Their knowledge is free from fallacies and are widely believed as a source of proof. Their authors cannot be human beings because human knowledge is limited. They cannot obtain knowledge of past, present, and future, and in depth knowledge of mind. Hence, only God can be the creator of the Vedas. Hence, his existence is proved from his being the author of the Vedas, which he revealed to various sages over a period of time.
From here down the arguments are just plain dumb. Even during the time of Udayana it surely must have been silly for any serious philosopher to believe that the Vedas are absolutely correct about all the ideas contained within them. In any case, Udayana seems to be confused in making this argument from ‘Faith’, because while claiming to do so he actually makes objective claims about reality by talking about the supposed inerrancy of the Vedas. This is not faith at all, but rather a sneaky way of avoiding logical scrutiny by pretending to claim faith while actually suggesting that the inerrancy of the Vedas is proof of god. Of course, it can be argued that it is his claim about the inerrancy of the Vedas that he asks us to take on faith, which would just make this another form of circular argument.
6. Shrutéḥ (lit., from scriptures): The Shrutis, e.g., the Vedas extol God and talk about his existence. “He is the lord of all subjects, omniscient, and knower of one’s internal feelings; He is the creator, cause and destroyer of the world”, say the Shrutis. The Shrutis are regarded as a source of proofs by Naiyanikas. Hence, the existence of God is proved.
This is the most common form of tautology coming from religious apologists who defend god, usually Christian and Islamic apologists. “God is real because the book says so” is circular reasoning on a pretty low level of sophistication. Udayana also seems to have a wrong understanding of the meaning of the word ‘proof’, also apparent from his previous argument.
7. Vākyāt (lit., from precepts): Again, the Veda must have been produced by a person because it has the nature of “sentences,” i.e., the sentences of the Veda were produced by a person because they have the nature of sentences, just as the sentences of beings like ourselves. That person must have been God.
This is simply an extension of point 4, which argued that god is real because words have meaning. It is also related to points 5 and 6 because these three arguments (5, 6 and 7) proclaim the nature of the Vedas as proof of god, making them all tautologies.
8. Samkhyāviśeşāt (lit., from the specialty of numbers):According to the Nyaya, the magnitude of a dyad is produced by the number of two atoms. The number “one” is directly perceived but other numbers are created by perceptions, which is related to the mind of the perceiver. Since at the time of creation, souls, atoms, Adŗşţa (Unseen Power), space, time and minds are all unconscious, hence it depends on divine consciousness. So God must exist.
a) In today’s context this argument perpetuates a false interpretation of Udayana’s ancient conception of the smallest unit of matter, deliberately conflating that ancient notion with the modern scientific concept ‘atom’. The New Nyaya school is still extant, and much of the misappropriation of scientific words by the apologists must have first occurred in relatively recent translations of the original works.
b) The statement “The number “one” is directly perceived but other numbers are created by perceptions, which is related to the mind of the perceiver” is just pure BS. All numbers are conceptually interpreted by the brain. Objects in the natural world are perceived by the senses.
c) See this part of the argument: “Since at the time of creation, souls, atoms, Adŗşţa (Unseen Power), space, time and minds are all unconscious”. What nonsense! Creation, souls and unseen powers are all things for which proof must be offered. Udayana simply builds them into his arguments, assuming them to be true!
d) This part “….are all unconscious, hence it depends on divine consciousness. So God must exist” is so perfectly circular that its amazing how these philosophers could have kept a straight face while expounding so. All these things are unconscious, so they depend on god, so god exists. WTF?
e) The same part quoted above “….are all unconscious, hence it depends on divine consciousness. So God must exist” is an argument from ignorance- a god-of-the-gaps. It is of the form “I don’t know how all of this complexity we see in the universe could have come about due to mechanistic reasons, so it must have been god”.
f) Occam’s Razor is shamelessly violated.
9. Adŗşţāt (lit., from the unforeseen): Everybody reaps the fruits of his own actions. merits and demerits accrue from his own actions and the stock of merit and demerit is known as Adŗşţa, the Unseen Power. But since this unseen power is unintelligent, it needs the guidance from a supremely intelligent god.
We may all believe that, in a fair world, we should all reap the fruits of our efforts. But what the hell does that have to do with unseen powers? Merits and demerits are real and relative and can only be understood properly in each specific context. Moreover, there are factors that are out of our direct control, including our own genetics and much about the greater environment in which we exist, both of which are the arbitrators of the deck we are dealt.
The argument also resembles point 8 in form. All the criticisms of that point can be applied here, including circular reasoning, violation of Occam’s Razor and the argument from ignorance.
Conclusion:
There are a whole lot of unnecessary assumptions in Udayana’s arguments, which probably is the answer to why Indian Philosophy was stuck in a rut for all those centuries after the golden age of reason in India during the early classical period. In modern times we have failed to revive our great philosophical traditions, mainly because we Indians are not formally educated about the relevance of philosophy in our political and socio-economic lives. Given that the great New (Navya) Nyaya logicians (along with the religious apologists who have dominated intellectual discourse for much of our history) dedicated their lives to making philosophy irrelevant to reality, the fact that most educated Indians don’t think philosophy is relevant to their lives is quite understandable. We need to cast out the rotten ideas in the history of Indian Philosophy and usher in a new Scientific Naturalism that celebrates great rational Indian minds of the past and great scientific Indian minds of our time. Failing this, we Indians will continue to remain passive observers at best and myopic participants at worst in regards to the important discussions of our day, such as those on the future of technology, ethics, society, government and culture.
Brilliant article! Though the philosophical justifications given by Nyaya are easily recognizable as primitive and irrelevant for people familiar with the state of the art in philosophy, dharmic apologists are blissfully unaware of the need for having a strong epistemic base before making decreeing what is true and what is not. They revel in the maya of tautologies (as you have repeatedly shown in the article) and think that being intoxicated with ignorance is moksha and attaining knowledge about nature is an illusion.
Also, what is funny is that these apologists foolishly try to muddle Vedas with science without understanding the epistemic rigor that science has and how it makes their claims look obviously nonsensical. Christian and Islamic apologists already understand the demands put up by science and have taken the logical step – science denial. The Sanatana Dharmics can learn a thing or two from those Christians and Muslims.
This is the second and concluding part in a Tribute to great Indian Atheists. Part I can be found here.
These videos are Nirmukta’s contribution towards the OUT CAMPAIGN, urging Atheists from all walks of life to come out about their non-belief to friends and family.
You may have heard the nonsensical phrase, “Kerala, God’s Own Country”. But have you stopped to think what this phrase actually means? Is it just a symbolic gesture adopted by the Kerala tourism department, or does it have any meaningful significance that goes beyond the symbolism? Does this childish caricature of a wonderfully complex land, its fantastic culture and its rich biodiversity do justice to the real thing?
Here’s my take on this issue:
The government-sponsored populist propaganda that Kerala is god’s own country is not just simply wrong. It is also unashamedly short-sighted and pompously arrogant.
The phrase is so pathetically unoriginal that it takes a special kind of moron to subscribe to it. The original slogan “God’s Own Country” has been in use by New Zealanders since the late 19th century. The state government of Kerala, in a stroke of prideful fatheadedness, stole the factually deficient phrase composed by a long dead Kiwi settler, and appropriated it to represent a thriving democratic Indian state comprised of the most literate populace in the country. In the process Kerala became the Indian state that proudly professes the stupidity of it’s elected officials whenever its tourism department airs its promotional ads on the national and international stage.
Kerala is a land filled with spectacular natural beauty. Anyone who considers this fact to be less meaningful and inspiring than an appeal to an imaginary entity is a dumbfuck.
Kerala has the highest suicide rate. high unemployment among its educated population. one could term it unemployable society. a population riddled with addictions, vices and crime. politically in a state of chaos. hardly any improvement in the infrastructure, nor any growth rate. the state lives on money-order economy. a society that is in a state of decay … there you go … only god could have created all this!
Ajita Kamal
2:30 PM on November 8, 2010
Permalink | Reply
One of my favourite places to watch the night sky is this.. http://www.visitpottercounty.com/static/index.cfm?contentID=67
sigh.. Potter County PA.. Its also ‘Gods country’. It just gets tiring man, and I lapse into my pet peeve.. “Democracy..you necessary evil.. you put morons in power”
BTW Ajita, you wisea$$, you tricked me into following your link for ‘dumbfuck’ , and what does Urban DIctionary say?
“If you are reading this, you are probably a dumbfuck.”
LOL..
Ajita Kamal
2:23 PM on November 12, 2010
Permalink | Reply
LOL didn’t really think it through before linking to UD
Weirdly fascinating to know that even in the Northeast US, you see this God’s Country bullshit. Of course, the county officials will falsely claim that this god they refer to is generic and so its evocation doesn’t violate the first amendment.
I am sure, Kumar has nothing much to expand…………….Kerala is one of the only States in India, which can claim some kind of equality. Unemployment is the bye product of the leftist movement, which originated in the struggle for eqality…….Respect it guys……don’t be so ignorant to History….talk about history instead of Parasurama and his axe……….
Max Naluparayil
2:47 PM on January 13, 2011
Permalink | Reply
The explanation given by my mother (who is a Keralite) and from another coinciding source is that:
Myth has it that Kerala was created by Parasurama (an avatar of God) when he tossed his axe dripping with the blood of his mother, over the Western Ghats Mountain into the sea. He was asked to decapitate his mother by his father over an allegation of adultery. Parasurama chopped off his mother’s head and this pleased his father so much that he granted him any wish he wanted. He promptly asked for his mother to be brought back to life and it was granted. However Parasurama felt so bad after this that he tossed his favorite weapon to the sea and renounced violence once and for all. However the sea which is depicted as a Goddess didn’t want to receive the spooky axe and receded creating the land of Kerala.
For the current times, this phrase can be used as a cultural distinction. While we do despise religion, let culture not be an unjust victim and get caught in the crossfire.
Thanks!
Ajita Kamal
9:08 PM on January 13, 2011
Permalink | Reply
As has been discussed numerous times here and elsewhere, most of us freethought activists are in fact involved in relegating myths in culture to the realm of mythology, and building social narratives in our culture that are based on science and reason. Indian culture is a victim of superstition today. It is those of us who care about the truth who must liberate culture from such nonsense.
In any case, the mythology is simply being used as an excuse here, to support the nonsensical use of the phrase ‘God’s Own Country’, since the origin of the use of the phrase by the KTD is recent, as I have pointed out in the article. It was born off the unimaginative act of ripping off an old Kiwi slogan.
kumar pradeeksha
9:04 AM on September 15, 2011
Permalink | Reply
what is happening in kerala now a days.if it is gods own country,what is the definition of god.if there is god or any super natural power religious people and gods men never do such things happening in God’s own country.
Extremism everywhere…….On one side religious extremism and on the other……rational extremism………What a Pity……Guys……God’s own country is a slogan built by an Ad agency for Kerala Tourism……..BTW, Kerala is not a bad place to live……cool guys.
Dear Arvind…………your words are also spilling some kind of extremism, or intolerance. The the picture is perhaps your perception, and I respect that…….But, let me be honest. I hate any kind of extremism……..Unfortunately, any organized movement spills their ideology with so much of intolerance……….and let us not do that. Now, talk about Science…….According to antropologists like Dr.Alice Roberts, man perhaps originated in Africa, according to the avaiilable evidence………then, when did this concept of GOD come in…….Let’s share your knowledge on human evolution. Regards
If the anthropology or religion is your interest, that is the subject of the beginning of this earlier post (among many others) and as for the perennial controversy on what the word ‘god’ must be used to connote, here’s yet another article on this very site.
Atheists have contributed much to India’s growth and success. It’s time all Indian Atheists felt rightfully proud of the accomplishments of Indian Atheists and their service to our country.
Great job Ajita! I hope to see Kamal Hassan and many others in the next one
Ajita Kamal
4:42 PM on October 29, 2010
Permalink | Reply
Thanks Aditya. Definitely!
astrokid.nj
10:34 PM on October 30, 2010
Permalink | Reply
Terrific video..great music too.
I didnt know about some of the famous people from several decades ago, as well as the younger generation (Bhutia, Kiran Desai)
Ajita Kamal
10:32 PM on October 31, 2010
Permalink | Reply
Thank you.
baijuramdas
3:12 PM on November 7, 2010
Permalink | Reply
Great Job………. Want to see world famous people like Warren Buffet, Bruce Lee, Edison etc….
Satish, 
Anirudh, 
Arvind Iyer and 10 others are discussing. 
bijay, 
aragorn and 7 others are discussing. 
sreejith, 
Bala B, 
Ajita Kamal and 7 others are discussing. 
Balasubramaniam and one other person are discussing. 
Julius is discussing. 
Anil, 
donatello, 
baijuramdas and 2 others are discussing. 
Satish 2:02 PM on June 4, 2011 Permalink |
Right on, Ajita! These hindu apologists are so blinded by their hatred of Islam that they can’t see that the criticisms of Islam they so very “bravely” and “valiantly” levy, at “great risk”, also apply to the beliefs they hold.
abrahim 2:10 PM on June 4, 2011 Permalink |
its is but natural to fear violent consequences when one uses the free-speech on things like religion. in my understanding its just the natural law of ‘taking the path of least resistance’ . . but more importantly since majority of religions have similar fundamental foolishness at their base, by discrediting one it becomes easier to go for the next in line. so if moses is discredited as a ‘messenger of god’ then case against christianity and islam becomes stronger . .
and since the atheist movement isn’t a dictatorship or something enforced using brute force, but something which propagates through exchange of ideas it is best to adopt an approach/route which allows us to first engage with those who can ‘listen & talk’ , not those who ‘listen and then kill’ ! ! !
but be rest assured . . . sooner or later , reason always prevails
Ajita Kamal 2:38 PM on June 4, 2011 Permalink |
Actually there is plenty of criticism of Islam in general, and more than its share in India given the % of Muslims in India. So I don’t think the “taking the path of least resistance” applies to our activism. Indeed, at every turn we seem to be taking the path that leads to direct confrontation with the beliefs of those most entrenched in religion!
Also, its a false premise that atheist activism requires the believers to listen to us. There are many other rational and humane solutions to the issues that concern us, including legal means and provoking thought through shame and cultural exclusion. We need a pluralistic approach when dealing with religion.
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/5414-is-richard-dawkins-arrogant-ridicule-passion-and-the-new-atheists
Charvak 1:27 AM on June 5, 2011 Permalink |
Neat Job Ajita! I like it.
Dr.H.N.Patwari 3:55 AM on June 5, 2011 Permalink |
Excellent article!I believe that Nirmukta/Indian atheists are honest and sincere and their credentials,practice and perception about all religions are logical.They are genuinly secular.Since Hindu religion happens to be major religion in India,it is quite logical that in comparison ,there is more writeup against Hinduism.Anyhow as for as ground situation is concerned,there are pseudo secularists who can be classified into two groups.”Hindu secularists”who are in forefront to condemn and criticize Islamic fundamentalism only and “Muslim secularists”who leave no stone unturned to offer their criticizm against Hindu fundamentalism.So called communists are classified example of second brand of secularists,who present their best rhetoric against ‘U.S.imperialism’ and ‘reactionary-communal-fundamentalist’ forces,yet they never speak against Bin ladinism.They did not accord permission to Taslima Nasreen for her temporary stay in West Bengal.Their publications testify and reflect their regressive mindset.Your contribution in this regard is appreciable.Keep it up.
Likhesh 6:11 AM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
It is quite strange that my first post in Delhi freethinkers is in opposition of Ajita Kamal though i myself is part of freethinking movement in Bangalore (particularly IISc); but i justify it because one this is first active thread i encountered on the page and reply by Ajita has serious flaws in it
Let me start with this
1)
//The plain truth is that this moron making the argument doesn’t really care whether we criticize Islam or not, because if he really did he would have searched on our site and found more than 40 articles that are critical of Islam//
Really laughable and sad comment, because if you follow the “more than 40 articles” links (which is just the tag search for Islam on Nirmukta website) and just see what appears you would realize that among these “more than 40 articles” only 3-4 actually criticize Islam.
in fact in this search you will find this article also
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/
which is shamelessly apologetic for Islam
2)
Another interesting feature of the article by Ajita is choice of words (rather gems) for example
//you are just plain stupid//
, //this moron making the argument//,
//yours, is childish behavior//.
//To those who engage in such behavior, grow the f*^! up.//
though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks.
3)
Now about the “good reasons why Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more ”, first the apparent self-contradiction, the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism and in the end shoots himself in the foot by accepting that //Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity// and not only that goes on with flawed analogy of Italy (dear sir in Italy Christian are 92% and hindus 0.2% ratio of 1:460 while in India Hindus to Muslim ratio is 1:6 i.e two orders of magnitude more); heights of irrationality!
4)
Also if we examine why “Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity”
in comment section of the referred article somebody named Kafir has posted an excellent criticism.
//Kaafir says:
April 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm
More than 80% of the Indian population is Hindu. Naturally, more than 80% of our criticism would also be directed against the belief system of Hindus.
=>
A more rational/logical explanation should be the negative impact, damage and number of disruptive events in the society/world caused by adherents of a particular religion. Missing the forest for the trees isn’t helpful.
=>
Second is my familiarity with the religion I was born into. I am more familiar with the beliefs, tenets, rituals, and practices of Hinduism than that of any other religion, and hence I am more confident in criticizing it.
=>
With so much diversity in tenets, beliefs and rituals of Hinduism as well as so many different schools of philosophy which would take some considerable time and effort to study and understand, your familiarity only applies to a very small section of the population. Besides, in my experience, what I’ve found is that most people “rejected” Hinduism based only on their personal negative experience, or because they were forced by their elders to do certain rituals. Extending your specific knowledge to the entire population of Indian Hindus is not rational or logical, and is fraught with inaccuracy.
=>
Third, there is a possibility that the liberalization or secularization of the religion of the majority in a country has a positive impact on the religion of the minority itself.
=>
History does not bear this out completely, given that both Islam and Christianity have been in India for centuries. Yes, Sufism can be cited as an example, but today, even that is being threatened by the Wahabbi strain from outside – we don’t exist in a bubble. Besides, wasn’t it the secular and pluralistic nature of Hinduism that allowed people of different religions to find shelter in India and continue practicing their religion (Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, Dalai Lama), as well as allowed different philosophical schools within Hinduism to flourish and co-exist?
=>
Fourth, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold.
=>
=>
There is some merit to this argument, assuming that the community is open to criticism from inside, and there’s no concept like ‘fitna’ to prevent community members from speaking out and implementing progressive changes. Yet, if you are a Hindu (given that you are part of that community), what’s the basis of your Hindu identity, if not religion? If you consider yourself an Indian and an atheist, then it shouldn’t matter whether you criticize Hindus, Muslims, Baha’is or Sikhs – all are fair game since they’re all Indians, and with access to the internet, lack of knowledge about their tenets or customs or beliefs is not a valid excuse anymore. And if someone could write “Rangeela Rasool” decades ago when there was no internet…
The fifth and most important reason is the brutal fact that the Hindu fundamentalist forces (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, etc) have been on the rise since the late 1970s.
=>
Correct. But have you given some thought to the conditions that made it possible for their ascendancy, and who created those conditions, and whether those conditions still exist or not? If you did, it’s not evident in your post. (Hint: so-called “secularism” that was added to the constitution during Emergency as well as its perverted application by all political parties, with Congress showing the path – yet your post doesn’t even mention Congress. Is that rational? Do you by any chance vote for Congress or are sympathetic to it?)
An atheist is an atheist – you seem to be making categories of atheists based on religion.
=>
Are you sure that you didn’t leave out some very obvious reasons (”elephant in the living room,” as they say) for why you don’t criticize Muslims in India and only stick to Hindus?
Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.
Here’s what I think:
1. Universal application of the concept of secularism needs to happen. Currently, its meaning as well as application is nothing but perverted, with all political parties indulging in it.
2. Law-and-order situation needs to change and become stricter.
3. Better journalistic standards – readers jump to conclusions based on faulty and biased reporting.
Once these three are in order, you won’t need to write a post justifying why you only criticize Hinduism, and will be free to criticize any religion//
5)
Finally, to clarify i am not a Islam basher by hobby or any religion basher for that matter; personally i think it is too boring and too easy. But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.
Ajita Kamal 9:00 AM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
“ just see what appears you would realize that among these “more than 40 articles” only 3-4 actually criticize Islam. ”
Wrong, there are actually 50 articles in the link I posted, because these articles are under the tag Islam. Like I say in the article, over 40 of those are critical of Islam. Going from 40 to 3-4 shows your willingness to distort the truth.
“in fact in this search you will find this article also
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/
which is shamelessly apologetic for Islam ”
Really? There are quotes from the article:
“The unprecedented rise of Islamist fundamentalism in today’s world is a fact. ”
“The Islamic theology do inspire these Islamic terrorists in unleashing homicidal attacks against innocents (not only non-Muslims, but even Muslims who do not share their barbarian views) ”
“It is true, Islam’s holy-book, the Koran, contains verses intolerant of other points of view, which are being selectively used by the peddlers of violence. “
This is what you Likesh consider being shamelessly apologetic of Islam? That one article you pointed out has as defending islam attacks Islam more than you have done in your post. But there is someone else being a shameless apologist here. It is you.
So it seems you are not really concerned that the article doesn’t criticize Islam, because it clearly does. What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. So you are essentially a Hindu apologist.
“though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks. ”
Rational discussion? Do you see any names mentioned? This article wasn’t rational discussion. It was ridicule, made with the intention of having a laugh at some stupid arguments.
“ the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism ”
Nope. All I’m arguing is that we are critical of Islam. No equivalence is necessary. You are creating a straw man by. There is much more need to criticize Hinduism in India today. The stupid and ignorant argument I was responding to was that we DO NOT criticize Islam.
“flawed analogy of Italy ” “(dear sir in Italy Christian are 92% and hindus 0.2% ratio of 1:460 while in India Hindus to Muslim ratio is 1:6 i.e two orders of magnitude more); heights of irrationality! ”
This is just ignorance. I think you are not aware of what an analogy is. The point is to convey the relationship, not the exact values involved. Indian Atheists criticize Islam orders of magnitude more than Italian Atheists criticize Hinduism. How is it that you do not factor that in? But your willingness to bring up this false argument instead of seeing the analogy for what it is clearly marks you as a Hindu apologist.
The comments of someone else to some other article I will ignore. If you’re interested in taking it up with whoever wrote those article, go ahead. I’m not wasting my time responding to arguments made against someone else’s comments.
“Do you consider Muslims as Indians?”
Not all Muslims are Indians, I’m pretty sure.
“If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead.”
Who the hell are you to tell me what I SHOULD do? Why the hell do you assume we are leaving any community7 behind? I know, because you read an article critical of Islam like above. but ignore all the criticism of Islam and only see the criticism of Hinduism. Have you built any such partnerships?
“Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.”
Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons. But I know where you’re coming from. You can’t help but differentiate between ex-Muslim atheists and yourself. In any case, you get some ex-Muslim writers to join Nirmukta. Go ahead, don’t let us stop you. Why is it that you are responding so aggressively to criticism of Hinduism but are not actually doing anything that would add value?
“Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?”
Did you read the article? Because you’re repeating something that was laughed at.
“Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe?”
No. As we have made clear multiple times on Nirmukta, if you were really interested in anything except defending Hinduism, you’d know that we are constantly stressing on the distinction between people and ideas. We criticize ideas, but never attack people as a whole. Now, of course we attack individuals. For example, like in these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACCPWVS967Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mkfm25ID-U
“1. Universal application of the concept of secularism needs to happen. Currently, its meaning as well as application is nothing but perverted, with all political parties indulging in it.”
Sure, but I don’t see how you are doing that. I have, on the other hand, argued flatly against religion and have written many articles that present a flat criticism of all of religion. Please do something and point to it before assuming that others haven’t done anything in that regard.
“2. Law-and-order situation needs to change and become stricter.”
No doubt.
“3. Better journalistic standards – readers jump to conclusions based on faulty and biased reporting.”
This is very true.
“Once these three are in order, you won’t need to write a post justifying why you only criticize Hinduism, and will be free to criticize any religion”
Straw man. Even after reading the entire article you seem to think it is about “justifying why you only criticize Hinduism”. This clearly points to the fact that you are identifying with the Hindu religion and are being an apologist for it. The entire point of the article was to point out that Islam gets its fair share of the criticism. Yet you still see it as Hindu bashing. You need to see why you are biased first. I am not biased in any way for form. In fact, when I started out with Nirmukta I was more critical of Islam than Hinduism, but it is the pseudo-secularists like you who have showed me that there needs to be a lot more criticis of Hinduism.
“5) Finally, to clarify i am not a Islam basher by hobby or any religion basher for that matter;”
Really, you could have fooled me. It seems that all you are interested in is bashing Islam and excusing Hinduism.
“But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.”
So I guess you should read back your own comment objectively, because not only is it filled with bad arguments, it is pathetically biased.
Likhesh 1:54 AM on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
1. //Wrong, there are actually 50 articles in the link I posted, because these articles are under the tag Islam. Like I say in the article, over 40 of those are critical of Islam. Going from 40 to 3-4 shows your willingness to distort the truth.//
Below, I simply sample articles from the first page of your link. See for yourself how many of them are critical of Islam (in fact, I am bewildered how they were even tagged with the label ‘’Islam” with such titles):
An Alternative To Lokpal System To Deal With Corruption
Stress, The Mind, Belief Systems And Mental Blocks
A New Belief System For The Young Men And Women Of India
Delhi Freethinkers’ Meet – Sunday, March 27, 2011
Zakir Naik Doesn’t Understand Atheism
Managing Life Without God and Religion In The Twenty First Century – Prologue
Buddha, The Sensible Rationalist!
The Great Hero Who Conquered Karma
Keeping The Spotlight On
Philosophy With Selvi #2 – Understanding Logic
2. //This is what you Likesh consider being shamelessly apologetic of Islam? That one article you pointed out has as defending islam attacks Islam more than you have done in your post.//
Instead of quote mining from Manoj’s article as you did, I present paragraph-by-paragraph conclusions from it:
a) First paragraph: Rise of Islamism & Hindutva/Imperialist US is equivalent
b) The second paragraph: period of Islamic violence is relatively recent
c) The third paragraph: Koran is of little importance in explaining Islamism
d) Fourth, fifth, and sixth (excluding quotes): Arabia and Islam had a glorious past
e) The second-last paragraph is the meatiest of all: fundamentalism is ‘just a phase’
f) The author tut-tuts us to be more tolerant
To sum up, the article feigns equivalence between Islamism and other ideologies, harps on the glories of past and downplays the role of Koran in inspiring violence (don’t forget the breath-taking assertion that the “US trained the Taliban”). If you don’t think that is apologist, you are either very bad at inferential reasoning (i.e., comprehension), or don’t know what the word apologist means, or both.
3. //What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. So you are essentially a Hindu apologist.//
Is that who an apologist is?
4. //This is just ignorance. I think you are not aware of what an analogy is. The point is to convey the relationship, not the exact values involved. **Indian Atheists criticize Islam orders of magnitude more than Italian Atheists criticize Hinduism**.//
The last sentence is supposed to be proving the closeness of your analogy?
5. //The comments of someone else to some other article I will ignore. If you’re interested in taking it up with whoever wrote those article, go ahead. I’m not wasting my time responding to arguments made against someone else’s comments.//
And yet you go ahead replying to those very comments. You obviously missed the, “//Kaafir says:
April 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm” in my post above. That shows me what a careful reader you are. Little wonder about your comprehension skills then.
6. In response to the following suggestion (by Kaafir’s misattributed to me): “…you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead.”
You garbled:
//Why the hell do you assume we are leaving any community7 behind? I know, because you read an article critical of Islam like above. but ignore all the criticism of Islam and only see the criticism of Hinduism.//
So according to you, I was worried that you were leaving Muslims behind because you wrote an article critical of Islam. That should make me a Muslim sympathiser, shouldn’t it? At the same time, I am a Hindu fanatic because I ignored all that worrying criticism. You accuse me of far greater split-brained feats than your multiple-personality responses in #7 show you to be.
7. The difference in your answers when (you thought) you replied to me and when you replied to Kaafir speaks volumes about your state of mind. For example, in response to Kaafir’s suggestion to “Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta”, you replied initially (to him):
//I specifically targeted ex-Muslims and women writers in order to create a balance, even if it was to be a contrived balance.//
You replied to me:
//Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons.//
In the previous case, you assumed that the referent for the word “Muslim” is ex-Muslims. In the later comment you show no such charity while ranting like a schoolmarm.
8. //…if you were really interested in anything except defending Hinduism.//
Please quote any sentence where I have even remotely defended Hinduism. No wonder you think I am an apologist (on second thought, I am attributing to much knowledge to you; I don’t think you really know the technical meaning of apologetics as is clear in item. #3).
9. //It seems that all you are interested in is bashing Islam and excusing Hinduism.//
Again, where have I bashed Islam? Quote me one sentence. Even if I am interested in bashing Islam, to say that I am excusing Hinduism, is nothing but conjunction fallacy. Finally, it proves the irony of your comment:
//…you should read back your own comment objectively, because not only is it filled with bad arguments, it is pathetically biased.//
Ajita Kamal 2:53 AM on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
OK, I finally have some time to reply to your comment properly. Here goes.
1. “Below, I simply sample articles from the first page of your link. See for yourself how many of them are critical of Islam (in fact, I am bewildered how they were even tagged with the label ‘’Islam” with such titles)”
So you just read titles and make up your mind. Makes sense why your arguments are nonsensical and biased. Read the damn articles. By the way, are you the Hindu apologist who posted the stupid comments that are being criticized in the article? Because in the article I didn’t say the posts on Nirmukta are tagged with Islam, but I mistakenly did that when initially responding to the comments on Facebook. If you are, then I understand why you entered this conversation attacking me personally, as though the article was a personal attack on you. It still makes you a Hindu apologist. In fact a bigger one, going by the comments I was responding to in the article. But I won’t assume. I just think it odd that you think the articles were tagged with Islam, especially when the top of the page says “Search Results | ‘islam’”.
The fact is, the articles are actually not tagged with ‘Islam’. As I said in the article, if you search on the site you’ll find these articles. And about 40 of them criticize Islam. Of course, not all of them are written with the explicit point of criticism Islam only. Criticism of Islam may be made in passing, but criticism of Islam is made.
And if you had bothered to read the articles instead of making assumptions from the titles, you’d know if Islam is actually mentioned and/or criticized in all of them. And around 40 of them are critical of Islam. There are a few more on this site, Indianatheists.com. Here are the ones from the first page, that you claim to be bewildered by without bother to read.
1. http://nirmukta.com/2011/04/30/an-alternative-to-lokpal-system-to-deal-with-corruption/
“We read elsewhere how the enormous ill-gotten wealth in some of those temple-casinos invited Islamic invaders from Afghanistan to India. No one questioned why their gods did not protect them when Islamic invaders chopped off heads of thousands of Brahmins and hundreds of thousands of civilians; looted and destroyed their temple-casinos, and hauled off enormous wealth to their own countries.”
2. http://nirmukta.com/2011/04/10/stress-the-mind-belief-systems-and-mental-blocks/
This one criticizes contemporary Hindu fundamentalists, for their hatred of Muslims because of past Islamic atrocities. Of course, this is not criticism of Islam directly, but somehow very appropriate here…wonder why.
“The real reason is that they want to wreak vengeance against Muslims for the misdeeds of Islamic kings centuries ago, such as Ala-ud-Din Khilji (ruled 1296- 1316) and Aurangzeb (ruled 1658-1707).”
3. http://nirmukta.com/2011/03/25/a-new-belief-system-for-the-young-men-and-women-of-india/
“We read in my articles on the Gita how during the medieval times temples in places such as Somanath and Mathura amassed enormous wealth, which attracted Islamic invaders from Northwest. This led to a thousand years of foreign rule, and devastation, decimation and destitution of India.”
4. http://nirmukta.com/2011/03/14/delhi-freethinkers-meet-sunday-march-27-2011/
(This one mentioned Islam as part of an address, so let’s exclude it)
5. http://nirmukta.com/2011/02/19/zakir-naik-doesnt-understand-atheism/
This one is obvious. I posted this and another video of Naik that I made, both of which are extremely critical of Islam.
6. http://nirmukta.com/2011/02/09/managing-life-without-religion-in-the-twenty-first-century/
This one is critical of 3 major religions, but of course you will only see the criticism of Hinduism.
“Swamis and Gurus of Hinduism, Ulamas and Mullahs of Islam, and Priests and Pastors of Christianity have diligently taught their followers various rituals, and reinforced them over the centuries, because they are profitable for them and their institutions.”
7. http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-the-sensible-rationalist/
“the rise of Islamic kingdoms” mentioned as one of the causes of the demise of Buddhism in India. And yes, we have also been critical of Buddhism.
“Islamic invasion of India was instigated by the enormous wealth accumulated by various temples. Ghazni and Ghori kings came to India to loot only because Brahmins told people to donate wealth to those temples. Waves after waves of invaders came to India lured by the illicit wealth of temples. 8 centuries of Islamic rule, and devastation followed.”
“Our abhorrence of the machinations of dominant social leadership, whether it be Brahmin, Christian or Islamic has its rightful place in argument and analysis.”
8. http://nirmukta.com/2010/12/07/the-great-hero-who-conquered-karma/
(Excluded- This one is not critical of Islam)
9. http://nirmukta.com/2010/10/24/keeping-the-spotlight-on/
(Excluded- This one is not critical of Islam)
10. http://nirmukta.com/2010/10/06/philosophy-with-selvi-understanding-logic/
The comic strip satirizes Islamic apologists, pointing out Islamic’s terrible history of misogyny.
So, that’s 7 out of the first 10 articles of a total of 50 that are critical of Islam, and if you extrapolate to 50 and count the ones here that’s around 40 articles critical of Islam. Of course you can be pedantic on this point and spend your time going through all articles. I’m done. The point has been made. We criticize Islam. You haven’t done so yourself, and yet find fauly with us for not doing it more. I never intended to go into each article, because I know we’re not biased in our criticism of religion. And now having wasted my time on this nonsense, I am going to move on.
And don’t accuse me of quote mining the above articles. See below for why you’d be wrong.
2. “Instead of quote mining from Manoj’s article as you did, I present paragraph-by-paragraph conclusions from it”
Do you know the meaning of “quote mining”? It is not quote mining to present points from an article that were alleged to not be there. That is, I am responding to an argument that says there is no criticism of Islam. All I need to do is pick a quote to show that there indeed is criticism of Islam.
Like all religious apologists, you are twisting the context to defend your chosen religious identity. Your criticism of Manoj’s article was that it doesn’t “actually criticize Islam”. I presented points from the article that clearly do criticize Islam. And then you summarize each paragraph to exclude the criticism of Islam. Now who is being disingenuous?
3. “Is that who an apologist is?”
Look it up.
4. “The last sentence is supposed to be proving the closeness of your analogy?”
No, it is meant to show your bias. Again, the point of the analogy is clear to anyone who is not biased.
5. “That shows me what a careful reader you are.”
I know not all Hindu apologists are incapable of understanding that one can selectively respond to some irrelevant nonsense, but obviously some are.
6. “That should make me a Muslim sympathiser, shouldn’t it?”
Nope.
“At the same time, I am a Hindu fanatic.”
I didn’t say that. You seem to think apologist means fanatic. Quoting you, “That shows me what a careful reader you are.”
7. “The difference in your answers when (you thought) you replied to me and when you replied to Kaafir speaks volumes about your state of mind. For example, in response to Kaafir’s suggestion to “Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta”, you replied initially (to him):
//I specifically targeted ex-Muslims and women writers in order to create a balance, even if it was to be a contrived balance.//
You replied to me:
//Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons.//”
Firstly, Kaafir wasn’t responding to an article that clearly demonstrated that we were critical of Islam. He was also a Hindu apologist like you, but he was commenting on our site during its early days, before I had heard that argument a hundred times from you Hindu apologists. My patience hadn’t worn thin at that time.
But what’s amusing is that your argument seems to be “you’re being harsher to me than to that other guy”. Perhaps because you deserve it more because of the context?
There is no inconsistency in content here either. You want me to use the same answer every time? The concept is the same. I point out that we feature ex-religious persons, not religious persons. Both you and Kafir show that you are incapable of looking at ex-Muslims objectively as atheists. To you they will always be the “other”, because you are prejudiced against them.
8. “Please quote any sentence where I have even remotely defended Hinduism.”
Did I say you defended Hinduism explicitly? This is a false argument- I have to point you to a case where you explicitly defended Hinduism- I am not allowed to make a logical inference from the facts.
Are you so incapable of self-analysis to the point where you are blind to the implicit defense of Hinduism throughout your comments? I have made it amply clear that I am opposed to Islam, and that Hindu apologists often say we aren’t. And you are here attacking me for somehow not attacking Islam. Why? Is it not obvious to you that the reason you are here is to defend Hinduism implicitly and nothing else? Why else are you commenting here? And don’t fool yourself into thinking its because you’re logical scientific mind simply cannot stand to see an illogical argument. Even if my arguments are illogical, which they are not, there is plenty of much more illogical nonsense that you could be spending your valuable time coming up with fallacious arguments to. The only reason you are here is because you are a Hindu apoligist and seem to be unable to take criticism of Hinduism.
“No wonder you think I am an apologist.”
No wonder.
As I mentioned before, you are free to actually construct a coherent argument against any particular religion. Despite the fact that I have had Hinduism pushed in my face all the time, and that personally I have been negatively affected a lot more because of Hindu beliefs, I am objective enough to criticize Islam a lot. I have written articles and made videos criticizing Islam. What have you done criticizing Islam, other than attack other atheists who do criticize Islam?
When the article clearly points out so many instances of criticizing Islam, actually goes much farther than the quoted comments that it was referring to by actually criticizing the “prophet” of the Muslims and satirizing him without the fear that the comment smeared all atheists with, and even goes so far as to offer a platform for those who present coherent and reasoned criticism of Islam, you see us attacking Hinduism and not attacking Islam. This is being a Hindu apologist in context. You are clearly defending Hinduism implicitly, and using a lot of deception to pretend as though you’re not and that your interests are objective and fair. Bullshit.
9. “Again, where have I bashed Islam?”
I said you are interested in bashing Islam, not that you have bashed Islam (even though anyone can see that you are implicitly bashing Islam). But why are you scared of bashing Islam explicitly? Even now when I bring it up, you run. Are you a coward, scared to criticize Islam, while being a hypocrite and Hindu apologist attacking others who criticize Islam by saying that they do not and that they just attack Hinduism?
I am all for Islam bashing. What you are doing is saying that I should do it more, and that I’m not doing it enough. What I’m saying is that I bash Islam and I bash Hinduism. I bash all religious systems.
“to say that I am excusing Hinduism, is nothing but conjunction fallacy.”
Wrong again. Please do a little more reading before you go around misapplying fallacies to logical inferences. There is clear (even if only implied) evidence that your presence here is solely motivated by your desire to defend Hinduism. But even if it wasn’t, the conjunction fallacy would be irrelevant because the fallacy applies to making the claim that the likelihood of two events is greater than that of either one of them. Your invocation of the fallacy is a false conclusion, making your statement a non sequitur.
Finally, a little note on personal attacks.
My article was shrill and confrontational. But it wasn’t directed at you. No people were names. No one was personally attacked.
You on the other hand, entered the conversation with an extremely confrontational set of personal attacks, and have continued spewing them in your second comment. Too bad that your ego is so delicate that it can’t take a bit of logical refutation. But I’m done talking with you.
Anirudh 2:18 AM on April 16, 2012 Permalink
//What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. //
I don’t think that’s what he finds wrong. The title of the article says it all. This is an article aimed at explaining to people the author sees as “Hindu apologists” why he criticizes Hinduism the most. The tone of the article is : Yes Islam has its problems, but look it had it’s period of glory and it’s no worse than your religion is.
I will leave it to viewers with an objective mind to judge whether the above looks like something written by a critic or an apologist of Islam.
Ajita Kamal 9:12 AM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
The point is this. We are actually equally critical of all religious ideologies. But it is you Hindu apologists who are in our face the most. There wouldn’t have been a need to write this article if you weren’t, and there wouldn’t have been a need to respond to your apologetic comments if you were capable of being objective and actually contributing to the conversation. Like I said in the article, if you want to see criticism of Islam, write an article after doing your research. Don’t simply defend Hinduism by labeling all our actions as only attacking Hinduism. If you keep defending Hinduism, we will have no choice but to keep attacking Hinduism. This is the simple truth.
Satish 12:20 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/
which is shamelessly apologetic for Islam
So what criticism do you consider as not shamelessly apologetic for Islam? Narendra Modi’s kind of criticism?
though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks.
Yes there is nothing wrong in calling people names, especially when the premise of the article is ridicule.
first the apparent self-contradiction, the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism
Pray tell us from where did you got that idea. The article was a response to “Teh atheists are afraid of criticizing of Islam”. It doesn’t say it criticizes Islam in the same amount that it does Hinduism.
As to Kaafirs comment,
Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
Nirmukta community has some parallels to the open source communities. For example somebody who uses Linux, but doesn’t contribute anything to the community feels so entitled that he wants the community to do what he wants. At that point the community bluntly tells him to STFU and be the change he wants to be. Kaafir reminds me of such a person.
Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
Too bad Kaafir didn’t stick around to see this. I wonder if he would have done the same. Put up his real name publicly and post those images.
Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.
Again, the sense of entitlement. Who’s stopping Kaafir from posting his criticisms of Islam?
But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.
By your own admission, you are new to group. You did not understand the context of the article, did not want to ask other members, but went straight ahead and did the very same thing the hindu apologist did i.e. misrepresent what this community does.
abrahim 1:40 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
after reading all these mail exchanges i am not sure if i am sitting in the right group. Atheism to me is a very personal matter which allows me to view things for what they are and allows me to be fair, rational and also do justice to my degrees in science.
What folks on this platform seem to be fighting abt is the social aspect of religion and associated communities.
I dont have anything against any religion till it tries to influence the day-to-day life of individuals in a way that rational thinking takes a bak foot. the problems associated with religions are those which stem from ‘communities’ . . for example talking about islam. . i can guarantee that no follower of sufi islam will ever harm anybdy in the name of jihad or simillar bullshit. all the crooks u see blasting their way around are the ‘wahabis’ or those who are follower of that tribal social system in the middle east which saw the birth of this religion. Sufis dont even advocate or make it cmplsry tht a person follows the so called prophet or any religious practices for tht matter. wahabis on the other hand will try to dictate EVERYTHING in your life , from the size and nature of ur garment to the length of ur beard ! ! and FYI there are no ‘kafirs’ in Sufism . . .
similarly i am yet to come across any violent buddhist for tht matter. the fighting in srilanka was not between buddhism and hinduism . but the srilankan community and the tamil community . . so lets be clear on whts religion and whats community.
also I believe that there is no good gained by name calling and the worst thing you can do to the rational cause is call names to the central figures associated with religions which will guarantee not only instant backlash in form of violence from hot-heads but may also land you in legal troubles.
Instead what i do is confront the practices associated with religions that are pure nonsense by the scientific/critical evaluation. things like horoscopes, astrology, muhurats, vaastu, eating habits, kosher etc etc are weakest points of religions and i dont let go of any chance to blast these at the first opportunity. i agree it may not turn ppl into atheists over night but at least there will be a chance that i wont find the barber’s shop closed on a tuesday ! !
I also question practices like ‘marriage within religion’ , naming a child on basis of parent’s religion, eating veg/non-veg in the name of religion, jhatka/halaal etc .. the list is quite long.
there is no point in trying to discredit mohd or christ or moses or any other person as you will never have sufficient data or authority to carry it thru. What you can do is question the practices and beliefs with reference to todays realities and needs. So I dont claim that full veil for women as introduced in tribal arab region about 1500yrs ago was a bad idea at that time . . .but i do say is that idea has dfnlty become a BAD idea in the 21st century and shud be scrapped/outlawed.
Judging and debating the creation of practices and ideas thousands of years back is a futile exercise, what should be done instead is to evaluate those against the needs of today an then condemn them.
And please forget about ‘demanding’ or even raising the point of equal blasting of diff religions by atheists . . yes, i am an atheist but i cannot disregard my personal safety cause of tht. Atheism decides on wht i believe in , and NOT whom i will lambaste. projecting my ideas infront of others is also governed by limits of decency, manners, laws and consideration for the feelings of others. A person who (may not be christian but has) had a life saving operation free of cost in a mother Teresa sponsored hospital will defntly NOt listen to any criticism of the catholics. . .
As i said I am an atheist but not at the cost of my social life or my physical well being. a dead man cannot be an atheist and the same is true for a socially dead individual. I voice my opinion in a way that the target audience listens to me and identify me as a thinker with a rationalistic mindset. Whether they agree with me or follow me is a secondary consideration.
Ajita Kamal 2:04 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
“Atheism to me is a very personal matter which allows me to view things for what they are and allows me to be fair, rational and also do justice to my degrees in science.”
That is compeltely fine. It is your personal preference. For me, Atheism can have a different personal significance. But I’m more than just an atheist. I am a freethinker, a humanist, a feminist, a naturalist, an Indian, and much much more.
Regarding your views on moderate religion, of course we are all capable of seeing nuance. But the arguments you make are not unanswered. There is a lot of material on the subject. So-called moderate religion prevents much progressive change and moral upliftment form happening. It perpetuates ignorance and forms the cauldron from which fundamentalists emerge and gain strength. Instead of looking upwards into the light it encourages us as a species to be blind to the wonders of the universe revealed to us through reason. Most importantly, Nirmukta doesn’t have a black/white view on religion as you seem to think. We have a nuanced perspective. Just as you see me argue against all religion, I have at various times argued against other atheists that we need to recognize that religions indeed have social benefits. Do not judge anyone by reading one article.
For example, here I argue about the social benefits that religion has conveyed on people, and that freethinkers should develop cultural alternatives to satify those emotional urges that bind us and make us find life worth living.
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/01/sacred-reason-reconciling-science-and-emotion/
Please read the section titled “Can Science Afford to Leave the Emotional Dimension to Religion?” to see that my understanding of facts are not very different from your own, except in a few small ways. I just believe that we can over time reduce the suffering caused by irrational superstitious beliefs.
And you are also mistaken in thinking that my position is that only ridicule is appropriate when dealing with religion. Ridicule is one of the ways in which you raise consciousness, in certain situations. This is a fact. Please read this article in which I argue for a pluralistic strategy in promoting reason.
http://nirmukta.com/2010/04/10/is-richard-dawkins-arrogant-ridicule-passion-and-the-new-atheists/
“What kinds of strategies should we take up when promoting science, critical thinking, naturalism and atheism? I submit that we must adopt a pluralistic strategy. Any single advocate for atheism cannot influence every type of individual who believes in the supernatural. This is obvious if you take into account how vastly different people are in their thinking.”
Finally, Nirmukta’s official position on religion is here:
http://indianatheists.com/religion/
“There is no doubt that some of the qualities that religions have conferred on humanity have served useful evolutionary functions in the past. But today, in almost every aspect of human culture that religion once held monopoly over, there lies the possibility of better, more effective and ethical alternatives that are the product of reason and compassion. Modern Freethought groups seek out these alternatives. Modern philosophies such as secular Humanism and certain socio-political forms of Naturalistic thought offer the most promising alternatives to religion today.
Some of the most essential functions that religions have traditionally provided involve social organization. Although today we seek out secular alternatives to these social roles filled previously by religion, creating social cohesion through celebration of secular culture remains the greatest challenge that we face going forward.
Building effective systems of thought to replace religious systems that are in place is an extremely complicated process. Between the ancient enlightenment periods in the East and the West, and the more modern and universal scientific enlightenment, it has taken a considerable amount of time and effort by the greatest minds that lived, for the ideas generated by reason and compassion to overcome some of the many religious ideas that served us during our primitive superstitious past. The designation of special status to religions has been a stifling impediment to the evolution of reason-based alternatives to any remaining beneficial properties that religions may have traditionally contained. As we fight these impediments, let us remember that there are great rewards to be found in providing replacements to religion. At a personal scale, these replacements provide Atheists and Freethinkers with social systems that bring them together and give them community- something that they have lacked in any meaningful form for much of human existence. The big picture view is that replacing religions with reason-based alternatives is the only way forward if we humans are to co-exist in a scientifically-literate future.”
Ajita Kamal 2:14 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
Also, in response to this statement:
“Instead what i do is confront the practices associated with religions that are pure nonsense by the scientific/critical evaluation. things like horoscopes, astrology, muhurats, vaastu, eating habits, kosher etc etc are weakest points of religions and i dont let go of any chance to blast these at the first opportunity.”
That is exactly what we have been doing as a team. Are you aware that this website is part of an organization promoting science and freethought in India? http://nirmukta.com
Are you aware that we have been working with professor Narendra Nayak, president of the federation of Indian Rationalist Associations for the past 2 and half years? Let me assure you, we are not unaware of these things, and have in fact written a lot about those things that you say that you criticize. Look at all of prof. Nayak’s blog posts, debunking frauds, astrology, quackery, godmen and all kinds of tricks used to con people. Look at all the articles we have written on superstitious beliefs and pseudoscientific nonsense. Look at our About-Us page.
And read this statement about who we are:
http://nirmukta.com/what-is-nirmukta-and-what-do-we-plan-to-do/
astrokid.nj 4:21 AM on June 16, 2011 Permalink |
I am glad that you are satisfied by getting the barber’s shop open on Tuesday, but some of us are after different goals. Atheism is just a stepping stone for me (at least), and there are lots of social evils and injustices that large segments of population are subjected to, and its that I am more interested in and passionately fighting for. Some atheistic groups dont mind legal troubles either, and in fact we are happy to fight battles legally as well.
As Ajita has mentioned in his reply, there is a plurality of approaches, and you will find some of us more passionate and into it. Dont let name calling put you off (what do you think, one has never been a moron about anything in life?), you need to see through it and look at the arguments. http://larianlequella.blogspot.com/2010/04/goldenmanes-third-rule-of-public.shtml
Arvind Iyer 6:18 AM on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
This post and its preceding one make an interesting juxtaposition that speaks to the unclear priorities in liberal public discourse. While pages and pages are being filled here, I present for the consideration of the commenters here a news item, which incidentally seems to be one of many,many issues we would rather expend our energies in:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/now-papalal-faces-heat-from-the-neighbours-110878
Hindus obsessing over what a true Hindu should be seem to suggest that adopting an orphan born in a different faith is un-Hindu. How about speaking out against this?
Muslims obsessing over how Muslim a four-year old (FOUR YEAR OLD!) should be seem to suggest that an adoption on humanitarian grounds regardless of faith is somehow unislamic. How about speaking out against this?
While we could well have been speaking out against any of this, here we are….
Atheists obsessing over how vocally atheistic one should be and what particular brand of delusion one must appear to criticize to be certified a genuine atheist! Wouldn’t it be great if the certificate-demanders here were equally voluble fairness-demanders in the public square?
Fiyenyaa 1:13 AM on July 21, 2011 Permalink |
I find this extremely interesting, because here in the UK where I live, we have exactly the same comments from Christians: “you only criticise Christianity, why don’t you criticise Islam? You must be picking on us because we’re so nice and Muslims are so horrible”.
Frankly, I tend to all-but ignore this argument because it really doesn’t address any issues: it is nothing more than a form of obfuscation from either discussion of immorality within their own religion, or an attempt to try and throw you from the debate you are having.
This kind of tactic certainly wouldn’t work in a court of law: “Well yes your honour, I did steal that money, but I know someone who committed murder!” The crimes (real or imagined) of Islam are irrelevant if you are discussing something else.