A new survey about evolution in Britain and Canada revealed that while most people accept evolutionary theory in those countries, atheists and non-religious people harbor grave doubts about evolution’s ability to explain humanity.
Apostasy is not a federal crime in Malaysia, but critics say the country’s increasingly conservative trajectory is threatening religious freedoms.
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 8 — Atheists in Malaysia should be “hunted down” by authorities as there is no place for groups like this under the Federal Constitution, a minister said today.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim said the public should aid authorities in locating groups like the Kuala Lumpur chapter of Atheist Republic so that action could be taken.
“The (Federal Constitution) does not mention atheists. It goes against the Constitution and human rights.
“I suggest that we hunt them down vehemently and we ask for help to identify these groups,” he said in a press conference at Parliament today.
American society is drowning in the dank waters of an anti-God reformation of belief, in which truth, purity, and beauty are despised while cults of selfishness and pride are venerated. Our minds are bedeviled by the “lesbian-gay-bisexual” obsession; our mouths babble about “gender.”
Why must ardent secularists from the Islamic world like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the type of people the Left looks to for inspiration in the history of Western secularism — be deemed bigots, while Sharia-supporting conspiracy theorists like Linda Sarsour are cherished? Why has criticizing Islam caused the New Atheists to cross a red line in the progressive imagination?
These positions make no sense if one thinks of the Left as seriously secular, convinced of the need to end the reign of superstition. But American liberals profess neither the passionate skepticism of David Hume nor the honest, urgent atheism of Nietzsche. They prefer to embrace a shallow, culture-war atheism instead.
This culture-war atheism provides “evidence,” quick and easy, to support the proposition that America is split into two camps: the intelligent, sophisticated, urbane, righteous liberals and the idiotic, gullible, backward, bigoted conservatives. The former are atheists and the latter are believers, flattering one side and bludgeoning the other. In fact, it is this type of thinking that made progressives fall in love with the New Atheists in the first place.
Maybe the progressives wanted a sciencey flounce but not the late nights at the lab? And the Darwinian left wanted the jihad without the suicide?
We don’t know if any of them have got what they wanted but we have all got the reality now.
See also: Dawkins dumped from Berkeley due to “hurtful words”
Dawkins haunted by the ghost of (ulp!) Ben Stein
The man, reportedly in his 20s, was deemed ‘insane’ by his lawyers because he was using drugs and alcohol when he committed blasphemy.
I have had as much as I can take for a while of the belligerent atheists who come crackling through the Internet assuming the airs of prosecutors, declaring ex cathedra that any suggestion of the existence of a supernatural force or that anything is not explicable by applied human ingenuity is medieval superstition. They have a trite little formula that they don’t have to prove the existence of anything and so have the high ground in any argument and then lapse into Hitchensesque infantilistic mockery about pink-winged little men in the clouds. They are repetitive and obnoxious and their fervour betrays the vacuity of their position. I am declaring a moratorium for at least a few months on trying to reason with these self-exalted champions of reason.
“Bless you” is a phrase so reflexively spoken upon hearing a sneeze that many of us forgot or don’t even know where it came from. It has obvious religious connotations but they’re archaic and no longer make any sense in our modern-day world. You don’t protect your friend from the devil when she coughs so please, let her sneeze in peace. Here are five reasons why “bless you” has to go.
The suit, filed in federal district court in Harrisburg, says legislature officials have repeatedly denied their requests to offer an invocation before sessions. They further allege that state police officers have intimidated them into standing during prayers in the statehouse, which they contend is also discriminatory. The coalition is seeking the right to lead an opening prayer in the legislature.
The Feb. 10 killing in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, of three Arab-American students, allegedly by atheist Craig Stephen Hicks has led some to compare militant atheism to Islamic militancy. Atheists are not happy with the comparison.
“The deluge of claims of equivalence between this crime and the Charlie Hebdo atrocity and the daily behavior of a group like ISIS [an acronym for another name for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL] has been astonishing to witness,” noted atheist author and writer Sam Harris said on a recent podcast.
He denied any link between atheism and Hicks’ actions. Harris insists that the comparison was unwarranted and atheists’ crimes have nothing to do with their beliefs, not least because there exists “no atheist scripture or doctrine.” Hicks said he was a fan of New Atheists such as Harris and Cambridge University professor Richard Dawkins.
Harris’ efforts to distance atheism from violent acts committed by individual atheists exposes his hypocrisy toward Muslims and Islam, which he routinely portrays as being distinctively violent.
While individual violent overtures may not be reflective of atheism, Harris’ assertion that no one commits violent acts in the name of atheism is simply inaccurate. For example, in February a court in France sentenced a 69-year-old man to prison for throwing plaster grenades and shooting at a mosque in western France. “I am a republican, an atheist, and what happened at Charlie Hebdo infuriated me,” the attacker told authorities…
Usaid Siddiqui is a Canadian-based freelance writer. He has written for PolicyMic, Aslan Media and Mondoweiss on current affairs.
It took less than a year for a Turkish court to block the website of the country’s first official atheism association.
The Atheism Association, the first of its kind in any Muslim-majority country, was officially founded in Istanbul’s Asian-side neighborhood of Kadıköy in April 2014. However, the Gölbaşı 2nd Civil Court of Peace in Ankara has finally moved to block the association’s website, according to the group’s statement on March 3, 2015.
As of March 4, Turkish internet users could not access www.ateizmdernegi.org without using tools to bypass blockings, such as a VPN.
The court ruling cites Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Law, which forbids “provoking the people for hate and enmity or degrading them”…
The Islamopologist paradigm widely practiced by the mainstream media is that Muslims should never ever be held responsible for Muslim terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam. They should not have to apologize for them, disassociate themselves from them or cooperate with the FBI. We should be ashamed for even thinking it.
After Hicks, a lefty atheist who hated Christians (not so much Muslims), shot 3 Muslims over an ongoing parking dispute in Chapel Hill, the media now claims that atheists have to engage in a moral reckoning or apologize for something.
Typical is the blather of the Gawkerized New Republic’s “The Chapel Hill Murders Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Atheists”.
Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig spends nine miserable paragraphs on empty blather about the New Atheism, without actually ever once showing that
1. Hicks shot the Muslims because he was an atheist
It’s worth looking at The New Republic article, although I can hardly believe they are printing this drivel. They include a chart showing the groups that dislike each other the most are atheists and evangelical Christians:
I’ve received a ton of email from readers alerting me to various pieces about the murder of the three young people, all Muslims, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina…
… The implication is that I should say something about the killings, as they were apparently committed by an atheist, and that we have to somehow exculpate ourselves, or explain ourselves, or indict that aspect of the atheist “movement” that is responsible for what many see as a hate crime.
I can do none of these things, for there is simply not enough information about what happened, about the killer’s motivations, about whether he had an animus towards Muslims that was somehow inspired by atheism, or whether it was one of those frequent spur-of-the-moment killings that occur over minor altercations.
…Why did it happen? We don’t know. Now isn’t the time to speculate about that, as an investigation is under way. After such tragedies, the press (and bloggers) often begin to echo rumors about motivations, rumors that often turn out to be wrong. After the Columbine shootings, for example, goth culture, Marilyn Manson, and bullying were endlessly masticated by the pundits as possible contributions to the shooting—yet all of these connections proved to be bogus.
So it’s simply premature and inappropriate to begin pointing fingers, and using these murders as some kind of springboard to advance one’s ideological or political or religious agenda. And yet that is what I see…
…We are operating in complete ignorance, as the killer’s motivations are unclear. It makes me sick to see these young people, who had family and relatives who loved them, turned into a tool to leverage various social agendas. One of the most cringeworthy responses was this tw**t by Reza Aslan after Richard Dawkins condemned the murders:
— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) February 12, 2015
As always on Twitter, I cannot find the tweet he was responding to. But I found this:
Alas, criminal individual killers exist. But there's only 1 ideology now that preaches the legal killing of dissenters. And it isn't atheism
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 11, 2015
Craig Hick’s Facebook cover picture.
The news that three young Muslims were killed by a gunman in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, late afternoon Feb. 11 has spread quickly across the internet, even as the gunman’s motivations remained unknown.
The victims, who were shot in the head near the University of North Carolina campus, were identified by the Chapel Hill Police as Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, and Yusor Mohammad, age 21, a married couple from Chapel Hill, as well Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, who lived in Raleigh, North Carolina.
A 46-year-old man, Craig Stephen Hicks of Chapel Hill, turned himself in after the shootings, and is being held in Durham County Jail on three counts of first-degree murder. Police told the Washington Post that the shooting happened after an argument over parking.
While a motive for the killings remained unknown, some suggested they may have been religious-based: that the students may have been killed because all three were Muslim. Hicks had posted anti-religion and pro-atheist content to his Facebook page…
Reminder of Obama’s comments on Paris Hyper Cacher killings:
Look, the point is this: my first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.
Some other photos I found on Hicks’ Facebook page earlier this morning:
An earlier insulter of Islam in jail: March, 2007. Crime: he “had criticized conservative Muslims and was convicted of insulting Islam and Egypt’s president, court officials said.” Source.
CAIRO: An Egyptian court has sentenced a student to three years in jail for announcing on Facebook that he is an atheist and for insulting Islam, his lawyer said Sunday.
Karim al-Banna, a 21-year-old whose own father testified against him, was jailed by a court in the Nile Delta province of Baheira on Saturday, lawyer Ahmed Abdel Nabi told AFP.
“He was handed down a three-year prison sentence, and if he pays a bail of 1,000 Egyptian pounds ($ 140 or 117 euros) the sentence can be suspended until a verdict is issued by an appeals court,” Abdel Nabi said, adding that an appeal was to be heard on March 9.
Abdel Nabi said his client’s father had testified against his son, charging that he “was embracing extremist ideas against Islam”.
Banna’s name had appeared in a list of known atheists in a local daily after which his neighbours harassed him, said Ishaq Ibrahim, a researcher on religion and beliefs at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights…