1. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175361 by Hasan on May 5, 2008 at 10:04 am

While I am sure that it would be better for us if views of scholars like Reza Aslan were to become more common among Musilms, I am inclined to doubt the sincerity and honesty of scholars like him who like to defend their ideas by plunging deep into oblivion and obfuscation of though. In fact, REza Aslan states quite clearly in the prologue to his book 'No God but God' that there is no higher calling than to defend one's faith. It dilutes the credibility of his scholarship deeply in my view and one cannot expect an objective inquiry from him given this.

Aside from that, in my personal interactions with muslims, I do like to point out clearly and unequivocally that it is the right of anyone who wants to criticize islam to do so. If said with enough conviction and strength of argument, it does have an observable effect though I doubt sufficient enough to end their craving for undeserved respect. But nevertheless, they do in a way learn to keep their fury or anger to themselves rather than spreading it. And this is what is needed. Of course, it would not do any good to say that to a really rigid hate-mongering mullah, but it does have an effect on others.

2. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167676 by Hasan on April 24, 2008 at 9:00 am

I found the website to be going out of the way to accomodate religion but quite willing to bash atheism on the flimsiest of reasoning. This is not what one would expect from a university of Cambridge's stature. I, quite frankly, think that Cambridge is doing a great public disservice by mis-representing the information. USSR was not an atheistic state, it was a communist state, driven by a totalitarian ideology. The organisers of the website seem to be as ignorant as is humanly possible in understanding secularism and ethical notions associated with it. This is exceptionally shameful stuff coming from Cambridge.

3. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153932 by Hasan on April 2, 2008 at 8:26 am

Al Rawandi, I know that many muslims are hypocritical when it comes to freedom of religion and in other matters too. My point was just that even if religions are exempted from any criticism, the most criticisms of religion would still be reported from islamic countries since they dont really understand or respect freedom of religion when it comes to other religions or other view points. And this must be conveyed to them to inform them of their own hypocrisy.

I never meant to say that they shoud be accorded any special treatment or their religion made exempt from any criticism. I am all for freedom of expression.

4. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153923 by Hasan on April 2, 2008 at 8:03 am

I am sure that even if religions are exempted from any criticism under any amendment to freedom of speech, the most violations of the amendment would be reported from the muslim countries. If you want to hear any religion being defamed, listen to any sermon for friday's prayers in any mosque. Many in the Islamic world have no qualms when it comes to criticizing judaism, christianity, or hinduism. It would be pertinent to report the abuses of religious freedom to the delegates from Islamic countries that are carried out in their own countries.

5. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #151599 by Hasan on March 29, 2008 at 3:35 am

Happy Birthday Mr. Dawkins! I am writing from Pakistan and i would like to thank you for all the wonderful books you have written which have been my closest companions and give me much joy. Your books have had a very significant and profound effect on my views in addition to making me so much more knowledgeable.

I think that Nietzsche's following comment on Montaigne is more applicable to you:
"That such a man wrote has truly augmented the joy of living on this Earth."

Thank you so much and i wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavours.

6. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #148406 by Hasan on March 23, 2008 at 12:01 am

Stalin's acts were motivated by comunism, which evolved into a religion over time. Communist Manifesto became its holy scripture, and dialectical materialism its omnipotent god. Atheism itself makes no claims on morality. It is just a conclusion that given the available evidence, there is no reason to believe in a god or gods. This is where it stops. Humanism, which is the ethical outlook associated with atheism, though does make ethical and moral statements and there has been no action found to date that there has been any evil motivated by humanism.

To say that Dawkins is wrong in saying that Stalin's deeds were not motivated by atheism itself, is to show a complete misunderstanding or rather ignorance of what atheism means. And to say that theism did not/does not motivate deeds is to make religion empty of all its meaning, and which is something that religious people themselves would never accept. Theism by itself might not suggest any moral course but it is not defined in this manner. Theism means belief in a dog who listens to you, watches over you, and is going to reward or punish you. That is all it takes to motivate actions.

7. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83234 by Hasan on October 29, 2007 at 11:30 am

Im an ex-muslim myself (an atheist now). I guess the only reason that the governments in the western world are not taking any action to support ex-muslims and ex-muslim organizations is that they fear a back lash, a chaotic uprising from the vast number of muslim immigrants that they have accumulated over the years. May be this was done in the name of multi-culturalism. But multi-culturalism thrives only if the various cultures do not think themselves as above others. Muslim clearly think - and in fact this is what the quran says as well - that they are the recepients of the Most Favoured Nation award from god. Consquently, for them, islamic values trump over everything else. Overtime, continued tolerance of muslims would result in western countries themselves curtailing their freedoms. The most recent example being the cartoon controversy. What must be done is to return the misfits, that is those who truly believe in the morally degenerated quranic injuctions, back to where they came from and to strictly discourage islamic schools which create barriers for the young muslims to integrate fully with western values. This might seem tough, but a start can be made be sending back the most noticeable radicals and those who openly spread the message of hatred.

The choice is quite simple, either we can support those who think that violence against women is justified, that freedom of expression is a vice, that those who can think deserve to be killed. Or we can support those who have the courage to break away from these barbaric traditions and are genuinely concerned about making the world a better place to live in for everybody. Sadly though, i fear that the choice will be made for the first option and again under the guise of human rights. Human rights for those who themselves have no respect for human rights while those truly deserving of support will be left to rot.

8. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #83188 by Hasan on October 29, 2007 at 8:06 am

What we can reasonably and confidently state is that in today's world, religions pose big obstacles to progress by keeping a lot of things falling under the domain of social sciences as off limits for discussion. Religions treat the moral code, social code as inherent in themselves as absolute and having no requirement of rational discourse.

Secondly, religions in the past have always thrived in oppressed populations. What they have essentially done is to elevate these oppressed members of the society to a higher level and delegate the oppressive ruling to oblivion. That sums up their morality contribution too. But when these religions did come to power, they were as oppressive in their turn if not more so.

9. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82441 by Hasan on October 26, 2007 at 10:44 am

Sometimes, though, i think that this debate boils out to something akin to the following statement:

"If you can't be drunk or high on LSD all the time, why be happy?"

Clearly there are other reasons to be happy as there are other reasons to be moral. The concept of morality as having been prescribed by god is so powerful because it is psychologicaly grasping through the immensity of fear that it uses to enforce that morality (in those who believe) and the fact that we have been so much exposed to it.

10. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82426 by Hasan on October 26, 2007 at 10:08 am

My possible retort would go as follows:

"If you were to find out tomorrow that there is no god, would you rape your mother/sister, kill your father, run away with all the inheritance, and kill your siblings too? Would mothers kill their children if they found out that there is no god?"

I think that 'no' would mean that there is indeed some compelling evidence to think about the origin of morals in secular terms, that is to say, in terms totally free from religious connotations.

Secondly, i think that religions have only tended to exploit the in-built or genetically in-built or built-in during the course of evolution morality for their own survival. Call it surplus value for religions. If we can prove ( i think sufficient evidence is there) that humans or near humans were conducting their affairs with even a modicum of morality before the advent of religions, this would seriously undermine the claim of the religious minded that morality has descended from god. Also, we must not forget that an immense degree of improvement has been brought up in our morals through independent ideas of fellow humans - who have been without religion for the most part - during the last 500 yeears since renaissance. This would suggest that we can improve our morals, even introduce new fields for moral conduct, through observation and rational thought alone and without any guidance from god (atheists must be the last ones to be favoured by gods). In fact, the religions themselves have borrowed their moral code from secular ideals and not god since most of the past 500 years. Witch burnings and inquisitions being the most obvious examples.

Another thing i would like to point out is that i think of morality not in terms of right or wrong but in terms of being inconsiderate or considerate. The fact that we do possess the quality of empathy, a sense of belonging to our friends, loved ones etc. seems to further reinforce the source of moral code in empathy, a built-in capacity that can be harnessed especially in children. And finally, empathy has direct utility for our survival, be it in nations, families, communities etc. We praise and support considerate behavior because it is for our own good and that reinforces it. Even if there were to be a complete break down of morality if people suddenly assumed - realized to be more correct - that there is no god, and might becomes right, the most mighty group will implement a code of conduct among the weaker populations that will be of course have arisen free from any religious inspiration.