tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8804193099810993232024-03-05T07:26:28.071-08:00ATHEISMநாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-24261270688160992392015-11-26T07:51:00.002-08:002015-11-26T07:51:56.920-08:00All Knowing God<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigukiermJ82E0zK81TwN7SAgHo7U9r9_5S6Y_ujOsP5dheRrZWEMA9YT1bZiNU54bqHRIoATXr2RhXzBeYDMunY_9ekn21096wpK5z-M_YvWsdA9GOdQ364A126H3u2Vu1C1Dju2-zqP4n/s1600/%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AE%25A4%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AF%258D+02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigukiermJ82E0zK81TwN7SAgHo7U9r9_5S6Y_ujOsP5dheRrZWEMA9YT1bZiNU54bqHRIoATXr2RhXzBeYDMunY_9ekn21096wpK5z-M_YvWsdA9GOdQ364A126H3u2Vu1C1Dju2-zqP4n/s320/%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AE%25A4%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AF%258D+02.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-74945204321443912202015-11-26T07:45:00.001-08:002015-11-26T07:45:07.347-08:00All Religions Are False<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnsHDUTMNwEYKA9vplmyyeB_XcT0q00M6FxTArhJE9litqYPNsbe4pPaSrsU38cpVN1yMVQit0zkFaUDnVBTrvIcsiTKQmZIvBzPDyhPGbthpPWKdnrQO1zhx0-CJ5v-f9vvC-FOwmyfb3/s1600/%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AE%25A4%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AF%258D+01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnsHDUTMNwEYKA9vplmyyeB_XcT0q00M6FxTArhJE9litqYPNsbe4pPaSrsU38cpVN1yMVQit0zkFaUDnVBTrvIcsiTKQmZIvBzPDyhPGbthpPWKdnrQO1zhx0-CJ5v-f9vvC-FOwmyfb3/s320/%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AE%25A4%25E0%25AE%25AE%25E0%25AF%258D+01.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-59272021380778598712015-11-22T05:03:00.003-08:002015-11-22T05:03:55.240-08:00Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity: An Atheist’s Guide<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<header class="entry-header">
<h2 class="entry-title">
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/ </h2>
<h2 class="entry-title">
<a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/" title="Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity: An Atheist’s Guide">Why Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity: An Atheist’s Guide</a>
</h2>
</header>
<div class="aside-left">
<div class="auth-wrapper clearfix">
<img alt="Robert Tracinski" src="http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/63441_10153497599321202_3389259511795502347_n2.jpg" width="100%" />
</div>
By <a href="http://thefederalist.com/author/rtracinski/" rel="author" title="Posts by Robert Tracinski">Robert Tracinski</a> <div class="alpha-byline" style="margin-top: 5px;">
<span class="byline-month">January</span> 27, 2015</div>
<div style="display: inline-block; margin-top: -30px; width: 110px;">
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_counter_style addthis_16x16_style" style="float: left; width: 115px;">
<a class="addthis_button_email at300b" href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/#" style="display: inline-block; float: left; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 30px; width: 18px;" target="_blank" title="Email"><span class="at4-icon-left at4-icon aticon-email" style="background-color: #738a8d;"><span class="at_a11y">Share on email</span></span></a><span class="emailthis" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; font-size: 13px; margin-top: -1px; width: 36px;">Email</span>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: inline-block; margin-top: -7px; width: 110px;">
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_counter_style addthis_16x16_style" style="float: left; margin-bottom: 5px; width: 115px;">
<a class="addthis_button_print at300b" href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/#" style="display: inline-block; float: left; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 30px; width: 18px;" title="Print"><span class="at4-icon-left at4-icon aticon-print" style="background-color: #738a8d;"><span class="at_a11y">Share on print</span></span></a><span class="emailthis" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; font-size: 13px; margin-top: -1px; width: 36px;">Print</span>
</div>
</div>
<div id="scrollable_box_asd" style="position: static;">
<div class="aside-left-social">
<div class="twitter-aside">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="cursor: pointer; margin-right: 5px;"><img alt="Follow Us on Twitter" src="http://thefederalist.com/images/twitter-aside.png" /></a></div>
<div class="facebook-aside">
<a class="addthis_button_facebook at300b" href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/#" style="margin-right: 5px;" title="Facebook"><img alt="Like Us on Facebook" src="http://thefederalist.com/images/facebook-aside.png" /></a></div>
<div class="google-aside" id="social-handler">
<a border="0" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="cursor: pointer;"><img alt="Hangout with us" src="http://thefederalist.com/images/google-aside.png" /></a>
<div class="social-menu-aside">
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_counter_style addthis_32x32_style">
<a class="addthis_button_facebook_like clearfix at300b" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="margin-top: 5px; opacity: 0;"><div class="fb-like fb_iframe_widget" data-action="like" data-font="arial" data-href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/" data-layout="box_count" data-ref=".VlG80uIj79M.like" data-send="false" data-share="false" data-show_faces="false" data-width="55">
<span style="height: 61px; vertical-align: bottom; width: 49px;"></span></div>
</a>
<a class="addthis_button_pinterest_share at300b" href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/#" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 30px; width: 100%;" target="_blank" title="Pinterest"><span class="at4-icon-left at4-icon aticon-pinterest_share" style="background-color: #c82828;"><span class="at_a11y"></span></span></a><a class="addthis_button_reddit at300b" href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/#" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 30px; width: 100%;" target="_blank" title="Reddit"><span class="at4-icon-left at4-icon aticon-reddit" style="background-color: #e8e8e8;"><span class="at_a11y"></span></span></a><a class="addthis_button_print at300b" href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/27/why-islam-is-more-violent-than-christianity-an-atheists-guide/#" style="display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 30px; width: 100%;" title="Print"><span class="at4-icon-left at4-icon aticon-print" style="background-color: #738a8d;"><span class="at_a11y"></span></span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content clearfix">
</div>
<div>
The
Charlie Hebdo massacre once again has politicians and the media dancing
around the question of whether there might be something a little bit
special about this one particular religion, Islam, that causes its
adherents to go around killing people.</div>
<div>
It is not considered acceptable in polite company to entertain this possibility. Instead, it is necessary to insist, as a <i>New York Times</i> article <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/world/europe/raising-questions-within-islam-after-france-shooting.html" target="_blank">does</a>,
that “Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions.” This,
mind you, was in an article on how Muslims in the Middle East are
agonizing over the violent legacy of their religion.</div>
<div>
<span class="perma-ad-wrapper">
<div id="div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0" style="height: 250px; width: 300px;">
</div>
</span></div>
<div>
It is obviously true that all major religions have had violent
periods, or periods in which the religion has coexisted with violence.
Even those mellow pacifist Buddhists. These days, especially the
Buddhists, who are currently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/opinion/malik-myanmars-buddhist-bigots.html" target="_blank">fomenting a pogrom</a> against a Muslim minority in Burma.</div>
<div>
But in today’s context, it’s absurd to equate Islam and Christianity.
Pointing to the Spanish Inquisition tends to undermine the point rather
than confirm it: if you have to look back three hundred years to find
atrocities, it’s because there are so few of them today. The mass crimes
committed under the name of Islam, by contrast, are fresh and <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/16/in-graphic-videos-and-on-twitter-isis-members-record-and-tout-executions-of-gay-men.html" target="_blank">openly boasted about</a>.</div>
<div>
As an <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/05/what-atheists-have-to-offer-the-right/" target="_blank">atheist</a>,
I have no god in this fight, so to speak. I don’t think the differences
between religions make one more valid than another. But as the Charlie
Hedbo attack reminds us, there is a big practical difference between
them. In fact, the best argument against the equivalence of Christianity
and Islam is that no one acts even remotely as if this were true. We
feel free to criticize and offend Christians without a second
thought—thanks, guys, for being so cool about that—but antagonizing
Muslims takes courage. More courage than a lot of secular types in the
West <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/09/stop-lying-media-are-censoring-charlie-hebdo-out-of-fear-of-islam/" target="_blank">can usually muster</a>.</div>
<div>
So it’s a matter of some practical urgency to figure out: what is the difference? What are its root causes?</div>
<div>
As I see it, the main danger posed by any religion to its dissenters
and unbelievers lies in the rejection of reason, which cuts off the
possibility of discussion and debate, leaving coercion as an acceptable
substitute. I’m with Voltaire on that one: “If we believe absurdities,
we will commit atrocities.” But all religions are different and have
different doctrines which are shaped over their history—and as we shall
see, that includes different views on precisely such core issues as the
role of reason and persuasion.</div>
<div>
I should preface this by saying that I am no expert on theology,
particularly Muslim theology. Yet there are a number of big, widely
documented differences between Christianity and Islam that can be seen
in the traditions established by their history and in the actual content
of their religious doctrines.</div>
<div>
<h2>
The life of Christ versus the life of Mohammed.</h2>
Mohammed was a conqueror who gained worldly political power in his lifetime and used it to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan" target="_blank">persecute opponents</a>
and impose his religion. He also fully enjoyed the worldly perks of
being a tyrant, including multiple wives. Jesus, by contrast, was
basically a pacifist whose whole purpose on earth was to allow himself
to be tortured to death.</div>
<div>
He even explicitly forbade his followers to use force to defend him. Here’s John, <a href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-Chapter-18/" target="_blank">Chapter 18</a>:
“Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s
servant, and cut off his right ear…. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up
thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I
not drink it?”</div>
<div>
This does not imply that all Christians ought to be pacifists. But it
certainly sets a tone for the religion. The life of the founder of a
religion is held up to his followers as a model for how they should live
their own lives. The life of Mohammed tells the Muslim that he should
expect to rule, whereas the life of Christ tells the Christian he should
expect to sacrifice and serve. Which leads us to a deeper doctrinal
difference.</div>
<div>
<h2>
“What you do to the least of these, you do to me.”</h2>
In Matthew, <a href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-25/" target="_blank">Chapter 25</a>, Christ tells his followers what will happen during the final judgment, when he separates the righteous from the wicked.</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat:
I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me
in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me.<br />
<br />
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee
a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw
we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?<br />
<br />
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,
ye have done it unto me.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Similarly, there is an episode during the Last Supper when the apostles are squabbling about which of them is greatest. Christ <a href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-Chapter-22/" target="_blank">intervenes</a> and tells them that the greatest is he who serves others the most.</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise
lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are
called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest
among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that
doth serve.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
This is a very profound idea that goes against the grain of most of
human history. I’m a big fan of the Classical world, but the pagans
still regarded it as normal, right, and natural that the physically
strong set the terms for everyone else. Thucydides famously summed it up
in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue" target="_blank">Melian Dialogue</a>:
“The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Thucydides was clearly critical of that view, but the Classical world
didn’t have a clear alternative. As far as I know, Christ was the first
to insist that even the lowest, least significant person has value and
that we will be judged by how we treat him.</div>
<div>
The distinctive idea here is not a belief in self-sacrifice—Islam,
with its emphasis on the glory of dying in battle, has that idea in
abundance. Nor is it the idea of a duty to serve others—Communist
regimes were built on the idea that the individual exists only to serve
the collective. Instead, it is the idea that each individual has a
supreme and sacred value. Even Ayn Rand <a href="http://www.solopassion.com/node/8600" target="_blank">declared</a> this to be the idea from Christianity that most impressed her.</div>
<div>
Islam has no corresponding idea. The news is constantly bringing us a
story of some imam somewhere declaring it consistent with Islam for a
man to beat his wife, and the rise of the Islamic State in Syria has
provided us current examples of Islam sanctioning slavery, including the
capture and systematic rape of sex slaves. This is a religion that is
still very much in the “rights of the conqueror” mode, in which the
strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.</div>
<div>
Again, this goes back to the beginning. Consider the story, from one of the earliest Arab biographies of Mohammed, of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan" target="_blank">Asma bint Marwan</a>,
an Arab poet in Medinah who spoke out against the rise of Mohammed.
According to legend, he asked his followers, “Who will rid me of the
daughter of Marwan?” (His version of Henry II’s “Will no one rid me of
this meddlesome priest?”) One of them took it on himself to sneak into
her house and murder her in her sleep. There are questions about the
authenticity of the story, but the fact that it was widely believed and
reported indicates the example Mohammed set.</div>
<div>
To be sure, this brutal attitude is partly because of the
backwardness of some of the quasi-feudal societies that are
majority-Muslim, where divisions of tribe and caste still dominate. But
then again, Islam hasn’t done much to elevate those societies, despite
having more than a thousand years to do so.</div>
<div>
<h2>
The early history of Christianity vs. Islam</h2>
Christians started as a persecuted minority in a pagan society, so
that gives them a certain comfort with being powerless. Those who find
themselves out of step with the sinful modern world regard this as more
or less the normal state of things.</div>
<div>
The early history of Islam, by contrast, was further conquest and
dominance, as Muslim invaders marched out into Persia and across North
Africa. That’s why Muslims tend to look at the modern situation, in
which other creeds and political systems are wealthier and wield greater
military power, as an aberration that is not to be tolerated.</div>
<div>
This history is connected to a specific doctrinal issue.</div>
<div>
<h2>
The kingdom of god vs. the kingdom of man.</h2>
When you’re a persecuted minority, it’s more natural to say that the
ultimate reward and total justice have to be found in another world,
because you know you’re not going to get them in the decadent Roman
Empire. In Christianity, this produced a distinction between the kingdom
of God and the kingdom of man. When Pilate asks him if he is a king,
Jesus <a href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-Chapter-18/" target="_blank">responds</a>,
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world,
then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the
Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”</div>
<div>
This idea is extensively developed in Christian theology and is
widely accepted among religious conservatives today as the main
explanation for the failure of Communism and other utopian schemes: they
were arrogant, misguided attempts to achieve heaven on earth. Or if you
are inclined to the use of unnecessarily long and obscure words, this
is referred to as trying to “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton" target="_blank">immanentize the eschaton</a>.”</div>
<div>
The idea is that human beings are not capable of achieving the
ultimate holy order of things in this world, so it is folly to try.</div>
<div>
But when your prophet is the dictator, it’s more tempting to think
that you can just mandate a perfect society. Hence the Islamist
obsession with creating a pure Islamic State, usually with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_religious_police" target="_blank">special division of zealots</a>
who call themselves something like the Ministry for the Promotion of
Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, whose job is to enforce a long list
of intrusive religious prohibitions. An Islamic state is the kingdom of
God brought to earth—exactly the approach that has been widely rejected
at various points in Christian theology.</div>
<div>
<h2>
The different roles of “falsafa.”</h2>
There is another important legacy of Christianity’s early history
among the pagans—in this case, not a reaction against pagan rule, but a
part of the Classical influence that rubbed off on Christianity.</div>
<div>
Christianity took hold among Greeks and Romans steeped in the
Classical philosophical tradition, and that left its mark. The
now-retired pope, Benedict XVI—who I’m really missing right now, by the
way—made this the central point of an <a href="https://www.tracinskiletter.com/2007/01/jerusalem-athens/" target="_blank">important speech</a>
he gave in 2006 at the University of Regensburg, in which he addressed
the relationship between Christianity and Islam. Benedict argued that
“the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of
Christian faith,” and defended the “Hellenization” of Christianity.
(More on this later.) There was some controversy about this within early
Christianity—Tertullian famously asked, “What has Athens to do with
Jerusalem?”—and at first the anti-Classical side won out. But those
early controversies made it easier for Christianity to re-absorb
Classical ideas during the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.</div>
<div>
Islam went through an opposite progression. It encountered Classical
science and philosophy, “falsafa” in Arabic, during its conquest of
various Mediterranean countries, and the Muslim world would produce
great scientists and philosophers steeped in the ideas of the Greeks,
including ibn Sina (Avicenna) in Persia and ibn Rushd (Averroes) in
Muslim Spain. But by the late Middle Ages, just as the West was
rediscovering Classical philosophy, the Muslim world purged it. This is
generally blamed on the theologian al-Ghazali, who denounced “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers" target="_blank">The Incoherence of the Philosophers</a>”
and caused Muslim theologians to reject the Classical influence as
incompatible with faith. The result is that Islam allows much less room
for philosophical discussion and debate over the meaning of the
religion.</div>
<div>
Again, this history is connected to a deeper doctrinal issue.</div>
<div>
<h2>
Is God rational?</h2>
This was the issue Benedict focused on in his Regensburg speech. He
approvingly cited a dialogue in which one of the Byzantine emperors was
debating with a Muslim and argued that in Christian theology, God is
rational: he acts according to reason and is understandable by reason.
He cited a <a href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-Chapter-1/" target="_blank">Biblical passage</a>
about God being “Logos”—which means both “word” and “reason” in
Greek—as evidence that “the world comes from reason” as part of the
animating spirit of God’s creation.</div>
<div>
Islam rejects this view. Al-Ghazali even rejected the law of cause
and effect. The Muslim God does not establish laws of nature and leave
them to operate. He is personally involved in causing every natural
event by a direct act of will. Thus, al-Ghazali insisted that when a
ball of cotton is placed into a flame, the fire does not burn the
cotton. Instead, “when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton
is burned directly by God rather than by the fire.”</div>
<div>
If you think this is very old, Medieval history, consider that there was a controversy in the 1980s in Pakistan, when Islamists <a href="http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/09/frank-tipler-on-muslim-contributions-to.html" target="_blank">insisted</a> that chemistry textbooks had to say that when hydrogen and oxygen are combined, then <i>by the will of Allah</i>, water is created—directly borrowing al-Ghazali’s formulation. The rejection of scientific laws and secular reason was <a href="http://www.nationalobserver.net/2010/83_6_book_reilly.htm" target="_blank">codified in Islam</a> long ago, and those who depart from this orthodoxy continue to be ostracized, as seen in Pakistan’s <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100173926/why-abdus-salam-pakistans-great-physicist-has-been-written-out-of-history-by-his-own-country/" target="_blank">rejection</a> of one of its most eminent physicists.</div>
<div>
All of this has a lot of implications for how you deal with
disagreement and whether you think religion is a subject that can be
debated. The Byzantine emperor quoted by Benedict argues, “Whoever would
lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason
properly, without violence and threats,” to which Benedict added: “The
decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this:
not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.”
Whereas if reason is itself heretical, then why should anyone tolerate
your arguments and philosophical debates?</div>
<div>
<h2>
Secular law versus Sharia law.</h2>
The differences between Islam and Christianity are not just about the laws of nature. They’re also about laws for man.</div>
<div>
Christianity has its own religious law, laid down by Moses in the Old
Testament, though much of it does not survive Christ’s revisions. But
Christianity also has a long tradition of coexisting with secular
systems of law. This comes from the Roman context, where there was an
established, codified Roman system of law which Christianity did not
seek to overthrow. This, as I understand it, is part of the significance
of Christ’s admonition to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
So the idea of religion as <i>the</i> source of law was not
well-established under Christianity. Or to be more exact, religion is
viewed as source of general moral principles, but there is plenty of
room for debate on what those principles mean and how to translate them
into specific laws.</div>
<div>
By contrast, Islam recognizes no room for any law other than what was
supposedly revealed to Mohammed, and that is the source of a whole lot
of trouble. The explicit argument offered by Islamists against
representative government is the complaint that laws voted on by the
people are laws created <i>by man</i>, whereas God is the only one who
can make law. Similarly, one of the main issues of contention in newly
created governments across the Middle East—Afghanistan and Iraq, as well
as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya—was the question of whether Islam should
be cited as the sole source of law. Then there is Saudi Arabia, where
the Koran <i>is</i> the constitution.</div>
<div>
But what is really telling is the concreteness of Islamic law. As it
is usually interpreted, Sharia is not a set of general principles that
leave room for individual judgment in their application. It is a set of
extremely detailed, specific requirements and prohibitions. This is why
we see Islamic clerics asked to issue “fatwas” on every triviality under
the sun, from soccer to tomboys to Mickey Mouse, which can lead to some
<a href="http://listverse.com/2010/02/25/top-10-bizarre-or-ridiculous-fatwas/" target="_blank">very weird results</a>.</div>
<div>
As British Islamist Anjem Choudary <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=i5716jvrjk00ou4y00dth" target="_blank">explains</a>
to us, “Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the
commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the
concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are
determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.” Note
how total this is—everything is determined by revelation—and how little
room it leaves for individual choice. So no wonder it is used as a
license for unlimited coercion.</div>
<div>
The concrete nature of Islamic law and its devaluation of individual
judgment reflects a deeper aspect of the difference between Christianity
and Islam.</div>
<div>
<h2>
<strong></strong>Is it normal to struggle with faith?</h2>
Christianity has a tradition of being an introspective religion, one
that is about plumbing the depths of one’s soul—and about struggling
with one’s faith. In the Bible and in Christian lore, there is a long
tradition of openly talking about struggles with doubt, the sense that
faith is something that can be difficult to maintain, so that lapses or
skepticism or a crisis of faith are understandable and to be tolerated.
The put-upon Job debates with God. Even Jesus struggled with temptation
and doubt in the Garden of Gethsemane as he faced the prospect of
crucifixion. That’s why the typical piece of Christian “hate mail” I get
is annoyingly non-hate-filled. They mostly tell me that they’re praying
for me so I will one day see the light.</div>
<div>
By contrast, Muslims widely accept a particularly literal version of
what the Christian would call “salvation through works.” In its crudest
version, this is the “die in jihad and get 72 virgins in paradise”
outlook. Getting into heaven is less about reordering your soul or
trying to introspect some greater meaning in your life—and more about
punching a checklist of external actions, of being obedient to a long
list of strictly enforced requirements and taboos.</div>
<div>
<h2>
The history of religion in America.</h2>
The final big difference between Islam and Christianity isn’t
something that’s wrong with Islam, but rather something that happened
uniquely in the West that influenced Christianity: the history of
religion in America. From the beginning we had a profusion of different
religious sects, many of which had come here seeking freedom from
persecution. So from early on, at least from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams" target="_blank">Roger Williams</a>,
American religious leaders were deeply involved in developing the
ideology of religious freedom. While Enlightenment ideas had a wide
influence in America, demands for religious freedom did not come
primarily from anti-clerical types who wanted to abolish religion.
Instead, religious freedom was literally <a href="http://webuus.com/timeline/Seven_Sermons.html" target="_blank">preached from the pulpit</a>, which is why it so naturally made it into our founding documents.</div>
<div>
That’s only one aspect of Christianity in the West, of course, but it
has had a global influence on the religion and its approach to liberty.</div>
<div>
I have painted with broad strokes, and there are some who will no
doubt come back to me citing Muslim leaders who espouse better views, as
no doubt you could go out and find Christians with much worse views.</div>
<div>
And of course, many of those who kill in the name of Islam don’t even know this history. One of my <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2684714/I-tell-I-m-going-jihad-Lol-I-ll-arrested-What-British-terrorist-Birmingham-told-childhood-friend-travelled-Syria-join-rebel-fighters.html" target="_blank">favorite stories</a> is about British jihadists who headed off to join ISIS in Syria after buying a copy of the book <i>Islam for Dummies</i>.
These guys aren’t following the narrow doctrinal disputes. What they
absorb is an overall sense of what the religion means and how it is to
be practiced.</div>
<div>
If you add up all of these things, you see what an explosive mix you
get from Islam: the expectation that religion dictates everything and
that their religion ought to be totally dominant here in this world,
combined with the notion that religion is not open to reason and leaves
no room for doubt, questioning, or debate.</div>
<div>
Religious ideas can be, and often are, recombined and reinterpreted
in more or less benevolent ways. There will always be a tension between
faith and reason; the concept of service to others can be used to demand
service to the state; the concept of man’s sinfulness and imperfection
can be interpreted to mean that the perfect religious society cannot be
imposed on earth—or that humans can’t be trusted with freedom, so the
state needs to curb our vicious impulses. Certainly, the <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/15/why-pope-francis-is-wrong-about-free-expression/" target="_blank">recent comments</a> by Pope Francis on the Charlie Hebdo attack should make us wonder how committed he is to the principle of freedom of speech.</div>
<div>
But this should make us appreciate all the more the way in which,
after centuries of contentious and often bloody history, our culture’s
dominant faith has settled into a more benevolent and liberal form.</div>
<div>
We can hope that Islam will do the same. But in terms of their
history and doctrines, they still have a long way to go—and I’m afraid
they still have some of those contentious and bloody centuries ahead of
them.</div>
</div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-35430134922564298602015-11-22T05:01:00.003-08:002015-11-22T05:01:42.140-08:00Islam is not a religion like any other, here's why. (self.atheism)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="title">
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/100ul6/islam_is_not_a_religion_like_any_other_heres_why/ </div>
<div class="title">
<br /></div>
<div class="title">
<a class="title may-blank " href="https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/100ul6/islam_is_not_a_religion_like_any_other_heres_why/" tabindex="1">Islam is not a religion like any other, here's why.</a> <span class="domain">(<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/">self.atheism</a>)</span></div>
<div class="tagline">
submitted <time class="" datetime="2012-09-17T14:31:03+00:00" title="Mon Sep 17 14:31:03 2012 UTC">3 years ago</time> <time class="edited-timestamp" datetime="2012-09-17T15:44:56+00:00" title="last edited 3 years ago">*</time> by <span class="author">[deleted]</span></div>
<div class="expando">
<form action="#" class="usertext" id="form-t3_100ul6qsd">
<div class="usertext-body may-blank-within md-container ">
<div class="md">
I
live in a small country in Europe named Belgium. We have "freedom of
religion". There is a strict separation between Church and State.
Officially, we are a catholic country but nowadays we have mainly
agnostics and atheists, our churches stay empty on sundays.<br />
We have many different religions, and many different cultures here in
Belgium. None of them posed a big problem, but Islam really is an
exception.<br />
What I have learned is that Islam is not a religion like any other.
Let me explain: Most religions and most cultures are compatible with
Belgian culture and law, and just fit in. Islam however, is not just a
religion as how we here define "religion". Islam is a whole package.
Islam contains a political system, economic system, justice, education,
culture and religion.<br />
When Muslims come to Europe to live their lives, this creates impact.<br />
We have Police here who's job is to make sure that the citizens
follow the law. People with Islamic roots are showing some kind of
immunity against the police. They show this in how they behave towards
the police, by not accepting the police as an authority. They literally
say and admit that Allah, the Islamic God, is the only authority.<br />
Every week there are cases of violence against police and it always
shows the same pattern: 1 Muslim gets arrested, and then suddenly a
group of sometimes up to 50 Muslims gather and attack the police. This
has happened so many times that the police has decided to no longer
patrol certain neighborhoods, because their authority is no longer
accepted there so they are just outnumbered by the ( Islamic )
civilians. I'm not speculating about the future here, this is the
reality here today in 2012.<br />
Then there is education. We have Belgian laws which guarantee a
minimum level of education. It's a book full of facts that must be
taught in every school, they are called the "end terms". One of those
subjects is evolution. The theory of evolution must be taught in both
science class and history class. Creationism is not allowed. If a
teacher teaches his pupils the theory of creationism instead of
evolution, then this is against the end terms.<br />
I personally know a teacher who had the task to teach evolution to
her pupils. The children with an Islamic background, we are talking
about 9 and 10 year olds here, said to her: "You are talking bullshit,
you are just a dumb woman, my parents tell us that we should not listen
to you about this evolution crap, Allah has created us and all the
animals." They are ordered by their parents to not do any homework on
the theory of evolution and they deliberately fail the tests. This
problem is not limited to pupils. There are 20-year olds studying to
become teachers, who also deny evolution. There are various reports of
Islamic teachers who got their job as a teacher, and they are teaching
creationism to Islamic children, denying evolution, and not following
the end terms that are actually protected by law and by separation of
church and state.<br />
They not only deny the authority of the police, they also deny our education system and its rules.<br />
Then there is the problem of food. Islam does not accept pork as
"clean" food. Therefore, they do not buy food in our supermarkets.
Instead, they build their own stores which do not allow the sale of pork
or alcohol. Here I have an example of one of my relatives: a family
member was celebrating her birthday at work. She gave away boxes of
chocolates containing alcohol. She got a complaint from an Islamic
employee that she apparently had not shown respect for his "beliefs" by
not having any non-Alcoholic chocolates. This might sound like a stupid
small issue but I'm trying to make a point here: I'm not talking about
extremist Muslims here blowing themselves up, I am talking about the
everyday Muslim.<br />
Now economy. Belgium has banks, our banking system is interweaved
with economy ( ok I know this is not the ideal period to start defending
banks with all the economic mess we are into but still ... ). They do
not use our banks: they keep their money in foreign banks located in
Turkey, Morocco, Saudi-Arabia etc... because those banks follow certain
Islamic rules. They are constantly draining and transferring money out
of Europe. They do not accept our banking system because it's not
compliant with the Islamic view of economy.<br />
I know I'm writing a long text here, but I hope you are still with me, because there is an important point I want to arrive to: <br />
Justice.<br />
The number of hate crimes against homosexuals is increasing every
year. It started a few years back with taunting and attacking homosexual
persons around areas with gay bars. Since last year, the first murders
of gays have happened, by Muslims. No provocation, just hate crimes,
hate against gays. The gay community is aware of areas in Belgium where
they are no longer safe simply because they are gay. This wasn't the
case 10 years ago. Then there are the increasing reports of honor
killings. Just recently, a 22 year old Belgian bared the child of her 19
year old Islamic ex-boyfriend. The family of this Muslim had arranged a
wife and a marriage for him, and this child would bring a shame on the
whole family. That's why he and his nephew have killed this young 22
year old girl, to save the honor of the family.<br />
I hope I'm getting my point across here. Although Islam is being
defined as a religion, it is not just that. Islam is much more, it's a
whole package, it's a culture, it's an entire social system.<br />
And it's impacting with another system. It's not impacting with
Christianity, it's impacting with the Western world. We can see it
slowly unfolding here in Europe. Slowly but certain. <br />
Let me stress out that Muslims are more attached to their Islamic
system, than the European people are attached to the Western system.
This is because the Islamic system has a God as the authority, which is a
more powerful psychological motivation, than the European people who
just have the government as the authority. Muslims are therefore not
showing as much indulgence as other Europeans, resulting in an
increasing amount of rights for Muslims and a decreasing amount of
rights for Europeans.<br />
Other cultures and religions have had no problem with fitting in. But Islam is not just a religion. It's something different.<br />
When "Freedom of Religion" was written in the Belgian law, it wasn't
meant for something like Islam. This is the mistake and the problem that
we are facing. And at this moment nobody knows how to deal with it.<br />
<strong>tl;dr</strong> We should reconsider defining Islam as "just a religion"<br />
</div>
</div>
</form>
</div>
</div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-86218474026574091932015-11-22T04:57:00.002-08:002015-11-22T04:57:33.866-08:00Studying Islam has made me an atheist<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h1 class="article-header__title">
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2008/12/studying-islam-has-made-me-an-atheist/</h1>
<h1 class="article-header__title">
Studying Islam has made me an atheist</h1>
<h2 class="article-header__standfirst">
Douglas Murray says that he
stopped being an Anglican after analysing Muslim texts and deciding that
no book — of any religion — could claim infallibility</h2>
<div class="article-header__author">
<a href="http://new.spectator.co.uk/author/douglas-murray/" rel="author" title="Posts by Douglas Murray">Douglas Murray</a></div>
<div class="big-author">
<div class="big-author__avatar">
<a href="http://new.spectator.co.uk/author/douglas-murray/">
<img alt="Douglas_Murray-80x98" class="attachment-author-avatar" height="98" src="http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/content/uploads/2012/10/Douglas_Murray-80x98.png" width="80" /> </a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="margin-menu">
<div class="floatyWrapper">
<div class="float-container">
<div class="meta-box">
<div class="meta-box__byline">
<a href="http://new.spectator.co.uk/author/douglas-murray/" rel="author" title="Posts by Douglas Murray">Douglas Murray</a></div>
<div class="meta-box__date">
29 December 2008</div>
</div>
<div class="sharing">
<ul class="sharing__list">
<li class="sharing__item"><a class="sharing__link sharing__link--twitter" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http://specc.ie/1mFXHjT&text=Studying%20Islam%20has%20made%20me%20an%20atheist" target="_blank">Twitter</a></li>
<li class="sharing__item"><a class="sharing__link sharing__link--facebook" href="https://facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://specc.ie/1mFXHjT" target="_blank">Facebook</a></li>
<li class="sharing__item"><a class="sharing__link sharing__link--gplus" href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://specc.ie/1mFXHjT" target="_blank">Google+</a></li>
<li class="sharing__item"><a class="sharing__link sharing__link--mail" href="mailto:?subject=Studying%20Islam%20has%20made%20me%20an%20atheist&body=Read%20Studying%20Islam%20has%20made%20me%20an%20atheist%20-%20http://specc.ie/1mFXHjT">Email</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article-body article-text article-text--post">
<img alt="" src="http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/3194231-1.jpg" title="" /><br />
Douglas Murray says that he stopped being an Anglican after
analysing Muslim texts and deciding that no book — of any religion —
could claim infallibility<br />
Just over a year ago I told a lie. In print. In this magazine. I was
one of those asked by The Spectator last Christmas whether I believed in
the virgin birth. Since it had always seemed to me that if you believed
in God a ‘pick and mix’ approach to the central tenets of the faith was
pointless, I said ‘yes’. But in fact I felt ‘no’. It wasn’t that I had
been wrestling over the doctrine of the incarnation, I simply felt that
if I didn’t believe in the virgin birth, I would not believe in God. The
truth is I didn’t and don’t. The guilt has been lingering since. This
is my atheist mea culpa.<br />
Many people hold on to belief as an unquestioned part of their
make-up. They never have to confront the source of their belief, and as
long as nothing actively pushes them into addressing it, they keep it as
something which rarely does much harm and might actually do some good. I
have been an Anglican since birth — and not just a cultural Anglican
but at times (rarest of things) a real, worshipping, believing Anglican.
Like a lot of believers, I knew that there were parts of my belief that
wouldn’t stand up to analysis. But that was fine. I didn’t need to
analyse them. I only lost faith when I was forced to.<br />
Charles Darwin didn’t do for God. German biblical criticism did — the
scholarship on lost texts, discoveries of added-to texts and edited
texts. All pointed away from the initial starting-block of faith — that
the texts transmitted immutable truths. Realising that ‘holy’ texts are,
like most other things in life, the result of an accretion of human
effort and human error is one of the most troubling discoveries any
believer can make. I remember trying to read some of this scholarship
when I was younger, and finding it so terrifying, so ground-shaking,
that I put it off for another day. <br />
But it found me via another route. Some years ago I started studying
Islam. It didn’t take long to recognise the problems of that religion’s
texts — the repetitions, contradictions and absurdities. Unlike
Christianity, scholarship on these problems in Islam has barely begun.
But they are manifest for anyone to see. For a holy book which in its
opening lines boasts ‘that is the book, wherein is no doubt’, plenty of
doubt emerges. Not least in recognising demonstrable plagiarisms from
the Torah and the Christian Bible. If God spoke through an archangel to
one illiterate tradesman in 7th-century Arabia, then — just for starters
— why was he stealing material? Or was he just repeating himself?<br />
<div class="middle-promo">
<div class="sub-content-promo big-bottom">
<a href="https://spectator.subscribeonline.co.uk/subscriptions/spectator-bundle?offerCode=XMAS15M"><img alt="Claim your gift" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-9686942" height="150" src="http://new.spectator.co.uk/content/uploads/2015/11/Spectator-XMAS15-GiftSubs-Inline-560x1501.jpg" width="560" /></a><br />
</div>
</div>
Gradually, scepticism of the claims made by one religion was joined
by scepticism of all such claims. Incredulity that anybody thought an
archangel dictated a book to Mohammed produced a strange contradiction. I
found myself still clinging to belief in Christianity. I was trying to
believe — though rarely arguing — ‘Well, your guy didn’t hear voices:
but I know a man who did.’ This last, shortest and sharpest, phase
pulled down the whole thing. In the end Mohammed made me an atheist.<br />
Though it was a supplementary realisation, the problems that these
texts have caused cannot be avoided either. Where else does your real
bona-fide bigot find his metier? Anyone can repress a woman, but you
need ‘dictated’ scriptures to feel you’re really right in repressing
her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel
you’ve got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious ‘Adam and
Eve not Adam and Steve’-style arguments instead of just recognising that
some people are different to you. <br />
Anyone can be a bigot. But divine bigots must count as the most
intractable — the most infuriatingly impervious to reason. Besides — to a
bibliophile, indeed bibliomaniac — the idea that there is any book
‘wherein is no doubt’ is insulting as well demonstrably untrue.<br />
Even when I stopped believing I pretended I did, or said I did for a
bit, for fear of the break in the dike. Like many people, the first
thing that troubled me about leaving religion was fear of
meaninglessness. Where would ethics come from? If nothing was revealed
then surely everything would be relative — and that way lay nihilism. As
it happens, it becomes clearer the more I look at it that religious
texts are not only unnecessary to the ethical life. More often than
believers like to admit, they are directly contrary to it.<br />
Then there is the loss of the guiding hand. It is the one utterly
irreplaceable aspect of belief. Without God, where is the enduring
melody — the cantus firmus — of life? Alexander Herzen asked, ‘Where is
the song before it is sung?’ It is impossible to replace the belief in a
deity’s plans for you. Though less comforting, it is simply observably
truer that there is no song before you sing it — no path before you
tread it. You make the song as you sing it. You make the path as you
tread it. It makes life more precarious, certainly — but just as the
risk of falling is greater, so, likewise, is the possibility of soaring.<br />
My final fear was one which I think a lot of Christians in this
country feel, particularly as they see Islam re-emerging and gaining
adherents in spite (or perhaps because) of its intransigence and
intractability. It is, I suppose, a sense of cultural abandonment. We
know how much of what we enjoy and relish comes through Christianity.
Can we really go on without it? Doesn’t it leave our building without
foundations? Slowly I discover that it doesn’t. I still can’t pass a
country church or cathedral without going in. The texts are still
essential to me. They are just (and ‘just’ hardly does the job here) no
more divine than Shakespeare. <br />
The question of how, without believing it, we transmit the good of
our historical faith to another generation is certainly problematic.
Perhaps like many Jewish people who rejoice in their identity but don’t
believe in God we could be better — and franker — at being cultural
Christians. I tried it this year, at my first atheist Christmas.<br />
I went to church on Christmas morning, and went with my family to the
carol service a few nights before. The readings were comforting not
only because of their familiarity but because taken as great stories
they still transmit, like all great literature, truths which you can
live by. The momentousness and simplicity of Adam’s fall was as tragic
and resonant to this atheist heart as it once was to the believing one.<br />
Fundamentalist Islam challenges us politically. But tackling
literalism of one kind with literalism of another doesn’t work.
Complexity is harder to accept, but more evident to the eye. After long
struggle, I find reason enough.<br />
My first non-believing Christmas was different, certainly. Different —
but, contrary to my fears, no shallower. Quite the opposite. Things
this year seemed both more open and more possible. More fragile and more
precious. It also struck me, in ways which are hard to explain — and
the religious language cannot be avoided — that it was all, if anything,
even more miraculous.<br />
</div>
</div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-90500076043854124732015-11-22T04:48:00.001-08:002015-11-22T04:48:33.412-08:00Atheism and religion<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h1 class="firstHeading" id="firstHeading" lang="en">
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion </h1>
<h1 class="firstHeading" id="firstHeading" lang="en">
Atheism and religion</h1>
<div class="mw-body-content" id="bodyContent">
<div id="siteSub">
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</div>
</div>
<div class="mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" id="mw-content-text" lang="en">
<table class="vertical-navbox nowraplinks plainlist" style="background: #f9f9f9; border-spacing: 0.4em 0; border: 1px solid #aaa; clear: right; float: right; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0 0 1.0em 1.0em; padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; width: 22.0em;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="line-height: 1.2em; padding-top: 0.4em;">Part of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheism" title="Category:Atheism">a series</a> on</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="font-size: 145%; font-size: 200%; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2em; padding-bottom: 0.15em; padding-top: 0; padding: 0.2em 0.4em 0.2em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism" title="Atheism">Atheism</a></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0.2em 0 0.4em; padding: 0.5em 0.25em;"><a class="image" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atheismsymbol_endorsed_by_AAI.svg"><img alt="Atheismsymbol endorsed by AAI.svg" data-file-height="336" data-file-width="336" height="140" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Atheismsymbol_endorsed_by_AAI.svg/140px-Atheismsymbol_endorsed_by_AAI.svg.png" width="140" /></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0 0.1em 0.4em;">
<div class="NavFrame" id="NavFrame1" style="border: none; padding: 0;">
<div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; font-size: 105%; padding: 0 0.4em 0; text-align: left;">
<div class="hlist">
<ul>
<li>Concepts</li>
<li>History</li>
</ul>
</div>
<a class="NavToggle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#" id="NavToggle1">[hide]</a></div>
<div class="NavContent" style="font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0 0.4em; padding: 0.3em 0.3em 0.6em; text-align: center;">
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism" title="Antitheism">Antitheism</a></li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 1.2em; padding: 0.2em 0.4em;">
<strong class="selflink">Atheism and religion</strong><br />
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism" title="Criticism of atheism">Criticism of atheism</a> / <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion" title="Criticism of religion">of religion</a>)</div>
</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism" title="History of atheism">History of atheism</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism" title="New Atheism">New Atheism</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0 0.1em 0.4em;">
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" id="NavFrame2" style="border: none; padding: 0;">
<div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; font-size: 105%; padding: 0 0.4em 0; text-align: left;">
Types<a class="NavToggle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#" id="NavToggle2">[show]</a></div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0 0.1em 0.4em;">
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" id="NavFrame3" style="border: none; padding: 0;">
<div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; font-size: 105%; padding: 0 0.4em 0; text-align: left;">
Arguments for atheism<a class="NavToggle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#" id="NavToggle3">[show]</a></div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0 0.1em 0.4em;">
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" id="NavFrame4" style="border: none; padding: 0;">
<div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; font-size: 105%; padding: 0 0.4em 0; text-align: left;">
People<a class="NavToggle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#" id="NavToggle4">[show]</a></div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding: 0 0.1em 0.4em;">
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" id="NavFrame5" style="border: none; padding: 0;">
<div class="NavHead" style="background: transparent; font-size: 105%; padding: 0 0.4em 0; text-align: left;">
Related stances<a class="NavToggle" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#" id="NavToggle5">[show]</a></div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="hlist" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa; border-top: 1px solid #aaa; font-weight: bold; padding: 0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;">
<ul>
<li><span class="metadata"><a class="image" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atheism_template.svg"><img alt="Portal icon" data-file-height="48" data-file-width="48" height="16" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Atheism_template.svg/16px-Atheism_template.svg.png" width="16" /></a></span> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Atheism" title="Portal:Atheism">Atheism portal</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Atheism" title="Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism">WikiProject</a></li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-size: 115%; padding-top: 0.6em; text-align: right;">
<div class="plainlinks hlist navbar mini">
<ul>
<li class="nv-view"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Atheism_sidebar" title="Template:Atheism sidebar"><abbr title="View this template">v</abbr></a></li>
<li class="nv-talk"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Atheism_sidebar" title="Template talk:Atheism sidebar"><abbr title="Discuss this template">t</abbr></a></li>
<li class="nv-edit"><a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Atheism_sidebar&action=edit"><abbr title="Edit this template">e</abbr></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Some movements or sects within traditionally <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism" title="Monotheism">monotheistic</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism" title="Polytheism">polytheistic</a>
religions recognize that it is possible to practice religious faith,
spirituality and adherence to tenets without a belief in deities. People
with what would be considered religious or spiritual belief in a
supernatural controlling power are defined by some as adherents to a
religion; the argument that atheism is a religion has been described as a
contradiction in terms.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-1"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
<div class="toc" id="toc">
<div id="toctitle">
<h2>
Contents</h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="toc" id="toc">
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Abrahamic_religions"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Abrahamic religions</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Judaism"><span class="tocnumber">1.1</span> <span class="toctext">Judaism</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Christianity"><span class="tocnumber">1.2</span> <span class="toctext">Christianity</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Islam"><span class="tocnumber">1.3</span> <span class="toctext">Islam</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Indian_religions"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Indian religions</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Hinduism"><span class="tocnumber">2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Hinduism</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Jainism"><span class="tocnumber">2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Jainism</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Buddhism"><span class="tocnumber">2.3</span> <span class="toctext">Buddhism</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Chinese_religions"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Chinese religions</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Satanism"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">Satanism</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-11"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Legal_status_of_atheism"><span class="tocnumber">5</span> <span class="toctext">Legal status of atheism</span></a>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Great_Britain_.28English_Law.29"><span class="tocnumber">5.1</span> <span class="toctext">Great Britain (English Law)</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#United_States_of_America"><span class="tocnumber">5.2</span> <span class="toctext">United States of America</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-14"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#See_also"><span class="tocnumber">6</span> <span class="toctext">See also</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-15"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#Citations"><span class="tocnumber">7</span> <span class="toctext">Citations</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-16"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#References"><span class="tocnumber">8</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Abrahamic_religions">Abrahamic religions</span></h2>
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Judaism">Judaism</span></h3>
<div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">
Main article: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism" title="Jewish atheism">Jewish atheism</a></div>
In general, formulations of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith" title="Jewish principles of faith">Jewish principles of faith</a> require a belief in God (represented by Judaism's paramount prayer, the <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema" title="Shema">Shema</a>). In many modern <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_movements" title="Jewish religious movements">Jewish religious movements</a>,
rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the
determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism" title="Judaism">Judaism</a>. Within these movements it is often recognized that it is possible for a Jew to strictly practice <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism" title="Judaism">Judaism</a> as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or atheist. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism" title="Reconstructionist Judaism">Reconstructionist Judaism</a> does not require any belief in a deity, and certain popular <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism" title="Reform Judaism">Reform</a> prayer books, such as <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_of_Prayer" title="Gates of Prayer">Gates of Prayer</a></i>, offer some services without mention of God. Jewish atheists who practice <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism" title="Humanistic Judaism">Humanistic Judaism</a>
embrace Jewish culture and history, rather than belief in a
supernatural god, as the sources of their Jewish identity. One study
found that only 48% of self identified Jews believe in God.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-harrisinteractive_2-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-harrisinteractive-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
Rabbi <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Isaac_Kook" title="Abraham Isaac Kook">Abraham Isaac Kook</a>,
first Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in Palestine, held that
atheists were not actually denying God: rather, they were denying one of
man's many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be
considered an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_image" title="Cult image">idol</a>,
Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping
true religion burn away false images of God, thus in the end serving the
purpose of true monotheism.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Christianity">Christianity</span></h3>
<div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">
Main article: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism" title="Christian atheism">Christian atheism</a></div>
High rates of atheism have been found among self-identified
Christians in the United States. For example, 10% of self-identified
Protestants and 21% of self-identified Roman Catholics were found to be
atheists in a HarrisInteractive survey from 2003.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-harrisinteractive_2-1"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-harrisinteractive-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
There is no single Christian approach toward atheism. The approach taken varies between <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination" title="Christian denomination">Christian denominations</a>,
and Christian ministers may intelligently distinguish an individual's
claims of atheism from other nominal states of personal perspective,
such as plain disbelief, an adherence to science, a misunderstanding of
the nature of religious belief, or a disdain for organized religion in
general.<br />
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church" title="Catechism of the Catholic Church">Catechism of the Catholic Church</a> makes this explicit. While it identifies atheism as a violation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments" title="Ten Commandments">First Commandment</a>, calling it "a sin against the virtue of religion", it is careful to acknowledge that atheism may be motivated by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue" title="Virtue">virtuous</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral" title="Moral">moral</a>
considerations, and admonishes the followers of Roman Catholicism to
focus on their own role in encouraging atheism by their religious or
moral shortcomings:<br />
<dl><dd>(2125) [...] The imputability of this offense can be significantly
diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers
can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the
extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or
present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or
social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the
true nature of God and of religion."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a></sup></dd></dl>
A famous idiosyncratic atheist belief is that of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._J._Altizer" title="Thomas J. J. Altizer">Thomas J. J. Altizer</a>. His book <i>The Gospel of Christian Atheism</i>
(1967) proclaims the highly unusual view that God has literally died,
or self-annihilated. According to Altizer, this is nevertheless "a
Christian confession of faith".<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-5"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-5"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a></sup> Making clear the difference between his position and that of both <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche" title="Friedrich Nietzsche">Nietzsche's</a> notion of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead" title="God is dead">death of God</a>
and the stance of theological non-realists, Altizer says, "To confess
the death of God is to speak of an actual and real event, not perhaps an
event occurring in a single moment of time or history, but
notwithstanding this reservation an event that has actually happened
both in a cosmic and in a historical sense."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-6"><span>[</span>6<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
A 2001 survey by "Faith Communities Today"<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-7"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-7"><span>[</span>7<span>]</span></a></sup> found that 18% of <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalist" title="Unitarian Universalist">Unitarian Universalists</a>
(UU) consider themselves to be atheists, with 54% considering
themselves humanist. According to this study 16% of UUs consider
themselves Buddhist, 13% Christian, and 13% <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism" title="Paganism">Pagan</a>.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Islam">Islam</span></h3>
<div class="hatnote">
See also: <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_atheist" title="Muslim atheist">Muslim atheist</a></div>
<table class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content" role="presentation">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="mbox-image">
<div style="width: 52px;">
<img alt="" data-file-height="40" data-file-width="40" height="40" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg/40px-Ambox_important.svg.png" width="40" /></div>
</td>
<td class="mbox-text"><span class="mbox-text-span">This section <b>improperly uses one or more <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text" title="Religious text">religious texts</a> as <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS" title="Wikipedia:PSTS">primary sources</a> without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them</b>. <span class="hide-when-compact">Please help <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism_and_religion&action=edit">improve this article</a> by adding references to <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources" title="Wikipedia:Reliable sources">reliable secondary sources</a>, with multiple points of view.</span> <small><i>(June 2015)</i></small></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam" title="Islam">Islam</a>, atheists are categorized as <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir" title="Kafir">kafir</a></i> (كافر), a term that is also used to describe polytheists, and that translates roughly as "denier" or "concealer". <i>Kafir</i> carries connotations of blasphemy and disconnection from the Islamic community. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated <i>ilhad</i> (إلحاد), although this also means "heresy".<br />
The Quran is silent on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Punishment_for_apostasy" title="Apostasy in Islam">the punishment for apostasy</a>,
though not the subject itself. The Quran speaks repeatedly of people
going back to unbelief after believing, and gives advice on dealing with
'hypocrites':<br />
Sura 9:73,74<br />
<blockquote class="templatequote">
"O Prophet, strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites,
and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,-- an evil refuge indeed.
They swear by God that they said nothing [evil], but indeed they uttered
blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a
plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was
[their] only return for the bounty which God and His Apostle had
enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they
turn back [to their evil ways], God will punish them with a grievous
penalty in this life and in the Hereafter. They shall have none on this
earth to protect or help them."<br />
<div class="templatequotecite">
<cite>— Qur'an, sura 9 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba" title="At-Tawba">At-Tawba</a>), ayat 73-73 <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-8"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-8"><span>[</span>8<span>]</span></a></sup></cite></div>
</blockquote>
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith" title="Hadith">Hadith</a> expound upon dealing with apostates:<br />
<blockquote class="templatequote">
Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, 'The blood of a Muslim who
confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I
am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas
(equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits
illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate)
and leaves the Muslims."<br />
<div class="templatequotecite">
<cite>— <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari" title="Sahih al-Bukhari">Sahih al-Bukhari</a>, <a class="external text" href="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php#009.083.017" rel="nofollow">9:83:17</a></cite></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="templatequote">
Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in
the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before
him....He replied 'By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone
except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed
somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who
committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against
Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate....'<br />
<div class="templatequotecite">
<cite>— <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari" title="Sahih al-Bukhari">Sahih al-Bukhari</a>, <a class="external text" href="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php#009.083.037" rel="nofollow">9:83:37</a></cite></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="templatequote">
Narrated Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (<a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zindiq" title="Zindiq">Zanadiqa</a>
refers to those who innovate within Islam, adding rules to Islam which
didn't previously exist) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The
news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his
place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it,
saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire). I would
have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, "Whoever
changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."<br />
<div class="templatequotecite">
<cite>— <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari" title="Sahih al-Bukhari">Sahih al-Bukhari</a>, <a class="external text" href="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/084-sbt.php#009.084.057" rel="nofollow">9:84:57</a></cite></div>
</blockquote>
The Qur'an refers to atheism in this verse: The term commonly used
for atheists is "Dahriyyah" from the Arabic word for "time" in a verse
which speaks of people "who says that our death and Decimation are
caused only by the passing of time". (in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jathiya" title="Al-Jathiya">aljathiah</a>,) 24)<br />
[045:024] And they say: "There is nothing but our life of this world,
we die and we live and nothing destroys us except Ad-Dahr (time)." And
they have no knowledge of it, they only conjecture.<br />
Other relevant Hadithic verses include Bukhari, volume 9, #58, 64, 271.<br />
Muslims are not at liberty to change their religion or become
atheists. Atheists in Islamic countries and communities frequently
conceal their non-belief (as do people with other condemned qualities,
such as homosexuality).<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Indian_religions">Indian religions</span></h2>
Atheism is often considered acceptable within <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism" title="Hinduism">Hinduism</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism" title="Jainism">Jainism</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism" title="Buddhism">Buddhism</a>.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Hinduism">Hinduism</span></h3>
<div class="hatnote">
See also: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism" title="Atheism in Hinduism">Atheism in Hinduism</a></div>
Although <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism" title="Atheism">atheism</a> is valid in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism" title="Hinduism">Hinduism</a>, it views the path of the atheist as very difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-9"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-9"><span>[</span>9<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
Among the six fundamental <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80stika_and_n%C4%81stika" title="Āstika and nāstika">Astika</a></i> schools of Hindu philosophy, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya" title="Samkhya">Samkhya</a> do not accept God and the early <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimamsa" title="Mimamsa">Mimamsa</a> also rejected the notion of God.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-10"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-10"><span>[</span>10<span>]</span></a></sup>
Samkhya lacks the notion of a 'higher being' that is the ground of all
existence. It proposes a thoroughly dualistic understanding of the
cosmos, in which two parallel realities <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha" title="Purusha">Purusha</a>, the spiritual and <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prakriti" title="Prakriti">Prakriti</a>,
the physical coexist and the aim of life is the gaining of liberating
Self-knowledge of the Purusha. Here, no God (better stated <i>theos</i>) is present, yet Ultimate Reality in the form of the Purusha exists.<br />
<a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka" title="Cārvāka">Cārvāka</a> (also <i>Charvaka</i>) was a <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialist" title="Materialist">materialist</a> and atheist school of thought in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India" title="India">India</a>, which is now known principally from fragments cited by its <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astika" title="Astika">Astika</a> and <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist" title="Buddhist">Buddhist</a>
opponents. The proper aim of a Cārvākan, according to these sources,
was to live a prosperous, happy, productive life in this world (cf <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism" title="Epicureanism">Epicureanism</a>). There is some evidence that the school persisted until at least 1578.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Jainism">Jainism</span></h3>
<div class="hatnote">
See also: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism" title="Transtheism">Transtheism</a></div>
Jainism believes that the emancipated soul is itself God.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-11"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-11"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a></sup> Jains do not believe in a creator God, but there is belief in numerous gods within the cosmos.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-12"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-12"><span>[</span>12<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Buddhism">Buddhism</span></h3>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism" title="Buddhism">Buddhism</a> is often described as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism" title="Nontheism">non-theistic</a>, since Buddhist authorities and canonical texts do not affirm, and sometimes deny, the following:<br />
<ul>
<li>The existence of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth" title="Creation myth">creation</a>, and therefore of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity" title="Creator deity">creator deity</a></li>
<li>That a god (deva), gods, or other divine beings are the source of moral imperatives. Instead, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma" title="Dharma">Dharma</a> is an attribution of the universe</li>
<li>That human beings or other creatures are responsible to a god or gods for their actions</li>
</ul>
However, all canonical Buddhist texts that mention the subject accept the <i>existence</i> (as distinct from the <i>authority</i>)
of a great number of spiritual beings, including the Vedic deities.
From the point of view of Western theism, certain concepts of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha" title="Gautama Buddha">Buddha</a> found in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana" title="Mahayana">Mahayana</a> school of Buddhism, e.g. of <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha" title="Amitabha">Amitabha</a> or the Adibuddha may seem to share characteristics with Western concepts of God, but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha" title="Gautama Buddha">Gautama Buddha</a> himself denied that he was a god or divine.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Chinese_religions">Chinese religions</span></h2>
Some forms of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism" title="Confucianism">Confucianism</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism" title="Taoism">Taoism</a>
do not explicitly affirm, nor are they founded upon a faith in, a
higher being or beings. However, Confucian writings do have numerous
references to <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian" title="Tian">Tian</a></i> (Heaven), which denotes a transcendent power, with a personal connotation. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confucianism" title="Neo-Confucianism">Neo-Confucian</a> writings, such as that of <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Hsi" title="Chu Hsi">Chu Hsi</a>,
are vague on whether their conception of the Great Ultimate is like a
personal deity or not. Although the Western translation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao" title="Tao">Tao</a> as "god" in some editions of the <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_te_Ching" title="Tao te Ching">Tao te Ching</a> is highly misleading, it is still a matter of debate whether the actual descriptions of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao" title="Tao">Tao</a> by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi" title="Laozi">Laozi</a>
has theistic or nontheistic undertones. Religious forms of Taoism do
believe in a variety of cosmological beings, which are analogies to the
cosmic forces within the universe.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Satanism">Satanism</span></h2>
<div class="hatnote">
See also: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism" title="Satanism">Satanism</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism" title="Theistic Satanism">Theistic Satanism</a></div>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism" title="LaVeyan Satanism">LaVeyan Satanism</a>
is atheistic, rejecting belief in God and all other deities, including,
to the surprise of many, Satan. "Satanism begins with atheism," said <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan" title="Church of Satan">Church of Satan</a> High Priest <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_H._Gilmore" title="Peter H. Gilmore">Peter H. Gilmore</a> in an interview. "We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!'"<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-13"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a></sup>
The function of God is performed and satisfied by the satanist
him/herself. The needs of worship, ritual, and religious/spiritual focus
are directed inwards towards the satanist, as opposed to outwards,
towards a deity. It rejects concepts such as prayer, the after-life, and
divine forces.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Legal_status_of_atheism">Legal status of atheism</span></h2>
Generally, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_law" title="Religious law">religion</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law">law</a> have been synonymous throughout recorded history from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi" title="Code of Hammurabi">Code of Hammurabi</a> through (unwritten) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law" title="Common law">common law</a> to modern <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex" title="Codex">codex</a> or formal written law. The practice of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion" title="State religion">state religion</a> has generally been a legal obligation, and remains so in many traditional <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction" title="Jurisdiction">jurisdictions</a> such as those incorporating <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia" title="Sharia">sharia</a> principles. Notably ancient law such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_law" title="Babylonian law">Babylonian law</a> and <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Law" title="Roman Law">Roman Law</a> regulated the treatment of <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave" title="Slave">slaves</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife" title="Wife">wives</a><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-14"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-14"><span>[</span>14<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
Despite the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state" title="Separation of church and state">separation of church and state</a> in <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution_from_the_abolition_of_feudalism_to_the_Civil_Constitution_of_the_Clergy" title="French Revolution from the abolition of feudalism to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy">late 18th century France</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States" title="Separation of church and state in the United States">early USA</a> it was only in the later part of the 20th century, following the so-called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_baby_boom" title="Post–World War II baby boom">Post–World War II baby boom</a> and subsequent <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution" title="Sexual revolution">sexual revolution</a> that certain <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_offense" title="Religious offense">religious offenses</a>
have been selectively excluded from some European and North-American
legal constraints. In most of the world many agnostic or atheistic
expressions remain legally discouraged and sometimes very severely
punished even by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_capital_punishment" title="Religion and capital punishment">execution</a>.<br />
The most common (religious) offenses are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy" title="Heresy">heresy</a> (wrong choice), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy" title="Blasphemy">blasphemy</a> (evil-speaking) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy" title="Apostasy">apostasy</a> (revolt or renunciation) or any behavior that implies or abandoning of a prescribed religious duty, especially <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty" title="Loyalty">disloyalty</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition" title="Sedition">sedition</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defection" title="Defection">defection</a>, but also occult mysterious or secret activities such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry" title="Freemasonry">freemasonry</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism" title="Herbalism">sorcery</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft" title="Witchcraft">witchcraft</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy" title="Alchemy">alchemy</a> and private practices such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality" title="Homosexuality">homosexuality</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception" title="Contraception">contraception</a> and of course atheism, since it challenges <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom#Religious_perspectives" title="Wisdom">'received wisdom'</a> which is mandated as '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience" title="Omniscience">Absolute</a>' or '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth" title="Truth">Truth</a>' in many traditional legal codes which do not incorporate <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion" title="Freedom of religion">freedom of religion</a> which has only evolved in the latter half of the 20th century following the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights" title="Universal Declaration of Human Rights">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-15"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-15"><span>[</span>15<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Great_Britain_.28English_Law.29">Great Britain (English Law)</span></h3>
The chief law officer is called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chancellor" title="Lord Chancellor">Lord Chancellor</a> and holds the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_%28ecclesiastical%29" title="Chancellor (ecclesiastical)">title</a> of 'the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience" title="Conscience">conscience</a> of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch" title="Monarch">monarch</a>.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-16"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-16"><span>[</span>16<span>]</span></a></sup> British subjects have a long history of religious upheaval from the time when <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England" title="Henry VIII of England">Henry VIII of England</a> ordered the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation" title="English Reformation">English Reformation</a>. There followed a long period of alternate suppressions and liberalizations until, following the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_%28England%29" title="Restoration (England)">Restoration</a>
when common law became progressively more descriptive than
prescriptive, judges were allowed some latitude in determining guilt
(which is why <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law" title="English law">English law</a> is so ambiguous).<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-17"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-17"><span>[</span>17<span>]</span></a></sup> British 'religious atheists' are numerous and might include <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox" title="George Fox">George Fox</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley" title="John Wesley">John Wesley</a> and, notably <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham" title="Jeremy Bentham">Jeremy Bentham</a> whose body is displayed in the South Cloister of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London" title="University College London">University College London</a><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-18"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-18"><span>[</span>18<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="United_States_of_America">United States of America</span></h3>
<table class="metadata plainlinks ambox mbox-small-left ambox-content" role="presentation">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="mbox-image"><a class="image" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg"><img alt="[icon]" data-file-height="31" data-file-width="44" height="14" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg/20px-Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg.png" width="20" /></a></td>
<td class="mbox-text"><span class="mbox-text-span">This section requires <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism_and_religion&action=edit">expansion</a>. <small><i>(May 2015)</i></small></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Atheism in the USA is protected under the <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment" title="First Amendment">First Amendment</a>'s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause" title="Free Exercise Clause">Free Exercise Clause</a>.
There are also online churches that have been created by atheists to
secure legal rights, to ordain atheist clergy to hold ceremonies, as
well as for parody, education, and advocacy.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-firstchurchofatheism_19-0"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-firstchurchofatheism-19"><span>[</span>19<span>]</span></a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-20"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-20"><span>[</span>20<span>]</span></a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-21"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-21"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-22"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-22"><span>[</span>22<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:<br />
<blockquote class="templatequote">
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of
hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties,
that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-23"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#cite_note-23"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a></sup><br />
</blockquote>
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="See_also">See also</span></h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions" title="Nontheistic religions">Nontheistic religions</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Citations">Citations</span></h2>
<div class="reflist columns references-column-count references-column-count-2" style="-moz-column-count: 2; -webkit-column-count: 2; column-count: 2; list-style-type: decimal;">
<ol class="references">
<li id="cite_note-1"><br /></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" id="mw-content-text" lang="en">
<li id="cite_note-1"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation episode"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher" title="Bill Maher">Bill Maher</a> (2012-02-03). <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_with_Bill_Maher" title="Real Time with Bill Maher">Real Time with Bill Maher</a></i>. HBO. <q>Religion
is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling
power, and atheism is — precisely not that. Got it? Atheism is a
religion like abstinence is a sex position.</q></cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.btitle=Real+Time+with+Bill+Maher&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.genre=book&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-harrisinteractive-2"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-harrisinteractive-2"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web">Taylor, Humphrey. (2003). <a class="external text" href="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-While-Most-Americans-Believe-in-God-Only-36-pct-A-2003-10.pdf" rel="nofollow">"While Most Americans Believe in God, Only 36% Attend a Religious Service Once a Month or More Often"</a> <span style="font-size: 85%;">(PDF)</span>. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110109031643/http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-While-Most-Americans-Believe-in-God-Only-36-pct-A-2003-10.pdf" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> <span style="font-size: 85%;">(PDF)</span> from the original on 9 January 2011<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved January 2011</span>. <q>Protestants
(90%) are more likely than Roman Catholics (79%) and much more likely
than Jews (48%) to believe in God. Protestants (47%) are also more
likely than Catholics (35%) to attend church once a month or more often.
Only 16% of Jews go to synagogues once a month or more often.</q></cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.au=Taylor%2C+Humphrey.&rft.btitle=While+Most+Americans+Believe+in+God%2C+Only+36%25+Attend+a+Religious+Service+Once+a+Month+or+More+Often&rft.date=2003&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harrisinteractive.com%2Fvault%2FHarris-Interactive-Poll-Research-While-Most-Americans-Believe-in-God-Only-36-pct-A-2003-10.pdf&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-3"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-3"> <span class="reference-text"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#CITEREFRachmani2002a">Rachmani 2002a</a>; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#CITEREFRachmani2002b">Rachmani 2002b</a>.</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-4"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-4"> <span class="reference-text">Catechism of the Catholic Church, English version, <a class="external text" href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM" rel="nofollow">section 3.2.1.1.3</a></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-5"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-5"> <span class="reference-text"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#CITEREFAltizer1967">Altizer 1967</a>, p. 102.</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-6"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-6"> <span class="reference-text"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion#CITEREFAltizer1967">Altizer 1967</a>, p. 103.</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-7"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-7"> <span class="reference-text"><a class="external text" href="http://www.uua.org/news/011205.html" rel="nofollow">Surveys: 'Uuism' unique Churchgoers from elsewhere, Christian Century Foundation</a></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-8"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-8"> <span class="reference-text"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran" title="Quran">Quran</a> <a class="external text" href="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.073" rel="nofollow">9:73–74</a></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-9"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-9"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Chakravarti, Sitansu (1991). <a class="external text" href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=J_-rASTgw8wC&pg=PA71" rel="nofollow"><i>Hinduism, a way of life</i></a>. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 71. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-81-208-0899-7" title="Special:BookSources/978-81-208-0899-7">978-81-208-0899-7</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=Sitansu&rft.aulast=Chakravarti&rft.btitle=Hinduism%2C+a+way+of+life&rft.date=1991&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.in%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DJ_-rASTgw8wC%26pg%3DPA71&rft.isbn=978-81-208-0899-7&rft.pages=71&rft.pub=Motilal+Banarsidass+Publ.&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-10"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-10"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Dasgupta, Surendranath (1992). <a class="external text" href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PoaMFmS1_lEC&pg=PA258" rel="nofollow"><i>A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1</i></a>. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. p. 258. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-81-208-0412-8" title="Special:BookSources/978-81-208-0412-8">978-81-208-0412-8</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=Surendranath&rft.aulast=Dasgupta&rft.btitle=A+history+of+Indian+philosophy%2C+Volume+1&rft.date=1992&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.in%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DPoaMFmS1_lEC%26pg%3DPA258&rft.isbn=978-81-208-0412-8&rft.pages=258&rft.pub=Motilal+Banarsidass+Publ.&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-11"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-11"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Sangave, Vilas (2006). <a class="external text" href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8UhvGRoyAqMC&pg=PA27" rel="nofollow"><i>Aspects of Jaina religion – Issue 12 of Jñānapīṭha Mūrtidevī granthamālā: English series</i></a>. Bhartiya Jnanpith. p. 27. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-81-263-1273-3" title="Special:BookSources/978-81-263-1273-3">978-81-263-1273-3</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=Vilas&rft.aulast=Sangave&rft.btitle=Aspects+of+Jaina+religion+%E2%80%93+Issue+12+of+J%C3%B1%C4%81nap%C4%AB%E1%B9%ADha+M%C5%ABrtidev%C4%AB+grantham%C4%81l%C4%81%3A+English+series&rft.date=2006&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.in%2Fbooks%3Fid%3D8UhvGRoyAqMC%26pg%3DPA27&rft.isbn=978-81-263-1273-3&rft.pages=27&rft.pub=Bhartiya+Jnanpith&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-12"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-12"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Chambliss, Joseph (1996). <a class="external text" href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-YJlpiTbckgC&pg=PA38" rel="nofollow"><i>Philosophy of education: an encyclopedia – Volume 1671 of Garland reference library of the humanities</i></a>. Taylor & Francis. p. 38. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-8153-1177-5" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-8153-1177-5">978-0-8153-1177-5</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=Joseph&rft.aulast=Chambliss&rft.btitle=Philosophy+of+education%3A+an+encyclopedia+%E2%80%93+Volume+1671+of+Garland+reference+library+of+the+humanities&rft.date=1996&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.in%2Fbooks%3Fid%3D-YJlpiTbckgC%26pg%3DPA38&rft.isbn=978-0-8153-1177-5&rft.pages=38&rft.pub=Taylor+%26+Francis&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-13"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-13"> <span class="reference-text"><a class="extiw" href="https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Satanism:_An_interview_with_Church_of_Satan_High_Priest_Peter_Gilmore" title="n:Satanism: An interview with Church of Satan High Priest Peter Gilmore">Interview with Peter H. Gilmore</a>, David Shankbone, <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinews" title="Wikinews">Wikinews</a>', November 5, 2007.</i></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-14"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-14"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Henry James Sumner Maine. <i>Ancient Law</i>. Cosimo Classics (New York, 2005). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1596052260" title="Special:BookSources/978-1596052260">978-1596052260</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.au=Henry+James+Sumner+Maine&rft.btitle=Ancient+Law&rft.genre=book&rft.isbn=978-1596052260&rft.pub=Cosimo+Classics+%28New+York%2C+2005%29&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-15"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-15"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Kelly James Clark, ed. (2012). <i>Abraham's Children: Liberty and Tolerance in an Age of Religious Conflict</i>. Yale University Press (USA). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0300179378" title="Special:BookSources/978-0300179378">978-0300179378</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.btitle=Abraham%27s+Children%3A+Liberty+and+Tolerance+in+an+Age+of+Religious+Conflict&rft.date=2012&rft.genre=book&rft.isbn=978-0300179378&rft.pub=Yale+University+Press+%28USA%29&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-16"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-16"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Walter Bagehot (1867). <a class="external text" href="http://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780192839756/English-Constitution-Bagehot-Walter-0192839756/plp" rel="nofollow"><i>The English Constitution (Oxford World's Classics)</i></a>. Oxford University Press (USA 2001). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0192839756" title="Special:BookSources/978-0192839756">978-0192839756</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">29 June</span> 2013</span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.au=Walter+Bagehot&rft.btitle=The+English+Constitution+%28Oxford+World%27s+Classics%29&rft.date=1867&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abebooks.co.uk%2F9780192839756%2FEnglish-Constitution-Bagehot-Walter-0192839756%2Fplp&rft.isbn=978-0192839756&rft.pub=Oxford+University+Press+%28USA+2001%29&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-17"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-17"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Most Reverend Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury (2009). <i>The English Religious Tradition and the Genius of Anglicanism</i>. Wipf & Stock Publisher. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1606082096" title="Special:BookSources/978-1606082096">978-1606082096</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.au=Most+Reverend+Rowan+Williams+Archbishop+of+Canterbury&rft.btitle=The+English+Religious+Tradition+and+the+Genius+of+Anglicanism&rft.date=2009&rft.genre=book&rft.isbn=978-1606082096&rft.pub=Wipf+%26+Stock+Publisher&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-18"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-18"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Stephen Kim, ed. (1996). <i>John
Tyndall's Transcendental Materialism and the Conflict Between Religion
and Science in Victorian England (Distinguished Dissertations)</i>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0773422780" title="Special:BookSources/978-0773422780">978-0773422780</a>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.btitle=John+Tyndall%27s+Transcendental+Materialism+and+the+Conflict+Between+Religion+and+Science+in+Victorian+England+%28Distinguished+Dissertations%29&rft.date=1996&rft.genre=book&rft.isbn=978-0773422780&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-firstchurchofatheism-19"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-firstchurchofatheism-19"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web"><a class="external text" href="http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/about/" rel="nofollow">"About First Church of Atheism"</a>. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110711004751/http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/about/" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> from the original on 11 July 2011<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved July 2011</span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.btitle=About+First+Church+of+Atheism&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Ffirstchurchofatheism.com%2Findex.php%2Fabout%2F&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-20"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-20"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web"><a class="external text" href="http://www.churchoffreethought.org/" rel="nofollow">"North Texas Church of Freethought"</a>. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110716080425/http://www.churchoffreethought.org/" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> from the original on 16 July 2011<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved July 2011</span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.btitle=North+Texas+Church+of+Freethought&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchoffreethought.org%2F&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-21"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-21"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web"><a class="external text" href="http://www.hcof.org/Content-Public/Page-Edit/Page.asp?iID=-1145332288" rel="nofollow">"Houston Church of Freethought"</a>. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110716080916/http://www.hcof.org/Content-Public/Page-Edit/Page.asp?iID=-1145332288" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> from the original on 16 July 2011<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved July 2011</span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.btitle=Houston+Church+of+Freethought&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hcof.org%2FContent-Public%2FPage-Edit%2FPage.asp%3FiID%3D-1145332288&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-22"><br /></li>
<li id="cite_note-22"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web"><a class="external text" href="http://nymag.com/news/features/46214/" rel="nofollow">"Do Atheists Need a Church?"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved July 2011</span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.btitle=Do+Atheists+Need+a+Church%3F&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2F46214%2F&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
<li id="cite_note-23"><br /></li>
<div class="reflist columns references-column-count references-column-count-2" style="-moz-column-count: 2; -webkit-column-count: 2; column-count: 2; list-style-type: decimal;">
<ol class="references">
<li id="cite_note-23" value="23"> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web">Matt Dillahunty. <a class="external text" href="http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742" rel="nofollow">"Atheism and the Law"</a>. Atheist Community of Austin<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">20 July</span> 2009</span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.au=Matt+Dillahunty&rft.btitle=Atheism+and+the+Law&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheist-community.org%2Flibrary%2Farticles%2Fread.php%3Fid%3D742&rft.pub=Atheist+Community+of+Austin&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="References">References</span></h2>
<ul>
<li><cite class="citation book" id="CITEREFAltizer1967">Altizer, Thomas J.J. (1967). <a class="external text" href="http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523" rel="nofollow"><i>The Gospel of Christian Atheism</i></a>. London: Collins. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060929171840/http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> from the original on 29 September 2006<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">2006-10-27</span></span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=Thomas+J.J.&rft.aulast=Altizer&rft.btitle=The+Gospel+of+Christian+Atheism&rft.date=1967&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religion-online.org%2Fshowbook.asp%3Ftitle%3D523&rft.pub=London%3A+Collins&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></li>
<li><cite class="citation web">Amoss, George (1999). <a class="external text" href="http://www.quaker.org/quest/issue1-4.html" rel="nofollow">"The Making of a Quaker Atheist"</a>. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061021134519/http://www.quaker.org/quest/issue1-4.html" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> from the original on 21 October 2006<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">2006-10-27</span></span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=George&rft.aulast=Amoss&rft.btitle=The+Making+of+a+Quaker+Atheist&rft.date=1999&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quaker.org%2Fquest%2Fissue1-4.html&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></li>
<li><cite class="citation web" id="CITEREFRachmani2002a">Rachmani, Rav Hillel (2002a). <a class="external text" href="http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/rk16-kook.htm" rel="nofollow">"Introduction to the Thought of Rav Kook, Lecture #16: "Kefira" in our Day"</a>. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060209080656/http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/rk16-kook.htm" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> from the original on 9 February 2006<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">2006-03-05</span></span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=Rav+Hillel&rft.aulast=Rachmani&rft.btitle=Introduction+to+the+Thought+of+Rav+Kook%2C+Lecture+%2316%3A+%22Kefira%22+in+our+Day&rft.date=2002&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vbm-torah.org%2Farchive%2Frk16-kook.htm&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></li>
<li><cite class="citation web" id="CITEREFRachmani2002b">Rachmani, Rav Hillel (2002b). <a class="external text" href="http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/rk17-kook.htm" rel="nofollow">"Introduction to the Thought of Rav Kook, Lecture #17: Heresy V"</a>. <a class="external text" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060219094255/http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/rk17-kook.htm" rel="nofollow">Archived</a> from the original on 19 February 2006<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">2006-03-05</span></span>.</cite><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AAtheism+and+religion&rft.aufirst=Rav+Hillel&rft.aulast=Rachmani&rft.btitle=Introduction+to+the+Thought+of+Rav+Kook%2C+Lecture+%2317%3A+Heresy+V&rft.date=2002&rft.genre=book&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vbm-torah.org%2Farchive%2Frk17-kook.htm&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook"></span></li>
<li><cite class="citation web">Horgan, Lara (2009). <a class="external text" href="http://sentientonline.net/?p=1213" rel="nofollow">"The Religious Atheist – Why Atheism is on its way to becoming like any other religion"</a><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">2009-12-12</span></span>.</cite></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-78045959923983100332015-11-22T04:40:00.003-08:002015-11-22T04:40:49.568-08:00No God, not even Allah<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h3 class="headline" itemprop="headline">
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21567059-ex-muslim-atheists-are-becoming-more-outspoken-tolerance-still-rare-no-god-not
</h3>
<h3 class="headline" itemprop="headline">
No God, not even Allah</h3>
<h1 class="rubric" itemprop="alternateName">
Ex-Muslim atheists are becoming more outspoken, but tolerance is still rare</h1>
<aside class="floatleft light-grey">
<time class="date-created" datetime="2012-11-24T00:00:00+0000" itemprop="dateCreated">
Nov 24th 2012 </time>
| <span class="location">BEIRUT</span>
| <a class="source" href="http://www.economist.com/printedition/2012-11-24">From the print edition</a>
</aside>
<div class="main-content" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="content-image-full">
<img alt="" height="335" itemprop="contentUrl" src="http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20121124_IRD001_0.jpg" title="" width="595" />
</div>
A MOB attacked Alexander Aan even before an Indonesian court in June
jailed him for two and a half years for “inciting religious hatred”. His
crime was to write “God does not exist” on a Facebook group he had
founded for atheists in Minang, a province of the world’s most populous
Muslim nation. Like most non-believers in Islamic regions, he was
brought up as a Muslim. And like many who profess godlessness openly, he
has been punished.<br />
In a handful of majority-Muslim countries atheists can live safely,
if quietly; Turkey is one example, Lebanon another. None makes atheism a
specific crime. But none gives atheists legal protection or
recognition. Indonesia, for example, demands that people declare
themselves as one of six religions; atheism and agnosticism do not
count. Egypt’s draft constitution makes room for only three faiths:
Christianity, Judaism and Islam.<br />
<aside class="main-content-container">
<div class="secondary-header grey-header size-compact">
In this section</div>
<ul class="expanded-list white-palette typog-list-exp related-items">
<li class="0 first"><span class="current-article ">No God, not even Allah</span></li>
<li class="1"><a href="http://www.economist.com/news/international/21567057-every-cause-has-its-day-whether-deserved-or-not-dies-irae">Dies irae</a></li>
<li class="2 last"><a href="http://www.economist.com/news/international/21567058-fashion-wines-chinese-style-east-red">The east is red</a></li>
</ul>
<div class="bottom-links">
<a href="http://www.economist.com/rights">Reprints</a></div>
</aside>
<em class="Italic">Sharia </em>law, which covers only Muslims
unless incorporated into national law, assumes people are born into
their parents’ religion. Thus ex-Muslim atheists are guilty of
apostasy—a <em class="Italic">hudud </em>crime against God, like
adultery and drinking alcohol. Potential sanctions can be severe: eight
states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Sudan have the
death penalty on their statute books for such offences.<br />
In reality such punishments are rarely meted out. Most atheists are
prosecuted for blasphemy or for inciting hatred. (Atheists born to
non-Muslim families are not considered apostates, but they can still be
prosecuted for other crimes against religion.) Even in places where laws
are lenient, religious authorities and social attitudes can be harsh,
with vigilantes inflicting beatings or beheadings.<br />
Many, like Kacem el-Ghazzali, a Moroccan, reckon the only solution is
to escape abroad. The 23-year-old was granted asylum in Switzerland
after people found out he was the author of an anonymous blog,
Atheistica.com. Even in non-Muslim lands ex-believers are scared of
being open, says Nahla Mahmoud, a 25-year-old Sudanese atheist who fled
to Britain in 2010. “Muslim communities here don’t feel comfortable with
having an ex-Muslim around,” she says, noting that extremists living in
the West may harass non-believers there too.<br />
Facebook groups for atheists, mostly pseudonymous, exist in almost
every Muslim country. Social media give non-believers more clout—but
also make them more conspicuous, and therefore vulnerable. But the real
blame lies with religious intolerance. In the 1950s and 1960s secularism
and tolerance prevailed in many majority-Muslim countries; today
religion pervades public and political life. Sami Zubaida, a scholar at
London’s Birkbeck College, speaks of increasing polarisation, with
“growing religiosity at one end of the spectrum and growing atheism and
secularism at the other.”<br />
The rise to power of Islamist parties after the Arab revolutions is
likely to make life more miserable still for those who leave Islam. New
rulers in Tunisia and Egypt have jailed several young people who have
been outspoken about their lack of belief. Such cases occurred before
the revolutions, but seem to have become more common. Alber Saber Ayad,
an Egyptian Christian activist who ran a Facebook page for atheists, has
been in custody since September for “insulting religion”. His alleged
offence was posting a link to an infamous YouTube video that caused
protests in the Islamic world that month. He was arrested by a Christian
policeman: Egypt’s Coptic church does not look kindly on atheism
either.<br />
<strong>Good news?</strong><br />
The Arab upheavals and the growing number of open non-believers have
sparked some debate. In Egypt, Bassem Youssef, a doctor-cum-comedian,
has bravely called for discussion rather than hostility. Islam
co-existed with pagans and atheists at the height of its power, he
writes. Some of the finest medieval Arabic and Persian poets and
grammarians were atheists (though several were also famously executed).<br />
Young activists, albeit often exiled, such as Mr Ghazzali, have
become more vociferous about their right not to believe in a God.
Organisations abroad for former Muslims are increasingly active, too.
The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, set up by a group of non-believers
five years ago, provides refuge for those who have renounced Islam and
tries to “break the taboo” about apostasy.<br />
In a move hailed by campaigners, Kuwait’s emir in June blocked a bill
to make apostasy a capital offence. Yet seeking secular laws or social
tolerance ignores the root of the problem, says Ibn Warraq, the
pseudonymous Indian-born author of “Leaving Islam”, a collection of
essays by ex-believers, and other books. He lives in exile and has
received death threats for campaigning on the behalf of apostates. The
prevailing interpretation of Islam, he says, simply cannot tolerate
Muslim unbelievers. Arguments for the death penalty are usually based on
a Hadith, one of the sayings which, along with the Koran, form the
basis of Islamic law: “The Prophet said: whoever discards his religion,
kill him.”<br />
Yet other texts have a different message. The Koran’s notably
tolerant Sura 109 includes words such as “For you is your religion, and
for me is my religion.” Moderates also note that though the Koran says
blasphemers will not be forgiven, it does not mention the death penalty.
Some argue that in Islam’s early years apostasy was akin to treason,
earning harsh penalties that are no longer acceptable.<br />
Although some Islamic theologians interpret these provisions to mean
that apostates will be punished in the afterlife, most see them as
ordering that former Muslims must be punished by death. All four schools
of Sunni Islamic law teach that male apostates should be put to death,
though two say that female renegades should only be imprisoned. A number
of leading Islamic figures, such as Egypt’s grand mufti and Yusuf
al-Qaradawi, a Qatar-based preacher, say that the death penalty is
deserved if the apostate “subverts society” or “damages Islam”. All
agree, however, that repentant apostates should be spared; the time and
sincerity needed for such disavowals to count is debated.<br />
Ibn Warraq says that the nub of the problem is that <em class="Italic">sharia </em>makes
atheism the number one sin, ahead of murder. A theological debate on
atheism has yet to begin. Public opinion, though variable, tends to the
censorious. A 2010 survey by the Pew Research Centre, an American
think-tank, found that 84% of Muslims in Egypt and 86% in Jordan backed
the death penalty for apostates, compared with 51% in Nigeria and 30% in
Indonesia.<br />
Such attitudes may stoke atheist sentiment even as they deter its
expression. Ms Mahmoud recalls how her primary school teacher punished
her in art class for sketching a picture of Allah, which is forbidden in
Islam. With fewer rights than her male peers and annoyed by a ban on
studying evolution, she felt pushed away: “These incidents made me
gradually refuse Islam until I completely renounced it and became an
atheist.”<br />
<br />
</div>
<div class="ec-article-info">
<a class="source" href="http://www.economist.com/printedition/2012-11-24">From the print edition: International</a> </div>
</div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-1319268363788474582015-11-22T04:31:00.002-08:002015-11-22T04:31:33.051-08:00What Is Atheism?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="singleCol">
<h1>
https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism</h1>
<h1>
What Is Atheism?</h1>
No one asks this question enough.<br />
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people
have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not.
Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to
evolve from theistic influences or other sources.<br />
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is
not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in
gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no
God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as
"wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly,
theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these
dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define
Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence.
Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read
"there are no gods."<br />
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do
other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views,
and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to
lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s
theists? Atheists will define themselves.<br />
<strong>Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.</strong>
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of
Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion.
Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion
are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If
atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in
2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a
sexual position."<br />
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of
belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have
ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do
not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This
means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. <strong>Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.</strong> We are as unique as our fingerprints.<br />
</div>
</div>
நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-880419309981099323.post-20145931301522915002010-12-10T09:38:00.000-08:002010-12-10T09:38:32.394-08:00NO GOD BUS IN ENGLAND<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6mEH3V9nNfBhrg1E5ee3PMfhCJB9MZNbO5UvBKKe9S_EaZLy43JrGfuxlO1BFawaEVX6gkE_nN_mnKX8ASU5iuMtXgLCSLawH8h5Q26X7ohSBz3PWrt-uH2_7SiAGv92U2Cq0HLrBNtLF/s1600/naalai+fig+004.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="272" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6mEH3V9nNfBhrg1E5ee3PMfhCJB9MZNbO5UvBKKe9S_EaZLy43JrGfuxlO1BFawaEVX6gkE_nN_mnKX8ASU5iuMtXgLCSLawH8h5Q26X7ohSBz3PWrt-uH2_7SiAGv92U2Cq0HLrBNtLF/s320/naalai+fig+004.bmp" width="320" /></a></div><strong><em>NO GOD BUS IN ENGLAND</em></strong>நாளை விடியும்http://www.blogger.com/profile/10001525431337006925noreply@blogger.com0