Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The best blog going...

If you haven't found it, you need to check out Kafir Girl's blog... Raised a Muslim, she's making her way thru the Quran and blogging about the "experience" ... Hilarious.

Needless to say she finds the religion and book completely ridiculous: and she says so in terms that might make a sailor blush...

Her latest post is about an aunt who got possessed by a jinn: people actually believe this stuff!! Hypothyroidism be damned!! It was a jinn in a tree!!!

Check it out:


Intellectual Insurgent said...

Best blog going. Hardly.

Someone who takes it literally and mocks the book is no different than those who take it literally and believe it. Same flaw.

But I suppose it's so fashionable to make fun of religion, that people might still find this played out, juvenile, bitching about religion entertaining.

RR said...

It's relevant because many, many people do take this stuff literally: as exemplified by the craziness in the middle east where we have Jews who think god gave them a piece of desert 3000+ years ago -- and are willing to fight for it... and, we have Muslims who think people should be killed or at least imprisoned for believing the wrong thing about god... or for drawing a cartoon of a 600 year dead merchant.

The point being, you can read and learn about morals, the human condition, love, etc. etc. by reading shakespear, homer or even the bible or quran. The problem is that MANY MANY people in this world beleive these last two books to be divinely inspired and hence the best (if not definitive) work on these subjects. And if you disagree with their version of morality, well - many of them would like to (minimally) restrict your freedoms in their name -- or outright kill you.

I think pointing out the shear absurdity of that position (with hyperbole) is an excellent method of demonstrating these books' nonsensical teachings.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Excellent method. Perhaps.

Or maybe it's just old and trite and truly boring at this point to poke fun at religious literalism, which, of course, is an easy target.

Secular fundamentalism is similarly absurd, but people are ok to take that shit literally.

RR said...


so what are the dogmas of "secular humanism" that are easy to poke fun at?

Religious literalism is wide-spread and continues to have negative global implications...

Intellectual Insurgent said...

The dogmas of secular humanism. Hmmm...

Men and women have no differences and, thus, gender distinctions are made up.

Democracy is a religion that should be spread by the sword. Those who do not take the sacrament of voting should be damned to silent, non-complaining, hell.

Global warming and emission of carbon dioxide are original sin for which humanity must repent or die.

It's horrible and illogical to teach creationism in school, but it's "tolerance" and "diversity" to teach that a child can have two mommies or daddies.

Secular humanist views should be enforced by law, but religious people are horrible when they get their views legislated.

Just replacing one batch of religious dogma for another. Same shit, different fetid, stinking pile.

RR said...


so what "methodology" do you use to determine how to proceed on these issues?

RR said...

All I know, is when you have "revered" people who spew this kind of stuff:

In the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, we read the following: Ibn Qudamah wrote: “Muslim jurists are unanimous on the fact stoning to death is a specified punishment for married adulterer and adulteress. The punishment is recorded in number of traditions and the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stands as an authentic source supporting it. This is the view held by all Companions, Successors and other Muslim scholars with the exception of Kharijites.”

Finally, we would like to note that there are many incidents in the Sunnah and the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in which the Prophet stoned the married adulterer and adulteress to death. This happened in the case of Ma`iz and the Ghamidi woman. All this makes it clear that the punishment is proven and authentic and is not debatable.

You're in trouble.

skip sievert said...

Insurgent is still spewing the same old bullshit I see about ''secular fundamentalists''.

Intellectual..... ha ha
Insurgent..... for the religiously retarded.

RR said...

Yeah -- I don't know why rational people defend religion -- in any form.

It's based on bullshit... it empowers ignorant people who really don't know ANYTHING about the real world... and as a result does more harm than good.

skip sievert said...

Religion as is thought of is mostly an invention of the first civil society... a spin off of trying to control people to form work gangs and fight wars.
Religion was ALWAYS been an inside joke ... made up by Political establishment for brainwashing reasons.
All contemporary religion which is total total bullshit originated from here.
Origin of the Political/Price System TNAT TheNorthAmericanTechnate

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Funny thing is. I'm not defending religion. I'm simply calling bullshit on the double standard. Secularism is just as much a religion as Judaism, but the intellectually shallow can't see past the superficial distinctions.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Ok, let's compare the Kuwaiti encyclopedia to the record of secularism and atheism.

100,000,000 peasants slaughtered in communist, atheist Russia.

Secular America drops two atomic bombs and to this day, the morally challenged call it justified.

Atheist China's Great Leap Forward results in the deaths of millions of Chinese peasants.

Atheist Cambodia's reeducation camps results in millions of deaths to this day.

And in this secular, amoral country today, there is debate about whether torture should be legal.

And you have the nerve to point fingers about a stoning that happened 1,000 years ago?


skip sievert said...

The intellectually shallow?

That is the kettle calling the pot black.
You defend the worst of the worst of the scumbag religious people. . . and make up a story about secular... people being a cult.

Anti-intellectual ... not only... but shows just how far people will go in that direction to defend nonsense opinions.

RR said...

"Ok, let's compare the Kuwaiti encyclopedia to the record of secularism and atheism."

Interesting, but as you say, intellectually shallow... very shallow.

Religion is based on dogma.. dogma is belief without data/justification. I oppose religion because it is dogmatic: rooted in un-verifiable nonsense.

Your examples have nothing to do with secularism, but are examples of pseudo-religious political or nationalistic systems... not unlike religion!

The millions that died under Stalin and Lenin didn't die because of "atheism"
(this is very naive... and shallow thinking on your part II). They were killed by leaders who were worshiped almost like high-priests under a system that did not tolerate ANY analysis or ANY criticism of its underpinnings. Sounds a lot more like religion than "secularism" (whatever that means) to most people.

China: same story...Mao's government wasn't evil because he didn't believe in god. That is silly. It was evil because he thought that imposing his will on others was the right thing to do for his society: the costs (in lives) be damned.

Contrarily, no society ever failed or suffered excessively because they were too reasonable... or because they questioned the motives or policies of their leaders "too much". That is what I am espousing: I stand for reason, skepticism and empiricism. If that's what you mean by "secularism" I'm all for it.

It is simply naive and incorrect to equate any political system with "atheism" ... I'm sure all of the leaders you refer to were also "non-alchemists" and possibly non-astrologers too. Should we then accuse people who don't believe in alchemy and astrology of committing the greatest crimes of the 20th century? It's silly isn't it?

Hence if someone doesn't believe in something, well -- it's awfully hard to pin a cause on a non-belief. Esp when we all have many many things we don't believe in.

In short, just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't mean they can't have VERY bad ideas about how to run a society...

However, Islam (and to lessor degrees) Christianity and Judaism both want to control the behavior of the populace based on dogma... Dogma that is (for the most part) beyond rational criticism (e.g. - god said it, that's the way it is).

Seriously: you're attempts to equate the concepts of rationalism/skepticism with religion are ill founded.

skip sievert said...

Well said, R o R.
For religion to take hold, parents must atrophy their own children's minds by making them believe Faith is good. The resulting incapacity and its life-long consequences enable the world's oligarchy to keep the masses pliable on a second series of self-destructive premises, such as racism, consumerism, classism, patriotism, etc. All of the artificial means by which men [and women, too, I imagine...] find themselves different from each other and thus antagonistic, are enabled in great part due to the mentally debilitating influence of Faith and Religion.

RR said...

I like that phrase skip "atrophy their own children's minds" -- because that is EXACTLY what is going on. It's a form of child abuse. It's akin to telling your kid that Santa and the Tooth fairy really exist -- and perpetuating that myth into adulthood.

People actually base much of their social interactions, stances etc. on their belief in this nonsense (e.g. - god doesn't like condoms so we can't fund family planning that advocates their use): the implications are real.

skip sievert said...

Religion being a construct of political system. The point of it to maintain a class caste system. Only lies can be used in the process.

One of the reasons nothing turns out right in the process.

A science based government is needed.

Capt. Fogg said...

The "dogmas" of secular humanism are laughable constructs with no basis except in convenience for the religious debater. I certainly don't believe there are no differences between men and women.

II I think your arguments are childish and dishonest - sorry to say, since I like you anyway.

Nobody claims that not believing in magic and the occult makes one moral. Concern for other people might, but that's hardly the property of religion and in fact it rarely is.

This is such a swamp of false characterizations and rationalizations of tendentious assumptions that it's embarrassing to read. Some of it is simply dishonest - the movement toward secularism is hundreds of years old - don't call it fashion, particularly in a country with over 90% who believe in the supernatural.

This isn't about reason vs faith anyway - it's about making assertions with no foundation in observable fact. That's called Religion and that practice is the mother of much evil.

RR said...

I agree Fogg... that IS the debate: should people who base their world-view on non-verifiable, non-demonstrable "truth" be given the same credence as folks who "believe" things for concrete, observable reasons?

Saying each of these world-views is "dogmatic" misses the point completely and shifts the argument away from the practical to the ridiculously philosophical.