A wager...

Hmmm, a thought occurs. If I'm going to be an atheist, I really better put my beliefs on the line. So, I'm organising a count down. From this moment, I deny God, Jesus, Muhammad, Allah, Yahweh, Zoroastor, Ahura Mazda, all of them. None of them exist. If they do exist, may they strike me down at this VERY moment. Well, there you go. I'm still here. Let's just keep the count going.

And just for good measure - I deny the holy spirit. Muhammad made up Allah, and worshipped idols, just as I do. I don't follow the Noahide laws.

Ranking them...

Let's be honest, Hitchens was right. Not all monotheisms are the same, not all religions are the same, and not all religions are equal, despite what Bahaullah may have said. Below, I will give you, in my opinion, the worst religions from the worst being no.1. downwards. So, let us begin.

1.Islam
2. Scientology
3.Mormonism
4. Christianity
5. Judaism
6.Zoroastrianism
7.Hinduism
8. Shinto
9.Buddhism
10.Taoism
11.Confucianism
12.Deism
13.Pantheism

Ok, now, why have I ranked them as they are? Well, Islam is no., because, let's be honest, it's shit. It's a terrible, terrible religion. Muhammad was a lying fuckwit. I would agree that, to some extent, he genuinely believed in his mission, and the early revelations would suggest that is true. But the Medinan suras are just bollocks. How anyone could believe they're from god, I just don't know. Also, Islam combines the worst elements of Christanity - heaven and hell, with holy war! That's right, you can't be a good Muslim unless you go out and bring the whole world under Islam. Right now, Islam probably kills more people on a daily basis than all other faiths combined. Also, of any faith, it has its head most in the sand about the modern world. Evolution - not true, anti-Islamic conspiracy!

Scientology - Almost certainly one of the most ludicrous religions out there, I'd also say it was the most evil of the modern era. Like Muhammad, Hubbard hated a lot of people, particularly women. It treats you like shit, and then tells you that you can be a god. Sounds like a Freudian nightmare to me. On top of this, you have to pay to get in. And just like Islam, it has designs on world domination - see Sea Org.

Mormonism - I do have a bit of a soft spot for Mormonism, because it's just well...hilarious. How anyone could have believed Joseph Smith Jnr was a prophet, I don't know. I guess we at least know for certain he existed, unlike Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, or Zoroastor. Mormonism would be far lower down, if it weren't for the laddles of anti-Semitism and racism that are present in the book of Mormon, as well as its shabby treatment of women.

Christianity - What can I say? The three above this one have to be pretty bad to shunt Christianity down here. And let's not be mediocre atheists and say Jesus was a nice guy. He wasn't. He was a raving loon with some pretty nasty ideas. Confucius said everything good that Jesus said 500 years before him. And Jesus added the whole concept of eternal damnation. What a dick. he ain't ever gonna be my saviour. If I was a Christian though, I'd certainly be a good works + faith = salvation kind of guy. Luther's perverted doctrine of salvation sola fide is just evil.

Judaism - Well, Yahweh is a malicious fuck, and the laws are just so stupid I can't believe anyone ever thought they were ok. I asked if any Jews still followed all the laws in my monotheism tute, and Raquel said "no, we don't stone people anymore". SO WHY DO THEY CLAIM TO BE JEWS? What's the point? Does god's revelation need to be constantly updated (sounds like a pretty shit god) or is it perfect forever? If so, go out there and stone your blasphemous children! At least Judaism doesn't really have a concept of heaven and hell. We all just end up in shoel.

Zoroastrianism - Well, they are tiny, so they don't really hurt anyone. And they're all kind of "lovey dovey many paths to god" nowadays. But, back in its heyday, Zoroastrianism was pretty intolerant, killing Christians right left and centre. Also, Zoroastor developed the idea of heaven and hell. Plus they have really stupid ideas about women and menses.

Hinduism - Probably doesn't really exist. But for the sake of ease, it does. Kind of have heaven and hell, kind of don't. Kind of have reincarnation, kind of don't. Many paths to the one. Monotheism, maybe? Who knows. If you could pin them down doctrinially, it'd be easier, but you can't. So they're here because of the caste system, thugee, and sutee, all of which are nasty. Plus the intercommunal violence in India.

Shinto - Primarily here for the stuff during WWII. Persecuted a whole bunch of other religions in Japan. Has weird ideas about Japanese perfectionism vs. everyone else. Hard core shintoists seem happy to blow themselves up. Modern shinto-related groups like to release Sarin gas on trains (see Aum Shinrikyo).

Buddhism - Well, it hasn't got a god, which is nice. The eight fold path actually seems like a good guide to living. I guess my beef with buddhism is just that it is completely unrealistic, and fairly self indulgent. It's a "me, me, me" religion. That, and about 2000 years of serfdom in Tibet that it was responsible for. That said, Zen buddhism, and the whole concept of killing the Buddha really strike a chord with me.

Taoism - Woo, Taoism! Let the way enter you, and then do nothing! These guys are great, except for a real anti-intellectual streak. Some people refer to it as tarted up quantum physics. I don't know about that, but it certainly beats it's western monotheistic counterparts hands down.

Confucianism - I'm a big fan of the Kong jiao. I'd be even more of a fan if they took out the dubious treatment of women, and all that filial piety. That said, there ain't no god, only vague ancestor worship, and some decent ideas about how to be a good person and run a successful society.

Deism - kind of like western Taoism, except, you don't even have to let the way enter you. God is just the prime mover. It set the laws in motion, now you do your life as it was. No life after death. You just live, and die. And there is an unrelated god. Well, there you go.

Pantheism - not really even a creator god. The universe IS god. No laws, no nothing. Just the universe. Then you die, and that is the end of you. Pretty much sexed up atheism with nature worship. I think pantheism is probably the faith of the future - it goes great with the green movement.

The way...

Apparently, the most popular verse in the Bible is:

John 14.6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I personally think this is a pretty evil verse actually, certainly one of the bible's worst. Doesn't compare to some of my favourites, like Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. - There you go, God doesn't like eunuchs. Quite rightly, Bishop Spong puts John 14.6 as one of his "evil bible verses" in his book on the texts of hate in the Bible.

However, what I find more interesting about this is Jesus' use of the term "the way" (pretty much all translations have this, except for some which have the road, which has much the same meaning). Now, having just read the Tao Te Ching, I can't help but note the similiarites. My copy of the Tao Te Ching describes the Tao as "A road, a path, the way by which people travel, the way of nature and finally the Way of Ultimate Reality". Christians are certainly encouraged to walk with Jesus, accept him fully into their lives, and let him totally control them, and by doing so, become one with God. This is pretty similar to Taoism, which argues if we all just breathed deep the gathering gloom (thank you moody blues) and let the Tao flow through us, we can go back to perfect, uncivilised, contentment.

I dunno about you, but I'm sold. Clearly Taoism and Christianity are the same religion. Jesus either was the Tao, or a representative of it. In fact, they even look pretty similar:

道 I reckon that looks a bit like Jesus, don't you?

Andi's adventures with Islam...

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/its-back-to-the-drawing-board/2008/04/05/1207249543919.html), a German security agency has adopted a new way of waging the war on extremism - with a cartoon strip. In the cartoon, one young Andi, having already fought off the legitimate evils of xenophobia and racism, now goes, along with his Muslim girlfriend Ayshe, to prevent her brother Murat from succumbing to the evils of a radical hate preacher. The article stresses the difference between radical extremist Islam, and moderate, peaceful Islam - "The comic aims to show young people the difference between peaceful mainstream Islam and the violent, intolerant version peddled by militants." I have to ask, what difference?

Islam places itself in a uniquely difficult position as a religion. Unlike modern day Christianity, or Judaism, (but more like Bahaism), the Qur'an is immutable and unchangeable - it is the perfect word of god, eternal, made for all people at all times forever. Moreover, the Qur'an is very insistent that believers do not pick and choose verses.

Sura 2:85 - Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression ? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof ? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do. (Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall translation).

As such, moderate Muslims are in a bind. They can be progressive, and liberal, and be good global citizens while at the same time being bad Muslims, or alternatively, they can be good Muslims and do as the Qur'an says - wage war against the infidel, to make sure there is no more fitna. The West should not kid itself - while there is no such thing as "true Islam", after all, faith is only in the heart of the individual believer, the Qur'an cannot be softened, nor the hadith, and the Ulema continues to hark back to the rule of Muhammad in Arabia as the model for the Islamic community - the same regime that expelled Jews and Christians, murdered opponents, and showed no respect for freedom of belief or action. This is ultimately what the Qur'an and the hadith continue to demand of believers.

Fitna

Although I absolutely do not endorse in anyway, shape, or form, the ideology that is behind the people who made this video, I would encourage people to watch it. I really hate having to get into bed with right-wing extremists like the people who made this video, who are a dutch, anti-immigration Christian lobby, it pains me greatly. I wish instead it had been made by people I actually admire, like Christopher Hitchens. I would also point out that I don't necessarily agree with everything in this video, particularly the stuff about the Netherlands. Nevertheless, given this has largely gone offline because of the death threats that Muslims around the world have been sending people who had shown this video, I think it's extremely important that it does stay up.

You can see it here in dutch and in English:

http://www.debaasjes.nl/index.php/comments/fitna1/

Please remember, I am not opposed to Muslims. I loath all religions fairly much equally. Credit where credit is due, it was the Jews who started the whole violent god thing, and the Christians who perfected the concept of a just and holy war. It just happens to be Muslims in this day and age who are the ones who scream and carry on when anyone dares raise an alternative to their dogmatic belief systems. My I remind you also, that these people in the video are AS MUCH Muslims as Sufi mystics who practice peace and love. They both claim to believe in the same book. Just as I have many Christian friends who are liberal and left-wing, and still believe in a the ludicrous, violent nonsense in the Bible, I have many Muslim friends who love humanity as much as I do, and yet claim a belief in a book described at best as a "confused pile of dreams".

Racism and faith

This will not be an interesting study into the correlation between racism and religious faith (although I do think that would be exceptionally interesting given all the references to Hamites in the Bible, dark skin and light skin in the Book of Mormon and slavery in Islam). Instead, it will focus on the tendency in western society at large to associate legitimate criticism of Islam with racist attacks against an "ethnic group".

Overwhelming advances in the field of genetics have shown that, for all intents and purposes, race, as it is popularly understood, does not exist. Skin colour is literally...skin deep. Despite this, I believe that pejorative concepts such as ethnicity and nations do serve some purpose, even if they have very little grounding in reality. To ignore altogether the concept of a nation or an ethnic group would be to ignore significant cultural and historical borders that separate peoples. As such, Arabs are still Arabs, Germans are still Germans, San are still San, regardless of whether we're all pretty much the same genetic stock.

A movement that does have no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever however is the attempt to associate opposition to Islam with a hatred of ethnic minorities. Let me make this clear from the beginning: you cannot change your skin colour or genetic makeup, in the same way you cannot change your sexuality or your eye colour. It will always be what it is. You can however change your faith. People do it all the time - it's called conversion. There are white converts to Islam, and there are black converts, and there are Chinese converts and Jewish converts. Muslims are not some monolithic ethnic group, nor do they share a single culture. The huge difference between Islam as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Islam in Java is indicative of this.

When I criticise Islam, then, I am not criticising an Arab for being an Arab, in the same way that when I criticise Judaism, I am not slandering Jews, or when I criticise Christianity, I am not defaming Romans (or who else?). What I am in fact criticising is a single book, and then a corpus of literature associated with that book - the Qur'an and the hadith. These are perfectly legitimate targets of criticism in a pluralistic, democratic, and free society. Just as I am able to criticise Shakespeare without fear of being labelled racist against people of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic origins, so should I be able to criticise the Qur'an without fear of being labelled an anti-Arabist.

If my (or anybody else’s) criticism of Islam was largely based on the idea that Arabs were a threat to humanity, or that Bangladeshis were intellectually inferior on the basis of their birth, or that Persians were a particularly ugly people, then yes, that would be racist. However, I have yet to come across sophisticated discussions of Islam that fall to that level. Admittedly, on the academic playground that is YouTube, there are some instances where grievances boil down to slanging matches with statements like "Muhammad was a dirty Arab pedofile" and "fuck you, jewdog", but overwhelmingly, this is not the case. To slander people like Hitchens et al with the ludicrous title of being a "racist", simply because they do not feel the need to genuflect before a vile religious ideology, shows the extent to which the children of the enlightenment have lost their way.

The stupidest book ever written...

There are so many books deserving of this title. According to Red Dwarf, "Football: It's a funny old game" gets the award, but in my opinion, it really has to be the Qur'an. What's even more terrifying is that Qur'anic literacy seems to be much higher in the Islamic world that Biblical literacy is in the Christian world. I mean, most Christians don't really seem to have a clue what's in the Bible, and yet many muslims spend years memorising the Qur'an from go to woe. Admittedly, it's in Arabic, and classical Arabic at that, so there is a sizeable chunk of the world's muslim population who have to rely on translation than the actual text, but nevertheless, devout muslims seem more familiar with the book than devout Christians are with theirs. This is what really worries me - can' they see just how amazingly, stupidly, incredibly erroneous this book is?

The Qur'an starts with a prayer, which, to the skeptical mind, might straight away bring into question the idea that it was dictated by god verbatim. After all, why does god need to pray to himself? Oddly enough, the one "atheist" I found who converted to Islam (and is now a lecturer in mathematics at Kansas university) considered this to be a really smart move - it really pulled him. I don't see it for myself, but there you go. The book itself is not organised thematically, or chronologically, but rather by length, and often the suras themselves will jerk randomly from one topic to another, without any kind of coherent reason. Many of the topics raised in the Qur'an require some kind of relevant historical knowledge that most people don't have today.

Despite what muslims say, the Qur'an just repeatedly contradicts itself, again and again and again, hence the necessity of the doctrine of abrogation, where by later suras abrogate earlier ones. This leaves us with a situation where all the Qur'anic nasties (jihad, killing infidels, beating women etc) are pretty much the only ones still relevant. All the niceties (don't force your religion down other peoples throats) are abrogated. On top of this, the Qur'an is piled high with really boring, uninteresting, go nowhere stories. It's kind of like Muhammad picked the worst, most bland stories from the bible, forgot most of the details, and cobbled together just the bare bones of the story. How 1.3 billion people can believe (or at least, claim to believe) this is the pure word of god, unadulterated, good forever, is really beyond me. Worst of all though, is that I've never heard a muslim give a good answer. They always fall back on the "you haven't translated it properly" excuse. Well, I'm reading muslim sources guys, you'd think they'd at least try and get it right.