Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 08:44 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 04:40 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
April 18, 2024, 06:39 PM

New Britain
April 18, 2024, 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 18, 2024, 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Md.mohiuddin megathread

 (Read 12456 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     OP - April 09, 2017, 03:10 PM

    Terrorism & religious fanaticism are the hard core problems we are facing in the modern era. As I have said & wrote numerous times about religious fanaticism on social media. I have to write again,as they(terrorist & fanatics)are killing innocent civilians every day all around the world. Syrians dies everyday & terrorist attacks are happening everyday all over the world.Now-a-days terrorist attacks shocked our world very differently. We feel very insecure as we don't know where & when terrorists will strike to please their blood thirsty god.All the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, terrorists used same strategy and they used cars & lorries to drive through the crowded public places.Therefore it's becoming more insecure & unpredictable to determine which car or lorry driver has terrorising motive.If all this unrest & terrorism due to fanaticism and extremism then how these religions are good for humanity?As long as we are dividing one human race among them & us based on different dangerous religious ideologies, I think we are diluting global peace further more.Global peace isn't just a word, I believe it's our universal rights to live peacefully. We have to be united to live peacefully, but our dreams of unity & global peace isn't possible if religious terrorism & fanaticism exist. And it will exist as long as we have so many different religious fanatics & terrorists.It is obvious that our rights to live peacefully will be under attacks again & again by religious extremists & fanatics.All the religious fanatics are potential terrorists.We have too many fanatics,hence we will always have too many terrorists to make our world unsafe.Every religion as violent as Islamic religion, but in recent times Islamic religion has been used to terrorise more often than not.I don't believe in that every religious people are terrorist, likewise I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists. But I believe all religions have some groups of people,who promotes violence to establish their supremacy. I think it's time to question, Do we need religion to live a life?For me I don't need and I don't want to believe in invisible god. I can be a better person without being religious. I can love every human being without discriminating based on their religious affiliation. I believe that promoting humanism is the best option we have to stop religious fanaticism & terrorism.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • Terrorism & fanaticism
     Reply #1 - April 09, 2017, 07:26 PM

    I agree with your post for the most part. That said, do you really think every religion out there is as violent as Islam? (atleast what's depicted in their holy texts vs the Qur'an and Hadiths, anyways). I mean there's Unitarian Universalism, Confucianism, Taoism, Deism, Buddhism, etc. I feel like an all or nothing proposal when it comes to religion wouldn't help as much in a world so heavily dominated by religion.

    Then you have the wine that doesn't make you drunk. Seriously, who's idea was that? It's called Juicy Juice where I come from, mofo, you ain't fooling me.

  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #2 - April 25, 2017, 07:40 PM


    BY ARSHIA MALIK

    Islamophobia is a term branded around very casually these days on anything and anybody who stands up to the regressive practices in Muslim culture and denounces their oppressive characteristics. The first to scream Islamophobia are the practicing Muslims themselves at ex-Muslims, or agnostic Muslims, or liberal Muslims who feel they should speak out against the various shortcomings in their culture, their religion, their text and their fellow Muslims.

    A disclaimer first – I am aware that many cases of discrimination and abuse against Muslims are on the rise globally and these are clear cases of Muslimphobia rather than the fear of Islam as anyone can testify there is no one Islam: from the militant Wahhabi to the brutal Salafi; to the moderate Deobandi, to the liberal Sufi; to the various personal Islams that spiritual people all over the world have adopted as their personal quest and guide in this journey of life.

    That said, I will focus on the area I am qualified enough to speak about because of my experiences. Why does any Muslim or ex-Muslim or agnostic or outspoken Muslim speak out against the religion they were born and brought up in? I can confidently say because they could not reconcile with the various transgresses they saw being carried out in the name of religion and under the garb of culture.

    I saw my own mother maltreated by my father and his family which included women too, and this caused a lot of grief initially and developed into scepticism towards anything authoritarian just because I was not allowed or encouraged to question the bad behaviour of my father, cousins, uncles, and aunts in the joint patriarchal household of a family.

    Of course, everyone will say transgressions do happen in large families, but what if the members derive theological warrant for everyday violence and violations of an individual’s body, their mind, and their space? Shouldn’t they start questioning why the behaviour is allowed in the first place and if it is openly practiced then shouldn’t the individual be critical of why there is no redress to a civic court of law, where there is a chance to be heard equally among peers and have the confidence that justice will be delivered?

    Rarely, if ever, does it happen. Whenever there is a breach of trust by a family member in Muslim culture, firstly, there is an effort to suppress the knowledge of its occurrence. This effectively upholds the many fallacies such as: “women are treated with dignity in Islam”; “there is no domestic violence in Islam”; “Islam doesn’t have nay instance of incest or pedophilia”, “there is no racism or second class treatment in Islam” and so on and so forth. Having seen first hand the various cases of incest in my own family suppressed, lied about and worst of all denied, I know for sure that this suppression of crimes and violations is a part of Muslim culture which is generally tied to the honour of the family.



    We all know these crimes as honor killings — the ones which make the news, not the ones which occur everyday such as beatings, locking the victims for hours in rooms, restricting their contact with the outside world, marrying them off in haste to strangers to “save” the honor — and the personal moral policing done by family members and the community as a whole.

    So when this very culture sees outspoken people denounce the regressiveness, the brutality and the injustice prevalent in their own cultures, it developed a very clever way to suppress this dissent in the form of one word — Islamophobia. The Western world post-WWII, already reeling under its realisation of the brutality of the havoc one man could wreck on half the globe, flinching on the mounting evidence of genocide and wiped out populations through years of Western imperialism, developed a stubborn and defiant cultural relativism and became staunch in their liberal values. So much so that four decades later as the first signs of radicalism and extremism in Muslim culture started showing its symptoms they very vehemently denied that anything of it had to do with the religion itself or the text itself or the message itself.

    This is the global fight, the international debate, the “clash of civilisations” I see today. Actively practicing deception (taqiyya) the takfiris (those who excommunicate others), using the liberal laws of Western countries, create harmful situations and barriers against the freedom of speech and the right to life, liberty and religion or lack of their fellow believers or former believers, with the help of often misled, yet well-meaning, Western liberals who swore with each new generation since the terrible wars that never again would any fascist make them commit unspeakable crimes against humanity.

    In their fear of being labelled racist, or colonial or imperialists or even superior, they prefer to appease any and every believer who will stand up and say his or her cultural counterparts are being “Islamophobic”. There is rarely the question why they would do so. Why would ex-Muslims or agnostic Muslims risk their lives and that of their families to denounce regressive practices in their culture? For that matter why are their lives at risk at all? Why aren’t they (the outspoken activists) as free to advocate against cultural malpractices as the ones crying foul are free to advocate in favour of what they believe is a religion of peace?

    I understand the concern of the liberals too. Coming from a subcontinent which has seen the bloody saga of a monotheistic religion pitched against a polytheistic one for centuries and still asks for more blood every few years in the name of Hinduism or Islam (depending on which political party is in power), I am all too familiar with the walk on eggshells when speaking out. In this charged up and dangerous atmosphere, anyone denouncing Islamists or radical Islam is quickly taken up by the Hindutva leaning factions as their poster boy or girl.

    The same holds true for Islamist factions who praise and appreciate anyone pointing out the regressive practices in Hinduism such as the debilitating and inhuman caste system and term the person as “enlightened”. The minute the roles are reversed you can be sure no time is wasted in painting a Muslim cultural critic as a ‘jihadi’ if he so much as speaks against Hindutva and when a liberal Hindu tries to question the triple talaaq (divorce) under the Indian Penal Code and succeeds in shutting them up as, yes you guessed it, “Islamophobe”.

    The fight is delicate, I agree. With real cases of discrimination on the rise against Muslims, it has to be very carefully fought. But there is a need to open the minds as to why those that denounce their cultures and risk their lives in doing so should not be listened to and their claims backed up with support and a firm calling for the other party crying “phobia” to clean out their homes first.

    We got our modern nation states based on the ideas of justice, liberty, equality and freedom. We lost generations of our men and millions of kids grew up without fathers who died fighting to uphold those values. We have reached here today where we are pushing for animal and environmental rights, where we have started to include transgenders in our human rights and uphold the rights of the disabled as the foremost achievements, where we see the rights of senior citizens, veterans and the homeless as the pinnacle of the advancement of our civilization, where we have only now started fighting for the rights of the criminally insane, the unborn and the right to die of the terminally ill.

    If we continue to stifle dissent and criticism with this one word of “Islamophobia”, we will be reversing our advancement of centuries from the dark ages of ignorance and superstition instead of progressing to new frontiers of the oceanic depths, galactic systems and the empowerment of women —  for women are the last frontier!

    Let’s empower the Muslim or ex-Muslim dissenters for they are the ones on the frontlines of the fight against fascism today.

    Arshia Malik
    Arshia Malik is a Delhi-based writer, blogger and social commentator with focus on women issues and conflicts in societies with a particular focus on South Asia. She makes her living as a school teacher and is an avid collector of literature.  She is an advocate of humanism and a strong proponent of pluralistic and multicultural societies. Her fields of interests are education, minority and child rights, secularism and tolerant attitude in a fast developing world.
    Follow her on Twitter here.

    Liked it? Take a second to support SEDAA - Our Voices on Patreon!

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • No islamophobia,No fear politics
     Reply #3 - April 25, 2017, 10:36 PM

    Managing Director (Md) mohiuddin prints ARSHIA MALIK words
    BY ARSHIA MALIK

    Islamophobia is a term  ..


    The first to scream Islamophobia are the practicing Muslims themselves at ex-Muslims, or agnostic Muslims, or liberal Muslims   ............ARSHIA MALIK  

     greetings and my good wishes to you dear mohiuddin....  Thanks for that  ARSHIA MALIK article on Phobia ., well I often read her ..



    and that Islamophobe comes from other side of border but she gets printed  her utterings in Pakistan News Papers   So let me add this from her

    Is hijab really a symbol of liberation when millions are oppressed into wearing it?

    Hmm she is indeed Islamophobe BABAKJOY is riot

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • No islamophobia,No fear politics
     Reply #4 - April 26, 2017, 01:16 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y


    oh well

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #5 - April 30, 2017, 08:46 PM


    4. A man may marry the wife of his adopted son;
    Muhammad married Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son. This verse suggests that the adopter may marry the wife of his adopted son and vice-versa:
    "Allah has not made for any man two hearts within him; nor has He made your wives whose backs you liken to the backs of your mothers as your mothers, nor has He made those whom you assert to be your sons your real sons; these are the words of your mouths; and Allah speaks the truth and He guides to the way."
    Qur'an 33:4

    2:282 and Qur'an 4:11 declare that a woman is only half the worth of a man in terms of witness and inheritance.

    3. A woman's witness testimony is half of that of a man's
    This verse says the witness testimony of one man is equivalent to the witness testimony of two women:
    "O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witness; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things."
    Qur'an 2:282
    Related to this verse is Muhammad saying that women are deficient in intelligence

    2. A woman inherits half of what a man inherits;
    This verse says that a woman inherits half of what a man inherits:
    "Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise."
    Qur'an 4:11

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • Controversial verses in the Quran
     Reply #6 - May 01, 2017, 01:41 AM

    I think you will find there is already have a classical sticky thread on this.
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #7 - May 03, 2017, 07:20 PM

    This is the partially translated version of my previous bengali article. I couldn't translate completely due to lacking of times, hence I might have missed some parts of previous version.
    Translated:
    Allama Shafi Huzur, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, the Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, from the Leader of the Opposition, from the Leader of the Opposition to the knowledge of politics, everyone knows that Islam's love for Islam, the alleged 'contempt' of the Prophet Muhammad, everything that has happened to protect Islam, is 'Bakhwaj' . The real thing is that the poor people have the ability to pick up the falsehood of secularism, to gain the status of power, to survive in power or to gain access to their power. To establish itself as 'democratic' in front of the world, 89% Muslims of Bangladesh want to be 'jointed'. This is an easy way to combine 11% of people to spread doubts, hatred and hatred of people. Islam is the trump card as a staircase to survive in power or to go to power.

    The current ruling political party Awami League likes to introduce themselves as secular and secular. Awami League has been trying its multifaceted efforts to portray itself as the only political party in the world without its 'religious fundamentalists'. The people concerned with this government and its administration do not at all know what religious fundamentalism is.

    In the beginning of the discussion, it is relevant to know what is religious fundamentalism? All religious fundamentalism is real abandoned, irrational, scientific thought-free, sociology, anthropology, an illiterate illusion of evolution, superstitious doctrine. Religious fundamentalists live in the present day, all the facilities of modern science and civilization enjoy the benefits; However, the millennium-long religious social rituals, which are completely stagnant in the present time, are going to start an incomplete society system. Prior to the millennium, the ancient customs and religions seek to impose on all human beings any process (even if they were killed) in the neck. These religious fundamentalists are not willing to pay people the freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of personal conduct or personal preferences and dislike. They do not acknowledge the existence of whatever is important, which is not in their religious texts. According to them, 'everything is in the scriptures'. And there is no need for human life which is not in scripture. The objective of Muslim religious fundamentalists is to establish Khilafat rule worldwide. Where under the Shariah law the whole state structure will be run. Which is contrary to the concept of the state of the modern world known as Democracy in the modern world.

    Bangladesh Awami League, which has been recognized as a neutral, progressive and democratic political party, has been in Bangladesh's capacity for almost 7 years. But during this government period there has been a massive rise in religious extremists and terrorists in Bangladesh. Only last year, six bloggers were brutally murdered by public announcements. The declaration of serial killings by public declaration will not be found in any democratic country. It is possible only in the Islamic states, publicly declaring blasphemy accusations. But today it is possible in the People's Republic of Bangladesh only because of political conspiracies. Currently, the ruling political party in Bangladesh, starting from Opposition Opposition to Opposition, Media News, Writer Begins from intellectuals and most of the non-believers remain in safe distance. And this opportunity is being used by the Islamic militant. Although the militants declare openly authors of free speech by killing them, none of them are protesting or protesting, the government is not really sincere about their suppression. As a result the militants are becoming more brave day by day. The situation has now become such that those who openly face the fundamentalist militants, they are getting the title of 'Atheist'. And the 'atheist' title in Bangladesh is seen in the eyes of most people. It is not unjust to kill atheists who believe in a large part of the society. The Prime Minister's son Sajeeb Wazed Joy, also the most influential person in the present government, has also spoken to the news agency Reuters, against the atheists, "We do not want to be known as atheists." (Source- Dhaka Tribune.com) The above statement of Mr. Joy expressed the whole picture of the government of Bangladesh.

    There are numerous clear evidence of the government's view of free thinking, religious criticism and independent opinion. The senior police officer threatened the hard-hitting writers of free speech, saying, "We do not violate the limits. It should not be written in any way, in which any religious feelings hurt the faith. "The Honorable Prime Minister further said in this regard:" If someone hurts a religious sentiment, it will not be tolerated. "

    Atheism was practiced earlier in Bangladesh, but at that time there was no trend to kill atheists. This trend has started since the rise of global Islamic militancy. In 1974, Dawood Haider was forced to leave the country for poetry. Then in 1991-1992, the book of writer Taslima Nasrin was withdrawn at the Bangla Academy Book Fair, and she was banned from entering the fair. At that time, he was physically assaulted in Dhaka University area and Islamic political parties made demands for blasphemy and execution against him for hurting religious sentiments. Many cases have been tried in the whole country demanding his execution, the government also tried to prosecute him. But he survived the country after leaving the country secretly. After the declaration of atheist and apostate, the whole country. Islamist political parties formed a movement demanding the execution of Ahmad Sharif. Islam in January 1999

    Although he tried to kill the militant organization Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Muktmona poet Shamsur Rahman, he survived. A few years later, on February 27, 2004, Professor Dr. Bangla Academy books fair was held in Dhaka University area. Humayun Azad was brutally attacked. He died shortly after the attack and the attack. Bangladesh government. The Azad killings did not properly investigate and prosecute. Since then, the culture of attacks on liberal writers in Bangladesh has basically developed. Which has become increasingly huge due to the state machinery, the administration and the politicians' latent support or silence.

    Since February 2013, some secret attacks and murders are being carried out by the Islamists in Bangladesh, whose manifestations and targets and publicly declare their declaration clearly reveal the Islamic source and engagement behind it. And it is also clear that the main target of the killers or the attackers is the author of free speech, bloggers and publishers, and then the original Islamic disintegrates Muslims and different religions. Sadly, although the Islamic fundamentalist group is behind these killings, attacks and attacks, there is no trial of any kind of assassination in this country.

    Last year (2015) was the most fertile time of Islamic fundamentalist militia in the history of Bangladesh. On February 26, 2015, the founder of 'Muktomna' blog, the author of the first murder, science writer, blogger and researcher, was killed. Abhijit Roy Abhijit Roy came to the United States from the United States to unveil his book in the Ekushey Book Fair held in Bangladesh's capital Dhaka. On returning home from the book fair, the killers hurled their head and neck with sharp machete in front of the public in front of them and fled. The whole incident took place in the presence of hundreds of people, and police were not far behind in the incident, but police did not provide any help to save the life of the accused. During this incident, he was severely attacked by prominent science writer, Muktmona blogger, Abhijit's wife, Rafeda Ahmed Borna. He survived the floods to get immediate treatment of flood people Ahmed Hospital.

    Then on March 31, 2015, by the hands of these Islamist militants, online activist and blogger Wasikur Rahman Babu was killed in front of his own house. Later, on the way to the office, on the 12th of May, in the morning, with the murder of Ananta Bijoy Das, And on 7th August, Niladri Chattopadhyay alias Niloya Nil alias, NC was murdered in his own house. Last year's latest assassination was the publication of the publication of freedom fighter's book Dipan Kader. On October 31, 2015, Islami militants slaughtered him in his publishing house's office. On the same day, publishers, writers and writers of freedom fighter writers Ahmed Rashid Tutul, blogger and writer Ranadipam Basu and poet Tarek Rahim also attacked with the use of machete and firearms to kill Islamic militants. If they took 3 quick people to hospital, they would have been fortunate enough to survive. Although they survived three lives, the news of rising creator Arefin Dipan could not survive.

    One thing is particularly noteworthy that this attack started on a series of writers, bloggers and online activists in February 2013 by killing blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider. Who used to write 'Thaba Baba' on the online platform. In February 2013, the killings began after the historic public blasts in the Shahbagh Square demanding the execution and execution of war criminals. Almost all of these war criminals are involved in the killings of Islamic fundamentalist politics and civilians. The war criminals were mainly leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami organization. Millions of people gathered in Shahbagh for their stringent ruthless and seditious role in the War of Liberation War and the severe punishment of crimes against humanity. And even though this publication and protest are not publicly behind, there is a large part of the liberal writers and bloggers who played the role from the rear. In fact, this was the start of the launch of blogs and online activists on facebook in their inbox and public posting by Yoga. In the movement of Bangladesh which brings together the whole new category. Because this movement started with a social networking site like Facebook and Facebook. Which never happened in this country in the past. This is the start of the Andolan only when the International Criminal Tribunal sentenced the serious war criminal Quader Mollah to life imprisonment instead of death and penalty. The blogger and online activists who refuse the verdict, calling the verdict a 'prasonshwar verdict' and complain of compromise with the government. Later, the court sentenced the culprit to death after reviewing the judgment of Quader Molla under the pressure of the Shahbag movement.

    During the Shahbagh movement of the bloggers and online activists, the former Prime Minister BNP President Khaleda Zia also opposed the blogger's movement calling it a 'movement of atheists' and in keeping with the hefajate Islam. Thus, bloggers were politically identified as 'enemy' to the whole country's administration and the people. Moreover, the word "atheist" is considered very hateful and criminal to the Islamic parties and ordinary religious people. Especially Islamist groups have always been demanding the atheists to be hanged for blasphemy law. Even if they openly declare that if the government does not hang atheists then they will kill these atheist bloggers by slaughtering them. In 2013, they have a list of 84 atheist bloggers across the country.

    Reveal These Islamic militants are announcing publicly and on the one hand they will be killed. Of the 5 bloggers and writers killed last year, 84 registered bloggers Despite the number of serious injuries, even in the last two and a half years, the number of free-minded bloggers-writers killed by Islamic militants in Bangladesh is still 7.

    It is clear that those who have been killed are mostly known as unbelievers or atheists in religion. All of the deceased claimed to be themselves rational and atheistic, and their sharp writings against all kinds of religious blind faith, fundamentalism and anti-human activities were the reason behind their killing. For this reason, jihadi or Islamic militant groups have dared cowardly to pursue these assassins. Internal jihadis or Islamic militant politics in Bangladesh have a very strong involvement with international politics, which can be found in the activities of Islamic countries. Several researchers also raised fingerprints on issues over time. In spite of this, none of the government, political parties and security forces, which are in charge of governing the country, are sincere to suppress it. Instead of suppressing militancy, they are all more attentive to suppressing free-thinking writers, bloggers and publishers. That is why it is not uncommon for the opposition to join such a kind of assassination with any part of the government, such as the government and even the government. The bloggers have repeatedly complained that in the absence of punishments, in spite of being suppressed by killings and attacks, they have patronage or tactical support in the state and government. The striking thing among these killings and attacks is that they are the main targets of the attack, those who influence public opinion through various writings. In the name of the independence of the present ruling Awami League and the Awami League's intellectuals, the so-called secularism and freedom of expression, it is certainly significant that the master plan to destroy those who gave a new dimension to the practice of true religion secularism in this country is undoubtedly significant.

    Abhijit Roy, the founder of Muktomana blog, started using revolutionary changes in the practice of secularism, science and social sciences throughout the Bengali community through 'Muktamana Blog' using online media. There is no way to deny that the free Bengali Renaissance started by the hand of Abhijit's free hand. The 'Muktamana' blog has been able to create an important position in the field of open-mindedness. Many people of this section are now pursuing free thinking through blogs or Facebook based on writing, which has created great communication and influence within the younger generation. The center of this impact is 'Muktamana' blog. Naturally, everyone knew that Abhijit Roy was the lover of this blog. And to prevent or stop this journey of free-spirited people, from the Islamic fundamentalist group to the ruling political party, from outside the opposition to the opposition party, the society's vested interests are involved. It is clear that Abhijit Roy, the main target of the Islamic militants, was also a promising and promising writer to develop the center for him and the 'Muktmona' blog. Now it is seen that not only the writer-blogger nor his close friends, they are now targeting the killing of Abhijit's publishers. That is, Abhijit was their main target. They do not want to put any foundation or name of Abhijit in Bangladesh. Abhijeet worked to achieve that goal, they want to completely destroy those goals.

    In a Muslim-dominated country like Bangladesh, 89 percent of the people in the country who are Muslim, atheistic and free-thinking people are only a small part of the people. There is no power to occupy state power or to fulfill political will in the part. Still, that is why this small part is the main target of jihadis. Indeed, free, rational and free-thinking people from blind faith can play a positive role in building the ideological foundation of a folk or a genuine secular Bangladesh. And that is why international Islamic militant organizations play role as shadow behind the murder of free bloggers, writers. There are many big energy present in the shadow.

    In fact, recent killings and attacks on bloggers in the planning of Islamist militants or jihadis, at the same time, the inaction of the government and the state, and even their petty behavior, the threat of arrest and torture against bloggers-writers and the harassing role of the people, which gave birth to unbelief, suspicion and misery to the government and the state. Due to the fact that there are many free bloggers and authors of Bangladesh C has gone to different countries, some have temporarily taken refuge in the neighboring country; And yet many are trying to leave the country. One thing to note here is that these bloggers-writers did not decide to leave the country and go to the West in search of jobs or better life or just in other countries. They are essentially living their lives to protect their principles and emigrate. So leaving their country to leave this is totally different from others.

    However, in this discussion briefly it is at least understood that those who are religious and especially critics of Islam; They have been the main target of these murderers. And behind such killings there is a combination of national and international politics of different types. So Bangladesh is now the name of one of the words for freedom fighters.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #8 - May 18, 2017, 09:13 PM


    True story from a friend of mine;
    I have this friend. She’s a good fifteen years younger than me, and we lived pretty close to each other when I was in vancouver. That was almost 4 years ago, so she was in her early twenties at the time. I remember one year, as her birthday approached, she kept bubbling on about wanting to go out to celebrate.

    “Let’s go to a bar and get drunk!” She giggled. I could recall a time when I would have been that excited about the prospect of a long night full of jagerbombs and china white shooters. I no longer felt that way.

    “Sure, it’s your birthday. Whatever you want.” I replied, supportively, concealing my inner grimace.

    The problem became worse when the big day arrived and we pulled up to a club. Not a bar. Not a pub. A club. I stood, a short, white, middle-aged mom who has a bedtime, in the middle of the dance floor. Hundreds of – let’s call them kids, ’cause that’s what they were – kids gyrated around me to some Spanish ditty no one knew the words to except the one: Gasolina! The bass was pounding so loud, I am near positive it changed the rhythm of my heartbeat. Boom, boom, boom, “Gasolina!”. I could smell who hadn’t worn deodorant that evening, and I’m pretty sure I tasted a go-go dancer’s sweat. I’d just parted with $10 for a watered down Bud Light (which was the only beer they had on tap) and I must have had a scowl on my face, because my friend noticed my discomfort.

    “Are you okay?” She mouthed at me… I think.

    “This is not a bar.” I looked at her, stoic and blinking with the strobe light, my fingers in my ears.

    “What?” She screamed, which I could only assume from the effort she put into mouthing the word.

    “This is not a bar!” I screamed back. She didn’t hear it. She dragged me to where our other friends were dancing and I mom-danced my way through the night, swearing to myself that this is the last time I go out with kids.

    Words have meanings. A bar is a dimly lit sit-down joint that serves a multitude of beers on tap and has shitty nachos and mozzarella sticks on the menu. There are usually booths and some televisions showing the latest sporting match and you can often find a pool table or a dart board around somewhere. There’s the Keno corner where the local gambling addicts get drunk waiting to win it big and there’s an abundance of dark wood and brass. There are certainly no strobe lights, no one is grinding my ass and no one is pumping their fist in the air shouting, “Gasolina!”. At a bar, I do not have to sniff anyone’s armpits nor do I have to burn a single calorie save for the dunny breaks. A bar is clearly for civilized people, while a club is more suited to gorillas in heat. Rich gorillas in heat. Words… words have fucking meanings.

    Words have meanings we all agree on so that we can understand what each other is talking about. If you change your definition of certain words, they lose meaning to everyone else. For instance, if your definition of “toddler” is “dog” and your definition of “clobber” is walk, you can understand where the confusion might come into play when you say you’re going to go clobber a toddler. You could see how your new definitions could potentially end up in a police situation, possibly with you in handcuffs and your getting to know the back of a police car intimately while your loved ones watch on in utter confusion.

    We must share our definitions of words or we’re simply not discussing the same thing. So, today, I thought I would clear up some of the words religious apologists misuse the most. We’re going to have far clearer discussions on the topics of religion if we can all use the same definitions. Here are 7 words I’ve noticed many theists misuse constantly:

    1. Theory

    You knew this one was coming. As outspoken atheists, we hear the same old mantra every day:
    Evolution is just a theory! This phrase is more played out than Donald Trump’s presidency. Here we see the theist using the colloquial version of “theory”, when the topic at hand demands the use of the scientific form of “theory”. To a theist, a theory is a guess and nothing more. However, when discussing theories in science, we’re not using that version of the word. Instead, theory means:

    A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. – ref:Wikipedia.

    So, when you use the colloquial version of theory in place of the scientific definition of the word, you make quite clear that you’ve not got the slightest clue what evolution is and what evidence exists for it. Until you do, probs best not chat about it, lest you embarrass yourself further.
    Perfect:
    Perfect, contrary to the Ass’s assertion here, has but one definition. There is no room here for subjective interpretations of the word. Sure, when we’re looking for the perfect mate or the perfect pair of shoes, the criteria required for those things to be deemed perfect is certainly subjective, but no one is claiming the shoes or the mate themselves are perfect objectively speaking. When someone asserts that the Bible is the perfect word of god, they are claiming that it is so objectively.
    A piece of writing that is objectively perfect would not need revisions, nor could it be interpreted incorrectly. It wouldn’t have any contradictions or problems within the text itself. You would not be able to debate the meaning of its contents and the introduction of a newer installment would render the first imperfect.

    Perfection means as good as is possible. If it’s the word of an omniscient, omnipotent god, what is possible has no limit. By definition, an omnipotent god has the ability to create a text that is clear, understood by all and undebatable. He has the power to record his word in such a way that there is only one possible interpretation, no matter who is reading it. An omniscient god would foresee all the updates/revisions necessary for the rest of time, and of course write the first installment of the text with all the unfolding of time in mind. If something in God’s word were to become obsolete with the passage of time, his word is imperfect.

    The Bible, we know beyond any doubt, is not perfect. It does not objectively meet the definition of perfect. Theists need to stop referring to it as such.

    3. Proof

    No, your wet dream about the virgin Mary is not proof of god. The image of Jesus appearing on your burnt toast is not proof of god. Hearing voices, perceiving answered prayers or statues crying tears of blood are not proof of god. Proof is evidence that is enough to prove something is true. Empirical evidence is required to prove something is true – that means it can undergo repetition. It must be demonstrable, falsifiable an objective. Predictions must come true no matter who is investigating. Proof is not something you feel or believe it. Proof is objective, outside of yourself and apparent to anyone with an inquisitive enough mind.

    4. Free will

    Imagine you’re heading out to the newest restaurant in town tonight. It’s getting rave reviews and everyone is going on and on about how different it is. “It’s unlike any dining experience you’ve ever had before!” they say. You’re finally going to experience it yourself but as you walk in, you’re taken aback… above every seat is a bucket of pig shit.

    “What’s with the unusual decor?” You ask your server, nervously glancing at the dangling refuse above you.

    “Here.” He hands you your menu. It’s several pages long and you thumb through it as the server continues. “Have your choice of anything on the menu, but please note that if you order anything other than the prairie oysters, your bucket of pig shit will overturn dumping porcine dung all over you and everyone around you.”

    Another patron at the table next to you leans in, points to the menu and says, “Isn’t this great? There are so many choices!”.

    This is precisely what is meant by free will when a theist says it. No, you don’t have to order prairie oysters to avoid wearing bacon turds, but you do have to worship god to avoid eternal torture. The thing about Chez Porky is that you can go home and shower and live the rest of your life without piggy poop in your hair. It’s impermanent; it’ll pass; it ends. If you choose not to worship god, your torture in a lake of fire goes on for all eternity. There is no escaping it, ever. This is not a choice anymore than prairie oysters at the shit barn is.

    5. Moral
    God has rules on how to own and treat your slaves. He has rules outlined pretty clearly about how to pay your way out of punishment for raping. He has slaughtered the entire population of earth: men, women and babies for the bad behaviour of a few. He watches every rape, every murder, every terminally ill child on earth and does nothing. Asserting that god is the ultimate source of morality is like saying Kraft Dinner is the height of culinary artistry. Unless moral means “more completely depraved than Hitler himself”, theists are using the word wrong.
    Faith:
    Faith is belief without evidence. Atheism is the answer “no” to “do you believe in god?”. I need no faith in the fact that I do not believe in god. I am the primary source of this information, which counts as good evidence. I know I don’t believe in god. No faith required.

     

    7. Atheist

    There is a huge spectrum, almost all-encompassing, of what a theist might mean when they say “atheist”. To theists, “atheist” can mean someone who asserts there is no god. It can mean someone who knows and believes in a god but is too angry at him to worship him. It could also be someone who believes in a god but doesn’t like his rules and so chooses to live outside of them. “Atheist” could be someone with faith in that which cannot be proven; it can mean science worshipper, nihilist or satanist. “Atheist”, to the theist, might mean evil, lacking a moral backbone or communist. Very rarely does a theist mean “someone who lacks a belief in a god” when they say “atheist”. It’s strange, to say the least, that to a theist “atheist” can mean pretty much anything under the sun, except for the one definition atheists use. It’s almost as if they have to make up new meanings for the word in order to be able to pick apart our position. It’s almost as if they can’t argue with “I don’t believe you, please prove it.”

    But alas, “atheist” as us atheists tend to use it ourselves, is simply lacking a belief in a god. It makes no claims, has no morality, no specific worldview. But what the fuck do we know, right? We don’t have the almighty, all-knowing creator of the universe whispering us to sleep each night, right? We’re obviously in the wrong, and we’re all Hitler-worshipping, goat-sacrificing baby-eaters who’ve waged war with Jeebus.

    Theists and atheists use different meanings for so many of the most common words that come up in conversation between us. It’s no wonder civil conversation is a rarity when discussing religious beliefs and lack thereof. We’re pretty much speaking entirely different languages. Hopefully this little list will be a good starting point for better understanding each other, though. Perhaps now the theist will understand what we mean when we use these words.


    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • 7 Words Theists misuse constantly.
     Reply #9 - May 19, 2017, 01:14 AM

    Wow, top post, entertaining and humorous too. Far too good for this place.  Tongue

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • 7 Words Theists misuse constantly.
     Reply #10 - May 19, 2017, 06:15 AM

    A bar is clearly for civilized people

     Huh? Cheesy Cheesy

    But I do agree with the rest of your post though.

    Also isn't "Gasolina" some Kids Bop song or whatever they were/are called? (dunno if they're still around)

    Then you have the wine that doesn't make you drunk. Seriously, who's idea was that? It's called Juicy Juice where I come from, mofo, you ain't fooling me.

  • 7 Words Theists misuse constantly.
     Reply #11 - May 19, 2017, 01:10 PM

    Wow, top post, entertaining and humorous too. Far too good for this place.  Tongue


    You are insulting me dear asbie..but  that is not new to me....

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • 7 Words Theists misuse constantly.
     Reply #12 - May 19, 2017, 04:48 PM

    Thanks to everyone who have appreciated & read my post. This is a place for the people who believes in equal human rights and one law for all. And we also believe all the mainstream & practicing religions have one or other way negative narratives towards equal human rights and one law for all. Therefore we made up our mind not to believe in those disputed & discriminatory religions which have no authentic & visible evidences to establish we are wrong.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • 7 Words Theists misuse constantly.
     Reply #13 - May 19, 2017, 05:01 PM

    Thanks to everyone who have appreciated my post. This is a place for the people who believes in equal human rights and one law for all. And we also believe all the mainstream & practicing religions have one or other way negative narratives towards equal human rights and one law for all. Therefore we made up our mind not to believe in those disputed & discriminatory religions which have no authentic & visible evidences to establish we are wron g.

    Well all  readers Pro and anti faith ..pro religion and anti religion readers appreciate your posts  dear Md.mohiuddin ..

    but if  you really want to debate  on the  Words Theists  misuse constantly.  then you have to watch this..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u46qvMR_Y7c

    and answer those guys who think  there are very important reasons for faith in some super duper god..  or Christ as god/god in the form of jesus christ as that video is mostly by christians but very qualified folks with tons backgrounds in basic sciences.. 

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • 7 Words Theists misuse constantly.
     Reply #14 - May 19, 2017, 06:28 PM

    You are insulting me dear asbie..but  that is not new to me....


    Sorry yeez. Nothing personnel.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #15 - May 26, 2017, 12:58 AM

    I was thinking to write about recent atrocity at Manchester and religious fanatics, but due to personal commitments couldn't mange time. But here I'm now able to manage some time for that. I would like to start by sending my love & condolences to the family & friends who have lost their loved ones. I certainly I can't do anything for people, who have lost their life in the worst barbaric terrorist attack at Manchester. This is heartbreaking and horrific attack on innocent civilians, I can't put enough words to explain my feelings for the people who were at the event venue.so, I hope their lives in the world was worthwhile and I undoubtedly saying we have lost 22 beautiful human beings. Who could make a difference in our lives across the globe. Also, I'm sending my love & good wishes for the people who have been injured in the terror attack. I hope they all will recover promptly and would be able to get back to their normal life. I know that would be difficult. But remember you aren't alone here, we are all United as one in every humanitarian crisis.
     
    In the context of globalisation we are right, but the things which aren't right is global religious fanaticism. This one big problem leads to many other associate problems with it. We are now very unsafe than we ever been before. Even though, we have made huge progress in the human development index but that's just not enough to live a safe life. when your safety isn't ensured then nothing you can do for you or others.It's really sad that our safety always been threatened by very few facts. And they are religious fanaticism & the people who patronising these evil ideas. We have fanaticism in every single religion in our world.But surely Islamic extremists are at the rise in recent times. Islam has its controversy since the brith of Islam, so do Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and other religions.But I also completely agree that these religious fanatics are insignificant number, majority of the religious people are normal and get on a normal life.so, why do I think religions are bad to have for true global peace?
    Now, I have to take assistance from the human history of religious war or so called holy wars:

    Christianity:

    In early Christianity, St. Augustine's concept of just war (bellum iustum) was widely accepted, but warfare was not regarded as a virtuous activity[25][26] and expressions of concern for the salvation of those who killed enemies in battle, regardless of the cause for which they fought, was common.[25] According to historian Edward Peters, before the 11th century Christians had not developed a concept of "Holy War" (bellum sacrum), whereby fighting itself might be considered a penitential and spiritually meritorious act.[25][27] During the 9th and 10th centuries, multiple invasions occurred which lead some regions to make their own armies to defend themselves and this slowly lead to the emergence of the Crusades, the concept of "holy war", and terminology such as "enemies of God" in the 11th century.[25][27]

    During the time of the Crusades, some of those who fought in the name of God were recognized as the Milites Christi, soldiers or knights of Christ.[28] The Crusades were a series of military campaigns that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries against the Muslim Conquests. Originally, the goal was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, and support the besieged Christian Byzantine Empire against the Muslim Seljuq expansion into Asia Minor and Europe proper. Later, Crusades were launched against other targets, either for religious reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Northern Crusades, or because of political conflict, such as the Aragonese Crusade. In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II raised the level of war from bellum iustum ("just war"), to bellum sacrum ("holy war").[29] In 16th Century France there was a succession of wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots primarily), known as the French Wars of Religion. In the first half of the 17th century, the German states, Scandinavia (Sweden, primarily) and Poland were beset by religious warfare in the Thirty Years War. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism figured in the opposing sides of this conflict, though Catholic France did take the side of the Protestants but purely for political reasons.

    The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, known in Arab history as the Battle of Al-Uqab (معركة العقاب), took place on 16 July 1212 and was an important turning point in the Reconquista and in the medieval history of Spain.[30] The forces of King Alfonso VIII of Castile were joined by the armies of his Christian rivals, Sancho VII of Navarre, Pedro II of Aragon and Afonso II of Portugal in battle[31] against the Berber Muslim Almohad conquerors of the southern half of the Iberian Peninsula.

    Islam:

    The Muslim conquests were a military expansion on an unprecedented scale, beginning in the lifetime of Muhammad and spanning the centuries, down to the Ottoman wars in Europe. Until the 13th century, the Muslim conquests were those of a more or less coherent empire, the Caliphate, but after the Mongol invasions, expansion continued on all fronts (other than Iberia which was lost in the Reconquista) for another half millennium until the final collapse of the Mughal Empire in the east and the Ottoman Empire in the west with the onset of the modern period.

    There were also a number of periods of infighting among Muslims; these are known by the term Fitna and mostly concern the early period of Islam, from the 7th to 11th centuries, i.e. before the collapse of the Caliphate and the emergence of the various later Islamic empires.

    While technically, the millennium of Muslim conquests could be classified as "religious war", the applicability of the term has been questioned. The reason is that the very notion of a "religious war" as opposed to a "secular war" is the result of the Western concept of the separation of Church and State. No such division has ever existed in the Islamic world, and consequently there cannot be a real division between wars that are "religious" from such that are "non-religious". Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism, and warfare has been integral part of Islamic history both for the defense and the spread of the faith since the time of Muhammad. This was formalised in the juristic definition of war in Islam, which continues to hold normative power in contemporary Islam, inextricably linking political and religious justification of war.[32] This normative concept is known as Jihad, an Arabic word with the meaning "to strive; to struggle" (viz. "in the way of God"), which includes the aspect of struggle "by the sword",[citation needed]

    The first forms of military Jihad occurred after the migration (hijra) of Muhammad and his small group of followers to Medina from Mecca and the conversion of several inhabitants of the city to Islam. The first revelation concerning the struggle against the Meccans was surah 22, verses 39-40:[33]

    To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid. (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

    — Abdullah Yusuf Ali
    This happened many times throughout history, beginning with Muhammad's battles against the polytheist Arabs including the Battle of Badr (624), and battles in Uhud (625), Khandaq (627), Mecca (630) and Hunayn (630).

    Judaism:

    In the Jewish religion, the expression Milkhemet Mitzvah (Hebrew: מלחמת מצווה, "commandment war") refers to a war that is obligatory for all Jews (men and women). Such wars were limited to territory within the borders of the land of Israel.[citation needed] The geographical limits of Israel and conflicts with surrounding nations are detailed in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, especially in Numbers 34:1-15 and Ezekiel 47:13-20. The concept of a religious war was absent in Jewish thought for approximately 2000 years, though it reemerged in some factions of the Zionist movement, particularly Revisionist Zionism.[34] "From the earliest days of Israel's existence as a people, holy war was a sacred institution, undertaken as a cultic act of a religious community.[35]

    According to Reuven Firestone, ""Holy War" is a Western concept referring to war that is fought for religion, against adherents of other religions, often in order to promote religion through conversion, and with no specific geographic limitation. This concept does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, whose wars are not fought for religion or in order to promote it but, rather, in order to preserve religion and a religiously unique people in relation to a specific and limited geography."[36].

    The short list of casualties due to religions & its fanaticism:

    The Crusades: 6,000,000
    Thirty Years War: 11,500,000
    French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000
    Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000
    Lebanese Civil War: 250,000
    Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000
    Congolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000
    Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000
    Rwandan Genocide: 800,000
    Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000
    Nigerian Civil War: 1,000,000
    Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000
    First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000
    Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000
    The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000
    Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000
    Iraq War: 500,000
    US Western Expansion (Justified by "Manifest Destiny"):20,000,000
    Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000
    Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000
    AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000
    Spanish Inquisition: 5,000
    TOTAL: 195,035,000 deaths in the name of religion.

    If anyone has the patience to read such a long Facebook status, I hope you would be able understand how difficult for us to be religious but at the same time not to be bigot. All the fundamental religious people supporting their affiliated religious bigotry one or other way around. And there are religious doctrines that if you aren't fundamentally religious then you aren't religious at all. Every religion says you have to believe religious doctrine fundamentally and that's what their so called gods want. I'm tired, so many or I can say millions are fed up with discriminatory religious doctrines which fuel in the course of religious conflicts & wars. People see religions are baseless & failed to bring evidences to establish their peaceful presence. Religions are all about belief in unseen but which is established by fear-mongering approach towards general people. I personally believe, religions are invented to bring social systems under certain control and to make it effective they brought forward religious doctrines. Which injected into society with precise measurements & was well planned to some extent well placed too. Which took away human ability to think beyond religious doctrines for such a long time, therefore people are scared to leave those religions and religious doctrines, and people also confused due to lack of proper evidences.

    Since we have religions as a way of life for the  billions of people and its very normal to have few religious fanatics if not majority, as long as we have religious fanatics, there will always be risk of religious atrocities. Therefore our safety always be threatened by unexpected attacks. May humanism & secularism live long.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • Humanism should stay at heart, religions should disappear
     Reply #16 - May 26, 2017, 03:19 AM

    holy wars:

    Christianity:

    Islam:

    Judaism:


     
    The short list of casualties due to religions & its fanaticism:

    The Crusades: 6,000,000
    Thirty Years War: 11,500,000
    French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000
    Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000
    Lebanese Civil War: 250,000
    Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000
    Congolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000
    Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000
    Rwandan Genocide: 800,000
    Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000
    Nigerian Civil War: 1,000,000
    Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000
    First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000
    Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000
    The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000
    Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000
    Iraq War: 500,000
    US Western Expansion (Justified by "Manifest Destiny"):20,000,000
    Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000
    Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000
    AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000
    Spanish Inquisition: 5,000
    TOTAL: 195,035,000 deaths in the name of religion.
     


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8a3zLf0QBY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW21P0BwnxQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ6e1ca8tiw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxYP0PRXDWA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5EDwTluWIk

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #17 - May 26, 2017, 05:34 PM

    I am a liberal. When it comes to the left-right political spectrum, I am far to the left. And when it comes to the libertarian-authoritarian pole, I am far to the libertarian side (you can see a visual representation of where I fall if you are interested). Admittedly, this might be somewhat misleading because I am also a freethinker. That means that I do not toe the line on any particular ideology. I am liberal on many economic issues but not all of them, and the same goes for being libertarian on many but not all social and cultural issues.

    As a freethinker, I don't blindly follow any political party, dogma, or accepted narrative. I consider the issues and think for myself. I know of no political candidate I would not criticize, and I reject the claims that any particular ideology is somehow beyond criticism. Bad ideas must be criticized, regardless of their source, and better ideas must be offered as alternatives.

    Here are some things this liberal freethinker believes about Islam:
    I despise religiously-motivated terrorism regardless of which religion is behind it, and I make no exceptions for Islam.
    I think it is both possible and desirable to be critical of Islam (and every other religion) without being bigoted against Muslims (or other religious believers). We do this, at least in part, by specifying which Muslims we are talking about when referring to Muslims.
    I believe that equating the criticism of Islam with bigotry and/or throwing accusations of Islamophobia at those who criticize Islam are counterproductive.
    I think that liberals need to reject the self-imposed taboo against criticizing Islam that some on the left are pushing.
    I believe that some of the open-border immigration policies we see in Europe have failed, causing more harm than good. When a nation admits large numbers of immigrants who blatantly reject the values of the host nation and fails to properly integrate them, trouble seems likely.
    I am well aware that Islam is not a race and, with all due respect to Ben Affleck, criticizing Islam is neither "gross" nor "racist."
    I believe that Islam must be mocked on a regular basis (just as we mock other religions) until Muslims stop killing people for failing to follow their religious prohibitions, and that means I applaud those who continue to draw Muhammad.
    I recognize that some on the left are speaking out against Islam, and I believe that they deserve our support.
    Why did I write this? I see several conservatives complaining about how clueless, out-of-touch, backward, regressive, wrong, or whatever else liberals are when it comes to Islam. I do not doubt that these are valid criticisms of some liberals; however, I'd urge these conservatives to avoid issuing such sweeping generalizations about all liberals. I am confident that I am not the only liberal who might agree with at least some of what they think about Islam. By continuing to paint us all in this manner, they are depriving themselves of potential allies.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • What this liberal thinks about Islam?
     Reply #18 - May 26, 2017, 07:26 PM

    http://www.atheistrev.com/2017/05/what-this-liberal-thinks-about-islam.html?m=1

    You should give the actual author of the post credit for your post.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • What this liberal thinks about Islam?
     Reply #19 - May 26, 2017, 08:52 PM

     Cheesy

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #20 - May 28, 2017, 12:32 PM

    Religious Trauma Syndrome is the condition experienced by people who are struggling with leaving an authoritarian, dogmatic religion and coping with the damage of indoctrination. They may be going through the shattering of a personally meaningful faith and/or breaking away from a controlling community and lifestyle.  RTS is a function of both the chronic abuses of harmful religion and the impact of severing one’s connection with one’s faith.  It can be compared to a combination of PTSD and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). This is a summary followed by a series of three articles which were published in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Today.
    Religious Trauma Syndrome has a very recognizable set of symptoms, a definitive set of causes, and a debilitating cycle of abuse. There are ways to stop the abuse and recover.
    Symptoms of Religious Trauma Syndrome:
     
    • Cognitive: Confusion, poor critical thinking ability, negative beliefs about self-ability & self-worth, black & white thinking, perfectionism, difficulty with decision-making
     
    • Emotional: Depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loneliness, difficulty with pleasure, loss of meaning
     
    • Social: Loss of social network, family rupture, social awkwardness, sexual difficulty, behind schedule on developmental tasks
     
    • Cultural: Unfamiliarity with secular world; “fish out of water” feelings, difficulty belonging, information gaps (e.g. evolution, modern art, music)
     
    Causes of Religious Trauma Syndrome:
     
    Authoritarianism coupled with toxic theology which is received and reinforced at church, school, and home results in:
     
    • Suppression of normal child development – cognitive, social, emotional, moral stages are arrested
     
    • Damage to normal thinking and feeling abilities -information is limited and controlled; dysfunctional beliefs taught; independent thinking condemned; feelings condemned
     
    • External locus of control – knowledge is revealed, not discovered; hierarchy of authority enforced; self not a reliable or good source
     
    • Physical and sexual abuse – patriarchal power; unhealthy sexual views; punishment used as for discipline
     
    Cycle of Abuse
     
    The doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation cause the most psychological distress by creating the ultimate double bind. You are guilty and responsible, and face eternal punishment. Yet you have no ability to do anything about it. (These are teachings of fundamentalist Christianity; however other authoritarian religions have equally toxic doctrines.)
     
    You must conform to a mental test of “believing” in an external, unseen source for salvation, and maintain this state of belief until death. You cannot ever stop sinning altogether, so you must continue to confess and be forgiven, hoping that you have met the criteria despite complete lack of feedback about whether you will actually make it to heaven.
     
    Salvation is not a free gift after all.
     
    For the sincere believer, this results in an unending cycle of shame and relief.
     
    Stopping the Cycle
     
    You can stop the cycle of abuse, but leaving the faith is a “mixed blessing.” Letting go of the need to conform is a huge relief. There is a sense of freedom, excitement about information and new experiences, new-found self-respect, integrity, and the sense of an emerging identity.
     
    There are huge challenges as well. The psychological damage does not go away overnight. In fact, because the phobia indoctrination in young childhood is so powerful, the fear of hell can last a lifetime despite rational analysis. Likewise the damage to self-esteem and basic self-trust can be crippling. This is why there are so many thousands of walking wounded – people who have left fundamentalist religion and are living with Religious Trauma Syndrome.
     
    Mistaken Identity
     
    Religious Trauma Syndrome mimics the symptoms of many other disorders –
     
    post-traumatic stress disorder
    clinical depression
    anxiety disorders
    bipolar disorder
    obsessive compulsive disorder
    borderline personality disorder
    eating disorders
    social disorders
    marital and sexual dysfunctions
    suicide
    drug and alcohol abuse
    extreme antisocial behavior, including homicide
    There are many extreme cases, including child abuse of all kinds, suicide, rape, and murder. Not as extreme but also tragic are all the people who are struggling to make sense of life after losing their whole basis of reality. None of the previously named diagnoses quite tells the story, and many who try to get help from the mental health profession cannot find a therapist who understands.
     
    What’s the problem?
     
    We have in our society an assumption that religion is for the most part benign or good for you. Therapists, like others, expect that if you stop believing, you just quit going to church, putting it in the same category as not believing in Santa Claus. Some people also consider religious beliefs childish, so you just grow out of them, simple as that. Therapists often don’t understand fundamentalism, and they even recommend spiritual practices as part of therapy. In general, people who have not survived an authoritarian fundamentalist indoctrination do not realize what a complete mind-rape it really is.
     
    In the United States, we also treasure our bill of rights, our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. This makes it extremely difficult to address a debilitating disorder like RTS without threatening the majority of Americans. Raising questions about toxic beliefs and abusive practices in religion seems to be violating a taboo. No one wants to be pointing fingers for fear of tampering with our precious freedoms.
     
    But this is the problem. Sanitizing religion makes it all the more insidious when it is toxic. For example, small children are biologically dependent on their adult caretakers; built into their survival mechanisms is a need to trust authority just to stay alive. Religious teachings take hold easily in their underdeveloped brains while the adults conveniently keep control. This continues generation after generation, as the religious meme complex reproduces itself, and masses of believers learn to value self-loathing and fear apocalypse.
     
    There is hope
     
    Awareness is growing about the dangers of religious indoctrination. There are more and more websites to support the growing number of people leaving harmful religion. Slowly, services are growing to help people with RTS heal and grow, including Journey Free. We are discovering the means by which people can understand what they have been through and take steps to become healthy, happy human beings.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • Religious Trauma syndrome
     Reply #21 - May 28, 2017, 01:08 PM

    Religious Trauma Syndrome is the condition experienced by people who are struggling with leaving an authoritarian, dogmatic religion and coping with the damage of indoctrination. They may be going through the shattering of a personally meaningful faith and/or breaking away from a controlling community and lifestyle.  RTS is a function of both the chronic abuses of harmful religion and the impact of severing one’s connection with one’s faith.  It can be compared to a combination of PTSD and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). This is a summary followed by a series of three articles which were published in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Today.
    Religious Trauma Syndrome has a very recognizable set of symptoms, a definitive set of causes, and a debilitating cycle of abuse. There are ways to stop the abuse and recover.
    Symptoms of Religious Trauma Syndrome:
     
    • Cognitive: Confusion, poor critical thinking ability, negative beliefs about self-ability & self-worth, black & white thinking, perfectionism, difficulty with decision-making
     
    • Emotional: Depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loneliness, difficulty with pleasure, loss of meaning
     
    • Social: Loss of social network, family rupture, social awkwardness, sexual difficulty, behind schedule on developmental tasks
     
    • Cultural: Unfamiliarity with secular world; “fish out of water” feelings, difficulty belonging, information gaps (e.g. evolution, modern art, music)
     
    Causes of Religious Trauma Syndrome:
     
    Authoritarianism coupled with toxic theology which is received and reinforced at church, school, and home results in:
     
    • Suppression of normal child development – cognitive, social, emotional, moral stages are arrested
     
    • Damage to normal thinking and feeling abilities -information is limited and controlled; dysfunctional beliefs taught; independent thinking condemned; feelings condemned
     
    • External locus of control – knowledge is revealed, not discovered; hierarchy of authority enforced; self not a reliable or good source
     
    • Physical and sexual abuse – patriarchal power; unhealthy sexual views; punishment used as for discipline
     
    Cycle of Abuse
     
    The doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation cause the most psychological distress by creating the ultimate double bind. You are guilty and responsible, and face eternal punishment. Yet you have no ability to do anything about it. (These are teachings of fundamentalist Christianity; however other authoritarian religions have equally toxic doctrines.)
     
    You must conform to a mental test of “believing” in an external, unseen source for salvation, and maintain this state of belief until death. You cannot ever stop sinning altogether, so you must continue to confess and be forgiven, hoping that you have met the criteria despite complete lack of feedback about whether you will actually make it to heaven.
     
    Salvation is not a free gift after all.
     
    For the sincere believer, this results in an unending cycle of shame and relief.
     
    Stopping the Cycle
     
    You can stop the cycle of abuse, but leaving the faith is a “mixed blessing.” Letting go of the need to conform is a huge relief. There is a sense of freedom, excitement about information and new experiences, new-found self-respect, integrity, and the sense of an emerging identity.
     
    There are huge challenges as well. The psychological damage does not go away overnight. In fact, because the phobia indoctrination in young childhood is so powerful, the fear of hell can last a lifetime despite rational analysis. Likewise the damage to self-esteem and basic self-trust can be crippling. This is why there are so many thousands of walking wounded – people who have left fundamentalist religion and are living with Religious Trauma Syndrome.
     
    Mistaken Identity
     
    Religious Trauma Syndrome mimics the symptoms of many other disorders –
     
    post-traumatic stress disorder
    clinical depression
    anxiety disorders
    bipolar disorder
    obsessive compulsive disorder
    borderline personality disorder
    eating disorders
    social disorders
    marital and sexual dysfunctions
    suicide
    drug and alcohol abuse
    extreme antisocial behavior, including homicide
    There are many extreme cases, including child abuse of all kinds, suicide, rape, and murder. Not as extreme but also tragic are all the people who are struggling to make sense of life after losing their whole basis of reality. None of the previously named diagnoses quite tells the story, and many who try to get help from the mental health profession cannot find a therapist who understands.
     
    What’s the problem?
     
    We have in our society an assumption that religion is for the most part benign or good for you. Therapists, like others, expect that if you stop believing, you just quit going to church, putting it in the same category as not believing in Santa Claus. Some people also consider religious beliefs childish, so you just grow out of them, simple as that. Therapists often don’t understand fundamentalism, and they even recommend spiritual practices as part of therapy. In general, people who have not survived an authoritarian fundamentalist indoctrination do not realize what a complete mind-rape it really is.
     
    In the United States, we also treasure our bill of rights, our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. This makes it extremely difficult to address a debilitating disorder like RTS without threatening the majority of Americans. Raising questions about toxic beliefs and abusive practices in religion seems to be violating a taboo. No one wants to be pointing fingers for fear of tampering with our precious freedoms.
     
    But this is the problem. Sanitizing religion makes it all the more insidious when it is toxic. For example, small children are biologically dependent on their adult caretakers; built into their survival mechanisms is a need to trust authority just to stay alive. Religious teachings take hold easily in their underdeveloped brains while the adults conveniently keep control. This continues generation after generation, as the religious meme complex reproduces itself, and masses of believers learn to value self-loathing and fear apocalypse.
     
    There is hope
     
    Awareness is growing about the dangers of religious indoctrination. There are more and more websites to support the growing number of people leaving harmful religion. Slowly, services are growing to help people with RTS heal and grow, including Journey Free. We are discovering the means by which people can understand what they have been through and take steps to become healthy, happy human beings.

    that is a good one to read dear Md.mohiuddin but i operate on the principle  of "Nothing Is Unquestionable "

    http://journeyfree.org/rts/
    https://leavingcanaan.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/religious-trauma-syndrome/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OGg6qPwTo

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Religious Trauma syndrome
     Reply #22 - May 28, 2017, 06:21 PM

    Good article thanks for sharing.

  • Religious Trauma syndrome
     Reply #23 - May 28, 2017, 06:56 PM

    We've had discussions on this topic before, thanks for bringing it up again! Needs more attention.

    "The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
  • Religious Trauma syndrome
     Reply #24 - May 29, 2017, 09:47 PM

    Interesting read.
  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #25 - June 10, 2017, 07:39 PM

    This is an article copied from Hope:
    People who believe in a god, often do it because they claim to feel him or trust their inner knowing; which is claiming to have knowledge of god through intuition.
     
    But think is intuitive thinking how you run the rest of your life or just the god question?
     
    If just manly in the god question is that deserving of such a different way of being sure of things or is it just a way you have been told to affirm god is real when you have no evidence for that reality?
    If you use intuitive navigation for determining things in life do you find this ridged as in never changing once you realize something with intuition it never changes?
     
    Think if this is true intuitive thinking it is a thinking stemming from to main sources which are empathy and creativity both not fixed ways of thinking that seem would not fit a highly fixed religious mind set about god. So are you not then using a pseudo intuitive navigation system not from yourself but indoctrinated into you by others?
     
    So does the tendency to think rationally which is also a internal way of knowing but not so highly effected by emotion a support for religious thinking and thus belief in god or a cause of religious doubt?
     
    To find out, the researchers conducted a series of experiments with hundreds of people that triggered them to think analytically before answering faith-themed questions about things like their belief in god and the role that faith plays in their decision-making.
     
    In an experiment, participants looked at artwork portraying either a thinker or a man throwing a discus. In another, in which people rearranged letters and words to form sentences, they saw either thinking-related words or neutral words. Yet another experiment asked people to read the religious-beliefs survey in a font that was either easy or hard to decipher.
     
    No matter how the researchers primed the brain to think critically, people’s responses were less strongly religious compared to the responses of people who were not put in a rational frame of mind. The findings, suggest that the rational brain still an internal way of knowing is capable of undermining the intuitive brain in slight ways when it comes to faith.
     
    It’s important to note that across studies, participants ranged widely in their religious affiliation, gender, and race. None of these variables were found to significantly relate to people’s behavior in the studies.
     
    So its not reasonable to say intuitive god belief it is real intuitive navigation as a thinking style certain people are bound to or there would be vernation just like how not all people are highly creative or highly empathizing.
     
    An intuition only style about the god question is thus a chosen denial of rational thought (also a internal way of knowledge), it is a self rejection of attaining all means of self knowledge. Thus is a fraud pseudo intuition forced on you not of self, it is an anti-self truth which can and should be rejected.
     
    Intuitive abilities were quantitatively tested at Yale University. While studying nonverbal communication, researchers noted that some subjects were able to read nonverbal facial cues before reinforcement occurred. It was noted that highly intuitive subjects made decisions quickly but could not identify their rationale. Their level of accuracy, however, did not differ from that of nonintuitive subjects.
     
    Intuition means different things to different people. To some it refers to a sudden flash of insight, or even the spiritual experience of discovering a previously hidden truth. In its more mundane form, intuition refers to a way of knowing and deciding that is distinct from and complements logical analysis.
     
    The psychologist Daniel Kahneman nicely contrasts the two: “Intuitive thinking is perception-like, rapid, effortless. Deliberate thinking is reasoning-like, critical, and analytic; it is also slow, effortful, controlled, and rule-governed.”
     
    Real Intuition is not a bad thing for it can help us make good decisions without expending the time and effort needed to calculate the optimal decision, but shortcuts sometimes lead to dead ends.
     
    Kahneman received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science in 2002 for his work with the late Amos Tversky that showed how people often rely on intuitive heuristics (rules of thumb) rather than rational analysis, and how those mental shortcuts often lead us to make decisions that are systematically biased and suboptimal thus not truly a reliable means to claim knowledge.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • Stop claiming to know God through intuition
     Reply #26 - June 10, 2017, 08:02 PM

    This is an article copied from Hope:
    People who believe in a god, often do it because they claim to feel him or trust their inner knowing; which is claiming to have knowledge of god through intuition.
    ...........................

    What ??  god   is HEEEeeeeee...the poor sobs feel him....??

     I  wonder what part of the god touches these fools....  any energy flow?... sperm flow??

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Stop claiming to know God through intuition
     Reply #27 - June 10, 2017, 09:09 PM

    There's a repetitious argument often appearing on CEMB that you cannot be a person of faith and accept science.   Or, put another way several members of this site have cited contact with western scientific tradition as one of the key determinants that led them to leave their Islamic faith.

    There is no doubt that the development of science in the West exerted a similar influence on many Christians.   Francis Bacon, one of the leading lights of the Royal Society founded in 1660 to encourage the development of scientific discovery, specifically banned both political and religious discussion and submissions to the RS.   When Darwin published his Origin of The Species it was celebrated by Stalin (who was at that time a seminarian in an Orthodox school in Russia).  It struck many Christian believers that descending from apes was inconsistent with pretensions to humans possessing a divine nature.

    I like to think of myself as rational and logical, and to be perfectly honest I have struggled with the question of faith vs reason a lot.  But there is a body of work written by scientists who are also believers in God that I found very helpful.   Its funny physicists seem over-represented among the scientists who also have faith while chemists and biologists (like Dawkins) tend toward atheism.  The main exception to this rule is Rupert Sheldrake who I have communicated with and who i greatly admire.

    I'm sure there will be posts in this thread about the Catholic Church's attempts to silence Galileo, along with other papal transgressions.  But you also have to take into account that the first schools we know of were yeshivas closely followed by Christian schools in Edessa and elsewhere.  And it was the church that founded the major universities of Europe and America (pilgrim farmers coughed up the money to start Harvard and Yale).   Faith has been (in the West) a spur to many to have the belief that there is order in God's universe and the effort to elaborate its workings is worth the effort.  Of course it was very different in the Islamic world where a literalist interpretation of scripture led to indifference to science (after around 1200 I mean).   When Napoleon's forces overthrew the Mugal rulers of Egypt they found a population with 3% literacy.   In Europe at that time it was 40%-50% in most countries. 

    So again - accepting science (but not 'scientism') does not mean you must give up your faith.

  • Md.mohiuddin megathread
     Reply #28 - June 12, 2017, 08:43 PM

    I was asked recently whether I thought atheism could replace religion. I said that I thought atheism could replace religion only in the sense that religion could eventually die out and then I suppose one might say that atheism had replaced it. In the absence of religion, we'd have atheism. I recognized that this wasn't really what the other party was really asking about, and so I explained that I did not think atheism could replace religion in the sense of being a viable alternative to religion or in meeting the various needs some have that are met by religion. Atheism doesn't have enough content to do anything of the sort. It is not a belief system and offers nothing beyond an answer to one small question. As far as a real substitute for religion, it seems like a poor one.

    I do not regard this as a bad thing. I'd like to see the continued decline of religion, but I do not see the need for anything to replace religion. I recognize that many atheists do, and I wish them luck in finding something they consider a suitable replacement. Whatever it might be, I hope it skips dogmatic ideology and proves to be much kinder to those who want no part of it than religion has been. Otherwise, it would seem like we'd just be trading one destructive ideology for another. I think that would be a mistake.

    I'll not pretend to be familiar with all the secular belief systems that have been offered up as possible replacements for religion. I suspect there are many I've never even heard of. I would be fairly surprised, however, if any of them managed to provide the sort of comfort and solace some religious believers claim to derive from their belief in an afterlife. That seems like a significant obstacle to replacing what might be the most important need currently being met by religion.

    No religion no war, No religious justification no discrimination.Free thinking & humanism is the way forward for global peace establishment.One law for all human being.
  • Could Atheism Replace Religion?
     Reply #29 - June 12, 2017, 08:44 PM

    No.

    Next Q.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »