Religion is natural

This week's Point of Inquiry podcast presented an interview with Robert McCauley discussing his recent book entitled Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not. In this bloggers opinion, it was an excellent presentation of the cognitive differences between religion and science. Following is a summary:

For the first several years of life, we only think intuitively, quickly and reflexively. During the first several month of life, we begin developing a Theory of Mind, which gives us the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different than one's own. This causes belief in additional agents when you don't know the cause of something. A dog barking at a moving curtain in the wind because of its irregular motion shows this phenomenon is not limited to humans. It also leads to anthropomorphic thinking (ever talk to car when it doesn't start?). Religion fits nicely into this level of thinking, which is sometimes called System One Thinking.

Science is not intuitive. It is more elaborate, slower, more reflective and cognitively unnatural (sometimes called System Two Thinking). To show how unnatural it is, we still tend to think and say the sun rises and when looking at the night sky we tend to perceive the objects in the sky centered around us.

In fact, we can get dizzy is we focus on the truth!!! Science is in fact counterintuitive many times. [my note: see explanation of quantum mechanics] We use our Pre-Frontal Cortex for this type of thinking, which involves conscious reasoning and learning; System Two Thinking is flawed in humans because it requires mastery of skills and System One Thinking intrudes. Science is a comparatively rare activity in society. It is only carried out by a small minority of the population, even today.

Science will always be in a precarious state and may be lost to humanity. There is no guarantee that it will continue!! In fact, science was lost in the Western Christian worldduring the Dark Ages and was revived by connection with ancientGreek texts from the Arab world. Science requires complex social arrangement to survive. Religion will always be apart of humanity as a whole because it is natural.

Other interesting statements:

* Some evidence suggests that genes play a role in acceptance of conservative religion. [my note: see cognitive style influences belief in god (.pdf) and humans predisposed to believe god]

* If you don't have a Theory of Mind, you may be more prone to autism and non-religion.

* Females are more empathetic as a whole, and are more religious. [my note: see psychologytoday.com]

* Autism has been called hypermaleness.

From: Ratio Primoris.

This is quite fascinating to me. I wish to keep a keen eye on this topic for further information.

Human devolution

This is how religion dumbs people down all the way back to the level of the early apes.

Devolution of Human through religious indoctrination

On the implication of afterlife punishment

"Morality comes from god" or "Without god you can't be moral" - common claims from people who believe in god but doesn't want to understand how morality in a society develops overtime. Simple questions like, "What would you make of a situation where god believers commit crimes?" or "What about the pedophilia, slavery and genocide sanctioned by abrahamic god?" or "What prevents someone to start a mass killing spree in the name of his god?" are enough to repudiate such flimsy assertions. Not to mention a number of problems you face pondering on 2nd horn of Euthyphro Dilemma when you discuss Divine Command Theory.

But yet this is a point I wish to discuss in this post, to give an answer to a question repeatedly asked by theists in order to garner support for the necessary existence of god. A typical version of this question would be,

"If there was no god to punish the criminal in afterlife then people like Hitler would emerge and the victims wouldn't get justice. To ensure justice and balance in crime and punishment, even if earthly life appears insufficient to punish criminals, they will surely get punished in afterlife."

Notice that in this single argument, a theist is justifying the existence of god, afterlife, punishment of hell & reward in heaven. Also notice that this is a statement to argue both - people like Hitler would emerge in human society frequently if there was no god (because it implies that people would be immoral without god hence commit crimes), and it is a statement to establish the concept of divine justice - ergo God necessarily exist.

First & foremost, the concept of "justice in afterlife" generates enough mental comfort (wishful thinking) for the believer to believe it. Thus this concept is a belief and the believer believes it is necessary to believe in this belief, for this has an emotional factor, a strong motivation derived from experiencing apparent lack of injustice in human life. A belief in belief (necessary beliefs) of this kind among the members is roughly inversely proportional to the overall law and order situation of a society.

The equivalency between crime and punishment is arbitrary. Which means we tend to constantly reevaluate our judgement on which can be considered as crime and how adequate the punishment is for a crime. It seems that the justice system in human society has been changing its form from retaliation to rehabilitation which denotes the evolutionary progression of morality and human rights in our society. But that's beside the point. Society developes as more and more of its members become law abiding citizen where neither the laws nor the out-laws violate human rights. This is fundamental factor for a society which struggles to progress.

A society would plunge into medieval darkness if it allows for some of its members to establish totalitarian authority. Throughout history we could see clashings of oppressed with the oppressor and emergence of societies with greater freedom and rights. A society upgrades when its members make sure there remain less criminals and abusers which ultimately ensures a collective boost in overall happiness. Thieves, mass murderers, rapists, robbers - all these anti-social elements are a risk to the overall happiness of the citizenry. We see a continuous improvement of laws, police force, justice and punishment system in response. We also see dictators fall, authoritarian regimes collapse, people revolt. Thus the members of a society make sure to get rid of factors that harm their progress. And if they fail, we see degradation of society and standards of life.

Fear of god didn't prevent any dictator from mass murdering people. On the contrary, most of them justified their crimes as necessary evil and frequently declared that god is on their side who approved of their actions. See Gott Mit Uns of Hitler, Bush and Muhammad.

Thus the guaranty of punishment of a criminal is a necessary factor which members must ensure for the sake of a peaceful society. I'd argue that wishful thinking of an afterlife punishment not only generates a false satisfaction but also it effectively demotivates the believers to think of a better way in order to improve the "earthly" justice system which eventually harms the society. The concept fails in its totality. It depends on the subjective type and level of faith and degree of supernatural fear one has in his mind.

Famous personalities on Islam & Muhammad

Muslims frequently like to quote positive comments about Islam and Muhammad said by famous people. Now let us read some quotes which muslims avoid.

Voltaire - one of the greatest philosophers of all time says this in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete [The complete works of Voltaire, Volume 20, Part 2 (rough translation)]

But that a camel trader causes a tumult in his little hole; that he associates with some of his unfortunate neighbors and wants to make them believe that he was talking to the archangel Gabriel; that he brags to have been carried away to heaven where he received a part of that indigestible book which makes the common sense shudder at every page; that, in order to make that book respected, he carries iron and fire all over his country; that he strangled the fathers, abducts the daughters and leaves to the vanquished only the choice between death and his faith, this is certainly something, that no human can excuse, unless he has been born as a Turk and superstition has smothered every natural light inside of him.

Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville - the french political thinker and historian said in his book The Tocqueville reader: a life in letters and politics (Page 229)

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

David Hume, the eminent Scottish historian and philosopher, in his book, Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects: Essays, moral, political [Page 226] said:

The admirers and followers of the Alcoran insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance. But it is to be supposed, that the Arabic words, which correspond to the English, equity, justice, temperance, meekness, charity were such as, from the constant use of that tongue, must always be taken in a good sense; and it would have argued the greatest ignorance, not of morals, but of language, to have mentioned them with any epithets, besides those of applause and approbation. But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals?

Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.

Scottish essayist and historian Thomas Carlyle (Taken from Page 45 "Islam the basics" by Colin turner) said,

A wearisome confused jumble...endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite-insupportable stupidity, in short.

The entire point of this post is to present the appeal to authority fallacy. The very purpose of the presentation of these quotations is to show that many people with anti-islamic opinions can also be quoted thus such (pro-islamic) quotes have no value in determining the authenticity of Islam. Instead, we must refer to evidence and arguments rather than people's opinion and authority.

A Message To Peaceful Muslims

This is a message to Muslims who want to convince non-Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace.

My main message is: Please stop. We are trying to defeat the Jihadis here, and when you tell non-Muslims that message, you aren't helping the cause. You're actually hindering it. I'll explain how in a minute.

If you peaceful Muslims are trying to defend your religious beliefs, I think most people would understand and sympathize with your motives. But by doing it here, what have you accomplished? Have you helped our cause (thwarting Islam's relentless encroachment)? No. All you've done is try to convince us Islam is great.

You need to understand the effect of your defense on the non-Muslim mind. If you want to end Islamic terrorism, and if you understood what effect you had, you would stop defending your faith to infidels.

Because even if we all believed you, so what? Even if you successfully convinced us Islam is really a religion of peace, what difference would it make? Does it help us defeat Jihadis? No, not at all. We have terrorists quoting the Koran (urging Muslims to kill infidels) and we have other Muslims saying the Koran is only about peace. Where does that leave us? You've replaced clarity with confusion. You've replaced resolve with hesitation. And to that degree, you've given Jihadis the upper hand.

This is a deadly serious business, and this seemingly insignificant issue is the crucial pivoting point. Knowing how and why your enemy wants to destroy you is an enormous advantage in a global war in which many hundreds of thousands have already lost their lives.

Peaceful Muslims, I ask you to hear this: You make non-Muslims less able to defend themselves by going on these websites and justifying your religion to them.

Part of what makes the issue confusing for non-muslims is that we don't know if you're sincere or if you're trying to deceive us. Many terrorists exclaim vehemently that Islam is a religion of peace. But when they say it, they are trying to trick non-Muslims and confuse us while they continue their jihad against us (or what they mean is: as soon as Islam conquers all countries, the world will be at peace, so therefore, Islam is a religion of peace).

But my feeling is that most of the Muslims who have written to me are actually sincere, peace-loving, non-terrorist Muslims who have no interest in blowing up infidels. My friend is one of those. He is perfectly sincere.

If you are one of those sincerely peaceful Muslims, I know you have explained away the violent parts of the Koran terrorists often quote. And good for you. I'm glad you have. You had a teacher who convinced you jihad is really an inner struggle. And that's great. The teacher provided you with the complex mental maneuvers you need to see the Koran as a peaceful document. Thank you for ignoring the violent parts of Islamic teachings, and I hope you always will.

But you are doing harm and causing confusion by telling infidels you know the "true teachings" of Islam. The Jihadis aren't listening to unorthodox teachers. Jihadis are fundamentalists. They are strongly against any moderation or editing or modernizing of Islamic texts.

It doesn't really matter that you have somehow explained away Allah's commands to kill all the infidels — the Jihadis have not explained it away! They make the more direct assumption that if Allah said it, He must have meant it.

You think the Jihadis who quote the Koran are wrong. And you believe the fundamentalists running Iran, Syria, Pakistan, the Sudan, and Saudi Arabia don't really know what Islam is all about. Okay, fine. Does that help us defeat terrorism now that we know that? Not one little bit.

But when infidels get a good idea of what is actually in the Koran, and when they learn about the Islamic principles of deceit and pretext, and when we find out the goal and purpose of the Islamic faith, and when we learn about the methods Jihadis use to infiltrate and destroy, then we infidels are better able to protect ourselves. It's like finding out the plans of an enemy during war. It helps tremendously to anticipate what they're going to do and to understand their motives. This knowledge improves our ability to defend ourselves against it.

But when a seemingly sincere Muslim comes along and says no, that's not the "true" Islam and you've got it all wrong, many infidels will be confused and not know what to believe, so they will take no action. A confused mind is hesitant to act. They will not know the best way to proceed, and they'll be like a deer in headlights, frozen and paralyzed with uncertainty.

The reason non-Muslims are so easily confused is that most of us don't realize the difference between the Koran and every other religious book we are familiar with. But as you are fully aware, the Koran is one book, written by one man in his own lifetime. It can be (and often is) taken quite literally, and is obviously meant to be taken literally (At least the muslim terrorists do) . It isn't full of symbolism or vague analogies. It is mostly direct commands.

The Koran contains contradictory statements like other religious books, but the Koran itself provides the reader with a way to know what to do with contradictions. In the Koran, it says if you have two passages that contradict each other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier. A passage written later abrogates (makes null and void) passages written earlier that contradict it. It says so right there in the Koran.

Most non-muslims don't know this. And they are unaware that the peaceful, tolerant passages were written early in Mohammad's prophetic career. According to the Koran, those passages have been overwritten by later, more violent, less tolerant passages.

So when most non-muslims hear Jihadis quoting violent passages from the Koran, and then peaceful Muslims quoting peaceful passages, they interpret that in the usual way. They think to themselves, "Oh, there must be many different and contradictory passages, like there are in other religious books, so Muslims can pick and choose what they like, and justify whatever actions they want to take."

Of course, you Muslims know the Koran is nothing like that. There is no picking and choosing. The Koran itself says very explicitly and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not alter or ignore any part of its very clear and direct message or they will burn in a fiery torment forever.

If you don't like me saying all this, I am truly sorry, but we non-Muslims need to know what's really happening. This is too serious to be overly concerned with tiptoeing around anyone's feelings.

I'm trying to tell my fellow non-muslims what Islamic terrorists are up to. They are following the Koran to the letter, as it says in the Koran a faithful Muslim must do. And their overarching goal is to make an Islamic state out of every country in the world. And the Koran tells them in no uncertain terms that they are justified in using violence, deceit, and pretext to accomplish their holy duty. My fellow non-muslims need to know this or they are fish in a barrel — vulnerable and defenseless.

In the Koran, Allah makes it clear that man-made governments (such as a democracy) and free speech (such as criticizing the Koran) are abominations and must be eliminated.

Right now, Muslims are immigrating into secular democracies holding and cherishing these values and goals, and most of  the non-muslims are completely naive about it. One of the reasons they are so naive is that peaceful Muslims keep trying to defend their interpretation of the Koran as the "real" interpretation.

Think about this. Who is better able to defend themselves from a determined and deadly enemy?

1. A person who believes the enemy is peaceful? or...
2. A person who knows the plans, intentions, and motivations of the enemy, and knows his tactics?

Obviously, number two will be more capable of protecting themselves. And all the plans, motivations, intentions (and many of the tactics) of today's Jihadis can be found in the Koran.

Our situation puts both infidels and peaceful Muslims in a difficult position. It's not your fault, and it's not our fault. We've been put in this position by those who wage violent jihad against the non-muslims.

Partly because of your messages, and partly because my fellow non-muslims aren't taking the time to read the Koran for themselves, they are confused by all these seemingly contradictory messages. Is Islam a religion of peace or isn't it? What's the real story? Is this all propaganda? Is it prejudice and hatred? Is this bigotry? Islamophobia? And non-muslims will default to assuming Islam must be a religion of peace, because they believe all religions are really peaceful.

What should you peaceful Muslims do when you want to argue against a non-Muslim? What can you do when you want to defend your peaceful version of Islam?

The first thing you can do is make it clear to us infidels that you are a believer in a new, modified form of Islam. You can tell us yes, there are many passages in the Koran that encourage violence against infidels but you think these passages should be ignored by modern Muslims. That would really help clarify things for non-Muslims. Be out front about it.

You can also openly criticize Jihadis for not moderating or modernizing the teachings of Mohammad. This would help all the non-Muslims understand what is happening and who we should consider enemies and friends. It would help non-Muslims understand the "civil war" going on within Islam itself.

You should quote the violent passages and say you think all Muslims should ignore those passages.

I know it takes courage to openly criticize either the Jihadis or the Koran. You're putting your own life at risk, no matter where you live (because the penalty for criticizing the religion of peace is death). It is much easier to defend your beliefs by justifying your religion to infidels. But that doesn't solve the problem. It makes things worse.

If you are committed to defeating Islamic terrorism while at the same time justifying your version of Islam, you can expend your energy convincing young Muslim men to follow your way rather than the Jihadis' way. Right now, Jihadis are successfully persuading young men to follow the strict Islamic (violent) path. What can you do to recruit young men to your path? That has a chance of actually solving the problem.

I said earlier it doesn't really matter that you have explained away the violent passages of the Koran (because terrorists haven't) but that's not entirely true. In a way, it does matter, and it is wonderful that you have modified the Koran's teachings to be more peaceful.

But to end the cycle, you'll have to go one step further and declare outright that the Koran is not the word of Allah. If you've modified or ignored any part of the Koran, you're acting as if it is not the perfect word of Allah. So admit it openly.

If you secretly admit the Koran is not perfect, but keep saying it is perfect, you open the way for the next generation of Muslims to rebel against your "modified" teachings by becoming fundamentalists. They will see you as a hypocrite who says "the Koran is perfect," but who ignores half of the teachings.

Please think about this. You must try to understand that as a non-muslim, when we look at the problem of Islamic terrorism, it looks like a large number of militant factions, all with different names and goals and grievances, and there is no clear idea of what is going on or what to do about it, or even how to approach the problem.

But each of the different Islamic factions are all using the same book. They are basing their goals on what is in that book. They are using the methods described in the book. What they are willing to do and how they will do it is all based on what is in that book.

Infidels can look in the book and discover what they're up to, what their motives are, and what specific tactics they'll use. Those of us trying to defeat or at least reduce terrorist incidents are trying to alert our fellow non-Muslims about the situation. And if everyone knew about it — if all the non-Muslims simply read the Koran cover-to-cover — they would suddenly understand the situation in a whole new way, and Islamic terrorism would be in serious danger of extinction from that point on.

But your message to non-Muslims basically tells us: The answer is not in the Koran. Look anywhere else for answers. Just don't look in the Koran.

And what has happened? Non-Muslims don't know what to do or where to look for answers. And to that degree, you, the peaceful Muslims, have helped the Jihadis do their job, even if you didn't mean to. You've helped perpetuate violence in the world. Jihadis will keep immigrating into secular democracies with their murderous plans while the non-Muslims are unaware of what's happening — blinded and confused by their own multiculturalism combined with your constant assurances that Islam really is a religion of peace.

The Jihadis will keep expressing their different grievances (as pretexts for war) and the hand-wringing, kind-hearted non-muslims will keep trying to make concessions, never suspecting they are being duped with a vengeance. And the violence and political invasion will go on and on.

We've got to stop it, and you peaceful Muslims are one of the keys to our success. That's the end of my message to peaceful Muslims.

I have a message for you non-Muslims, as well. You should do your best to read the Koran yourself. This would really help you clarify the situation.

And finally, I have a message to those deceitful Jihadis who try to convince us Islam is a religion of peace. When enough people know about your plans and methods, your deceit will no longer work. Scams and cons lose their effectiveness once they are well-known. Your days are numbered. We will reveal your plans. We will choke off your sources of money. We will help give Koran-modifying Muslims a voice. And you will have to stop blowing things up and get a real job.

Abridged from Citizen Warrior.

Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?

Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist.




What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim.




The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.




While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest.




The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.

~ Sam Harris

A list of unanswered questions

This is an incomplete list of questions on Islam. Muslims usually do not seem to have answers or become hesitant to give clearcut answers to these difficult but important questions.

Tell me one good thing that you learned from Islam which you would not have learned had you not been a muslim?

Tell me one moral action that a non-muslim is unable to do precisely because he doesn't believe in Islam?

Show me a photo of 9 year old girl that you're willing to have sex with?

If you love Muhammad so much, then would you do your prophet a sexual favour if he had asked for it? (it is a hypothetical question and no pun is intended)

Why sex with female slaves is not considered adultery in islam?

How many slaves can a muslim have? And why Muhammad practiced slavery?

Why are 4 wives allowed but 5 wives are forbidden?

Why this life is a test if the result is already known to omniscient allah?

What was the point for this God in creating the human race? Are we just for a bit of fun - a type of game or thought experiment for him?

If allah is perfect who has no needs then why did he create human beings to worship him?

Why does Allah hand out an infinite punishment for a finite crime? Is allah perfectly just?

Was there a time before the creation of Universe? What was allah doing before he created the Universe?

Why was the rest of the universe created when only sun and earth would be enough for Allah's stated purpose?

Why do muslims accept and attempt to show us that Quran confirms the Big Bang theory albeit most of them do not understand it?

Why don't muslims accept Evolution theory which they do not understand and reject it simply because evolution of human goes against the islamic creation story? If you accept evolution theory, how can you explain Hominid ancestors of modern human in light of islamic creation story where it says Adam had no parents?

Regarding the Quran, how do we decide which translation & understanding is correct?

Is their anyway of doing a textual analysis to see how accurate the final version of the Quran was to the original? Or are we simply left having to accept Uthman’s word for it?


A challenge from an Ex-muslim: Answer these questions and i'll convert back to Islam.

And don't forget to check out these funny questions about Islam and 72 virgins on Wikiislam.

Fastest growing religion in US

Fastest growing religion in America.

For a summary, go to page 4 and take a look at table 2.

"The largest net increase in numbers went to the Nones (atheists) which have grown by 138% in the period"

Table 2 illustrates the dynamics of religious population changes over the period 1990-2008 which saw the total population grow by 30 percent. As was stated previously every group has increased in absolute numbers but the rate of growth has varied. The largest net increase in numbers went to the Nones which have grown by 138% in the period. The right hand column reflects the distribution of the population gains since 1990. The Nones also secured nearly 38 percent of the total population increase. Catholics and the Other Christians groups each received around a 21 percent share of the population increase. The Other Religions group rose by 50 percent in absolute numbers and gained 6 percent of the share of the national growth. Download ARIS_Report_2008 (PDF).

290 million victims of Islamic terror!

290+ million victims of Islamic terror! Much more than all the wars in the west and east combined!!

120 million Africans, according to Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, page 62, in 1888.

80 million Hindus, according to Koenard Elst, in Negationism in India, page 34.

60 million Christians, according to David Barrett and Todd Johnson, in World Christian Trends AD 30 to AD 2200, page 230. and by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor.

10 million Buddhists. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.

And 220,000 Jews, just in one year, 1146, in Morocco, according to H. Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews of North Africa, 1974, page 127-28.

Adding 14 million of Slaves traded and shipped to Islamic countries, Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] And still goes on to this day

The black history of the Black Stone

For 40 years, the Black Stone in kaba, which is being kissed by millions of muslims, were once used as urinal by a muslim called Bin Hassan Al Qurmuti.

In the year 906 A.D. the leader of the Qarmatians, Abu Taher Bin Hassan Al-Qurmuti, led 700 horsemen into Mecca, massacred the Pilgrims, uncovered the Kaaba, and Urinated on it, took the black stone, and went over the top of the Kaaba and Said,

I am in God and God is in me. Where is your God? I am your great God. Where are the Birds of God (Tayr al ababeel) that protect the Kaaba? Where are the Stones of Fire (Hijara min sejeel)?

Ofcourse, we all are against the actions of the Qarmatians, for they killed many peaceful muslims and threw their bodies in the well of zamzam. The muslims didnt fight, because they believed in their allah to protect it, and another reason is that they said that Mecca was a place of peace.

The Pope and the Moulana

A nice joke I found on internet. ENJOY!

Many many years ago, the Pope decreed that all Muslims had to convert to Catholicism or leave Italy. There was a huge outcry from the Muslim community, so the Pope offered a deal. He declared that a religious debate will be held with the leader of the Muslim community. If the Muslim leader won, muslims could stay in Italy; and if the Pope won, the Muslims will either convert or leave. The Muslims met and picked an aged and wise Moulana to represent them in the debate. However, as the Moulana spoke no Italian, and the Pope spoke no Arabic, they agreed that it would be a "silent (signs)" debate.

On the chosen day the Pope and the Moulana sat opposite each other.

The difference between rationalist and theist

How does the rational, skeptic minded person and the religious theist react when they are presented with the same evidence for a mysterious event or a new previously unknown phenomenon? Some of you guys might say, Ah! Its a no brainer! But just to clear things up, I'm going to elaborate this a bit.

The rational thinker and the religious theist responds in quite the different way.

The difference between a rational thinker and the religious believer.

My first draw Muhammad day

Although May 20 this year was the 2nd Annual Draw Muhammad day, it was the first time i actually draw a picture of Mo.

Yes it is kinda offensive but i believe that's the whole point of draw muhammad day.

Also, check this out! A nice compilation of Muhammad drawings in Friendly Atheist website.

And a whole blog dedicated to this purpose - Everyone Draw Mohammed.

7 reasons why religion is a mental illness

I would like to propose that religious beliefs be placed in the DSM as a category of mental illness for the following reasons:
 
(1)Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear these friends.

(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

(3)Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.

(4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.