Why Should You Consider Reading Faith in Doubt: Do You Question Your Faith?

I’ve written about how Faith in Doubt was a 4-year project and about why you shouldn’t be daunted by the page count, so I’d like to go into more details for people who might still be on the fence despite such assurances and explain briefly what each section has to offer so I wanted to explain in more details what each section contains for both Part I and Part II.

The book itself is actually 1034 pages with the approximately 1000 other pages being copious citations. I made sure to read and re-read several chapters of the many books that I cited for my research to make sure that I gave the most accurate information to make sure it is applied correctly. That can still be daunting, which is why I made split editions. Part I is 269 pages in total with approximately 12 pages of citations for the Preface and first 5 chapters. Part I is about the general issues of how religion is applied to everyday life such as the belief that personal luck is due to a God’s intervention or a critique of the usage of prayer. Part I applies psychological research from books such as Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman for cognitive psychology aspects, Influence: Science and Practice by Robert A. Cialdini for social interactions regarding some religious behavior, and the social theory of Alexa Ispas’s Politics and Identity: A Social Identity Perspective to apply to in-group/out-group social dynamics of religion. For certain chapters within Part I, I apply Friedrich Nietzsche’s criticisms and perspective such as the chapter on belief in the afterlife and making my own commentary on the research of the mentality of suicide bombers that are cited. I’ve read all of Nietzsche’s main works and apply aphorisms from different books throughout both Part I and Part II to give a different philosophical perspective on religion. For instance, one of Nietzsche’s thorough critiques was that the concept of the afterlife being the purpose of this life was a worship of death over life as a form of meaning. Nietzsche argued ancient people couldn’t find other more healthy purposes for their existence because of all the suffering and confusion that they went through so a hatred of life and worship of death became their meaning, which is what most present-day religions are based upon. I use this perspective in concomitant with the psychological research and analytical philosophy whenever applicable in order to make the most thorough refutation of common religious beliefs and practices that most theists participate in, within the US and across the world.

Part II is broken into separate sections beginning with Original Sin. Original Sin is often vaguely thought of or defined by most Christians and Jews in modern times. Sinfulness’s applicability to Islam is dependent on an Imam’s perspective on how it relates to Islam’s purity theology. As such, I thought it necessary to share my own perspective on the term and Nietzsche’s sharp criticisms of the concept. Sinfulness is interpreted and analyzed as a hatred of human existence and I apply Carol Dweck and Heidi Grant Halvorson’s psychological research on beliefs in rigidity and fixed personality traits to sinfulness because it really does seem to apply accurately. Most people probably wouldn’t make the connection but the very vague idea of Original Sin is ingrained to people through indoctrination. The next chapter focuses on research related to the problem of Free Will likely having been debunked by modern science and the concept of Sin’s failure to measure-up to what we see as a nonsensical view of Free Will. For instance, I cite Beau Lotto’s Deviate to point out that the mind is a statistical distribution where too often you need to unlearn untrue beliefs before you can learn true ones and how much of your beliefs are pre-determined by the quality of your education, the language you speak, and too often how other people treat your ethnic background or religious background. I don’t mean specifically Western countries in this context, but rather apply it to countries like Lebanon where such backgrounds really determine your quality of life because the society is split so heavily on religious grounds. Lastly, I point out how even the defense of Free Will by neuroscientists effectively debunk the vague concept of Sinfulness because the application of the term is the reverse of what people expect. For instance, people who can fight off addictions would have more Free Will than those who are addicted to drugs and can’t fight them off and therefore the very concept as it is believed by most Abrahamic theists doesn’t work with real life circumstances of human experience. It would therefore be a useless fantasy and not an important moral teaching. I cover how the use of human violence to justify the concept sin falls into unjustifiable cognitive illusions where we as people put too much stock in negative events without comparing positive events.

The section on Abrahamic religions in Part II is a different approach for each of them. For Judaism, I cite the archaeological evidence debunking the Bible such as the lack of evidence that Moses was anything more than a fictional character. The lack of evidence of Israelites ever having been slaves, how their true origins are a breakaway group of Canaanites that had a cultural revolution to name themselves the Israelites, and takeover another agrarian plot of land separate from their erstwhile group. I cite news articles about how these myths negatively impact the contemporary rights of Jewish women and the LGBT within Israel. I further argue Nietzsche’s own critique where he pointed out that Judaism’s main problem is that it looks for an infallible cult leader referred to as the “Messiah” and how such a theological concept will always create harsh divisions where some Jewish folk will argue the new converts have been deceived by an imposter away from the Abrahamic God, while the new converts to the infallible cult leader’s faith will see their erstwhile community as having been deceived away from the Abrahamic God. Does that sound ridiculous? That’s the entire legacy of Christianity and arguably Islam. Which brings me to the sections on Christianity and Islam in Part II. With Christianity, I cover how the entire religion is a thorough self-contradiction that splinters off into thousands of smaller sects because of every aspect of the religion is based on self-contradictory beliefs. From the Sermon on the Mount’s self-contradictions, to the differences in interpretations by Christian soldiers and Christian pacifists, and to Jesus’s own claims on fulfilling or abolishing the Mosiac law depending upon what denomination of Christianity that you’re part of. If you probe more deeply into the theology, the self-contradictions of Christianity worsen to the point that people have to use open interpretation because the Bible at face value loses any coherence with reality. Christianity is Monotheistic yet follows the Pagan practice of 3 Gods in One (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are copies of ancient Mother Goddess and Father-God polytheism likely stolen from Roman mythology), Jesus is meek and mild while raving like a narcissist about being God and the Son of God, Heaven is a free gift but if you don’t accept Jesus then you go to hell forever, and doing sinful acts like murder or rape are morally bad but Jesus will forgive you regardless of how much you harm other people. In effect, Christianity is a bucket of self-contradictions that actually doesn’t have any moral values to teach people and I make my case more thoroughly in my book. By comparison, Islam is the dumbest religion of the major religious faiths. The entire project is a anti-intellectual cult where the Prophet Mohammad is celebrated as the perfect human being who can do no wrong and every Muslim must strive to be like him, so when Mohammad raped and murdered then Muslims must view that as self-defense or pure perfection beyond conventional morality that goes into an argument from ignorance. Western Muslims make excuses, while people in Muslim majority countries ignore child rape and torture because Mohammad proscribed them or because the Quran teaches such behavior as morally good for Muslims. Islam is also a purity cult, where non-belief is seen as going against the in-group purity and so Muslims are called upon to murder Ex-Muslims to protect the purity of the Ummah (Islamic nation). It’d be more correct to say that Islam is sophistry upon sophistry with its utterly nonsensical belief structure that uses its history and ascetic practices to appear deep and meaningful, when it is sheer madness made by a warlord who said whatever that he wanted off the top of his head because he made a successful cult that perceives everything that he does as infallible. It’s likely that Islamic success in war is what helped it encroach itself across multiple countries; Islam is built upon the success of human genocide and cultural genocide in tandem as it made its bloody mark upon the world. Moreover, people in ancient times believed that people fighting and dying for something must’ve meant that the religion therefore has a deeper meaning of profound truth for why their followers die for it. The success of Islam likely facilitated belief there was a deeper and underlying cause to the success and once you add cultural genocide, the worship of Mohammad as the perfect human being is completed. Islam’s internal theology is categorically against Enlightenment values of Free Speech and Free Expression; to be a Muslim, you must accept the Quran as unquestionable fact with no open interpretation like in Christianity. The Sharia isn’t a proscribed set of instructions that Muslims can pick and choose from, this is a lie taught by Western news media and it devastated my trust in Western corporate news organizations to discover that this was a blatant lie. It really broke my implicit trust in the mainstream media’s authenticity when I discovered how deeply they lie about Islam’s internal theology. The concept of Sharia in particular is somewhat like a theological pyramid that Muslims must follow; the Quran is on top which all Muslims must accept as unquestionable fact, then the Sunnah which teaches about Mohammad’s life, then the companions of Mohammad and the first followers of Islam are all explicitly used to dictate everything that a Muslim can or cannot do according to Islamic jurisprudence. Internally, Islam is taught as equivalent to science with Imams and Sheiks being words meant to designate “Islamic Scholars” — meaning the only people allowed to comment on Islam are people who accept the Quran, that Mohammad was a prophet, and the nonsensical beliefs in flying horses, pens that write on golden tablets, and talking hands and feet. Imams and Sheiks accept Islam as unquestionable fact and never contest these nonsensical beliefs. This theology of Sharia is why Muslims argue that any outsider who criticizes Islam – including Ex-Muslims – have no right to an opinion on Islam; many actually believe that this is deep and meaningful and equivalent to scientific discoveries. There’s so much more which I can’t delve into within just a blog post; a thorough critique on Islam would probably be longer than even all my longest blog posts combined as there is ample material on how insane Islam actually is. If you want to know more, and wish to separate what Islam teaches from what the Western mainstream media explicitly lies about its teachings, I’ve written it all in my book.

Continue reading

Islamophobia Doesn’t Exist and Neither Does Islamic Culture

For those who have been waiting patiently for me to finish writing my book, I’m sure it has crossed your mind that I could be lying or I could be too nice to Islam due to my arguments distinguishing Anti-Muslim bigotry from criticism of Islam. Moreover, some of you might think there’s not much I can offer compared to harsh critics like Apostate Prophet (who admittedly did influence a portion of my writings in the book I am working on and I happily credit him in the book itself), but I want to put any of those potential concerns aside as unambiguously as possible.

The portion below is quite honestly just one small speck of content on what to expect from my upcoming book and the criticism of religions therein. I focus on the structure, assumptions, and claims of each particular Major Religion in Part II of the book to analyze, critique, and repudiate them. As shown before in a previous blog post, I devote six chapters to Islam.

This’ll be the last of my shared excerpts from Faith in Doubt and I hope it generates enough interest. This particular set of information I shared on r/Islam after they deleted my sharing of the Apostate Prophet debunking the scientific miracles of the Quran topic. After leaving this for awhile since I cited Islamic sources, the Moderators of r/Islam quickly removed it in less than a day.  I shared it on r/exmuslim and found myself unable to have my topics and posts appear on their subreddit since then, so evidently this was too much for even r/exmuslim since I seem to have been shadowbanned by them. I messaged the Moderators and never got a response back. Furthermore, let this one small speck from my upcoming book serve as an explanation for why I don’t believe Islam can call itself a culture and why Islamophobia is a stupid term.

Oh, and the “citations” at the bottom are due to how WordPress blogging configures citations and isn’t related to the book. The Works Cited page consists only of a small portion of the chapter that I’m taking this excerpt from.

For those curious and who may want to check the previous content from my book which I’ve already shared:

The earliest version of Chapter 1  (This chapter has been heavily modified in the final version and this sample no longer reflects the current version).

Sample Chapter 6 of Faith in Doubt (This has been somewhat modified and broken into two chapters in the final version).

The following is the final excerpt that I’ll share from my own soon-to-be finished book, Faith in Doubt, written under my pseudonym Jarin Jove:

Continue reading

Distancing Myself from Supporting Western Ex-Muslims

“Fire is hot, water cold,
refreshingly cool is the breeze of morning;
By whom came this variety?
They were born of their own nature.

This also has been said by Brhaspati:
There is no heaven, no final liberation,
nor any soul in another world,
Nor do the actions of the four castes,
orders, or priesthoods produce any real effect.

If a beast slain as an offering to the dead
will itself go to heaven,
why does the sacrificer not straightway offer his father?

If offerings to the dead produce gratification
to those who have reached the land of the dead,
why the need to set out provisions
for travelers starting on this journey?
If our offering sacrifices here gratify beings in heaven,
why not make food offerings down below
to gratify those standing on housetops?

While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on butter though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes,
how can it ever return again?

If he who departs from the body goes to another world,
why does he not come back again,
restless for love of his kinfolk?
It is only as a means of livelihood
that brahmins have established here
abundant ceremonies for the dead—
there is no other fruit anywhere.” = Charvaka Philosophy of Sanatana Dharma.

I really am loathe to say this, but I feel I should distance myself from Ex-Muslims of the West for a bit. Now, I don’t mean to say that I’m going to ignore them or not fund them in the future for human rights causes, but the charm and euphoria of their social movement’s advancements on the grounds of Enlightenment values and Human Rights has not been consistent with their behavior and I have to also accept the fact that it really is my own fault and not theirs that I am distancing myself. I don’t put any blame on them; it was my own gullibility – probably inherited from my parents – that led me to take certain statements they made in the normalizing dissent tour to heart which I realize now was more talk than action. Please note that this doesn’t mean that I don’t support them or that I am calling them liars. I think it is more that . . . I had loftier expectations and wrongfully applied it to their social movement. It was not fair for me to do that to them. They don’t live to serve my expectations; they have their own goals. My own support for them has led me to conclude several dreadful facts. It is difficult to humanize Muslims and it is all their own fault; Ex-Muslims have triple the work ahead of them when trying to keep the humanizing aspect of their narrative since they obviously don’t want their own families to be harmed out of genuine compassion for Muslims. The recent case with China was just a string in a long line of examples of Muslims dehumanizing themselves on a global scale; 22 Countries opposed China’s concentration camps on Uyghur Muslims. Nearly all Western, except I think Turkey was among them. 33 supported China’s concentration camps and called it a benevolent humanitarian act. Nearly all of the countries supporting China’s concentration camps are Islamic countries. I really wanted so badly to believe that Ex-Muslims of the West arguing that dialogue is effective would be beneficial in changing the minds of Muslims in the West. Usually, unfortunately, the conversation from my own experience turns to why they think it is moral for adult men to have sex with 9-year olds because the Pedophile Prophet of Islam did it. To be fair, many who are confronted with the info I give them do almost immediately change their mind, so I guess they’re just not as vivid in my memory as the very arrogant ones who honestly believe their death cult is the truth of the universe. But still, there’s enough that it’s doubtful dialogue can make any meaningful headway to changing minds for a long-term game if people continue to ask neutral or softer questions. However, there is a pernicious reason within the Western Ex-Muslim crowd for why their movement against Islamism might honestly fail, even in the West but almost definitely globally except for people who are specifically seeking to leave foreign countries for their own safety.

This is probably going to be one of my harshest criticisms. I’m not even sure if I should broach it, to be honest. But, I am under the opinion, and I hope that I am wrong, that the Ex-Muslim movement is either in the process of failing or is spectacularly failing against Islamism and that, if anything, Islamism has either won or is in the process of winning. Moreover, it is entirely the fault of Western Ex-Muslims albeit with the exception of Ridvan Aydemir, the Apostate Prophet. He’s had the biggest impact on changing minds and I think I know why. Other Western Ex-Muslims aren’t as prominent and don’t make as much of an impact at all for a few compelling reasons.

Continue reading

Illhan Omar just used Donald Trump’s Harassment of her as an Opportunity to Catalyze Islamic Political Activism

Donald Trump is not an intelligent manDonald Trump is giving Saudi Arabia nuclear technology which they’ll undoubtedly use to sell to Al Qaeda in Libya and any new version of ISIS that pops up, given the fact they sell weapons to Al Qaeda and ISIS linked groups all the time. Donald Trump pulled out of the Iran deal and now Iran could be enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons. Donald Trump’s foreign policy consists of letting Saudi Arabia do whatever it wants including kill a journalist living in the US and not track even the most ridiculous forms of propaganda that the Saudis pump into the US. Donald Trump has either been bought out or is essentially behaving like an Islamist plant given the fact that his stupid personal attack on Illhan Omar has now been taken advantage of to support Islamic political activism in a more coordinated way to influence US policies domestically. Islamic political activists will now have a firmer grip in calling US domestic policy while US universitiesUS corporate news media, and most dangerously of all US Foreign Policy is being pumped full of Islamist cash through chequebook diplomacy by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and many others.

Islam is a global religion that seeks conversions, it is more Far-right than Far-right Christianity. The basic tenants of the Tafsir are that non-Muslims have no right to an opinion on Islam and even respected Muslim journalists in the West like Mehdi Hassan apply this to Ex-Muslims who risk death even in the West for the crime of Free Speech and Freedom of Thought. Donald Trump is almost categorically conceding and catalyzing an Islamist takeover of US culture. Illhan Omar got away with shutting down a Progressive Muslim activist demanding to know what she’ll do about FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), which disproportionately is happening in Illhan Omar’s own district, in order to tout herself for her identity as a Muslim woman (despite the fact a Progressive Muslim woman asked her that concerned question) and Illhan Omar has been able to catalyze and get away with all of this solely because of Donald Trump.

Continue reading

Admin of Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) Subreddit Bans Free Speech Discussion Criticizing Islamic Violence

I shared a post about a newlywed couple, a Hindu man and a Muslim woman, marrying for love only to be harassed and threatened with death by their local community and the Muslim woman’s family because the Hindu man didn’t convert to Islam upon marrying his wife. It was very popular on the subreddit and brought in much discussion on the problems of religious tolerance in regards to a large minority population of a Islamic community and how India is a test-case for what happens when societies respect religious tolerance above Free Speech. Unfortunately, an Admin decided to ban it with no explanation. I wonder how it is that a subreddit claiming to be about open dialogue and good faith discussion about politics and philosophy can just ban topics arbitrarily. I followed all the guidelines, giving a Submission Statement explaining how this was important to better understand the problems that Religious Tolerance can create in a society by using the example of a Democratic country that actively tries to ban criticism of religion instead of allowing Free Speech. In Islam, a Muslim woman can’t marry a non-Muslim man because Islam treats women as property and not as people. While a Muslim man can marry a woman who is a “person of the book” meaning the Abrahamic faith traditions of Judaism and Christianity, even this is not acceptable for Muslim women. This is imposed upon Muslims by Islamic rulings as per Islamic theology and claims that Quran’s Chapter 2 opposes this is moot because Islam’s Tafsir system abrogates older passages and chapters of the Quran with newer chapters. If anyone is confused or curious by how Islam’s theory of Abrogation works and wish to be more informed to better understand why an entire Muslim community is threatening to kill these newlyweds over a Muslim woman’s choice to marry a man she loves, please click here. The US government – supported by both Republicans and Democrats – even has a list of Islamic countries that impose this religiously sanctioned misogyny upon Muslim women. When the newlywed couple sought police protection, the police physically and verbally threatened the Hindu man to change his religion to Islam in defense of the Muslim community’s outrage towards a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, who were growing in ire over the marriage. The couple then went to the Indian media to beg for help and only the BJP-favorable media like OpIndia has shared the story of their suffering at the hands of Islamic violence.

Continue reading

The Monolithic Tragicomedy of the Modern Left

Note: I posted this on a whim on reddit and decided to share here too:
I don’t even know how to begin to articulate the mind-boggling stupidity of what I just read…. I had to make sure it wasn’t a comedy piece.
So, I was watching Youtuber Sham Sharma explain his viewpoint on the Andy Ngo attack and then he listed all the US Left-leaning journalists who either gave passive comments or straight-up justified the physical assault on Andy Ngo as warranted because of his political views. I couldn’t believe US discourse has actually become this poisoned, so I decided to search online and clicked the first article which was from Vox. Vox is generally known to be Politically neutral on the Left, but this article clearly wasn’t at all.
It was like reading a sick joke. The author of the piece equivocates on the very idea that the attack on Andy Ngo has anything to do with rising violence against journalists, even though it was a blatant physical attack on a journalist who suffered a brain hemorrhage from the horrible encounter. That’s not a point of view or an argument, that’s the fact of what happened. The author of the piece then goes into more sickening territory by attempting to victim-blame Andy Ngo for the attack against him. The author has the gall to bring up Andy Ngo doing his job in exposing one of the Antifa thugs by arguing it is some sort of doxxing campaign, blaming more violence on the Political Right as a defense for the violent actions of Antifa against Andy Ngo, and then I read quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments in US journalism that I’ve ever encountered and that is sadly not an attempt at a hyperbole.
You know how the Modern Left loves Identity Politics as an excuse? This author, Zack Beauchamp, who is a Senior Correspondent at Vox and a White Male heavily implies that Andy Ngo, a gay Asian male, is a Far-right agitator and Nazi sympathizer. Beauchamp then follows-up by arguing that the Antifa attackers, who were mostly white men and one white woman, were defending Ethnic minorities when they attacked Andy Ngo by quoting Antifa’s stated goals. You read that correctly: A group of white men and one white women beating up a gay Asian man who suffered a brain hemorrhage from the attack is portrayed as misguidedly defending racial minorities.
We have actually come to a tragicomedic point where in defense of Identity Politics a White Male journalist defended several White men and one White woman attacking a homosexual Asian man as a defense of Ethnic minorities. Of course, rather predictably, the specific minorities this journalist highlights are Muslim immigrant activists and just as predictably, he seems to be entirely unaware of the dangers of the theology of Sharia in Islam.
Even with all these words, I don’t know how to fully convey my bewilderment at the complete and utter lack of self-awareness of the Modern Left right now. I mean… just how deeply do people in contemporary journalism lack so much self-awareness that they don’t see the clear and obvious contradictions in their actions and beliefs? We’ve actually gotten to the point where something this asinine has happened. Excuse me while I smash my head against a wall at how downright idiotic this has all become.

Intellectual Cowardice: Western Indology is Promoting Genocide Denial Of India’s Past

I feel this is an important issue to highlight, because Western Academia seems poised to just ignore painful truths of history, even if it means genocide denial for the sake of treating all religions as equal. After learning more about the issues within Islam, I had to re-evaluate what I thought was true from US Indology books and so I made this post to highlight a perturbing trend of genocide denial by US Indology departments that seem to be extending across Western Indology and it may be branching into other portions of Western academia as well. That is why I feel it was necessary to make this post because what I thought was fairly innocuous information in Unifying Hinduism is now incredibly alarming when I reflect back on it.

Claims by US Indologists from Chapter 10 of Andrew Nicholson’s Book “Unifying Hinduism“:

“HINDUISM: A MODERN INVENTION? “Hindu” was not originally a Sanskrit word but a Persian term used by Muslims to describe a regional or ethnic identity: the people living near the Indus, or Sindhu, river.44 Only at a relatively late date was the term adopted by Indians to refer to themselves, typically as distinguished from outsider groups known as turuskas (Turks) or mlecchas (barbarians). Cynthia Talbot has recorded the earliest usage of the word “Hindu” in an Indian language from inscriptions in mid-fourteenth-century Andhra, in which some Vijayanagara kings were described with the epithet “Sultan among Hindu kings” (Hindu-raya-suratrana).45 Talbot cautions, though, that in these inscriptions, “Hindu meant Indic as opposed to Turkish, not ‘of the Hindu religion’ as opposed to ‘of the Islamic religion.’”46 In Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava texts written in Bengali in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, “Hindu” was occasionally used to distinguish natives from yavanas or mlecchas.47 Although the context makes clear that these foreigners were Muslims, Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava writers did not state this explicitly until the eighteenth century, when the term musulmāna fnally became common usage in Bengali. In this case too, the word may have designated ethnicity generally and not a specific set of religious beliefs.

Further on in the chapter:

“Unlike later Hindu nationalist intellectuals, who sometimes recorded their fantasies of heroic and violent resistance to Muslim oppression, Sanskrit intellectuals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries responded with silence.28”

Source: Nicholson, Andrew J. Chapter 10: Hindu Unity And The Non-Hindu Other (4806-5293). Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History (South Asia Across the Disciplines). Columbia University Press, 2010.

Continue reading

Twitter’s Latest Shameful Actions: Helping Despotic Governments Kill Asylum Seekers

Twitter Is Now Banning Accounts of Female Saudi Asylum Seekers At Risk Of Being Murdered

On top of that, this puts these women at serious risk since Saudi Arabia is now labeling them as just as dangerous as terrorists and using advanced military tracking of their IMEI numbers to hunt them down and kill them for disobeying the Sharia.

Update: The Saudi sisters seeking Asylum seem to be back on Twitter now.  It seems outcry over these issues does eventually change their behavior.

Ex-Muslim Atheist Activists Being Targeted With Arbitrary Suspensions, Bans, and Shadowbans on Twitter

“Injustice and filth cast they at the lonesome one: but, my brother, if thou wouldst be a star, thou must shine for them none the less on that account! And be on thy guard against the good and just! They would fain crucify those who devise their own virtue—they hate the lonesome ones. Be on thy guard, also, against holy simplicity! All is unholy to it that is not simple; fain, likewise, would it play with the fire—of the fagot and stake.” Thus Spake Zarathustra Pg. 67. Thomas Common Edition.

The most recent example today on 6/2/19 is Rayhana Sultan, founder of emexs.org, which seeks to combat both issues like domestic violence in Muslim communities and violence from the far-right who try to co-opt her work.

As some of you may already know, Ex-Muslim Atheist Ridvan Aydemir, the Apostate Prophet, was outright banned from Twitter with no explanation.

Ex-Muslim Anti-Theist Zara Kay temporarily dealt with this a few months ago.

Things are getting worse and, while my anti-theism was growing during this process, I feel it has blossomed because I cannot believe we live in a world where people who are literally just trying to argue for their right to exist, be heard, and have the same civil liberties as us all are being targeted, silenced, and banned for the crime of wanting to live their lives. This is all because of religious tolerance. Hitchens was absolutely right, Religion Poisons Everything. While Sam Harris has dealt with this crap for what is effectively 12 years now, at least he wasn’t being silenced, even if mockery, derision, and manipulation of his words is hardly any better.

This behavior is completely ridiculous and I am just so frustrated right now. I can’t believe we live in this kind of world. To get my point across further…

President Barack Obama was rebuffed by social media companies, including Twitter, when he requested that they take down ISIS terrorist content. Yet, Twitter has a new policy against so-called hate speech right around the time a Saudi Prince became the second majority shareholder of Twitter. Coincidentally, the selective targeting against Ex-Muslims just so happened to have begun around this point while “respected” Saudi Imams can continue to argue freely on Twitter that marital rape doesn’t exist.

A correction: Twitter has banned ISIS content over the years, but is also targeting human rights activists critical of Islamic despots and giving their information to the law enforcement of Islamic countries.  Even those living overseas who have escaped such despots.

I am absolutely livid right now. Just thought I’d share to continue in any small way I can in having their voices heard. I worry things will only get worse since Twitter seems to be acting more pernicious as the months go by.