Me vs Islam: How to Abandon the Nonsense

What is the best way to refute the Koran? The best way to know it’s nonsense? Read it!

For example, read the chapter called “Al Nisa (Women)”, verse 34:

“Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one more strength than other, and because men are required to spend their wealth for the maintenance of women. Honorable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah require them to guard their husband’s property and their own honor. As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary, beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them and do not make excuses to punish them. Allah is Supremely Great and is aware of your actions.”

Isn’t this truly beautiful? Men essentially own women, and if women don’t want them (translation to Islamic language: Are disobedient) then you can beat them. Of course, after you asked them nicely and left them alone in bed that is!

Now, these days apologists have tried many things to justify this. Including stating “It’s mistranslated!” Yes, right. Good old mistranslation…

Your God seems awfully bad with his communication skills. Which means his resume is a lie: Omnipotent and Omniscient my ass!

About Paris: The Self Destructive Nature of the Left

“The actions of a few radicalised individuals do not represent an entire religion.”
I’m afraid this is not entirely true. A religion is a set of institutionalized ideas. Thus the actions of a few or many, may or may not represent what the religion in fact puts forward.
How does one know that the majority of Muslims are not hypocrites to the text of their so called holy book? The majority of Christians are hypocrites, why not Muslims?
The left has fallen hard for the trap of “tolerance”. One does not tolerate bad ideology in the name of respect. Open that damn so called holy book of Islam and read what it has to say about women, or about Christians and Jews. And by all means stop equivocating “religion” with the “religious” or whoever identifies themselves (rightfully or falsely) a follower of a particular religion.  
One more thing: Fully stop using the word “Islamophobia”. It is nonsensical and stupid.

Against Islam: Lying, Deceiving and Illogical Confusions

The following video is the perfect example of how many apologists try their best to hide behind lies and deception when trying to defend the indefensible (religion of Islam). The video is obviously scripted to serve as propaganda in defense of Islam, but it immediately backfires when one rationally considers its arguments:

As we can see, there are two people defending Islam here, the Professor (Let’s call him P) and the Student (S). Let’s tear into both of them, starting with P since his lie is obvious and straight forward:

Tearing P a new one: At the start P is seemingly addressing the relation between Islam and terrorism, claiming that “Because words Mercy, Peace and Compassion have been repeated much more than Jihad, therefore Islam is much more religion of peace than war (or terrorism)”.

Two things immediately dismantle this garbage:

(1) Did the good P forget to include words such as “Slay (قتل)”, which represent killing, being killed or fighting depending on the context and use, and have been repeated multiple times in the Quran? Of course he did not. After all why forget when you can be dishonest to the bone? (As an example look at chapter 9 of the Quran [Al-Towbah], and in particular vers 111)

(2) The context of words matter. How many times peace and mercy have been used for humanity, and not just for Muslims? The following is far closer to what the Quran suggests “Oh sure be merciful, just towards the other Muslims. And by the way kill all infidels and heretics wherever you find them!”

Pathetic try from the good P. Maybe next time he can sugar coat his lies better, so that someone will buy them.

Exposing S on all levels: Now, S is a bit more sneaky. He first comes up with a provocative statement “White superpowers are the biggest terrorists”. This of course is both racist and stupid. But does one very important thing: Diverts the conversation from Islam to US (or “white super powers”, whatever that means). We know this is scripted, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see similar situations play out in the real world.

The conversation about whether Islam is the religion of terrorism is completely irrelevant to what US or any advanced country does, or whether they themselves are terrorists or not. In any discussion of this sort one must stop these diversion tactics and stick to the point. That being said, a simple answer usually shuts this tactic down: “Yes, terrorism is bad, and whoever does it must be brought to justice. Now, let’s go back to our original topic: Islam”.

There is another important point about what S puts forward, which is worth mentioning. Consider the fact that S tries his best to confuse the issue, using “terrorism” to mean civilian casualties in general (though he does not specify even that much). But one immediately realizes what counties such as US do by no means resembles what Taliban, Al-Qaeda or ISIS do. These terrorist organisation kill indiscriminately, just to create fear. They deliberately kill civilians to terrorize those who they see as enemies, while US may be responsible for civilian casualties, but civilians are not US’s targets.

Final word: The Quran does contain statements that can be interpreted as invitation to pluralism or peace. Whether these verses are enough to cover the cruel and inhuman parts is a discussion for another time.

In the meantime, we should be vigilant about scum such as the likes of P and S who try to put up smoke and mirrors and claim this religion is an advocate of peace. Islam is “not” a religion of peace.

Against Islam: Idiotic Defense is Worse than not Defending

Bad defense of a particular position is sometimes worse than not defending it at all. Take an example from a Muslim blog, Islamicdefender [1]:

Our defender friend first points out some questions which he believes are notable atheist questions. Now, as an atheist, I don’t think I’ll ask these in particular. But let’s entertain what’s being offered briefly, and then I will have a better look at my own question:

Question 1:
How did different races came from Adam and Eve?


Do we really have different races? This is a question that the following analysis should answer with a big “NO”. Biological life is controlled by the DNA of the respective species, and of the individual members of the species.

Contrary to the theory of Darwinian evolution, each species has its own unique basic DNA type, so that macro-evolution from one species to another is impossible. Otherwise, millions of transitional species with transitional DNA could have existed. Not a single such example was ever observed or detected.

I don’t suppose I should make a comment about this particular answer (not the purpose of my post here, nor my first question from a Muslim), but the underlined idiocy speaks for itself.

Let’s ignore question two, the usual nonsense about “Hell is there so you fear God and do the right thing blah blah”

Question 3:
Why did Allah sent 3 books? Why couldn’t he only send the Qur’an?


I think you’d better say: ” Why did not Allah send his last prophet, Mohammad (S), at first? then I will tell you that, as you know, Allah has gradually developed Islam since the advent of Adam (s). The more the people were growing and the more aspects of their lives needed to be explained and reformed, the Almighty Allah sent his prophets and divine books with them. To prove my claim I would like to refer to this verse from the noble Qur’an as such (According to this verse, the only existing religion is submission to Allah):

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ الإِسْلاَمُ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمْ الْعِلْمُ بَغْياً بَيْنَهُمْ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِآيَاتِ اللٌّهِ فَإِنَّ اللٌّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

“Surely the religion with Allāh is al-Islām. And those who have been given the Book [i.e., the Christians and the Jews] did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allāh, then surely Allāh is quick in reckoning.”

So, it seems logical to have different various religions and divine books, Although one might ask: “why did not Allah created the grown human at first?” which can’t be answered here thoroughly. but God’s will was to educate the human being step by step, in fact he sent the final prophet along with his last divine book when the humanity was ready for it.

This answer is nonsense even on the surface, to a question which I don’t particularly find very important to ask. If Islam had much to offer in terms of improvement on other Abrahamic religions before, one would expect to see Christians and Jews agreeing with Muslims and converting. But no, Muslims have to try to seize other faiths for themselves, while looking down on them as ignorant and pretending as if they have all the answers, and then have some bloody battles to prove who’s right with swords and bombs and the like.

Islam demonstrably has nothing more to offer to humanity than Christianity or Judaism.


My question: I think there is one important question one should ask from any member of an Abrahamic religion, particularly a Muslim.

Muslims claim that their prophet is the last, and their holy book is the final. One would expect the final words of the infinitely wise creator of the universe to have some substance. Say, for example, imagine if this Allah had ever bothered mentioning any part of our understanding of microbiology in that holy book. It could be so effective: Lives would be saved while the so called Allah would prove himself very effectively (albeit not beyond reasonable doubt). Imagine if this so called God had ever bothered to mention physics or how the universe worked, presumably he is the only one that knows for sure.

Maybe if he had said anything about evolution (or biology for that matter) in the Quran, some Muslims wouldn’t be so confused about it so as to write that garbage (mentioned above). But nah, it is far more important to keep saying “Worship me! Me! Me me me!” like a four year old child.

Not only that, but also it appears that this infinite source of knowledge didn’t learn from his past mistakes. Still, after all these years of “gradual training”, he didn’t realize that a book that is open to interpretation is by far the worst tool to communicate with human beings. Lo and behold Muslims are by far the worst of the lot: They kill each other far more frequently that any other religion at this point, and all because they can’t seem to figure what this Allah actually wants from them. One wonders if Allah ever saw what the vagueness of this book would do to his damn followers.

So here is my question: How dare you suggest this book is the final words of the infinitely wise creator of the universe, while even Muslims don’t seem to agree about what the hell it is saying?


How to “Not” Solve Euthyphro Dilemma

Well, many have tried. I cannot blame our friend in Here for doing so as well, though ultimately failing. Let’s see what’s given as the objection to the dilemma:

“The Euthyphro ‘dilemma’ is easily solvable in the context of the most basic understanding of orthodox Christianity when one realizes that moral goodness, commanded or un-commanded by God, is a reflection of His divine nature in humanity. Pursuing goodness, Christian or non-Christian, then becomes an existential condition as a result of God creating humanity “…in His image…”, His image being a reflection of His nature, one of perfect righteousness and thus perfect moral good.”

So many things wrong with this, one wonders where to start.

Firstly, ehm, I’m fairly sure there is no such thing as God so that “goodness” is his/her/its reflection. Wait, I can immediately hear religious people cry foul: That argument has no place here. Well it does, but since you insist, and since I can see a number of other things wrong with that “defence”, I’ll let it pass.

What next? Problem: “Your” god, assuming it exists, loves faxing down commandments left and right to his chosen prophets. “Kill gays”, “Beat women”, “Don’t eat shellfish”, etc etc. Are you telling me that these abhorrently stupid and immoral commandments are not to be followed? Obviously [hopefully!] we are aware that these are immoral. So, given that according to you we are reflecting his goodness, in “not” pursuing these we are reflecting “Your” god’s divine nature? So, somewho with a divine nature of goodness, commanded some rules that do not match his divine nature? Funny that.

Oh but wait, there is something even better, you didn’t solve the dilemma at all! As soon as you make that statement, someone is bound to immediately ask the following: So, basically, whatever your God’s nature is, goodness is? What if you God happens to be jealous (in Exodus for example)? What if he is Murderously Homophobic (Leviticus) or a Misogynist (I’d give Islam as an example here)?

Is it so, that you believe your God has all the attributes of being good, or, is it so that whatever attributes your God happens to have are attributes of goodness? If the latter is true, then goodness is arbitrary to your God’s nature. If the first is true, then those attributes are separate from your God’s nature, thus there is no relevance between them.

Also, another might ask a different question: Can your God alter his own nature? If not, then omnipotence goes down the drain, if yes, then morality goes… Oh wait, he already did alter his own nature between the old testament and the new one. Well, I guess nothing else left to say.

I suppose this is enough. For now…

On the Dangers of Abandoning Reason for Comfort

Often, religious people proudly talk about being calm and collected, and attribute it to their faith. Regardless of whether it’s true (Who’s to say someone like Sam Harris is not calm?), I wish to argue that even if true, it is not a virtue, but quite the opposite: It is wicked and foul, the surrender of one’s humanity into slavery.

This happens in Abrahamic religions in general, but as you may have noticed, Islam is my particular target, since even the name “Islam” come from the Arabic root “salama” which means surrender. For centuries, Muslims have been proudly claiming that this God (Allah) has sent them all they need, the most complete religion (A verse in the Qur’an says: “Today I completed my religion for you and finished my blessings upon you” [Almaedah, verse 3]). This means that Islam dictates their lives, from how to have sex, what to do during sex, what to do after sex and so on, to how to enter somewhere (with the right foot, and no I’m not joking).

The same thing, perhaps to a milder degree, but the same in essence none the less, happens in Christianity and Judaism. Yet again that God is very concerned with what people do with each other in bed, how they live their lives and how they end it. Does this make us act better as human beings? I have argued before that such is not the case. But does this make the religious more calm, more collected? Perhaps. Is that calmness good? Not at all.

There is not a day that passes by and I (as a none believer, and a sane human being) am not in mental anguish. Every action that I prepare myself to do, every interaction that I have with others, I keep thinking to myself if I have done the right thing. I keep thinking if my reasoning was right, if I acted correctly. There is not a day that passes by and I do not regret, and take lessons from, some of the things I have done wrong in the past. Every time I make a claim, I keep weighing it, trying to make sure I say the right thing, that I do not lie or not be dishonest.

I wonder what would have happened if I had surrendered my wits, my sanity, to an authority by means of faith? Obviously I would have been sure of the things I was doing, after all, they were the commandments of someone utterly righteous. They would have been my moral duties.  What if I was commanded to mutilate my baby boy’s (or girl’s) genitalia? No problem. I would have been happy to do so. What if I was commanded to behead my son (Qur’an: Assafat, verses 101-107)? No problem, I would have been more than happy to do so for such righteous being. And I would feel no guilt, no shame, no regret doing those things. In fact, I would have felt happy to please such being, my master, who literally owned me, whom I had surrendered to.

The thought of being as such makes me shiver. No, thank you. I’m glad I am in mental anguish. I’m glad my conscience is not numbed, is not surrendered into the slavery of a tyrannical sadistic master. I’m glad if I am not perfect, at least I can try.

Argument for Ignosticism, or, How Much of an Atheist am I?

One question that I have recently been thinking of is this: Is the answer to the question “Are you an Atheist?” necessarily yes for me? The fact of the matter is, it depends on who is asking it, is it a deist, a theist, a Hindu maybe, a philosopher of religion, or most importantly, myself.

Most of the time the answer is yes, of course because most of the times the person asking the question is a “theist” of Abrahamic religions. Surely “that God is clearly defined, and I do not find it challenging to easily reject it.

However, in the debates that one may have with a theist, one usually hears a different claim. Usually the notion of God that a theist wishes to “prove” turns out to be an equivocation with the notion of a Deistic God, or some God other than what the theist tries to worship. Aside from that fallacy that needs to be pointed out to the theist of a particular religion, the question posed in the beginning of this post becomes relevant here: I do not necessarily reject a Deistic God as strongly as I reject, for example, an Islamic God (Allah, the same as Jehovah).

Don’t get me wrong, I do reject even a Deistic God, since it’s mere name has to depend on the arguments for its existence, and there are no good arguments for that. However, it seems to me that there is a mountain of evidence to actually reject the notion of theistic God(s) of the Abrahamic sort. From the internal inconsistencies  within such theology to historical inconsistencies, all accumulate to one result: The existence of such God is a delusion.

This gives way to Ignosticism, the idea that a God needs to be defined in order to be rejected, and “God” should not be equivocated in arguments for or against it. Though none of the gods presented until this day can be acceptable enough, so we are still waiting.