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!

Advertisements

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?

Answer:

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?

Answer:

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?

_______________________________

https://islamicdefender.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/3-questions-atheists-will-ask-you/

Introductory Logic: Basic Ad Hominem, or “How to Not Respond to a Commenter”

Our Christian blogger friend in Here responded to My Post about his bad defence of Euthyphro dilemma on the comment section in the same page of his own blog. Now, surely he was not obligated to respond in mine, but since he did not publish my comment on his response, I decided to put this into good educational use and make a new post out of it.

My response to him was as follows: “lol! Ad hominem. Quite pathetic tbh, but I don’t expect anything more. 😀 “ Which was not published. That’s OK, after all, I probably should have expected less! However, his comments in response to me are interesting enough to put here. I believe this is a good introductory example of ad hominem attack:

Though I do appreciate your commentary, your discourse here reflects what most Atheists have; an inadequate understanding of Christian theology. This would be like me walking up to a Chinese man and telling him that his worldview (in the context of philosophy) was crazy without the slightest idea of how Confucian worldview operates. I really do appreciate when we can have discussion from one side to the other, but do your homework on true systematic Christian theology because your arguments, though seemingly adequate on the surface, would be considered irrelevant in academia by both atheists and theologians.

Also, I prefaced my argument with you must have the most basic understanding of orthodox Christianity and you have proven that you in fact so not have that most rudimentary skill necessary to argue on the other side of this post. It only makes sense within a Christian worldview. I don’t expect it to make sense to an atheist. That’s why that post was for Christians who were struggling with philosophy, not atheists. You of all people (self proclaimed master of logic) should know that you can’t make an argument without premises 🙂.

I would like to also mention that my linked post is devoid of any comments about him or his knowledge of moral philosophy, or lack there of. Also, just for the record, to my recollection I have never called myself “master of logic”.

 

Democratic Dictatorship: The Curious Case of the Town of Earthbridge

This is the newest essay on the final version of my recent book “In Pursuit of What is Right: The Progress of Moral Thinking (An Introduction)“. The book is available on Amazon.com, and hopefully is a help for students in college or high school who wish to know more about moral philosophy.

*****

The small town of Earthbridge was by no means a good place for living. It was a remote town, between the deserts of Sahra and the mountains of Kalimanjoor. The closest town to Earthbridge was at least seven days of hard riding through the desert, and people had to work hard for their livelihood. Even then most people had to live day by day with a small ration, through the hard years of labour.

Then one day, at the beginning of the harvest season, a man who called himself “The Wizard” came to town. He appeared suddenly from the desert, riding an old but still intact horse wagon. He set up shop on the main square, and claimed to have a solution for every problem that the good people of Earthbridge may have.

Curiosity made people gather around him, and each started shouting their desires and pains to the man. The Wizard raised his hands, and with the silence that followed he spoke: “Good people of Earthbridge! I can see now that you have many problems, and although I can make each go away, this may take a long time. Time which I do not have.” He paused and looked at the people around him, “Instead, I can make all your problems vanish with one sweeping motion of my wand. And in fact, not only that, but also I can make each of you much happier than you already are. I can make your crops grow each year without effort, and put you and your town on the path of becoming richer and richer every year.”

A smart man from the crowd shouted “But surely you will not do this for free! And you can see that we do not have much to give.”

 “Yes, I can see that” said the Wizard “But my price is not as high as you may think. I simply require a small sacrifice”. The crowd was suddenly silent. “A sacrifice from one of your own, one of your children”, continued the Wizard, “one child, no older than five years of age, must be put in the deepest well in town, and I will seal it with my magic. The child will not die, but he or she will suffer for each of the days she spends in that darkness. The magic will preserve her life, and as long as she suffers, you shall prosper.”

“Remember that in return for such a sacrifice, you will be rewarded with happiness and prosperity for yourselves and your town. You will be rich, healthy and happy.”

 Silence followed. Many people had no doubt that this stranger was the devil himself, disguised as a man of magic. Others who were more affected by the hardship of living in such state believed otherwise, and thought of the man as a saviour. After all, this sacrifice was only a small price to pay for a greater good and happiness for all.

Suddenly, everyone started talking at the same time. Heated arguments followed, and the crowd became an unrecognizable mass of people who moved and argued.

The man raised his hands one more time, and silence followed again. “My good people”, he said, “this will get us nowhere. The time that you may wish to spend arguing with each other is more than one lifetime.”

“But why not like any other civilized society put this motion to vote? You can easily decide what you can do this way, in a much shorter time. And before voting you may wish to have as much arguing as you wish.”

People of Earthbridge looked at each other. Surely, this was a wise suggestion, was it not?

The Value of Democracy: The conflict seems to be clearly between Utilitarianism (in particular act Utilitarianism) and rights based ethics. Many of the decisions we make in politics and policy making are not one-sidedly good for everyone, or make all people happy equally. Sometimes our decisions produce the overall best possible scenario, making “most” people happy, despite hurting or putting pressure on a minority.

Choosing what the majority wants seems to be a great way of finding out solutions to our problems. However, this immediately begs the question: “Can we decide for everything in the society by means of democracy?”

In the above example, most of us may think that torturing a child in such a way is unjustified, exactly because she has every right to not be tortured. Also, following the same rights based ethics type of reasoning, a voting on such a matter is simply irrelevant. Even if all people in Earthbridge agree that the child has to be sacrificed and tortured in such a way, still this would not make the action right, nor would it justify it in any way.

But on the other hand, we need to remind ourselves that people of Earthbridge are indeed under extreme pressure. What if the decision was about a special ration, or a new method of harvest, which despite making some people uncomfortable, would improve the town’s quality of life without taking someone else’s life?

Democracy is a good way of understanding what makes most of us happy. But it is not always in the right direction. We must tread very carefully when we argue a democratic voting justifies a specific notion. Sometimes the worst ideas have been chosen by people who did not realize the full force of their choices. For example the Russian revolution which ended in decades of suffering and loss of essential rights in the Soviet Union.

This is why the ability to make a distinction between our essential rights and “the good of all” becomes essential. We need to remember that we may not be able to make an absolute rule of this distinction, but knowing it, knowing the conflict between what we have as a “right” and what could be good for most of us while in expense of some others, can enable us understand the debates around political issues far better.