Ex-Muslim, now Atheist - ASK ME ANYTHING!

funny how you call yourself an "ex-Muslim" when you're the guy/girl who struggled to grasp the basic concept of God. You've clearly never believed in Allah or Prophet Muhammad as his final messenger, never prayed 5 times a day and never understood the Qur'an properly, probably never even fasted in your life too. So no you were never a Muslim as you so claim you were, so please just stop with your bullcrap.

It's all complicated.

If God can stop these people from going to hell, but does not, then he is not as merciful as I am (since I would do everything I could to stop people from going to hell).

That is not relivant, the contradiction I described still exists. Saying he is almost most just does nothing to counter my point. I'll rewrite my argument incase you missunderstood.

Not sending people to hell is more merciful than sending people to hell.
Allah sends people to hell.
I would never send anybody to hell.
Therefore I am more merciful than Allah.
This contradicts the Quran, which claims that Allah is most merciful.

We humans, by our very nature, need motivation to do something, we need some sort of beneficial outcome to do something. It's an important part of our cerebral network too, primarily the dopaminergic reward system in the prefrontal cortex, an integral part of our brain which is responsible for the pursuit of goals.

And why do we need this concept of reward? Biologically, it helps us to survive, it makes us do things that are good for us.
Thus, we have this to compensate for our imperfections in other aspects - such as dependance (upon others, upon sustenance, upon our physical or mental capabilities, etc.) and insufficiencies. It causes us to pursue our goals, our needs, without having to rely on others.
Man has long used this to interact amongst ourselves - be it a reward for good interaction or cooperation (such as helping someone who helped you, or giving a child a reward for behaving well or completing a certain task), or a harmful act in return for harm (such as banning a child from a certain pleasure in return for bad behaviour).

Likewise, in order to do good, to be selfless - even if at one's own detriment - we require some sort of motivation/reward/satisfaction. In order for us to follow the commands of God, we need to know the consequences of how we live our lives. We need to have something to motivate us, something immensely satisfying to strive for. We need to be informed that following God's instruction leads to our utter satisfaction and that there are consequences to going against the guidelines set by God. We need to have a sense of taqwa. This helps us with our imaan. Certainly, if mankind could figure out this integral part of our nature, God - our Creator, the All-Knowing - would surely know of this too.
Now, if God just said "if you commit sin, you will go to hell - a very bad place/you won't like it there", how ineffective would this be? One would think "bad? I won't like it? Meh, I've seen bad, I've seen what I don't like, yet I still cope. I don't care, yolo ftw!". Now compare this with a more detailed description thereof, a more graphic telling of the place called Hell. Undoubtedly, the latter is much more effective, and indeed much more informative. Thus, we neither feel careless with regards to it, nor do we feel 'left in the lurch' or inadequately informed about it. We have no excuse at all to ignore it and we cannot deem it insignificant.
So now you might ask "why could God, being as merciful as He is, not just dissolve hell and not punish anyone?".

The reason being that God isn't only merciful. Rather, God has many different attributes, which include those of being Just and of reckoning. God's word is absolute. If God says something, He need not take it back, or 'lie'. Nullifying hell may comply with God being "ar- Raheem" [The Compassionately Merciful], but would it comply with the other attributes of God? Would it not make God's word inabsolute and untrue? Further to this, what motivation would man have to follow God's command? We'd be back at 'square: yolo ftw'. Why would we need to follow God's commands? Why not just pursue our pleasures, in whatever manner possible? Without doubt, mankind would not sacrifice immediate pleasures for the sake of getting nothing in return. Rather, where the pursuit of immediate pleasure is the only goal, mankind's self-discipline would waver.

Circumcision is only expected for men not women..................

Circumsion has existed long before Islam ever existed.

Please don't butt in if you don't know what your talking about.

She said she was a medic and an ex-muslim so I wanted to see her opnion on this.

Everthing in that video is factual. They used:


Tell me how is this not factual.

Instead of spouting your mouth about why don't you argue why it is incorrect or not factual.

Oh but i was. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

So much for the atheists being the hostile ones on here, eh?

how was this irrelevant to anything i've said? and to the other post, i wouldnt call that a debate either since her arguments completely disintegrated within like 2-3 replies. you're currently showing similar incompetence.



lol i've looked at this much more than you, a muslim, has done. dont assume things that i may know or may not know.
yeah you're pretty simple. regarding your last sentence, i say instead of copying links you haven't properly looked into, why dont you argue why it is incorrect or not factual.

the qurans strongest scientific miracle claim, embryology, is bs vague poetic verses construed as a scientific miracle. what you don't know is that those verses are much more suitable to the scientific knowledge already available in the time of the quran. in particular, greek embryology. aristotle wrote that bones develop then the flesh over it. infact if you actually see both cases of embryology in the quran and by aristotle, it becomes apparent that they all use the similar vocabulary in similar order: sperm, menstrual blood and flesh moulding over bones. thereby, it is very very unlikely one can credibly construe alaqah, nutfah or whatever to fit modern science and not aristotles greek science. but then you're also talking about your special leech like clot, based on the term 'alaqah', a leech like substance or a clinging substance - according to your modern day muslim apologists.

but the term easily refers to a 'blood clot', especially according to most trusted translators including Yusuf Ali and Pickthall, and many others. Of course someone like you would just say they are wrong. the term blood clot, as mentioned before, also lucidly corresponds with science of the hellenic perioid, which was amply available to them at the time. further furthermore, arabian scholars around the time also explain embryology in a similair fashion to the quran and the hellenic period, that we form from sperm and menstrual blood, im not going to spend too much time and itemise them, in the age of information you go do that yourself, but some names (among others) such as al-tabari and al-razi support that alaqah refers to blood clot, not a clinging substance. so use your brain to see what term 'alaqah' is most likely to refer to. if this isn't enough, just google on your own time. plenty have debunked this claim much more extensively and thoroughly, that it is impossible to still stand by this claim without being an narrow minded stupid idiot.

i thought the embryology claim is unbeatable too at first, arguably the qurans strongest miracle claim (the rest are weak), yet it completely falls apart with some common sense and being open-minded a little. but im sure you've already assumed im wrong before even reading what i've wrote, which is but a fraction of the argument debunking the embryology claim. in fact, it was this claim in particular that finally made me leave islam.

lol ikr, pathetic.

i havent seen a single muslim here give a solid argument, simply because faith is stronger than fact to these people. so you could kind of understand their confusion and anger.

what facts? lol how pathetic.

.

^^I see you're resorting to personal insults already. I suggests you chill out you so called ex-Muslim, we know you're on the internet no need to act all hard behind a screen.

Please provide these 'facts'. Go on hurry up.

you're clearly very offended.

what's worse is that you still didnt understand what I said.

maybe i'm speaking to you condescendingly for a reason, maybe you're being an idiot.

like I said, read what's being written slowly and absorb it properly. if you keep acting like an idiot then I'll speak to you like one.

and you're clearly very offended as demonstrated by the tone of your posts.

Oh i do understand, i'm still waiting for you to give me those 'facts'.

Why not?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I meant facts as in worldly facts, the definition of fact. not individual facts. faith and fact are two different words no? I'm merely saying that religious faith is strong as, or stronger, than facts. For example, you will eventually die, thats a fact. Believing in the after life is faith. Yet a Muslim would regard both as equally true.

but the afterlife is a fact.

Only in your head.

Posted from TSR Mobile

lol ikr, pathetic.

i havent seen a single muslim here give a solid argument, simply because faith is stronger than fact to these people. so you could kind of understand their confusion and anger.

actually given that you are saying they are you must provide reason to believe it is equal. So go a head. Given that we are speaking about maths the proof is going to have to be a little more than your assertion.

Assume that there are as many possible beliefs as the human mind can create. To date, all such possibilities ( including Atheism) have no proof or disproof ( enlighten me if you have either of these).
Since there is only one scenario that is true, from our perspective all such possibilities are equally likely to be true.

Any such evidence that has been collected, so far, clearly has not lead to the conclusion that the universe created itself or else I'm sure such a theory would have ended this argument long ago.

but that is not how probability works. A prime example of this is that flipping a coin is not 50/50 its more 52/48 with it being more likely to land and the side that was facing up when flipped. Just because you have 2 options, or x number of options does not mean the probability that you get option y is 1/X. That is the assumption that the process is totally random. Take our case. If only one can be true and we assume the truth is y then the likely hood x is right is 0. Whilst the likelihood y is right is 100%. Other wise we are not talking about objective probability. But a pseudoprobabilty. The better description would be, assuming you choose your religious stance randomly the likelihood that your stance is correct is 1/r, where r= the number of religious stances in existence (assume that it has to be one already in existence). However i know of nobody that chooses religion randomly.