63 thoughts on “Watch “ISLAM IS EVIL ATHEISM IS GOOD?!? He Never Saw This Coming…” on YouTube

  1. atheists have long been subject to the lies of Christians and Muslims when they try to claim that atheism leads to atrocities e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. So, yep, we’ve all seen this failed argument. What theists forget is that they are atheists too, since they don’t believe in many many gods. So, can we say that they will commit atrocities because they are atheists?

    Atheism is simply the conclusion that there is no god or no gods. Those that committed atrocities in supposedly god-lacking countries were megalomaniacs, and those can be theists or atheist. their insanity is what caused the atrocity, not the lack of belief in a god since that doesn’t make anyone do something, again since you are an atheist too. Atheism isn’t a worldview, so your attempt to claim that someone does something because they don’t believe in a certain god is rather silly. Now, if I were an atheist, and say, a nihilist, I might do something because of nihilism, which has ideas on how to act within the world, just like Christianity and Islam and megalomania do.

    Unsurprisingly, the Muslim fellow in the video never said that whomever that other guy is was wrong about the martyrdom and the 72 virgins. The abrahamic religions do get a lot of mileage out of promises of a magical afterlife. A pity that there is no evidence for any of them at all.

    Like

      1. “nope, all communists are not atheists. Jesus, with his command to share everything is a very good communist as written.”

        lol no his idea of “sharing” wasn’t the same as the immoral communist one

        Liked by 4 people

      2. stewjo004

        @Wilhelm

        Between his communism is non-athiest statement and comparison to the Biblical Jesus(as) I’m starting to think he doesn’t actually know what communism is. For everyone who didn’t pay attention to Social Studies communism is a system that strives to eliminate all classes whether financial, religious, gender and make all peoples equal (I’m sure I’m just speaking to his soul right now)

        Liked by 2 people

      3. stewjo004

        @ Club

        Thank you for finally admitting you don’t know communism.

        All communists are atheists but not all atheists are communists.

        the foundation of communism is the elimination of all social classes which includes religion.

        Furthermore, zakah would not be under communism it would be under socialism. However, we ourselves are not socialist as the State doesn’t own all production and people can set up business with private ownership.

        Finally, we could care less about what the Bible claims.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Atlas

      “So, yep, we’ve all seen this failed argument.”
      Nice statement, if only your say so was evidence.

      “What theists forget is that they are atheists too, since they don’t believe in many many gods.”
      That’s the dumbest thing I’ve hear in a quite some time. Atheism is disbelief of the divine. Muslims don’t fall under this category. By your definition there is no such thing as a theist since pretty much everyone that believes in a god, disbelieves in some other. Stop playing with words.
      The atheist lie through their teeth their entire lives, promising better societies. We’ve seen what happenes when you get to power. You’ve committed the worst atrocities in history.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. oh here is atlas, who fancies himself such a strong muslim man.

        sorry, dear, but it seems you can’t even read the dictionary. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. You disbelieve in other gods. You try to pretend that your silly god is the only one, just like a Christian. Do show how you can show this is true and that your version of Islam is the only right one and your god the only god.

        A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods. So there are indeed plenty of theists. The terms aren’t contradictory, atlas.

        And poor atlas chooses to lie about others. I suppose Muhammed is disappointed in you “The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “Lying is not permitted except in three cases: a man speaking to his wife to make her happy; lying in times of war; and lying in order to reconcile between people.””

        Happily, secular societies have far outstripped theocracies. As usual, Atlas tries to lie and claim that the lack of a belief in a certain god results in atrocities. That is not true. What causes atrocities is the insanity of megalomania and the idea that one man is superior to others.

        Like

      2. Atlas

        Sigh…
        When the ego can’t handle it, they immedeatly start playing more games. Atheism means what everyone knows what it mean: denial of the divine.
        Since you want to play with words and redefine them, allow me to put you in your place.
        Encyclopedia Britannica:
        “Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.”

        Before getting into what every single attribute God has, first figure out that He exists. You say He doesn’t even exist though neither you nor any of your idols like Sam Harris Or Dawkins can explain how we exist and are trying to pass of guesswork and conjecture as science. I’ll tell you what definitly does not exist, a moral foundation in atheism. The amount of dances I’ve seen these atheists do when asked to explain why something is right or wrong or where morality comes from, is just too many times to count. That alone proves materialism is garbage, invented by men who don’t won’t to believe and try to soooo desperatly convince people it’s cus of ‘nah evidence bruh’. Pathetic.

        Atheists have had chances to show what happens when they are in full power and we’ve seen what happens: we get Communism.
        Your secular system has integrated sexual perversion like homosexuality, transgenderism and are even now making incest common among people as well as beastiality. That’s the ‘greatest achievement’ of your favorite system. We are here to clean it up. No need to thank us dear, it’s our obligation.
        And by the looks of it you’ve never experienced what a strong man is. What u fancy as strong men are now arguing whether cutting of their toothpicks is right or wrong. And since most of them are atheists like yourself, they too have a non existing moral foundation.
        Sad panda. Sad panda indeed.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. No games at all, dear Atlas, my big strong Muslim. 😀 Atheism is the denial that a god or gods exist. So, Atlas, does Odin exist? Does the Christian version of God? Doe Vishnu and Brahma exist. Yep, the EB says exactly that and confirms what I said. Thanks for quoting it. Atheism and theism are quite generic. IF you want to claim that atheism means not believing in all gods, then you must claim that theism is believing in all gods.
        True or not, dear? Poor Atlas, terrified of being an atheist.

        You use the same arguments as my little Christian who claims that the universe shows that his version of God and Jesus are true and Allah doesn’t exist. How wonderfully amusing!

        Poor dear, I think Harris and Dawkins are mediocre people. I certainly don’t idolize them. But good to see you lying again. I’m sure Allah doesn’t care, right? All you have are rather poor god of the gaps argument. Why are we here? Don’t know and still no need for a god.

        Atheism is just a disbelief in a god, so yep, dear, there is no morality associated with atheism. I can tell that since you are an atheist. You claim to derive morality from a god that fails to do anything. Christians claim to derive a morality from a god that fails to do anything. I derive my happily subjective morality from my fellow humans and myself, using empathy and reason. My morality can get better. Yours? Well, you are stuck with the subjective morality of a bunch of people who had no idea how the world works. My morality is largely derived from Epicurean philosophy, search for pleasure in moderation. Again, you are found to be a liar since I know that I’ve long since explained where morality comes from and why something is right or wrong. You just don’t’ like to find out that Atlas isn’t special or important and Allah is nothing more than one more petty god invented by humans in the Bronze/Iron Ages.

        And here is Atlas failing yet again with is claims. Jesus your prophet was a communist, sharing all between everyone. When we get megalomaniacs in power, be they Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc then horrible things happen.

        Atlas is afraid of people who are different than him. His fear leads to hate, and pretending that some magical being agrees with his cowardice and hate. Sorry, dear, incest isn’t common and poor dear, you do fantasize about beastality don’t’ you? That muslims can’t even agree on how to worship their god shows that you make up nonsense just like Christians and Jews. How many sects of Islam are there, Atlas? Or are you just like a conservative Christian, sure that only your version is the one true one?

        Oh dear, I’ve been married 30 years. And toothpicks? Are you afraid of mentioning penises, Atlas?

        Like

      4. Atlas

        Alrighty thot, let the spanking commence once more!

        1. You’ve got to be kidding me!
        “Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.”
        Do Muslims deny belief in God? No.
        I mean seariously? We’re actually playing this game now?

        “As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.”
        Since theism is the opposite of atheism: atheism therefor must be the denial of the divine. Which once again Muslims don’t adhere to.
        Now here is one little advice from a STRONG MUSLIM MAN:
        If you want to be a smartass, make sure you don’t make a major blunder like literally claiming Muslims are atheists or when you try and lecture someone about logic when you can’t even tell the following:
        “IF you want to claim that atheism means not believing in all gods, then you must claim that theism is believing in all gods.
        True or not, dear?”
        No, not true dear.
        If claim X syas: A and B and C are true
        then the negation of that is NOT: A and B and C is false. But rather: A OR B OR C is false.
        Hence the negation of “atheism means not believing in all gods” becomes “theism means believing in one or multiple gods”.
        This is called the law of Morgan.

        “You claim to derive morality from a god that fails to do anything.”
        He is the one that made morality. If that consititues not doing anything then you are more stupid than I thought.

        “Christians claim…”
        I couldn’t care less.

        “I derive my happily subjective morality from my fellow humans and myself, using empathy and reason. My morality can get better.”
        I didn’t what you ‘think’ is moraly right or wrong. Stop dodging the argument.
        I ask you to show evidence for morality. You provide the typical ‘I think this is moraly right or wrong’ which yet again shows you got no answer. You have no foundation for morality since the next atheist can come along and claim something else is moraly right or wrong. Since you got no objective morality, you got no ground to stand on.
        What makes something moraly right? A certain combination of particles moving in a particular way? No answer from atheists except tap dancing around the issue.

        “My morality is largely derived from Epicurean philosophy, search for pleasure in moderation.”
        Again since you are a materialist: on what ground does your materialist view does it prove something is right or wrong. Since you believe we’re just a bag of chemicals, do tell what chemical interactions make something no moral into something moral. Again with the tap dancing.

        “Again, you are found to be a liar since I know that I’ve long since explained where morality comes from and why something is right or wrong.”
        Lol no you haven’t. Just saying X is right or wrong doesn’t make it so since someone else can come along and claim the opposite.

        “You just don’t’ like to find out that Atlas isn’t special or important”
        I’m not special nor important. But I sure as hell aint a bag of chemicals which has the same value as a rock. Why is a human being more valueble than a rock according to your materialistic worldview? There is no answer to this question.

        “Jesus your prophet was a communist, sharing all between everyone. ”
        Wut? You do know Muslims don’t believe the NT right or are your ignorant about this simple fact as well?
        Lool!

        “When we get megalomaniacs in power, be they Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc then horrible things happen.”
        Yes! And the horrible things that happen when atheists are in power has proven to be the WORST of them all. A simple fact that you just can’t stand since it doesn’t fit your narrative.

        “Atlas is afraid of people who are different than him.”
        Since you’ve been tossing the ‘yOu’rE a LiAr’ like a thot on a period, can I use it now? How can I be afraid of people who are different to me since I’m joyfully kicking once ass right now? Wake up thot, wake up!

        “Sorry, dear, incest isn’t common”
        I didn’t say it was. Pay attention womann this is what I said: and are even now MAKING incest common.

        “and poor dear, you do fantasize about beastality don’t’ you”
        Why the sudden need to self project? Just cus you’re a filthy vermin doesn’t mean I am one.

        ” That muslims can’t even agree on how to worship their god”
        Lol so not agreeing with people of your religion on everything equals that religion being false/made up? Are you stupid or acting like it? People having different opinions is to be expected since humans are flawed and God is not. Surely even someone as stupid as you should be able to understand that.

        “thot – a woman who has many casual sexual encounters or relationships”
        I know dummy. I guess the “meme” flew right over your head.
        Don’t quote dictionaries since you got humiliated with your pathetic attempt at redefining the word atheism.

        “Oh dear, I’ve been married 30 years.”
        Which explains why you yearn for a STRONG MUSLIM MAN.
        I rest my case.

        Now begone thot!

        Liked by 2 people

      5. Here we go again with Atlas’ most current failures.

        Muslims deny believe in many gods. We can test this. Atlas, do you believe in Odin? Brahman? Tezcatlipoca? No? Why not? No evidence? Then you are an atheist, just like me. I don’t believe in those gods either. No game, it’s just reality.

        Atheism is the denial of some of the divine or all of it. Again, Atlas is terrified to be called an atheist even though he is one. He doesn’t believe in all gods. And poor atlas, he needs caps to indicate how great he is. No, atlas, you are a weak man who worships a imaginary god. And you can’t even get other Muslims to agree with you. How many sect of Islam now?
        Alas, atlas can’t show that he isn’t an atheist just like I am. If you don’t’ believe in Aten or Amun-Ra, you are an atheist.

        Atheism is the disbelief in god or gods.
        Theisim is the belief in god or gods.

        They do not contradict each other. They are two separate states of belief, and since humans have way more than one god, Atlas’ syllogism fails because he ignores the “or”.

        Atheism is not the disbelief in all gods.
        Theism is not the belief in all gods. Unless our theist wants to claim he does agree that Odin, Brahman, etc are real.

        You fail again, and hilarious that you’ve made up a “law of morgan”. There are laws of De Morgan. Do show us all how these laws work in this situation.

        The one of De Morgan’s laws that might apply is this one:

        not (A or B) = not A and not B; and
        not (A and B) = not A or not B

        So, we can write this as “Not(theist or atheist) = not atheist and not theist; and not (atheist and theist) = not atheist or not theist

        In this case, one can be an atheist and a theist with no problem at all. You fail again atlas, but that is nothing new at all.
        Most, if not all, theists make the claim that their god “made morality.” Do show this was the case, Atlas and that no other gods did. A story like the qu’ran can make many claims of action. That doesn’t mean that any action was taken.

        Since you, dear Atlas, make the same arguments as Christians, you should care. You are no better than them.

        Poor Atlas, he is upset that I told him what morality was, my subjective morality which is indeed what I think. I know morality doesn’t come from Atlas’ god or the god of the most recent failure of a Christian apologist. I’m not dodging anything at all, Atlas. You just didn’t get the answer you needed for your apologetics. I can show evidence for morality by my actions, dear. No god needed.

        Now, again, do show that your god is the source of morality and do make sure that you aren’t using the same arguments of every other theist that you claim is wrong. It’s rather pitiful.

        I find that what is moral is what doesn’t harm others. So, atlas, what do have for evidence for “morality”. I have my actions. And you have……..? Do show your morals are objective, Atlas. I’m fascinated to see what you claim and then note that every theist does the same thing with their god.

        The harm caused or not determines what is morally right for me. Theists all create their god intheir image so they decide that what is morally right is what they want. Your version of Allah wants what atlas wants. No particles needed to know what is moral, only empathy. The problem isn’t with the answers that Atlas gets, it is that atlas has no idea what he is talking about. All he has is that the only reason that something is moral is because Allah, aka atlas, says it is moral. A lovely circular argument of “God is good is God is good…..” based on the idea of “might equals right”.

        Yep, I’m a materialist. My view on right and wrong is based on harm. Your Islamic view is that anything is okay as long as you can claim Allah approves it. My brain, and its lovely chemicals, are all that is needed. No magical creature. I don’t’ need to pretend that some magical being agrees with me like a child does.
        Yep, someone can indeed claim the opposite, The issue is if I can support my claims with evidence. I can. All you have is your god that never shows up to do anything at all. How can you know what is moral from a baseless story whose main character is impotent?

        Now we have atlas insisting he isnt’ special or important but oh he is a big strong muslim man. Oh my. You are indeed a bag of chemicals just like me. A human isn’t worth more than a rock if it does nothing. It is action that makes a human worth more than a rock. We can change the universe. No god or gods needed.

        Nice to see that Atlas is so ignorant about his own religion that he has no idea that Jesus is a prophet in Islam. I suppose he just can’t remember Isa Ibn Maryam.

        Again, Atlas has nothing with his lies about atheism. He claims that megalomaniacs who are athesits re the ‘worst’ of them all, when he cannot show that is the case. Numbers, dear, we need numbers.

        Poor Atlas still nattering on about “thots”. How childish. We have Atlas limited to trying to be insulting, since he can’t actually answer questions or points I’ve made. He has to also insist he is winning since no one else will. How embarrassing for him.
        Again, nothing is “making incest common”. Still more fail from Atlas. He cannot show one instance of this.

        With your concern with sex, one has to wonder, Atlas. It seems your poor god is as fascinated by human sex as you are. Now why would some omnipotent being care? I don’t’ care about what ants do and that is what humans are to these gods humans make up.

        Now we have Atlas, doing just like other theists, trying to pretend that since his god can’t make itself clear and believers contradict each other, why there is no problem at all. People can indeed have different opinions. But Atlas wants to claim that objective truth comes from his god and evidently this god is too stupid or lazy to make sure everyone is on the same page so they aren’t damned.

        And atlas does know what “thot” means. He seems very familiar with the concept. Alas, for Atlas, since I quoted a dictionary about “thot” and I did the same for atheism, I’m doing quite well, in pointing out that Atlas has tried to redefine a word so he can play pretend that he isn’t an atheist. Such a shame that he is terrified of that word.

        Oh, I might yearn for a strong muslim man. Do you know where I might find one since there are none in this conversation?

        Like

      6. Atlas

        [[Atheism is the denial of some of the divine or all of it.]]
        Bitchslap number 1:
        “Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.”
        Nowhere does it say it’s the denial of “some” of the divine. The definition says explicitly: denial of metaphysical beliefs in God. Do Muslims adhere to this? No.
        Theism means:
        “…which affirms the reality of the divine””
        The opposite of this (ie. atheism) would be the denial of the reality of the devine (note: It says of the divine, NOT some of the divine.)
        Bitchslap number 2:
        [[You fail again, and hilarious that you’ve made up a “law of morgan”. There are laws of De Morgan.]]
        Wow I didn’t add the ‘De’ so therefor I made it up! You really got me there.
        Now let the absolute idiotic attempt at trying to dig herself out of the hole she dug herself commence:
        [[So, we can write this as “Not(theist or atheist) = not atheist and not theist; and not (atheist and theist) = not atheist or not theist.
        In this case, one can be an atheist and a theist with no problem at all. You fail again atlas, but that is nothing new at all.]]
        ??? Wth are you talking about XDDDD!??? Let’s limit it to 2 gods just for simplicity sakes cus you’re apperantly to braindead to understand kindergarden level of logic.
        Proposition A: I believe in God X
        Proposition B: I believe in God Y
        Proposition (A OR B): I believe in God X OR I believe in God Y.
        Negation of (A OR B) = negation of A AND negation of B (–>one of the laws of de Morgan) which means I disbelieve in God X AND I disbelieve in God Y.
        If theism is the belief in God X OR God Y then the opposite of this (ie. atheism) means the disbelief in God X AND God Y.
        Finally get it?
        My goodness you’re stupid!
        [[Most, if not all, theists make the claim that their god “made morality. Do show this was the case, Atlas…”]]
        The atheist position has zero foundation for morality. You have yet again like always dodged the question where morality comes from. Science cannot explain this. I have asked you repeatedly: give me a shred of scientific evidence what constitutes something being moraly right or moraly wrong. Again I’m not asking for your opinion of what you feel is right or wrong cus someone else can come along and claim the opposite. You’re a materialist and hence all you got is science. What scientific explanation do you have for morality. Don’t give me what you feel is right or wrong.
        The fact you have nothing negates the materialistic worldview and hence it’s negation therefor must be true. The negation of materialism is supernaturalism/spiritualism.
        [[The harm caused or not determines what is morally right for me.]]
        And there we go again. Why is the harm caused morally right? I’m not denying this! I’m just asking what proof do you have? What in your materialistic worldview proves this. What part of materialism makes the distinction that hitting someone on the head with a hammer is wrong? Nothing. Cus it’s just moving particles that interact with one another and that’s it. Nothing more.
        [[ I can show evidence for morality by my actions, dear.]]
        No you can’t. That’s not “evidence”. I f a murderer comes along and kills someone and says ”there I killed this person and this action proves what I did is moraly right”, you would never be able to refute him. Because why is murder “wrong”? Again, I’m not saying it’s right. But what evidence do you have to say it’s wrong? Nothing.
        Saying “muh action bruh” means nothing.
        “I FIND that what is moral is what doesn’t harm others.”
        For the milionth fucking time: I’m not asking you what YOU FEEL. Saying “I find” is just giving me an opinion. A sadist can come along and say “I FIND that what is moral is what does harm others.” Prove him wrong. You can’t. Because materialism doesn’t have the tools for it.
        Don’t give me your ‘I think’ or ‘I find’ or ‘I feel’ bullshit. Nobody is asking you that. Stop answering questions that I never asked. You’re beyond pathetic.
        “No particles needed to know what is moral, only empathy.”
        But according to your worldview empathy is just a “feeling” that is nothing more than a chemical reaction of particles.
        In other words, your building blocks are always going to be particles interacting with one another. I’m asking you: how can interacting particles create morality?
        No answer.
        [[ based on the idea of “might equals right”.]]
        Never argued this. But I know you have to lie and pretend you’re having the upper ground since you’re getting bitchslapped left and right.
        [[Yep, someone can indeed claim the opposite, The issue is if I can support my claims with evidence. I can.]]
        No you can’t. Not with your materialistic worldview. Cus all your answers/evidence is going to be in the form of ‘I find this right or wrong’ or ‘this is right or wrong due to this concept X that I just stated’ which has no evidence to back it up.
        [[Nice to see that Atlas is so ignorant about his own religion that he has no idea that Jesus is a prophet in Islam. I suppose he just can’t remember Isa Ibn Maryam.]]
        Okey I was wondering whether you were perhaps acting retarded. Now I know for sure. You are beyond retarded.
        Dear thot, you said that Jesus is a communist. My response was that we don’t believe in the NT cus the only way you can come up with such bs is if you get your information of Jesus, which you use to say the is a communist, from the NT. There is nothing in the Qur’an or Hadiths of him being a communist.
        [[A human isn’t worth more than a rock if it does nothing. It is action that makes a human worth more than a rock.]]
        Another statement which from a materialistic worldview, there is nothing that substantiates this. Action = particles zapping eachother. One object having a certain amount of particle interaction makes no difference than another object having different particle interaction be it larger or smaller in amount.
        [[Again, Atlas has nothing with his lies about atheism. He claims that megalomaniacs who are athesits re the ‘worst’ of them all, when he cannot show that is the case. Numbers, dear, we need numbers.]]
        No one here cares about you wanting to deny simple facts. You want numbers. here ya go thot:
        https://about-history.com/list-of-dictatorships-by-death-toll-the-top-10-biggest-killers-in-history/
        And anotha one:
        https://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2012/10/dictator_death_tolls_who_killed_the_most_people.html
        [[He has to also insist he is winning since no one else will.]]
        I don’t have to insist the obvious thot. You are so deluded that you are actually arguing that Muslims are theists and can’t even apply simple laws of logic. Go to any academic and post the shit you posted and after they are done laughing at you, come back and tell me how it went. But you’ll never do it. You’ll just rely on this little corner of the web where vast majority of people can’t see your pea sized brain.
        [[Again, nothing is “making incest common”. Still more fail from Atlas. He cannot show one instance of this.]]
        “Again”? There is no again since you didn’t previously claim “nothing is making incest common”. You said “Sorry, dear, incest isn’t common”.
        Stop lying thot.
        [[He cannot show one instance of this.]]
        I can’t show one instance of this? The web has incest porn you moron.
        Also just quick searching gives you instant exmaples of sick people like this filth:
        “I don’t care. If it’s truly consensual and informed and safe and there’s no power relation differential. Then it’s none of my BUSINESS.
        Do you think it’s a point for your side that you’re up in other people’s business? It ain’t. Grow up.”
        Or this filth:
        “I would advise anyone that life is too short to spend any significant part of it trying to defend a consensual incestuous relationship. But I generally prefer my morality to obtain from things that create suffering in and of themselves, not things that are wrong because they’re taboo and taboo because they’re wrong.”
        Or this filth:
        “I believe that whatever two adults do consensually is not my business.”
        Or this filth:
        “If there is no reproduction involved in a consensual incest, then there’s no problem. If two adults of a same family do sex on consent to prove their love, there is nothing wrong in it. Because it does not harm anyone.”
        Or this filth:
        “Different atheists, different views. Mine are common among liberal atheists: the only logical objection to consensual incest is the danger of birth defects. No reproduction, no danger, nothing wrong with it.”
        https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-view-of-atheists-on-the-morality-of-consensual-incest-with-no-reproduction-involved
        And they all follow the same trend of thought, have you noticed?
        The ‘as long as there is no harm’ philosophy.
        And like I said previously beastiality is also becoming more common. And guess what kind of filthy vermin are pushing that filth: atheists obviously!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8kJQJJ-BZ8
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zswf3qxSIMM
        [[ But Atlas wants to claim that objective truth comes from his god and evidently this god is too stupid or lazy to make sure everyone is on the same page so they aren’t damned.]]
        My dear thot. The entire point of human beings their interaction with the religious texts is for them to use their mind and reason. Insisting that we should be spoonfed every single detail by God defeats the prupose of life since it’s a test to begin with which means from what we are told, we use our brains/reason to figure out the things in life. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of it being a test and using your own brain. Surely you’re not THAT stupid to understand that.
        [[Alas, for Atlas, since I quoted a dictionary about “thot” and I did the same for atheism, I’m doing quite well]]
        Look up what getting your ass handed to you means cus it’s the exact opposite of “I’m doing well”, my dear thot.
        [[Atlas has tried to redefine a word so he can play pretend that he isn’t an atheist]]
        Buahahaha. There is no such thing as theists being atheists. I challenge you thot. Let’s see if you have the slightest bit of courage or if you are just a cowardly thot. Go to people and ask them the question: are Muslims atheists. You’ll get the answer yes and you know it thot. The dictionary explicitly defines it as
        “Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.”
        You are soooo desperate that you are willing to look at that definition and just deny and lie through your teeth and say that “denial of metaphysical beliefs in God” doesn’t actually mean what it says but means what you want it to say. Muslims believe in God which according to that definition implies we and Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and every other theist is not an atheist.
        [[Oh, I might yearn for a strong muslim man.]]
        I’m sorry but Muslim men are not allowed to marry a thot. You already have one that has been giving you bitchslaps. Be content with what you get thot.
        What a waste of molecules and space.
        Begone thot.

        Liked by 2 people

      7. Poor atlas, plagiarizing as usual. Yep, ““Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.”

        #1 A shame that atlas has no idea what the word “or” means. Or what “in general” means. Such a shame he has to display his ignorance and lies again. Mohammed must be so ashamed that a Muslim has lowered himself to this. Muslims critique and deny the metaphysical beliefs of spiritual beings that are not theirs. But if atlas wants to claim he believes that Brahaman, Odin and Tezcatlipoca exist, that’s fine with me.

        #2 Atlas again fails with being ignorant of what he tries to claim and to show how it applies. So much for his claims of being ever so smart and educated. Again, show how the laws of De Morgan apply. I do love the shit he tried to throw at the wall that is meaningless. But oh does it look impressive. He has no idea how the laws of De Morgan work and the poor thing has to try to make it fit with his demand that only two gods be used. Thanks, atlas, for again showing your ignorance.

        Again, believing in a god doesn’t mean you can’t disbelieve in another god or believe in many gods. Theism indeed can be the believe in god x OR god y, and it can be the belief god x AND god y. Atheism can be the disbelief in god x OR god y, and it can be the disbelief in god x AND god y. So, a Muslim can believe in god x and disbelieve in god y. And he is a theist and an atheist. This is hilarious to see atlas fail completely again and because atlas wants to change the meaning of the word atheism or atheist.

        Unsurprisingly, atlas can’t disagree with my point that most, if not all, theists make the claim that their god “made” morality. And since theists all disagree on what this morality is, there is no reason to think that any of them have the “right” version.

        Atheism does have a foundation for morality, it’s called being a human and having empathy and compassion. Atlas hates that idea that no one needs him or his version of his god. He has to lie and claim that atheists don’t’ have a foundation for morality or have morality. Science can indeed show evidence for where this comes from, in how the human brain works, when it lights up when it sees injustice to the self or another. This was written for children, but hopefully Atlas can grasp it: https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2016.00003

        We’ve gone from Atlas asking how I have morality, and when he can’t show that I’m wrong, he moves the goalposts. Oh well, I can follow his attempts to change what he demands with no problem. He fails again.

        That is right, all I have is science and poor atlas has to use that science to make himself comfy, and is nothing but a hypocrite when he uses it and also tries to claim it is wrong when it comes to his religious nonsense. It’s great to see him insist that materialism is supposedly “negated” by supernaturalism/spiritualism and poor atlas has no evidence for either being real. But he stuck with now needing to believe that everyone who is a supernaturalist/spiritualist is equal to him, their religions are equal to Islam. Unless, of course, he can show that they are wrong and he is the only right one.

        Harm caused is not morally right. You claim that “why is the harm caused morally right” and yep, I know you aren’t denying this. You have no problem with a primitive violent god. Harm is morally wrong because my morals are based on me and what I want for me, and thus everyone. The golden rule has been around for far longer than ignorant agrarians in the middle east. I care for myself and others, and Neanderthals did the same. My material brain makes this distinction as what works for humans to work together and it is evolutionarily supported. Those moving particles make my consciousness. Do show otherwise, atlas. Show this magical soul exists. I’ve been waiting a long time for some poor theist to do it and they all run away. If the soul interacts with the brain, then it has to interact with the material, and thus could be sensed on anything that can detect electrochemical activity. Funny how it can’t be and brain injury always damages the “person”, not just the brain.

        Its wonderful to see atlas now claim that actions aren’t evidence. That’s just more convenient lie from a Muslim who randomly declares what evidence is and is not depending on what nonsense he wants to claim is true. Oh the actions of muslims are the evidence of Allah, but you know… when they aren’t. Again, poor Allah and Mohammed to be represented by such a man.

        Poor atlas, still is whining. Sorry, dear evidence is evidence, no matter how much a weak Muslim man takes a tantrum. As I have pointed out, my morality is subjective. And we have yet to see atlas show that his morality is objective. Yep, people can make the claim that their morality includes killing people. Those people aren’t me. Atlas is upset that I show that his morality is no more than his feelings too. He doesn’t doesn’t like being found out to be just one more human and his imaginary friend isn’t anything but that.

        We don’t quite know yet how interacting particles create empathy and thus morality. Still no evidence for a god. All atlas has is his little god in the quickly shrinking gaps.

        I am happy that atlas has agreed that his morality is no more than might equals right. How childish and lovely evidence that atlas would have no problem in following a dictator. And yep, I am better than you when it comes to morality. You have the morality of a dog in a pack.

        Poor atlas, now has to pretend that Jesus aka Isa ibn Maryam isn’t in Islam. Jesus was indeed a communist as written in both the bible and the qu’ran. Communism, with a little “c”, is society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. This is what JC does when he has the apostles put all of their money together for the common good. Zakat is very communistic, wanting to even out wealth in a community. Like so many theists, atlas must take refuge in a literal reading of his nonsense to avoid what it means.

        Yep, actions are particles zapping each other, very materialistic and what evidence is composed of. Yep, that’s a nice list of top 10 biggest killers in history. I do like how it ignores the fairy stories in the bible and the quran since they aren’t history. And those lists don’t show that I’m wrong. Atlas fails again.

        poor atlas, still wants to call me a whore when he has admitted already that I am not and he agrees that I am a faithful wife of 30 years. He also tries to claim, without evidence, that “academics” agree with him. Such a shame that he continues to lie just like Allah bids him not to. “In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie. [Quran, 2:10]
        So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day they will meet Him – because they failed Allah in what they promised Him and because they [habitually] used to lie. [Quran, 9:77]

        That the internet has incest porn doesn’t make it common: widespread, general in this context (merriam-webster,com)

        Interesting that atlas knows exactly how to find porn. Poor atlas, doesn’t realize that his desperate interest in other people’s sex lives is him being “up in other people’s business”. His god is quite the voyeur. And as usual, poor atlas can’t show where he discovered these supposed quotes from. And the poor thing still thinks that all atheists are the same. Again, we see that if he wants to claim that all atheists are the same, he is one of those atheists.

        Yep, as long as there is no harm. It’s only your fantasies that have that incest is harmful, just like you lie about homosexuality, etc. You want to control others according to what you are afraid of, atlas. Again, I do love how you can find all of this stuff as an expert in these matters, eh?

        Nothing in any holy book about using the mind or reason. There is only obedience to a violent ignorant god who was invented by violent and ignorant agrarians centuries ago. It’s wonderful to see that yet again, atlas must make allah an incompetent boob being unable to make itself clear. He tries to claim that this supposedly omniscient and omnipotent entity has to test people, when by definition, it already knows what people will do. If it has to test people, then it is not all-knowing nor all-powerful.

        And again, atlas has to declare something that no one would notice.

        I have courage and I have asked others if Muslims are atheists. Yep, per Christians you are, since you don’t believe in the right god. You are either atheists or demon worshippers. So, again atlas fails in his prophecy. And what he quoted as a dictionary definition is not, it is from the Encyclopedia Britannica and again, atlas has no idea what “in general” means or what the term “or” means. He also was either too lazy or willfully ignorant to read the rest of the article in the encyclopedia which also says “Reflection on this should lead to a more adequate statement of what atheism is and indeed as well to what an agnostic or religious response to atheism should be. Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance; e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or “God” is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.” And “Finally, it will not do to take a Pascalian or Dostoyevskian turn and claim that, intellectual absurdity or not, religious belief is necessary, since without belief in God morality does not make sense and life is meaningless. That claim is false, for even if there is no purpose to life there are purposes in life—things people care about and want to do—that can remain perfectly intact even in a godless world. God or no God, immortality or no immortality, it is vile to torture people just for the fun of it, and friendship, solidarity, love, and the attainment of self-respect are human goods even in an utterly godless world.”

        again, atlas fails. And indeed who would want to marry atlas? He is an intentional liar.

        Like

      8. thot – a woman who has many casual sexual encounters or relationships

        alas for you and known to Allah, if it exists, I’m quite the monogamous gal. you chose to lie.

        ” Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar.’ [Quran, 40:28]”

        Like

      9. stewjo004

        @Atlas

        You can tell he’s used to arguing with Christians. For one there aren’t a bunch of Muslim sects 80-90% of Muslims are Sunni (which is basically everyone here)

        We reject what people attribute to God. Most people have one high God and they then give it a family and crap. We simply say that is not correct.

        Moving on we’re not a theocracy and it’s funny he thinks people have moved on but all experts agree we’re one of the main contenders for the end of history so his beliefs might not even exist much longer on this planet.

        Finally, it is not a lie, atheists have not contributed anything to modern society except communism (secularism that he tried to take credit for can be argued as a branch of Christianity).

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Atlas

        Just go back and reed what she wrote. She refutes not a single point. Not one. The idiot is literally tryng to redefine words like ‘atheism’. Have you ever seen such idiocy?

        Like

    2. stewjo004

      @ Atlas

      Also explain to Club that Mao, Stalin, etc were not “megalomaniacs” but real believers in communism:

      “The vast power necessary to establish and maintain the communist system naturally attracted unscrupulous people, including many self-seekers who prioritized their own interests over those of the cause. But it is striking that the biggest communist atrocities were perpetrated not by corrupt party bosses, but by true believers like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Precisely because they were true believers, they were willing to do whatever it might take to make their utopian dreams a reality.”
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/

      “Russia was not an exception. The early years of socialism in China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, and other countries were comparably brutal. Indeed, when the idealists were eventually replaced by “brutal cynics” less committed to their ideology, the amount of oppression often declined. Relative cynics like Brezhnev and Deng Xiaoping turned out to be a huge improvement over Lenin, Stalin, and Mao – the first and more idealistic generation of socialist leaders. The former “only” killed people by the tens of thousands instead of the tens of millions, and some of them (notably Deng) implemented market-based economic reforms that greatly eased the plight of the people.”
      http://volokh.com/2010/04/06/competing-explanations-for-the-oppressive-nature-of-socialism/

      Liked by 2 people

    3. I respond to your first claim, your definition of Atheism is so skewed and simplistic that no serious intellectual would take you seriously, the problem with your definition of Atheism is that most Atheists themselves don’t adhere to this definition, Atheism isn’t simply the lack of belief in X being, Atheism generally is defined as the complete disbelief in any God or spiritual being or entity, you can check Britannica on this, and you can check Pew research on what most Atheists believe and 10 facts on them, so most Atheists themselves would not agree with your definition of Atheism, and second of all, if your point was true, then there would be no distinguishment of ‘Monotheism’ in Theism if we were to take your silly notion that a Theist must believe in ALL spiritual beings to be a theist seriously, so your first point is very weak and does not realize what majority of Atheists define Atheism as, nor does it realize the philosophical definitions of Atheist, rather it goes by one skewed definition which most Atheists themselves would disagree with, infact not just Atheists, but also philosophers as is evident by monotheism being considered a form of theism rather than Atheism. so it isn’t one or the other.

      second of all, your very definition contradicts your first point, if Atheism is the conclusion there is no god or no gods, then that is the rejection of every god, that is not the belief of Muslims. plus, you cannot deny that the USSR and communists were heavily influenced by Atheism, what ideology is driving China today to persecute religious minorities? it isn’t Theism, it isn’t Nihilism, its Atheism, even the Soviets were very clear on their Atheist stance, just look at their posters and their belief of an Atheist utopia with no religion, in fact in Afghanistan they had posters fantasizing about destroying religions, similar to the New Atheists today, so denying that Atheism had a part to play in the USSR and communist persecution of religious people is simply delusional and untrue, our response was to the untrue Atheist claim that ‘Atheists never caused violence’ or ‘Atheism never led to violence’ which is clearly untrue, as proven by the Soviets and Communists, moving on, if you disagree this has anything to do with Atheism itself, then equally silly is the notion most Atheists have that religion causes all violence.

      and third, playing word games won’t work, the hadith about 72 virgins is inauthentic and has been proven to be countless times, as for ‘evidence’ we can discuss evidence if you’re up for it, but looking at your clear biases against religions to the point you skew the very definition of Atheism to score a point against us simply shows me that you’re intellectually dishonest, same with your silly notion that the USSR had no influence from Atheism to do what they did, in fact I’d argue for Atheists, what they did was 100% morally justified as you have no proper grounding in morality, and trust me, doing tu quoque’s towards religious morality wont fix this.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. In that linguists at the various dictionaries agree with me, your attempt to claim that “no serious intellectual” would take me seriously is a lie and a pathetically easy one to show wrong.

        It’s always sweet to see a theist try to claim that atheists aren’t doing it right. Atheism is not defined as a “complete disbelief in any god or spiritual being or entity”. You made that up, so one more lie from a TrueMuslim™. Like other theists, you just ignore your holy book when it is inconvenient.

        The Encyclopedia Britannica does not have this definition, and poor Atlas failed when he tried to use that source. Pew does not define atheism in any other way than what is in the dictionary. They do not ask what gods theists don’t believe in, and that would be very interesting if they did. We can see what they think here “The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind. (Overall, 10% of American adults share this view.) At the same time, roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power. None of the atheists we surveyed, however, say they believe in “God as described in the Bible.”” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/

        You fail again, my dear Muslim. And the answer here is that you can be an atheist and a theist at the same time, just like I have been showing. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. You sem to have a problem with what the word “most” means. It doesn’t mean less than 20% of a group.

        There is a term monotheism and a term polytheism and a term pantheism since not all theists believe in the same god or gods. I never said that a theist has to believe in all spiritual beings, but again nice lie from a TrueMuslim™. Your reading comprehension is poor or you are a intentional liar. The philosophical definition of atheism and atheism is the same as the dictionary one.

        Muslims believe that there are no other gods than Allah, right? So, Muslims are atheists when it comes to every other god that is claimed to exist. A- prefix means without or no and theism means belief in a god or gods. Again, you fail. Poor thing, why are you so terrified of being an atheist to other gods when you are sure that there is only your one god? Are you realizing that the arguments for those other gods are the same as you use for yours and you realize you have nothing to support your nonsense?

        The Soviets and the Chinese Communist parties are not small “c” communism, which is where everything is shared with everyone else to their needs. The Soviets and Chinese have oligarchies as their governments, where the powerful few get the best of everything. They were not influenced by having a lack of a belief in something. They were influenced by megalomaniacal fools who wanted all of the power. Every group in power persecutes minorities, they want no competition. So your claims of atheism being at fault are lies again.

        There is no “new atheism”. It’s been the same since at least the 19th century. Religion is based on opinion, nothing else, and some people want to force their opinions on others. This is why religion persecutes other religion and tries to attack anyone it want to claim is “evil”. If theists would stop trying this nonsense, then no one would have a problem with them. But as we both know, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, resort to violence if they don’t get their way.

        Atheism has not caused violence. The lack of belief in a thing doesn’t do anything. It’s like saying “not having a belief in football” makes a change in the world. It doesn’t.

        Religion doesn’t cause all violence. But nice strawman to lie and claim that atheists claim that this is the case. Religion causes a noticeable amount of violence and that violence is advocated for in their holy books. Do you disagree with that factual statement?

        Like all theists, you pick and choose what you want to claim is authentic and inauthentic depending on how inconvenient it is to you. But you can’t show that any of it is true. No evidence for your god, no evidence for any supposed event it caused, no evidence for miracles or other nonsense.

        Do show evidence. I’ll be happy to look at it. Do realize a couple of things: if you use the same argument another religion uses, you need to explain why it only should apply to your religion. You also need to know that your holy book is the claim, not the evidence. You can’t use it for both.

        You again lie that I have not defined atheism accurately. You also fail with claims of morality since we know that theists have no objective morality since you folks can’t agree on nor show what your god wants as morality. You keep just attacking each other over whose version is the “right” one. That really shows just how unimpressive religion is.

        I have plenty of property grounding in morality. It just doesn’t agree with what you’ve made up in your god’s image. In that you have no problem with a god that constantly kills people, that you find a dictator who kills people to be morally justified doesn’t surprise me at all. I, as an atheist, do not find them morally justified.

        I am not using a tu quoque argument. But you are welcome to try to show that I am. Or were you just throwing shit at a wall in the hopes that it sticks?

        Like

      2. “In that linguists at the various dictionaries agree with me, your attempt to claim that “no serious intellectual” would take me seriously is a lie and a pathetically easy one to show wrong.”
        You have obviously not read Merriam webster or Britannica. Infact let me link various philosophers.
        https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

        “You fail again, my dear Muslim. And the answer here is that you can be an atheist and a theist at the same time, just like I have been showing. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. You seem to have a problem with what the word “most” means. It doesn’t mean less than 20% of a group.”

        You cant even read the very thing you posted
        “The vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind. ”
        You’re saying I shot myself in the foot while affirming my very point that most Atheists don’t share your view of Atheism.

        Even the atheists who do supposedly “believe in God” are described as “self-described atheists”, not atheists by definition. Deists also prefer to call themselves Atheists but are ideologically and philosophically very different from Atheism. describing Theists as atheists for rejecting other gods is a mere cop-out and weak argument, not even fitting the philosophical description of Atheism, let alone the linguistic definition, which Pew research quotes from Merriam webster and describes over 81% of American atheists with.

        Philosophically, the very description of Atheism is contradictory to theism.
        “If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).”
        https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

        “There is a term monotheism and a term polytheism and a term pantheism since not all theists believe in the same god or gods. I never said that a theist has to believe in all spiritual beings, but again nice lie from a TrueMuslim™. Your reading comprehension is poor or you are a intentional liar. The philosophical definition of atheism and atheism is the same as the dictionary one.”
        There are a bunch of strawman’s here, first of all, I never claimed the Philosophical definition of Atheism and the linguistic definition is different,

        Moving on, you Implied in your rambling that a Theist must believe in every god to be a theist, for example this saying of yours;
        “Muslims deny believe in many gods. We can test this. Atlas, do you believe in Odin? Brahman? Tezcatlipoca? No? Why not? No evidence? Then you are an atheist, just like me. I don’t believe in those gods either. No game, it’s just reality”

        Where did you come to the conclusion Muslims are “Atheists” for denying other gods? where is your evidence for this? you just made this claim based on a poor untrue definition of Atheism.

        “Muslims believe that there are no other gods than Allah, right? So, Muslims are atheists when it comes to every other god that is claimed to exist. A- prefix means without or no and theism means belief in a god or gods. Again, you fail. Poor thing, why are you so terrified of being an atheist to other gods when you are sure that there is only your one god?”

        “being an atheist to other gods”, who said I fear disbelieving other gods? resorting to such claims does not help your case, at all, the reason I reject your silly notion that Muslims are “atheists” when it comes to every other god, is because, Atheism, by definition is the rejection of every god and spiritual being, as I provided.

        “Are you realizing that the arguments for those other gods are the same as you use for yours and you realize you have nothing to support your nonsense?”

        what other gods? you mean the Monotheistic God that all 3 major monotheistic religions unanimously agree upon? the only major difference theologically between Christians and Muslims is the trinity.
        Because polytheists don’t use the same argument as Muslims as the arguments contradict their very belief, and even if we were to say that we use the same arguments, the purpose of these arguments is to prove the existence of a higher being logically, not to prove XYZ religion correct and nor do I know how do you go to that conclusion from evidence for God to evidence for religion.

        “The Soviets and the Chinese Communist parties are not small “c” communism, which is where everything is shared with everyone else to their needs. The Soviets and Chinese have oligarchies as their governments, where the powerful few get the best of everything. They were not influenced by having a lack of a belief in something. They were influenced by megalomaniacal fools who wanted all of the power. Every group in power persecutes minorities, they want no competition. So your claims of atheism being at fault are lies again.”
        Again you have not provided proof that Atheism had absolutely nothing to do with their oppression of different religions, anyone who has bothered to read about Communism realizes that Atheism has had a heavy influence on this ideology to the point that you are required to be an Atheist to be considered a true communist, their anti-religious posters also speak for themselves, to deny any influence from the disbelief in God at all is simply delusional and untrue. this again just proves you are biased, when a person who disbelieved in God oppresses religious people he’s just a “megalomaniacal fool”, when a religious person persecutes an Atheist, he’s somehow a representative of that religions true teachings, or has been influenced by that religion. and your claim that “every group in power persecutes minorities”, does not really undermine the fact that Communists had influence from their Atheism.

        “There is no “new atheism”. It’s been the same since at least the 19th century. Religion is based on opinion, nothing else, and some people want to force their opinions on others. This is why religion persecutes other religion and tries to attack anyone it want to claim is “evil”. If theists would stop trying this nonsense, then no one would have a problem with them. But as we both know, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, resort to violence if they don’t get their way.”

        There we go, so if a person disbelieved in God, while oppressing Religious person, he’s somehow is just some insane person, whereas a religious person must be influenced by the religion to do such acts. the inconsistency is pretty clear here.

        “Atheism has not caused violence. The lack of belief in a thing doesn’t do anything. It’s like saying “not having a belief in football” makes a change in the world. It doesn’t.”
        Ah yes the common excuse of brushing it all under the carpet by “the lack of belief” excuse, it has caused a change in the world and it is undeniable that Communists were influenced by this same “lack of belief”(which isn’t even true, Atheism is defined as the complete disbelief in God), to oppress religious people, do you honestly believe that Communists in China today are coincidentally only oppressing religious people while Atheists go scot-free?

        “Religion doesn’t cause all violence. But nice strawman to lie and claim that atheists claim that this is the case. Religion causes a noticeable amount of violence and that violence is advocated for in their holy books. Do you disagree with that factual statement?”

        “Religion causes violence” is a common claim made by your own famous Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Co. you just have a mellowed down version of the same claim, predicated upon your pre-existing notions of every religion that “Violence is advocated in their holy books” or that “religion causes a noticeable amount of violence” while just brushing under the carpet the anti-religious violence caused by Communists and Soviets. nor do you have any proper evidence that Islam specifically calls for violence towards every other religion.

        “Like all theists, you pick and choose what you want to claim is authentic and inauthentic depending on how inconvenient it is to you. But you can’t show that any of it is true. No evidence for your god, no evidence for any supposed event it caused, no evidence for miracles or other nonsense.”
        The amount of assumptions here is unbelievable, as has already been proven that you have biases and no matter how much evidence is provided to you you would reject it.

        “Do show evidence. I’ll be happy to look at it. Do realize a couple of things: if you use the same argument another religion uses, you need to explain why it only should apply to your religion. You also need to know that your holy book is the claim, not the evidence. You can’t use it for both.”
        >The same argument another religion uses.
        Yes because our arguments are to prove God, not a specific religion. If you want to argue about religion then I have no problem with that, but seeing as you’re clueless about Islam and Islamic theology. I doubt you would be much of worth.

        “You again lie that I have not defined atheism accurately. You also fail with claims of morality since we know that theists have no objective morality since you folks can’t agree on nor show what your god wants as morality. You keep just attacking each other over whose version is the “right” one. That really shows just how unimpressive religion is.”

        Even if Theists dont have objective morality the fact still stands that according to Atheist notions of morality, what the Soviets did is 100% justifiable.

        and by the way, just because Religions disagree with each other, does not nessecitate there is no objective morality, that is intellectual laziness and is like someone saying that just because I dont know the answer in a exam paper, there is no answer.

        “I have plenty of property grounding in morality. It just doesn’t agree with what you’ve made up in your god’s image. In that you have no problem with a god that constantly kills people, that you find a dictator who kills people to be morally justified doesn’t surprise me at all. I, as an atheist, do not find them morally justified.”

        You dont have a grounding in morality, nor can you prove what Mao, Stalin, etc did is wrong or morally unjustifiable.

        “In that you have no problem with a god that constantly kills people”
        And? I dont think you realize we believe that the human belongs to God and is 100% justified in taking back what he owns.

        Goes to show you you have no clue about theology and you’re here discussing it with people.

        “You find a dictator who kills people to be morally justified”
        Nowhere did I claim the Soviets or Communists were justified, I said in your view they are not unjustifiable, as you have no proper grounding in morality to say they are wrong.

        “I am not using a tu quoque argument. But you are welcome to try to show that I am. Or were you just throwing shit at a wall in the hopes that it sticks?”

        I have already proven you did a tu quoque argument in response to what I had said about Atheist morality and it having no proper grounding, you just threw the same claim back at Religious morality instead of actually answering the question. which is the literal definition of tu quoque fallacy.

        It is like Person A saying smoking is bad and Person B saying “You smoke too”.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. and still no tu quoque argument that you can show I used. A pity that you can’t copy and paste what you claim, rather than making vague claims that show you have nothing more than baseless claims.

        a Tu quoque is indeed having a discussion like the following:

        Person A makes claim X.
        Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
        Therefore, X is false.

        You have yet to show that morality requires what *you* claim is “proper grounding”. All you have is an baseless opinion, just like every other theist who wants to claim that their morality and only their morality is god-approved and objective.

        Like

      4. Vague claims are only being made on the other end who does not bother reading the very source it quotes.

        as for Tu quoque, you did do tu quoque by throwing the problem at religious morality whilst ignoring the fact that it is a bigger problem for you,

        Simple Definition of tu quoque;
        tu quoque
        The argument tries to defend a position by showing that its shortcomings are shared by the opposing position. In effect, the argument say, “My position may be bad, but you should accept it because my opponent’s position is just as bad.”

        https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Tu%20Quoque.html

        This was literally done on your end where you completely ignored the problem of morality for Atheists and instead turned it back on the opposing end rather than giving any meaningful answer to this criticism.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. and again, MK can’t show where I’ve done this. Amazing how he can’t cut and paste a single word.

        Nice teo see you also lying that I’ve ignored the problem of morality for atheists. There is no problem. I have morality and do not need a god to get it. That theists cannot agree on what morality their gods want shows that there is no reason to think that there is a god to give it. It is your opinion, nothing more, that I have not given a “meaningful” answer. That lovely wiggle word shows that you admit that I have indeed given you an answer, and you simply want to discount it for no reason.

        My position is not “bad” at all. And this “

        Like

      6. MK, it’s very silly of you to lie and claim I didn’t read the article I posted. You seem to have atlas’ problem with reading and basic English. Do tell me what “in general” means? If you refuse, then I know you agree with me that you are intentionally misrepresenting the Britannic article. 81% isn’t all or what the definition says atheism is. I couldn’t care less what other atheists think, and you have nothing at all to show that they disagree with me. That question wasn’t asked or answered. But nice try to misrepresent information. I expect it from most theists unfortunately. You also pleasantly have used an appeal to popularity a fallacy.

        Self described atheist who claim they believe in a god or “God” evidently have no idea what atheism means and, sigh, again, that doesn’t change the definition. Deists do not call themselves atheists, that’s why there is the term “deist”. But nice false claim.

        I do love how you try to claim that point out that theists can also be atheists is a “weak argument”. You can’t show how it is, but you certainly do want to stamp your feet until someone agrees with you. I do appreciate you can’t explain what a theist who has no belief in other gods is if they aren’t an atheist. The philosophical definition of atheism is the same on in the dictionary. You have yet to present this magical definition from “philosophy” that agrees with you.

        Theism isn’t the proposition that God exists. It is “belief in the existence of a god or gods” merriam-webster. It’s quite entertaining to see how monotheism-centric the Standford site is. There is no entry for “theism” strangely, but if one reads the various pages on types of theism, one can glean that theism means believe in a god or more than one god, not belief in God, from the Abrahamic religions. The original Greek has that theos can mean the divine, a god, a goddess, or a ruler. The Stanford site goes out of its way to falsely claim theos only means “God” and tries to claim that “orthodox theism” is somehow only the abramic religions. Which is of course, not the case at all. This is quite the bigotry and ignorance they try to spread.

        A lot of this comes from the belief that the various “logical” arguments for “God” work when they do not. Those arguments, teleological, cosmological do not show evidence for any god that humans have invented since those arguments depend on a limited claim that they can imagine what is “perfect”, what needs “design”, etc. At best, they can argue for something that can’t be described since humans all insist that only their version is the right one, and can’t show that version exists at all. Philosophy is little more than opinions offered and then destroyed when reality doesn’t play along. There is no more logic in having one “God” than having many gods or just having a force and no “person”. There is only ignorant presupposition.

        That philosophers have to redefine words is typical. There is no evidence that God, of any description, exists. There is not any evidence that gods, of any description, exist. Thus atheism is not just a negation of theism, it is a description of how the world is as represented by facts. You cannot show that your god exists, as no other theist can. As soon as we can see theists agree, then you might have a leg to stand on with your claims. As it stands, you don’t.

        No, I didn’t “imply” anything. You needed to make that up to have a chance in this argument. You needed a strawman to attack since you can’t actually address me. You have indeed tried to claim that the dictionary definition of atheism is different from the philosophical one since you keep referring to what you think you’ve found in philosophy websites. If you did not think this, you would not contest what the dictionary says and keep on referencing the “philosophical definition of atheism”.

        Muslims do indeed deny belief in many gods. We can test this: do you, MK, believe in any other god than Allah? You see, MK, this question is the same as me asking atlas if he believes in any of the singular gods that I could name off the top of my head. I’m guessing you, and he don’t believe in Odin, Brahman, Tezcatlipoca etc. Am I right? If I am, then I am asking if you believe in any other singular god other than Allah and you have answered you do not. Thus you have no belief in those gods and are again, a- (without) theistic (gods or god).

        Atheism is not, by definition, the rejection of *all* god/gods. It the rejection of god or gods. You are indeed terrified to admit that you don’t’ believe in some gods. Why?

        Yep, we have three monotheistic religions. They do not agree on what this god is or wants. Even sects of Islam can’t agree on that, much less the sects of Judaism and Christianity. It’s hilarious that you would try to lie and claim that the “only major difference between Christians and Muslims is the trinity”. Yep, an instance of shirk, which is a major sins. But heck, you are JUST like them. Sure. Sorry, but a small amount of time looking comparisions, shows that you each are quite sure that the other is going to hell. I’ve read the historical writings, and it’s great to see Christians claiming that Muslims just took Arianism and made it into their religion.

        I am gratified that you admit that the supposed “logical” argument for a magical god don’t’ show that any particular god exists at all. There is no logical need for a “person” nor is there a need for a god that is concerned what humans do with their genitals. The Christian God, Islam’s Allah, Judaism’s YHWH are gods with detailed descriptions and can be shown not to exist. Polytheists do use the same arguments as you e.g. “The universe is evidence of my god since who else could have created it”. It’s also great to see you use a typical Christian bit of nonsense in trying to separate your god from religion. Sorry, dear, but religion is the worship of a god, and they are inextricably linked, unless you want to go with some vague nonsense like Tillich about some “force”. That isn’t Allah or God at all. If there is no god, then the religion is a lie. Show that your version of your god exists.

        Again, dear, I didn’t’ make the baseless claim that atheism has something to do with genocide, etc. You did, so you my dear, get to support your claim. As always, you try to use an appeal to some vague mysterious “authority” that agrees with you but can’t show one instance of this happening. Where are these “anyone who has bothered to read about communism” and their supposed quotes about what you claim they say? Of course they do not exist and you are caught in a fallacy again.

        When someone follows what the bible or qu’ran says, they are a representative of that religion. Again, theists love to declare that anyone who does something that they don’t’ like, but which is supported by the holy book, are evidently “misrepresenting” the religion. That would work if any of you could show that your version is the only right one. Why doesn’t this god support any of you, MK? Why is your god dead silent on who are the heretics and who are the true believers? Is it that none of you are? Or is it that this god doesn’t exist?

        Again, nope, there we don’t go. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. There is no worldview behind it. There are people who are anti-theist and atheist, and there are atheists who believe in other gods rather than those they claim aren’t real, and there are atheists who simply don’t care as long as they are left alone. There are theists who are anti-theist of any religion but their own. So, trying to claim that atheism leads to persecution doesn’t work. If someone is anti-theist then they can be anti-any religion/god. A Muslim can be anti-Christian. A Hindu can be anti-Muslim. Again, you get caught up in your nonsense that theists can’t be disbelievers.

        You still try to lie about atheism and atheists, which is sad since you are one yourself. Again, has your atheism caused violence? Or is your religion what has caused violence, when it claims that anyonen who doesn’tn agree with it should be harmed? Some muslims have no problem in hacking to death atheists of all types with machetes. Those religions claim that non-believers deserve death. Do you think that influences people? Why or why not, MK?

        There is still no evidence for only one god nor evidence that there aren’t more than one god. You still fail. Exactly where have you seen that athesits go “scot-free” in china, MK? Do show this to support your baseless claim. What we see in China is that anyone who stands against the ruling party is equally at risk.

        MK, you need to realize that atheism is again, nothing more than a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheists don’t follow some dogma like theists do. I don’t give a damn what some other atheist says. We have nothing more in common than the lack of belief, just like you have that in common with me. I know you, as an atheist, don’t agree with Dawkins. I don’t either.

        It is fun to see you lie about your own holy book though. It does advocate violence as does the bible. It’s sweet that you want to try to lie and claim that religion doesn’t cause any violence. How many Sunni have killed how many Shi’ite? Seems to be a religious disagreement, who was the “real” heir to Mohammed. Again, since you don’t believe in many gods, how much violence did that lack of belief cause, MK?

        as for violence commanded in the qu’ran “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”” Nothing like conversion on the end of a sword. The argument has been made that this was in reference to one group of pagans at one time, but can you tell me that this would not have been enforced and has been enforced exactly as this since then?

        I have no problem in saying that the qu’ran is less violent than the bible. Indeed, when Muslims were a shining beacon of intellect, they didn’t kill people of other religions. I got to visit the Alhambra in Spain and the glory of that shows how far Islam has fallen, just like the idiot conservative Christians here in the US.

        You of course can’t show which parts of the hadith, the qu’ran etc are the “authentic” bits. You pick and choose them as you will. It’s nice to see you claim assumptiosn but when you can’t that I did make assumptiosn, then you are simply lying. You also offer the usual theist excuse that no matter how much evidence you give, I would not accept it. That you can’t give any is quite a tell that you have none. I could simply point out that “dear, your biases have been proven and no matter how much evidence is provided to you that Christianity is the one true religion, you would reject it.” It isn’t true of me and I hope it isn’t true of you.

        Your arguments are to prove your god which is of a specific religion. Allah is not the Christian God, nor is it the Jewish YHWH. It part and parcel of Islam. It’s always fun to see those who are religious “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity” try to deny they have a religion because their ancestors shat all over that term. I know Islamic theology quite well, though not as well as Christianity and its many many different versions.

        Like theists of all stripes, you pretend your version of Allah is the only right one. I have no problem with discussing Islam and how it has splintered like Christianity and Judaism.

        Thank you for entertaining the idea that theists don’t’ have objective morality. You can’t show that they do so that’s a good position to take. Atheists have varying notions of morality; alas, for you, we don’t have one big “Atheist Handbook”.

        You, as an atheist and some type of Muslim, think that your morality is right. I, as an atheist with the worldview most similar to Epicureans, think my morality is right. My morality is not the same as other atheists. I don’t accept that it is okay for a god to kill children. You do. I don’t think what Stalin did was justifiable in any framework. I think I can pretty much guarantee that you would have no problem with what Stalin did if he was a Muslim. That is what so many religions do, allow for horrors as long as the believer can claim that their god was agreeable to it.

        You have yet to show any sign of objective morality. You are right, the fact that sects of the same religion and different religions can’t agree on a morality doesn’t prove that there is no objective morality. It does show that religion lies when they claim they have one.

        You yet again claim that only you have a “proper grounding in morality” but you can’t show this to be the case, nor can the theists who disagree with you but make the same claim. So, dear, what is a “proper grounding in morality”? Agreeing with you? LOL.

        I can indeed show evidence that what Mao, Stalin, etc did was wrong and morally unjustifiable. Killing the smartest harms the whole. But alas, many Muslims now think the same thing is okay.

        Oh, I know that many theists think that their god owns humans and thus can do whatever it wants with them. Some Christians love that idea. Thanks for confirming the stupidity of the morality of might equals right. That is the morality of the coward and the sycophant, unwilling to contest a petty tyrant.

        I wasn’t talking about Soviets or Communists being the dictator who kills people being morally justified. That character is your petty god. You have no problem with a dictator who kills people, You did so wonderfully with this “And? I dont think you realize we believe that the human belongs to God and is 100% justified in taking back what he owns.”

        The same argument is made for human dictators. Mao is the great leader, he may kill whom he wants. Hitler was the Fuhrer, our messiah,, he can do anything he wants.

        As I mentioned, nope, you have not shown that I used a tu quoque argument. I do expect you to cut and paste where I did. If you can’t then you are just making nonsense up.

        As you might see in the Wikipedia article about tu quoque, it does say that the moral base of a person usually doesn’t come into play. In our discussion, it does since you claim that Islam has some moral quality. If we have this argument, there is a problem for you. You make a claim that you cannot show is true. You claim that you have an omnipotent omniscient being that is an agent in the world. You then claim that this agent can’t do anything when it comes to this supposed objective morality, disputing the claims of your holy book.

        I didn’t have to do anything to make your argument fail.

        Like

      7. “MK, it’s very silly of you to lie and claim I didn’t read the article I posted. You seem to have atlas’ problem with reading and basic English. Do tell me what “in general” means? If you refuse, then I know you agree with me that you are intentionally misrepresenting the Britannic article. 81% isn’t all or what the definition says atheism is. I couldn’t care less what other atheists think, and you have nothing at all to show that they disagree with me. That question wasn’t asked or answered. But nice try to misrepresent information. I expect it from most theists unfortunately. You also pleasantly have used an appeal to popularity a fallacy.”
        1, The majority of atheists disagreeing with you wasn’t even my main point as it was your main point by throwing the problem of morality back at religion, nor did I say 81% of Atheists in regards to the Britannica article, rather it was as a response to you quoting pewresearch, while not realizing the very quote refutes you, which is enough evidence to show they disagree with you, but even then, the Britannica article itself has quotes which completely obliterate your useless argument.

        “Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief”

        https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism#ref38265

        I have no idea how you could even miss this in the article, its actually mind boggling how you misrepresent information and twist it to fit your descriptions.

        “Self described atheist who claim they believe in a god or “God” evidently have no idea what atheism means and, sigh, again, that doesn’t change the definition. Deists do not call themselves atheists, that’s why there is the term “deist”. But nice false claim.”
        You literally keep contradicting your own points the more you respond, ofcourse they dont know what Atheism means as it is completely the opposite of belief in God, it is the rejection of any and every spiritual being.

        “I do love how you try to claim that point out that theists can also be atheists is a “weak argument”. You can’t show how it is, but you certainly do want to stamp your feet until someone agrees with you. I do appreciate you can’t explain what a theist who has no belief in other gods is if they aren’t an atheist. The philosophical definition of atheism is the same on in the dictionary. You have yet to present this magical definition from “philosophy” that agrees with you.”

        I like how you completely dismiss the link and definition I provided, not once but twice, as a “magical definition” simply by the virtue of the fact it just doesn’t agree with you, I have already shown how it is a weak argument by providing not one but three definitions of Atheism, one from a dictionary and two from philosophy, describing Atheism as the disbelief in every God.

        “Theism isn’t the proposition that God exists. It is “belief in the existence of a god or gods” merriam-webster. It’s quite entertaining to see how monotheism-centric the Standford site is. There is no entry for “theism” strangely, but if one reads the various pages on types of theism, one can glean that theism means believe in a god or more than one god, not belief in God, from the Abrahamic religions. The original Greek has that theos can mean the divine, a god, a goddess, or a ruler. The Stanford site goes out of its way to falsely claim theos only means “God” and tries to claim that “orthodox theism” is somehow only the abramic religions. Which is of course, not the case at all. This is quite the bigotry and ignorance they try to spread.”

        Ah yes, the website has the problem if it doesn’t agree with you, even if you disagree with Stanford, a University website, even Britannica is presenting a similar conclusion.

        “A central, common core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the affirmation of the reality of one, and only one, God.”

        https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism#ref38265

        and moving on, you even misrepresented the whole website It explores various different forms of Theism, not just monotheism, nor did it claim that Monotheism is orthodox theism.

        https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

        ‘A lot of this comes from the belief that the various “logical” arguments for “God” work when they do not. Those arguments, teleological, cosmological do not show evidence for any god that humans have invented since those arguments depend on a limited claim that they can imagine what is “perfect”, what needs “design”, etc. At best, they can argue for something that can’t be described since humans all insist that only their version is the right one, and can’t show that version exists at all. Philosophy is little more than opinions offered and then destroyed when reality doesn’t play along. There is no more logic in having one “God” than having many gods or just having a force and no “person”. There is only ignorant presupposition.’

        This whole rambling can be described as such, ‘I don’t want to call this thing the argument proves a God’, also, just because a Philosophy can be wrong, does not make all philosophical arguments weak. this is again going back to the “I don’t know the answers therefore there are no answers” way of reasoning. also let me remind you Science itself uses philosophy and reasoning.

        Your next paragraph is just repeating the same thing again, infact this whole rambling is just repeating the very same thing you repeated in your other responses.

        “No, I didn’t “imply” anything. You needed to make that up to have a chance in this argument. You needed a strawman to attack since you can’t actually address me. You have indeed tried to claim that the dictionary definition of atheism is different from the philosophical one since you keep referring to what you think you’ve found in philosophy websites. If you did not think this, you would not contest what the dictionary says and keep on referencing the “philosophical definition of atheism”.

        This paragraph is just saying, “I dont agree with your definition of Atheism, therefore I will disagree with the Philosophers who define Atheism this way no matter how many references are thrown at me”.

        “Muslims do indeed deny belief in many gods. We can test this: do you, MK, believe in any other god than Allah? You see, MK, this question is the same as me asking atlas if he believes in any of the singular gods that I could name off the top of my head. I’m guessing you, and he don’t believe in Odin, Brahman, Tezcatlipoca etc. Am I right? If I am, then I am asking if you believe in any other singular god other than Allah and you have answered you do not. Thus you have no belief in those gods and are again, a- (without) theistic (gods or god).”

        This is again going by your weak definition of Atheism that is not agreed with by Philosophers nor is it agreed upon by most Atheists themselves, Atlas already went through this with you and you only repeated the same claims over and over again and dismissed the other side as “weak” “unable to comprehend english”,etc,etc without bothering to read any of the sources provided.

        “Atheism is not, by definition, the rejection of *all* god/gods. It the rejection of god or gods. You are indeed terrified to admit that you don’t’ believe in some gods. Why?”

        “It is the rejection of god or gods”, this is not even what dictionaries say let alone Philosophers, rejecting one god while believing in another does not make you an atheist, as I’ve provided two articles proving so, plus Pewresearch for what Atheists themselves think which you just brushed off and did not even bother reading.

        “Yep, we have three monotheistic religions. They do not agree on what this god is or wants. Even sects of Islam can’t agree on that, much less the sects of Judaism and Christianity. It’s hilarious that you would try to lie and claim that the “only major difference between Christians and Muslims is the trinity”. Yep, an instance of shirk, which is a major sins. But heck, you are JUST like them. Sure. Sorry, but a small amount of time looking comparisions, shows that you each are quite sure that the other is going to hell. I’ve read the historical writings, and it’s great to see Christians claiming that Muslims just took Arianism and made it into their religion.”

        this is again intellectual laziness at its greatest, “I dont know which one is true therefore all of them are false”, and nor did you bother to take the time to research any of these, heck the next few paragraphs are just repetition of this same claim, “You make X argument for God but religions disagree on their beliefs of God therefore no religion is true”, Idk how it comes to this conclusion in the first place.

        “Again, dear, I didn’t’ make the baseless claim that atheism has something to do with genocide, etc. You did, so you my dear, get to support your claim. As always, you try to use an appeal to some vague mysterious “authority” that agrees with you but can’t show one instance of this happening. Where are these “anyone who has bothered to read about communism” and their supposed quotes about what you claim they say? Of course they do not exist and you are caught in a fallacy again.”

        If you cant bother to do your own research, even ignoring the very core of Communism being Atheistic, then let me share some quotes for you.

        Marx on religion:
        ‘The abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo’

        https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

        Lenin said that a true Communist is always an Atheist;
        Pospielovsky, Dimitry V (29 September 1987). History of Marxist–Leninist Atheism and Soviet Anti-religious Policies: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believer. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 10–11.

        You cannot deny that one of the very cores of Communism is Atheism. Denying that is delusional and a-historical, denying the religious struggles of Central Asians,Afghans,etc in the era of USSR.

        Anyways, rest of this is not even worth a response, its just the same blabbering other individuals such as yourself bring up, but just one paragraph to showcase your ignorance before Im done with you;

        “You of course can’t show which parts of the hadith, the qu’ran etc are the “authentic” bits. You pick and choose them as you will. It’s nice to see you claim assumptiosn but when you can’t that I did make assumptiosn, then you are simply lying. You also offer the usual theist excuse that no matter how much evidence you give, I would not accept it. That you can’t give any is quite a tell that you have none. I could simply point out that “dear, your biases have been proven and no matter how much evidence is provided to you that Christianity is the one true religion, you would reject it.” It isn’t true of me and I hope it isn’t true of you.”

        No Muslim disagrees the Quran is authentic, over 90% of Muslims are Sunnis and believe the very same thing, Hadith has a methodology for authentication, which you are not at all familiar with so let’s not even go there when your ignorance is this much.

        And your last few bits comparing our belief in God to Tyrants itself showcases again, your ignorance, there is a difference between a creator, and a ruler, just because death exists, does not mean this creator is a ‘tyrant’, ‘Death exists, therefore God is a tyrant’, the argument itself does not follow.

        and as for your poor justification of your tu quoque, nowhere was it claimed by me that religion has objective morality, although that is my belief, I never bought it up in this discussion, you bought it up just to throw criticism back at the opposing end.

        Also the existence of God is completely irrelevant to whether there is a grounding in morality or not, it is a whole other topic. You can have a grounding in morality based on something you cant prove(Not to say God cant be proven, it is just not a part of this discussion) it doesn’t discredit that moral system or disprove it as you are insinuating. Otherwise morality itself cannot be proven as per your standards, which brings up dangerous ideas.

        Liked by 2 people

      8. The Pew Research article does not refute me. You have yet to show where it does. It does get tiring when a theist lies and then when I ask them to show chapter and verse of what shows I’m wrong, you run away. You can’t show anything in either the Britannic article nor the Pew article that shows I’m wrong in saying that theists can be atheists. It’s also great fun to see you run away from your own arguments, when your point was indeed that a supposed majority disagreeing with me made my argument wrong. You admit that again here that this is what you indeed wanted me to think “while not realizing the very quote refutes you, which is enough evidence to show they disagree with you,” You see, MK, cutting and pasting aren’t hard.
        You still seem to have problem with the term generally. Generally does not mean “always”. If they meant always, they would have said always. You also seem to be unable to understand what “if” means too. Christians were called atheists in ancient times since they denied the gods with their monotheism. Do read the “history of atheism” article on Wikipedia to correct your ignorance. Nothing in that lovely paragraph from the EB says that I am wrong, for the reasons stated above. I don’t know if English is your first language or not, but you miss some very basic things.

        You keep claiming I contradict myself, but you can’t show one instance of how I do that. You also can’t figure out that atheism is not capitalized. That’s basic English. Atheism is, again, the lack of belief in a god or gods. This does not include other magical beings. Theism is not about any other magical beings either, just gods. You can see that in how the word is constructed.

        For what you claim is a weak argument, you are certainly taking a fit about it. That you are an atheist like me shows that you disbelieve in things like I do, as long as you don’t have a vested interest in believing them. You don’t believe in other gods because there is no evidence for them. Am I correct, MK? I’ve asked you what do you call someone who doesn’t believe in a certain god. What is that term, MK? Why can’t you use atheist?

        I do enjoy that you can’t refute my analysis of the Stanford website. It’s wonderful that you are so ignorant to think that theism is only monotheism. Funny how there is that pesky word there in front of “theism” that shows one has to clarify what type of theism one is talking about. Yep, the core of the abramic religions is a singular god. That doesn’t make it the only version of theism. But thanks for quoting the EB to underline how ignorant the standford site is. I do appreciate it. That such nonsense is a core to three religions doesn’t make that nonsense true.

        funny how I didn’t misrepresent the standford site at all. “Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God. Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good. “ Theist: “a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.” So they falsely claim that all theists agree that there is a singular god. No logical reason to think that there has to be only “one” creator and that a singular one is better than multiple ones. That is a pretension on the part of monotheists.

        As usual, MK, you try to claim “rambling” when you can’t refute what I’ve said. Good boy! You show you have nothing. You show again that you are willing to lie about what I’ve said. Such a good Muslim. I don’t know all of the answer, but I do know that the claims made by theists are false and contradictory. Science does not use philosophy aka the mullings of how and why the world works with no evidence of the forces claimed to be the causes for those things. Science is based on observation and theories built from that. And yep, science uses reasoning. Religions try but usually fail. They start with presuppositions and try to make the facts fit those. That’s why theists contradict each other constantly. You have different presuppositions. You of course have to lie and try to ignore all of the other points I’ve made that you cannot refute.

        Alas, you still haven’t refuted my points again and try to lie about what I’ve said. It’s always notable that you can’t actually address what was written. Your claims of references fail as usual in my point above. Nice plaintive appeal to authority and failing with capitalization of philosophers in your need to pretend they are more important than I am. Shucks, MR, you should have made it in bold type to pretend even harder.

        Here we go again with your appeals to popularity which you claim you weren’t trying in the first paragraph. “This is again going by your weak definition of Atheism that is not agreed with by Philosophers nor is it agreed upon by most Atheists themselves,” Thanks for confirming that.

        Do you believe in those other gods, MK? It seems you must believe in them since you won’t answer. How embarrassing. It’s even funnier when you try to whine about using the term reject when it means the same as having no belief in in this context.

        LOL. So, now you want to claim that Islam is true and that the others aren’t, but you have no evidence of this and your claim of being ever so close to Christianity fails with your new words. There is no logical reason to think that any of these silly things are true. They can all be false with no problem at all. It is up to the believers to show that they have the one true religion. You can’t.

        I have researched all of these religions and their sects, MK. I know how theists make baseless claims and kill and harm each other over such nonsense.

        Finally, you lie again and accuse me of not doing my own research. Tsk, MK. The core of communism is economic, not religious or lack of such. Yep, you have quotes. Marx does say that atheism is better for people. He does not say it is required to be a communist. Again, Jesus was quite the communist, advocating for the sharing of all resources to everyone as they need.

        I’m not impressed with Lenin. Again, you try so hard to invoke the fallacy of appealing to authority. I can deny that atheism is a core of communism and deny that easily. I’m an atheist and not a communist nor do I want to be one. Again, you are one more theist who is so terrified of atheists that you must lie and conflate atheism with something you don’t like. You have yet to show that my point that any dictatorship doesn’t want competitors explains why Soviet comnmunism didn’t like religions. We can see that now in Putin’s Russia where as long as the Orthodox Church obeys, they love religion.

        You fail again, MK. Muslims do debate how to interpret the qu’ran, they debate on what hadiths are authentic and surprise their methods of “authenticating” the hadiths differ. We have Sunnis, Shi’ites, Ahmadiyya Muslims, etc and again, you all have a different Islam. Just like every other religion, splintered into bits. You then of course insist that only your version is the right one. Again, nice appeal to popularity. It still is a fallacy.

        ROFL “and as for your poor justification of your tu quoque, nowhere was it claimed by me that religion has objective morality, although that is my belief” Oh my. Yep, dear, I already knew that you believed such a lie. And nope, the existence of your god isn’t completely irrelevant to your claims that your god is the source of objective morality. It isn’t a “whole other topic” since you have to have a god to have your morality per your nonsense. Yep, you can have a grounding in morality without a god, thanks for admitting that. And thanks for admitting that your god isn’t needed at all. Morality can’t be proven as objective but it sure does exist. Again, no god needed. And those dangerous ideas are that no one needs you or your god. You don’t like that.

        Like

  2. mr.heathcliff

    “Now why would some omnipotent being care? I don’t’ care about what ants do and that is what humans are to these gods humans make up.”

    isnt this argument following the line of “if i were god….?”

    plus, arent u assuming that an omnipotent being seen his creation just like you see ants and humans?

    Arent you assuming that god just exists with one attribute and that is to create ?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. stewjo004

      @mr.eathcliff

      Exactly the first issue is they think God is like His creation and Muslims don’t believe that.

      No view can grasp what He is, however, He grasps all points of view completely. He is the Most Subtle and All-Knowing. (6:103)

      He knocked that argument off with the name “Al Lateef” (the Subtle One) Since God has planned all things to the minute detail and since it doesn’t expend His energy why wouldn’t he plan for His creation’s lives that He made? This is a demonstration of His ability to be the All Knowing. Furthermore, He states:

      “…Everything is moving and flowing until a given time; He plans out the steps to all matters and explains the signs so that you can become convinced of the meeting with your Lord.” (13:2)

      “He plans every affair from the heavens to the earth in great detail, and everything will rise to Him, on a Day that will measure a thousand years of your time.” (32:5)

      So yeah He simply is not like how she argued.

      They don’t value God as He deserves…Glorified and exalted is He of the things they say about Him. (39:67)

      Liked by 3 people

  3. stewjo004

    @ Muslim knight

    Kafara is once again being inconsistent go figure. 🙄🙄🙄She asks for “evidence” but is too stupid to realize when it’s been given. For example, she’s still arguing her beliefs are not a major influence on communism despite (one common sense as it once to get rid of all classes such as religion) and several papers telling her. If she’s too dumb to read basic English telling her she’s wrong about a system of beliefs how can we expect her to realize she wasn’t created from nothing nor did she create herself? 🤔🤔🤔

    #kuffarareretards

    Like

    1. I doubt she has the intellectual capability to realize this, especially as she quoted something that proves my point, that vast majority of Atheists agree that they dont believe in any spiritual or metaphysical figure at all, 81% in the U.S for eg, also quoted two philosophical definitions describing Atheism as the complete rejection of every God and metaphysical being, yet she is still adamant in pursuing that same claim, as for Communism I’m pretty sure she’s clueless about the USSR and Communist history and its influence in places like Afghanistan for eg and what it did to religious people there, if she knew she wouldn’t be trying to disassociate the influence of Atheism on the ideology of USSR and Communists from them, flat out denying that it even exists.

      She does tu quoque and rejects she ever did it when clearly the topic of morality in atheism was bought up she never bothered proving how and why her moral system is objective and instead rambled on about religious morality, completely throwing the criticism back at the opposing end rather than bothering to answer it, as I predicted she would do as do all Atheists when they are faced with the problem of morality.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Atlas

    “Atheism has not caused violence”
    “Islam denies the belief in other gods and so is part of atheism”
    “Islam has caused violence”

    You can see this waste of molecules is so desperate that she just comes up with garbage everytime she writes a sentence. Like she pulls a definition out of her own backside for atheism by saying that Muslims deny many gods and so are atheists (and hence Islam is atheistic). Then says that Islam caused violence. And throughout the entire comments has argued that Atheism has not caused violence. If it hasn’t caused violence then how come Islam has caused violence according to this idiot while defining Islam as being atheistic?

    Liked by 3 people

  5. stewjo004

    @ Atlas, QB and MK

    Lol she now thinks she’s a muhaddith and muffassir!!! 🤣🤣🤣

    I keep trying to tell ya’ll EVERY kaffir is retarded but for some odd reason, people refuse to believe little ol me.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. omihi12

      how can a Muslim be an atheist? to not believe in the “other gods” doesn’t mean the rejection of the concept of God. Muslims acknowledge the Oneness of God and deny the attribution of other divine beings. We simply believe in one God. How is that “atheistic”?
      this logic is completely weird.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Her logic is weak and based on a false definition of Atheism, she’s trying to call everyone an “Atheist” for denying one divine being but accepting another which is false, Atheism is the rejection of every spiritual being according to Britannica and Stanford, hence Monotheists,etc are not a form of Atheists rather we are a form of Theists.

        Its ironic how she rejects a University website just for disagreeing with her.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. stewjo004

        @ Omihil

        She is attempting to make a (poor) analogy that basically:

        Muslims -> Reject other deities
        I -> Reject one more
        So we’re not so different as you disbelieve in other divinities

        The problem with her analogy is that rejecting other things does not equate to the rejection of something in its entirety, for example:

        I reject that 1+1+1=1
        I reject that 0+0+0=1
        That does not mean I reject math

        Liked by 1 person

    2. She’s just running back to “b-but u evull mozlems and ur evull buk sbeekz uf warz”

      What a pacifist snowflake LOL, ofcourse the Quran will speak of war because it is a reality no one can deny.

      ironically quoting the most common verse quoted by her likes without bothering reading the preceding and succeeding verses.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. stewjo004

        @ MK

        Oh that was such light work I didn’t feel like giving her an out for her ramble. She claims to “know Islam” while not even having an understanding of the basics

        1. We do not argue over the “heir” of the Prophet(saw) that is what non-Muslims think the discussion is about. Furthermore these people have always been a minority so idk how we have “splintered”

        2. That we are not of the Abrahamic faiths

        3. That we believe in persecuting minorities like Stalin

        4. That we have a science to textual criticism in hadith

        But as I said, like all kuffar she is dumb like her rejection that atheism affected communist thought and that Hitler, mao, Stalin etc really did believe in it.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. omihi12

        while your comments are highly rational and logical, hers are becoming more and more illogical. she wrote another one, which consists typically 80% emotional outbursts.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s