Tuesday, 29 April 2014

God's words!!!

One of the most obvious things that tells us Quran is man made, is the presence of what is called al-nasikh and al-mansukh (meaning two verses one of them cancelling the other out).
If Allah was this powerful and had absolute knowledge and knew everything in the past and future as claimed by Muslims, then how come he says something at one point and then he backtracks and says something else. and this did not happen over a span of hundred of years which could have been argued if that had been the case. it happened over a very short span of a couple of years, even days at sometimes.
going back on your words is a property of humans, forgetting is human. So, Quran must be human made for it to contain those things

Sunday, 20 April 2014

And he created man on the sisxth day!!!

In most of the allegedly divine books, such as Quran and Bible, it is claimed that God has created this universe and that it took him six days to get the job done. In those books, you are told that God has absolute power and whenever he needs something to be, he just says be and it will be.
Now, if we look at these two things, we can see there is a massive hole in this story. Why a God with absolute power and the ability to create the whole universe in literally no time takes 6 days to do so??!!! why waste all that time? Besides, if there was no universe when he created it, how those six days were measured? since there was no universe which means there was no time at all??!!!
The only reason for that, I say, is that the contract for creation was very lucrative and he wanted to take those six days so that he gets more cash out of whoever was who wanted God to create the universe!!!! Sounds more reasonable to me than the crap I have been told by religious folks.

Thursday, 17 April 2014

Is God fair in the way he reveals himself?!

If there is a reward for believing, it is fundamentally unfair that some would receive more and more reliable evidence than others.
An example may best elucidate this point. In Christianity, those who believe and worship God as he instructs are rewarded with a blissful eternity in Heaven. But not everyone has an equal chance to attain this reward. According to Christianity, some people, such as Jesus' apostles, were eyewitnesses to his life, his miracles, and his resurrection from the dead. Skeptics such as Doubting Thomas were able to assuage their doubts by examining Jesus' empty tomb and touching his resurrected body. But modern skeptics do not have access to this evidence. No one alive today witnessed any of Jesus' miracles, including the resurrection; even if they actually happened, the only evidence we now possess of them is a book, a copy of copies translated from an ancient language that contradicts itself in many places, that claims to contain the accounts of eyewitnesses. Even if Jesus' life happened exactly as the Bible describes it, the Bible itself is the only witness to that fact, and our historical knowledge is so murky and the evidence so scanty that some people have argued that Jesus never existed at all. But while people currently living must muddle through this tortuous mess if they are to arrive at the correct conclusion for salvation, that same conclusion was effortless for Jesus' contemporaries, those who were witnesses to his life and his ministry.

This cannot be considered fair. Why should God pick a small number of people and overwhelm them with so much first-hand evidence that their coming to the correct conclusion is virtually assured, while all the rest of us are forced to subsist on scraps of handed-down hearsay? Is salvation like winning the lottery - a matter of luck? How can God be a god of justice if he gives some people a much better chance than others?

The answer is: he cannot. If God's system of salvation is to be considered fair, then it must be a level playing field, giving everyone the same chance and the same evidence on which to base a decision. Plainly, in this case it is not. It does no good to say that the apostles who had first-hand evidence balanced this by paying in much greater persecution and hardship - many more recent Christians with nothing but hearsay to go on were subjected to persecutions at least as great for their faith. While I have used Christianity as an example, an analogous argument could be applied to any religion purportedly founded or sustained by specific miraculous events at a specific place and time.

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Pascal's wager

There is this argument for belief in God’s existence which is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it.

Pascal's wager states that

“God can’t be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (goes to heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (goes to hell). If God doesn’t exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God.”
- Blaise Pascal

Pascal’s Wager has several faults.
1. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, not a proof of existence.It is purely a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. . nothing more than a scare tactics any religion can use to generate followers.

2. Like many other such arguments, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which (perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell and Muslim Heaven is better than Christian Heaven.

3. Pascal’s Wager assumes that the chosen god doesn't mind people believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons. But religionists are in much danger as the atheists. Who knows, perhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not cowardly subordinate followers. It would be quite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment Day that the destination was not Heaven. Allah, in his infinitely mysterious ways, may have had other plans; and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being.

4. Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it wrongly assumes that the bet is only for non-existence vs existence of Christian god. Since the odds of the Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Hindu god co-existing as Almighty god are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma.

5. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager (gambling) and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant to deliberate on the lack of actual evidence for God.

6. Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People have unnecessarily fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Boko haram problem in our country is an example of dangers of religion. Far too many have died because they (or their parents) chose prayer instead of medicine (e.g. Jehovah Witnesses will rather let their children die than allow blood transfusion ). Swords, bullets, poison, and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god etc etc etc.

7. Even without these more dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god. This could have been properly invested in worthwhile developmental pursuits both for the individual and for humanity as a whole. This probably explains why the least religious nations have been the most advanced nations on earth and vice versa. Nigeria, as deeply religious as we are is still one of the most corrupt nation on earth.

8. Beliefs in a god (and the often resultant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more willing to accept inequalities in this life, without trying to make things better for themselves. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.

9. God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive both to the individual and to the world e.g Islamic terrorism and boko haram, they sincerely believed they are doing god’s will by killing fellow human beings.

10. The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.

11. The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits.

In conclusion, I think that many people continue to believe in a god because it gives them comfort, not because god actually exists; it’s an emotional response. It allows them to pray to their god and think that they’re actually accomplishing something. It gives them feelings of structure and meaning in their lives, and makes them feel connected. It helps remove the fear of death and nonexistence that most of us experience after death, just exactly what we experience before our birth. Belief in the Christian god helps remove people’s fear of Christian Hell that has been pounded into their minds from childhood. Belief in a god also makes the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with. Likewise belief in the Islamic god helps remove people’s fear of Islamic Hell that has been pounded into their minds from childhood. Belief in a god also makes the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with.But, is this any actual proof for the existence of a god? Is comfort a good indicator of the truth of external reality? I don’t think that it is, any more than the reality that astrology is not true simply because people find comfort in it. The universe does not owe us comfort and meaning; we create them ourselves through our various religions.

“The fact that a believer believes he is happier than a skeptic/atheists is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man believes is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”

Religions are like feel-good addictive drug. I think that addicts will do or think almost anything to continue getting their fix. Some people eventually see that freedom from religious addiction is an intellectually and emotionally healthy change, although withdrawal can be painful.

Thursday, 10 April 2014

Why all religions are local?!!

A God which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation.
There can be no doubt that any religion that had it right would be universal. Modern science has taught us that all humans are the same on fundamental genetic and cognitive levels and that race is a social construct as much as it is a biological one. In light of these facts, it is not rational to insist that a god - plainly not a creature of biology, with no special ties or allegiance to any subgroup of humanity - would select any single specific people or ethnicity to be its chosen. (It can hardly be a coincidence that every religion which claims God has a chosen people was founded by those who claimed they were the chosen people.) It therefore follows that any god which founded a religion would probably provide its initial revelation to multiple peoples - preferably scattered throughout time and space, to ensure as wide a distribution of followers as possible - or, failing that, the initial revelation would be given to one group of people with instructions to spread it to others. But there are other points, detailed below, which tell against the second possibility; and while the first possibility would be virtually indisputable evidence of divine origin, it is a possibility which no known religion, present or past, embodies. It would be extraordinary for people from across the globe and throughout history who had no contact with each other to independently invent the exact same religion, without a god giving them all the same information through revelation. But again, this situation describes no religion in existence today or ever.