Is clothing related to sexual crime??!!

Today I was listening to what is called a ''scholar'' in Islam. He is apparently very knowledgeable in Islam and most other religions, I assumed, because of the way he was talking.
When he was asked a question about why Islam wants women to cover their hair, he gave the most ridiculous answer anyone could ever give. First, he linked not covering hair to rape!!! How those two are related, you must ask him!! Then he went on about how so many women are being raped in the western countries and how Muslim countries dont have that. As if coming forward and admitting you were raped was such an easy issue for a woman living in Saudi or Iraq or .....etc.
Even in the EU and US the issue is not that simple. last year the ONS in the UK said that there has been a surge in reported sexual abuse cases. It said, though, that it is very likely that more women are feeling confident to come forward now in light of the investigation into Jimmy Saville's case, not because there are actually more crimes being committed!! So, if you apply this to the Muslim world, it makes perfect sense. I know this for sure because I have grown up in Iraq and I know what is going on there.
So please Mr ''scholar'', take your religious crap back to your own place, you are not going to delude   humans here.

Loving parents Vs Loving God!!

Assume that someone and his/her partner decide to have a child. but they already know that that child is gonna grow up to become a serial killer, and that they will have to punish him really bad for that.
If those parents were loving, they wouldn't have the child in the first place.
The same thing applies to God. If he is loving as all religions claim, then why would he create people knowing full well that they will grow to become sinners and then end up in his eternal hell????

does God really exist?

My answer to that question is a resounding No. I have seen and experienced way too much to have arrived at this conclusion which I will talk about later.
the thing that I want to say here is the argument that I used to state when asked such questions. Things like it doesn't make sense if god didn't exist or that it really doesn't matter whether he exists or not, because if he did then you win and if not then u don't lose anything.
lookin back at such nonsense now, I realise it was nothing but a poor manure to shun the stark reality, which is that there is no God.

funny how humans fool even themselves! !!

Are religions timeless?!!

A religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation.
 If a given religion was purely the invention of human beings, we would expect that that religion would bear similarities to its culture of origin. On the other hand, a transcendent or all-knowing deity, or even one that was merely far wiser than human beings, would not be limited by what was known or believed at the time he dispensed a revelation, but could provide new information of which people were not previously aware and which did not correspond to any concepts in their experience. However, when we examine religions, we find that the former and not the latter situation invariably applies.

Christianity, again, is a perfect example of this. The theology of this religion blends apocalyptic fears, Jewish monotheistic ideals, Greek ethical philosophy, and the worship practices and beliefs of the mystery cults at precisely the time when those things were mixing at a cosmopolitan crossroads of the Roman Empire. Granted, God could decide to reveal his wisdom to humanity at a time and place when it would exactly resemble a syncretistic fusion of the prevailing theologies of the day. However, all else being equal, the principle of Occam's Razor should lead us to conclude that it is nothing more than that. Positing a deity is an extra assumption that is not necessary and gives no additional explanatory power to any attempt to explain the origins of the Christian religion.

Another way in which this aspect of the Argument from Locality applies is in regard to those religious tenets which state beliefs and approve practices that were widely agreed upon at the time, but that today are recognized to be false or morally wrong. One particularly glaring example is the way the Christian and Jewish scriptures both implicitly and explicitly approve of the practices of human slavery and the institutional inequality of women. Likewise, these writings show no special insight into the workings of the universe other than what was widely known to the people of their time, and make many mistakes common to those who lived in that era - for example, the belief that mental illness and physical disability were caused by demon possession. Again, under the Argument from Locality this is exactly what we should expect: these religions, being the product of those time periods, cannot be expected to show knowledge advanced beyond what the people of those periods possessed.

In closing, consider what would refute the Argument from Locality. We could have found ourselves living in a world with only one religion, spread throughout the globe, with prophets from among every people. We could have found that, when we first contacted isolated native tribes, their religion was identical to one that already existed rather than being entirely their own. We could have found religions that bore no resemblance to the culture of their time and place of origin, in possession of advanced scientific knowledge or advanced ethical principles totally unlike what was commonly believed at the time. These are reasonable things to expect if there really was a god genuinely interested in revealing itself to humanity and being worshipped.

But in reality, we find none of these things. What we find are numerous contradictory and conflicting religions, some with specific "chosen" races or ethnicities, and the further separated they are in time and space, the more their beliefs clash. When we encounter previously isolated tribes, their religions are always new and unique. When we examine the ethical codes and scientific knowledge of religions, they always bear strong resemblances to the times and places where those religions originated. Under the assumption of atheism, this is precisely what we should expect.

One could, of course, argue that this does not prove anything, that God deliberately intended things to be this way. Maybe he has reasons of his own, unknowable to us, for sending his messengers to only one people. Maybe he decided not to disclose advanced knowledge to primitive people. Maybe he allows evil spirits to delude people into creating false religions. Maybe, maybe, maybe - but that is precisely the point. When one believes in supernatural beings that can violate the laws of nature at will and that have motivations inscrutable to humans, all grounds for believing one proposition over another vanish, all knowledge disappears. There is no longer any reason to expect any state of affairs rather than any other. Such a doctrine is impossible to falsify and leads to nothing but epistemic chaos. In explaining anything, theism turns out to explain nothing.

But atheism does not have the luxury of infinitely imaginative explanations unconstrained by fact. Given a few first principles - physical laws and observations whose existence no one disputes - atheism requires that the world can only be one way, and that is the way we in fact find it to be. Believers may argue why God set up the world in just the one way we would expect it to be if he did not exist, but for a freethinker, the conclusion is obvious.

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

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.

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.