Atheist Logic Fail

learn2science


Leave a comment

The Truth about Islam

Allah=Satan

In spite of having been falsified over and over again, some atheists continue on insisting that all religions are the same, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of violence on earth is done by Muslims.  Atheists continue to assert that both Judeo-Christianity and Islam have reprehensible practices mentioned in them ignoring both time and logic. The parts of the bible that they complain about were written in the Abrahamic Law Code not the Mosaic or Messianic Law Codes.  They were written IN BABYLON when that kind of behavior was the norm and when the Jews were individuating from the Tyrannical, Genocidal mentality which is now Iran & Iraq.

Atheists and Muslim apologists argue that Muslims in general are peaceful (ignoring that 1 of the 5 pillars of Islam is Zakat which funds the mujahedeen) and that violent Muslims are doing it incorrectly.  We are going to examine this premise logically.  You might consider this Arabic exegesis:

Naskh (نسخ) is an Arabic language word usually translated as “abrogation“; It is a term used in Islamic legal exegesis for seemingly contradictory material within or between the two primary sources of Islamic law: the Quran and the Sunna. Several Qur’anic verses state that some revelations have been abrogated and substituted by later revelations.[1][2] Which are understood by most Muslim scholars as pertaining to the verses of the Quran itself.

The principle of abrogation of an older verse by a new verse of Quran, or within the Hadiths is a well established principle in Sharia.[3][4][5] The possibility of abrogation between these two primary sources of Islam, though, has been a more contentious issue.[6] The allowability of abrogation between sources has been one of the major differences between the Shafi’i and Hanafi fiqhs, with Shafi’i sect of jurisprudence forbidding abrogation by the Sunna of the Qur’ān, while Hanafi sect allowing abrogation by the Sunna of the Qur’ān.[7][8]

SOURCE

Let’s examine the logic of this practice, if you are going to use the philosophy of Islam you are making a tacit appeal to the Authority of Mohammed.  In doing so you have to admit that Mad Moe knew himself better than anyone else, he also knew what he thought when he was younger.  So if he contradicted himself you have to assume that the last thing he said was more correct than the first thin he said or else you have to offer some explanation for the disparity which would presuppose the person making the judgment has more authority than the prophet that they follow which would be illogical.

number-line

In the same vein Atheists and Muslim apologists have to admit and acknowledge that while the Judeo-Christian scriptures started off more violent than they ended (after all Jesus was not a murderer and didn’t condone murder, while Mohammed was a child raping genocidal, serial, murderer) that Judeo-Christianity is peaceful and therefore actually a religion of peace as are most other major religions in the world.

Anyway, the Muslim apologists might be able to fool the weak minded Atheists and Lib-tard progressives but in their heart of hearts they know that they are lying and that Islam is not a religion of peace and can never evolve.  I call on all Atheists to drop this line of reasoning and I condemn Richard Dawkins for the first chapter of his book The God Delusion.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Fine Young Sociopaths an old blog I found from Myspace

Picture 001

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199811–.htm

Tor Wennerberg: One idea that I find extremely interesting and fascinating is the notion that just as our language capabilities are genetically determined, so is our capacity – as human beings – for moral judgement. What do you see as the implications of the idea that our moral capacity is innate?
Noam Chomsky: Well, for one thing, I don’t think it can really be much of a question. (That’s not to say we understand anything about it.) But, the fact of the matter is that we’re constantly making moral judgments in new situations, and over a substantial range we do it in a convergent fashion–we don’t differ randomly and wildly from one another. Furthermore, young children do it, very quickly, and they also converge.

Of course, there are cultural and social and historical effects, but even for those to operate, they must be operating on something. If you look at this range of phenomena, there are only two possibilities: one is, it’s a miracle, and the other is, it’s rooted in our nature. It’s rooted in our nature in the same sense in which language is, or for that matter, having arms and legs is. And it takes different forms depending on the circumstances, just as arms and legs depend on nutrition, and language depends on my not having heard Swedish when I was six months old and so on. But basically, it must be something that flows out of our nature, or otherwise we’d never use it in any systematic way, except just repeating what happened before. So, it’s got to be there.

What are the implications? One implication is, we ought to be interested in finding out what it is. We’d learn something important about ourselves. You can’t hope at this stage that we’re beginning to learn anything from biology. Biology doesn’t begin to reach that far. In principle it should, but right now it deals with much tinier problems. It has a hard time figuring out how bees function, let alone humans.

But I think we can learn things by history and experience. Take, say, the debate over big issues like slavery or women’s rights and so on. It wasn’t just people screaming at each other. There were arguments, in fact, interesting arguments on both sides. The pro-slavery side had very substantial arguments that are not easy to answer. But there was a kind of common moral ground in which a good bit of the debate took place, and as it resolved, which it essentially did, you see a consciousness emerging of what really is right, which must mean it reflects our built-in conception of what’s right. And that’s something that we learn more about over time, we get more insight into what’s coming out of our nature. The implications are very substantial, to the extent that we can understand them. It’s better to have a conscious understanding of what’s guiding you, to the extent you can, than just to react intuitively, without understanding. That’s true whether you’re a carpenter reacting to how to form wood artifacts or a moral human being reacting to how to decide between behaviors toward others.

LATER IN THE INTERVIEW…

The prospect of war is much less, but for other reasons. Europe is, in modern history at least, the most violent part of the world. One of the reasons why Europe conquered the world is that it created a culture of war, based on centuries of mutual massacre and slaughter – both a culture of war and a technology of war. But that largely came to an end in 1945, and for a very simple reason. Everybody could understand that the next time we play this game, we’re all dead. The techniques of destruction had reached such a point that war is simply not an option for rich and powerful countries. If they try it once more, that’s the end. Now, somebody may be irrational enough to do it anyway, but within anything remotely like the domain of rationality, where you can at least begin to talk about prediction, there isn’t going to be war among the powerful countries. And this is understood.”

I have since responded to Noam Chomsky with my theory on how Neural Myelination is passed on in the form of cellular memory through epigenetics.  Which is also why he is wrong in the last paragraph.