An Atheist Gang
Last night, a best friend of mine gave me a URI of a blog here on Blogspot, where some atheists make fun of almost all deities and religions—just plain mocking, cursing and swearing. It's nothing interesting for any Truth seeker or student or researcher, but just the kind of stuff that appeals to people into gossip and a few unethical laughs and filthy jokes.
If you're curious, you can check the page by going to qualitycontrol dot blogspot.com. They call themselves the Quality Control Alliance. As satiric as it is, I could not find either quality or control. First of all, the main theme or goal of the blog is making fun, mocking, and swearing—not constructive criticism; so there's naturally no quality in any products of such wild barbaric desires. Second, many filthy and offensive words and curses are used; so there can't be any control in an evironment like that.
Ignorance Mistaken for Science & Knowledge
Boosted by Pop Pseudo-Science Publications
Not to mention the obvious misguidance and ignorance, or more politely, lack of knowledge. The blog is a typical example of what an ignorant atheist will hallucinate, whether in speech or writing. And in the categorization of ignorance, especially established by earlier prominent Muslim scholars like Ibn Taimiya and his student Ibn Al Qayyim, that is the worst type of ignorance, i.e., where the ignorant is not aware that he is ignorant.
This example is very common and typical among today's atheists, especially the ones who are misguided by pop pseudo-science—the kind of "scientific" articles that you may read in magazines like Time, Scientific American, and National Geographic. Those magazines definitely come up with many good and informative articles sometimes, but I'm sorry to say that because of certain devious agendas for certain entities that somehow affect the kind of content that is read in these magazines, because of these entities and their agendas, sometimes lies, especially related to evolution, are propagated in the magazines and dubbed as "science".
Then, these individuals read those articles, which are cunningly bundled with other news articles that sneer at some church or focus on some bushy-beard man dubbed as a "Muslim terrorist" or "extremist", and a collective message is easily communicated to the subconscious of those individuals: "Religion is a superstitious, hate inducing, anti-freedom, backwards thing, created by Man to control Man, or to control the masses."
Furthermore, it is already easy to influence and mislead these individuals because they usually come already biased, reckless, unruly, headstrong, rebellious, full of hate and violence—from movies & games for example, and with issues from their past about some Church or an unwise priest or an over-strict religious parent. In one word, they are perfect candidates with almost blank minds and jumpy hearts, to take torches of disbelief, and start burning morals, credos, religious values, and even laws. And while they are on it, if they do not burn believers, or religious people who still hold on to morals and religious values, they can at least burn those believers' hearts and instill feelings of hate in them, too, paving the way for the genius evil minds that are originally behind this whole mess—the same minds that misled those masses—to easily burn believers afterwards. And I certainly hope that the world today has enough evidence for you to believe all this.
Wudhu (Ablusion) and Tayammum
Now to get back to the guys from the No-Quality Lack-of-Control Gang, one of them was talking about the alternative to ablusion (Wudhu) if there is no water, which is Tayammum. And for Non-Muslims who don't know this, ablusion is a rather short wash of one's hands, face, forearms, and feet (or quick rubs on socks with wet hands), which a Muslim takes before most of his daily 5 prayers—a sign of cleanliness obviously. Now that guy thinks that Tayammum means cleaning yourself with dirt, and that part was indeed funny to me. The difference is that they laugh because they think that Tayammum really means cleaning yourself with "dirt", but I laughed because I saw people who would tell themselves such a lie and believe it, just so they can have a few childish laughs. That guy probably missed reading—then copying & pasting—the prerequisites that the kind of "sand" to be used for Tayammum must meet before a Muslim can use it for Tayammum, which, in turn, is obviously an extremely rare alternative when you don't live in a desert, and which is an alternative that does not sound funny at all when you imagine yourself in a desert, and all the sand around you is actually much cleaner than—no offense—your own body!
That guy's final comment on Tayammum was like this, "I thought blessing myself with holy water upon entering a Catholic church was risible, but Tayammum takes the cake when we're talking stupid, superstitious, pagan-like rituals." Now to that guy, Wudhu (ablusion) and Tayammum are "stupid, superstitious, pagan-like rituals", and not signs of cleanliness. He did not even give the rituals some credit for not requiring some "holy" water, and for the possibility to make Wudhu with almost any clean, running water. That, again, shows that he's there for the laugh and the mockery, not constructive criticism.
A Scientific Basis for Tayammum
And if he thought that using clean sand from the desert in Tayammum is just a stupid, superstitious ritual, then again, that is because of lack of scientific knowledge. It's the same lack of knowledge that causes similar individuals to question and mock the ritual of Muslims washing their skin or personal bowls, if touched by a dog's tongue, once with sand, then 6 times with water. I blame him for the mockery, obscene language, and disrespect, but I do not blame him for this lack of knowledge, because he is definitely not a physicist, to be fully aware of the concept of hydrostatic pressure from the fluid—the dog's saliva for example, onto the particles—sand grains. Moreover, he probably never heard of sand filters—used in wastewater treatment & other industries, and if he did, then he probably does not understand how they work and the process's significance. Another scientific fact that he probably doesn't know, is that the drying effect that sand has on a person's hand, for instance, simply means that sand particles cling to most of the substances on the skin and totally surround them, until there's nothing to which to cling anymore, and the whole mix falls off, thus washing away everything from the surface—the skin, so to speak. Yet another scientific fact is that, in contrast with sand, soil itself—something that he would probably dub as pure dirt, usually contains several species of Streptomyces bacteria that helps in producing tetracycline, for example. Tetracycline is an antibiotic compound; even better, it is a "broad spectrum" antibiotic, meaning it is one of several antibiotic compounds that are effective against many different bacterial species as well as other types of microorganisms.
The Significance of This Refutation
All this means that Tayammum is not a stupid, superstitious ritual, but actually a very practical and scientifically based Plan B for quick cleaning when water is not available for one reason or another. And the significance of all this, is that science itself, true science, rebounds in the face of atheist disbelievers, disapproving them everyday. But as I have mentioned earlier, most of those atheists have a severe lack of true knowledge, and are very misguided by pop pseudo-science. Meaning, they parrot obscure nonsense and pseudo-science, imagining that it is actually science; and they ape darwinist monkey-lies and evolutionist hallucinations that are propagated in corporate pop-science magazines sometimes.
Moreover, another significance of this, directly related to religion and specifically Islam, is that the very issues that atheists mock or sneeringly question, are backed up by today's science very often. And if they are not backed up today, then they will be tomorrow when humanity knows more. How can that be? Well, even though the main aim of delivering religions and holy books to humanity, through Messengers and Prophets, is not teaching humanity science—those hints, signs and wonders were revealed in holy books and in the ways and guidelines of the prophets, so that a holy book like the Quran (apparently the only holy book that survived from any distortion and manipulation by wicked guilty human hands) can remain valid and beneficial forever, even when humanity is very advanced in knowledge and science. So that when impudent atheists today question the existence of God and validity of religion, using science as an excuse, they would find that science itself rejects them and accepts religion, and supports the credibility and validity of verses in the Quran and practices of a prophet like Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Atheists: Most Famous Self-Contradictors
The guy who was making fun of Tayammum and telling lies about what it is, replied to my comment on his article, saying that they—he and people like him—do not hate, but they like to "laugh at stupid ****ers like" me. Now I don't think that I even need to reveal the contradictions in that statement; any sane person with common sense can see the contradictions. However, I can't help but wonder, for one thing, how can you make fun of anyone if you did not hate them? I'm not talking about extreme hate or specifying a degree of it, but if you make fun of someone, then you definitely have at least a minimal amount of feelings of contempt and hatred towards them, i.e., you hate to be near them, associate with them, you think of them as lower than you, etc. And if this is not enough evidence, then how can you curse anyone, calling him or her a f***er, and using even far filthier and more degrading curses all the time, and not hate them?
However, this is not the first time atheists contradict themselves; they try to use science to back up their lies and allegations, while science itself defies them, and they make many other claims, like the contradiction I mentioned, but logic itself defies them. And once more, they imagine that they are being scientific and logical, when in reality they are being very clueless, ignorant, and just adamant and too proud.
Atheists: Also Artistic Demagogues!
Harun Yahya himself says this in his article, Demagogy: One of the Teachings of Satan, yet he puts it in a much better phrasing and style:
Ignorant people often resort to demagogy to justify themselves. This is a method by which they maintain their rights, or prestige, by using emotional, dishonest or oblique arguments rather than reason. Apart from these ploys, the way people conduct themselves is also an efficient element of demagogy. Interrupting, shouting and telling lies are well-known methods of demagogy. Disbelievers demonstrate a remarkable capacity for this 'art'. To justify their point of view or to establish superiority over others, they resort to inconceivable methods. The main purpose of all these efforts is to oppose the truth. They make all these efforts to justify themselves and thereby to find a pretext to ease their remorse.
My Conversation with the Atheists
I sent those guys a second comment, and this was what I said:
There's no difference between you & the misguided people of whichever church, whom you're mocking. You know why? Because just like *they* are misguided and fooled sometimes, you are also misguided and fooled--obviously. The only difference is that they're misguided by Popes, but you are misguided by materialistic short-sighted pseudo-scientists.
Why don't you believe in God, the Hereafter, Heaven, and Hell? Is it because you cannot SEE them? You cannot TOUCH them? Well, you cannot SEE air, you still believe in it, why? You can neither see nor touch nor even draw a picture of "gravity" or "magnetism", yet you still believe in them, why?? Is it not because you trust so-called scientists so much? Well, what makes you trust scientists and not trust Popes, for instance? No, it is not common sense or logic, at least not necessarily. I'm not saying Popes, or Imams in Islam, for that matter, say the truth ALL the time. However, what kind of common sense says that your grandpa, gadzillions of years ago, was a freakin' MONKEY? Is THAT science? If you think it is, then you're just as misguided as any religious layman is, the only difference is in who misguided you, as I said before.
If you want to know a few logical, convincing, and scientific facts about evolution, the material world, and about creation generally, Heaven, Hell, and other so-called metaphysical concepts, then try to read for Harun Yahya. Actually, you can watch, hear, or read his material for free at his website: harunyahya.com.
And, good guidance, stranger!
One of them, someone who calls himself Whittler, replied saying, Why does this wacko try to diminish the achievments of science? Was Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin, a so-called scientist. Perhaps Isaac Newton was a short sighted pseudo-scientist.
To this, I say: Whittler, my brother in humanity, Isaac Newton himself disapproves you and your fellow atheists, just like science and logic themselves defy you. Isaac Newton wrote:
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things...as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion. He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler."—Sir Isaac Newton (Source: Principia, Newton, 2nd edition; J. De Vries, Essentials of Physical Science, B. Eerdmans Pub.Co., Grand Rapids, SD, 1958, p.15)
And Isaac Newton is not the only genuine scientist who believed in God. The all-time symbol of genius, Albert Einstein himself, wrote:
"I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame."—Albert Einstein (1879-1955) (Source: Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941)
Whittler added in his next paragraph, "Yaseen, your analogies of air, magnetism and gravity are laughable. No I can't see them. Yes, I believe in them as they can be scientifically explained."
Whittler, my analogies of air, magnetism and gravity are not laughable at all. You just mistake too many things in life now for jokes, after a long time of associating with atheists who make fun of the Deity, religions, religious people and values. If you have no respect for these, then you will have no respect for anything whatsoever, not even for true science and logic when you see it. Moreover, if you are claiming to believe in gravity because it can be scientifically explained, but to not believe in God because He cannot be scientifically explained, then you are simply making a false assumption. Who ever told you that God cannot be scientifically explained? Did you even try to find anything that can explain the existence of God scientifically? What exactly is your source or authority when you claim that God cannot be explained scientifically?
And if the whole dinosaur thing kinda puts a big hole in the Christian Genesis belief,
then who said that the Bible is the only holy book to read out there? And if Man made stories up and wrote them down, presented them to the public as a "holy book", and dubbed it the "Bible", then our conclusion from all this becomes: God does not exist?? Is that how we analyze history and events and draw conclusions?
If some Christians became Crusaders, and some Muslims became terrorists, then the conclusion from those events is that God does not exist? Or that God is bad—God forbid? Or that religion is fake and man-made? I hope it is not hard for you to understand that sins, mistakes, and wars are man-made indeed, and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with holy books or God Himself. The problem is not in religion, but in the way human beings approach, understand, and apply religion. I wrote in more detail about this, in a paragraph titled "The Problem was Never in Religion: It's Always the Disciples, Always", in another post here called Arabs, Islam, the West, and Terrorism.
Finally, Whittler wonders, Anyway, how does one burn in hell for all eternity. It'd only take a couple of hours I'd imagine. But that's that pesky science thing again.
Whittler, God already answers your question in His final holy book, the Quran:
Those who reject Our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire; as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the Penalty: for God is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4 Nisa'a: 56)
One of the significances here is that this is such a good and scientific answer to your question. Furthermore, it is not the only question for which God has an answer in the Quran. One of the conclusions that we can draw from this, is that God was the Only One Who could have thought of everything, Who could have covered everything, Who could have known all these scientific facts, and Who could have been ready for all those seemingly witty questions, which would come hundreds of years after the Quran was sent to humanity. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was illiterate, i.e., he could not read or write; if he was making up the Quran from his mind, more than 1400 years ago, and especially when we consider that he never wrote any of it down to be able to revise or so, then how on earth could he have thought of questions like these, which would come 1400 years in the future? Furthermore, how could he have any knowledge whatsoever in embryology, coming up with verses in the Quran, which recite the stages of the formation of the embryo and depict an accurate description of what happens in a pregnant woman's womb (significant words upon which to ponder are bold, and if you hover your mouse over the underlined, you can read hints):
12. Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); 13. Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; 14. Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the Best to create! 15. After that, at length ye will die. 16. Again, on the Day of Judgment, will ye be raised up. (23 Mu'minoon: 12-16)
You can read the verse again, and this time, put in your mind very well that 1400 years ago there was no Ultrasound technology or microscopes or anything even remotely close to that. To these people, at that age: a male just spills some whitish liquid into a woman, and then they wait about 9 months, and, voila, a baby emerges!
A final word about this: I hope that whether you're an atheist or not, you still embrace science and religion with an open heart and mind, and without bias or any preconceptions. I hope that you learn and seek knowledge not to "prove something", but to sincerely find out the truth, about everything in the universe, and especially the hereafter. That is definitely not an easy task; it takes a lot of effort to clean our minds first, then our hearts, from all the corruption and lies that were fed to us, and with which we were brainwashed. And, no, brainwashing does not only happen in some churches or religious institutions. It also happens, and more often than anyone can imagine, on TV, in movies, on the web, in songs, and almost every medium of communication known to mankind today. Heck, many people today heard about subliminal hypnosis already; even though some make fun of it, and some take it seriously.
Again, I believe that Harun Yahya is one of the best guys out there to talk about religion and God from a scientific perspective, without any hallelujahs or stuff along the same lines, just pure logic and science. That's if any atheists out there have some time to take off mocking, making fun, cursing and swearing, and invest it in genuine research and Truth hunting.
Good guidance.
