Crucifixion, hand cutting and maiming in Islam

إِنَّمَا جَزَاء الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُواْ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُواْ أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ

5:33,The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; [Anyone who disbeliefs in Islam and speaks against it is considered to be waging war against Allah and his messenger]

Begging the Question: Miracles and Nature

There are a great many people who want to give God credit for the order, beauty, and balance of nature. Recent versions of the design argument and so-called fine tuning arguments, for instance, present the claim that were it not for the actions of God, we would not find a universe full of matter that abides by a set of physical laws. And if it were not for God, we would not expect to find the universe so finely tuned to be hospitable to life. But we do find a lawful universe that is hospitable to life, so there must be a God.

Now consider the wide array of arguments that would have us believe in the existence of God on the basis of miracles. In the past, there occurred events that were bona fide violations of the laws of nature: Jesus walked on water, Jesus was resurrected from the dead, the sick were healed, the hungry were fed. And it is on the basis of reports of these events that millions if not billions of people have come to believe that Jesus was really the son of God and that God exists. After all, only God could have been responsible for such acts.

But there’s a real problem here with these two approaches to believing in God. You can’t have it both ways. It is a manifest incompatibility to argue for God’s existence based on the orderliness, lawfulness, and regularity of matter on the one hand, and also argue that God’s existence is proven by miracles. In design and fine tuning arguments, God gets credit for all the daily non-miraculous occurrences in nature. The fact that there are regular laws of nature that perfectly predict the behavior of matter is taken to show that God exerts his power against the intrinsic lawlessness of the world (see if you can make sense of that notion on its own). The uniformity of physics is contrasted to the way that things could be or would be on their own: unlawful. But when miracles are employed to prove the existence of God, then an unlawful event is taken to show God’s existence in contrast to the way that things would have otherwise been without God’s intervention: lawful.

So it would appear that no matter what happens, miracle or not, God will be credited. But this kind of double-dealing makes a sham of the pretense at proving God’s existence from any independent grounds. The circularity of this brand of theism is painfully clear. It would seem that God’s existence is indefeasible. You can’t only allow the evidence to support your conclusion without allowing for the possibility that the evidence could disprove it. Otherwise, we can’t make any sense of what it is for evidence to support. The conclusion—God exists—is inescapable because it’s already been decided before the evidence was ever consulted. When all possible evidence is claimed in its favor, then the evidence isn’t really playing any role in the argument. When nature is orderly, that can only be because of God’s power. And when nature is violated, that can also only be because of God’s power. But if no possible states of affairs can fail to support the conclusion, then they weren’t really giving us independent grounds at all. Ordinarily, if we think that the evidence supports a conclusion, then we think that if that evidence had not been the case, then the conclusion wouldn’t have followed. If the defendant hadn’t been recorded by the security camera shooting the clerk in the gas station, and if he hadn’t been seen by a dozen witnesses who identified him leaving the scene, then we wouldn’t have as strong a case for his guilt.

So the believer is cheating when they maintains that a) the orderliness of nature couldn’t have come about by chance, only God could have done it, and b) there really have been miracles, therefore God exists. Both of these arguments are only a pretense at being reasonable when in fact there are no occurrences that they wouldn’t take to prove God. That’s not proving anything, that’s just finding the conclusion that you planted there in the first place. The evidence never mattered to them at all.

تحطيم المرأة في الإسلام

Pictures of Mohammed

By artists throughout history:

Prophet of Doom

حكم عليهم سعد بأن تُقتَلَ مُقاتلَتُهم، وأن تُسبى ذراريهم، وأن تُقسَمَ أموالهم، وقال له الرسول "الكريم" (حكمت عليهم بحكم الله من فوق سبعة أرقعة)

Peace !

How to refute islam in 3 seconds ?

Our teacher professor Dawkins destroys stupid Muslims by only 1 question



accept it or we will kill you
"religion of peace"

It is our duty to think God out of existence

A priest explains to Bubby his non belief in God.


"You see, no one's going to help you Bubby, because there isn't anybody out there to do it. No one. We're all just complicated arrangements of atoms and subatomic particles - we don't live. But our atoms do move about in such a way as to give us identity and consciousness. We don't die; our atoms just rearrange themselves. There is no God. There can be no God; it's ridiculous to think in terms of a superior being. An inferior being, maybe, because we, we who don't even exist, we arrange our lives with more order and harmony than God ever arranged the earth. We measure; we plot; we create wonderful music. We are the architects of our own existence. What a lunatic concept to bow down before a God who slaughters millions of innocent children, slowly and agonizingly starves them to death, beats them, tortures them, rejects them. What folly to even think that we should not insult such a God, damn him, think him out of existence. It is our duty to think God out of existence. It is our duty to insult him. Fuck you, God! Strike me down if you dare, you tyrant, you non-existent fraud! It is the duty of all human beings to think God out of existence. Then we have a future. Because then - and only then - do we take full responsibility for who we are. And that's what you must do, Bubby: think God out of existence; take responsibility for who you are."

قصة المرأة في الإسلام

part2

part3

part4

part5

part6

Stupid religion stories "Noah's Ark "

If God was a Car

Muslims hang a poor women

Religion of peace counties to do its job

Allah commanded us to TERRORIZE the Infidels

Lets get this garbage out of our countries, Please..
Thanks

Islam in Action

This is a sick and disgusting punishment, and thus watching this video can make you weak or possibly give you nausea and shock for several days. Please do not watch if you are weak-hearted.

"والسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُواْ أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاء بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالاً مِّنَ اللّهِ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ " المائدة : 38

If you are a Muslim, you must read this section and watch the video to increase your knowledge of Islam. Increasing one's knowledge about Islam is فرض (compulsory).
Also, you must force yourself to like cutting of hands and feet, because this is a punishment ordained by Allah in Quran 5:33 and 5:38.

Religion of Pieces Indeed ! lol

امصص بظر اللات

ليس غريب ان نرى عصابة محمد تتلفظ بألفاظ غير لائقة وقذرة بشكل دائم عند قراءة السيرة النبوية.
فأفعالهم من اغتصاب السبايا وجز رؤوس الوثنيين العرب والسطو على القوافل صارت طبيعية منذ اجتماعهم وتكوينهم لأكبر عصابة عرفها التاريخ البشري. تفضلو هذه واقعة تحتوي على سبة أعجبتني

قال عروة عند ذلك: أي محمد أرأيت إن استأصلت أمر قومك هل سمعت بأحد من العرب اجتاح أهله قبلك، وإن تكن الأخرى فإني والله لأرى وجوها وإني لأرى أوشاباً من الناس خليقاً أن يفروا ويدعوك، فقال له أبو بكر: امصص ببظر اللات
رواه البخاري 2529- ابن ماجه - أحمد بن حنبل في مسنده

نعم هذا صحيح :) أبو بكر يقول لأحدهم " أمصص بظر اللات" اي مستوى هابط للتعبير هذا ؟ هههههههههه
لا يستطيع المسلمين هنا انكار الحديث كما يفعلون دائما عندما لا يعجبهم محتواه لانه ورد في 3 كتب حديث مختلفة وهنا في موقع اسلام ويب يدافعون عن ابو بكر وان شتمه القذر هذا كان للمصلحة وخدمة المسلمين لووووول

الإسلام كرم المرأة المسلمة بظربها

NiqaBitch

Prisoners ... aren't always behind bars.

Religiousil

500 Dead Gods Plus 1

What sort of argument could be made for wide, positive atheism, or the view that no gods or divine beings exist?

Here’s one. Here’s my list of 500 dead gods from a wide range of cultures and periods, revisited:

Aa, Aah, Abil Addu, Addu, Adeona, Adjassou-Linguetor, Adjinakou, Adya Houn'tò, Agassou, Agé, Agwé, Ahijah, Ahti, Aizen Myō-ō, Ajisukitakahikone, Ak Ana, Aken , Aker , Äkräs, Aku, Allatu, Altjira, Amano-Iwato, Ame-no-Koyane, Am-heh, Amihan, Amon-Re, Amun, Amurru, Anapel, Anath, Andjety, Anhur, Anit, Anu, Anubis, Anzambe, Apsu, Arianrod, Ash , Ashtoreth, Assur, Astarte, Aten, Atum, Ayida-Weddo, Ayizan, Azaka Medeh, Azaka-Tonnerre, Azumi-no-isora, Baal, Bacalou, Badessy, Bagadjimbiri, Bahloo, Baiame, Bakunawa, Bamapana, Banaitja, Ba-Pef, Baron Cimetière, Baron La Croix, Baron Samedi, Barraiya, Bata , Bathala, Bau, Beltis, Beltu, Belus, Bernardo Carpio, Bes, Biame, Biamie, Bilé, Bimbeal, Binbeal, Boli Shah, Bossou Ashadeh, Budai, Budai, Bugady Musun, Bugid Y Aiba, Bunjil, Bunjil, Cai Shen, Ceros, Chenti-cheti, Chi You, Chimata-No-Kami, Chun Kwan, Cihang Zhenren, City god, Clermeil, Congo (loa), Consus, Cronos, Cunina, Dagan, Dagda, Dagon, Daikokuten, Damballa, Dan Petro, Dan Wédo, Daramulum, Dauke, Dea Dia, Dhakhan, Diable Tonnere, Diana of Ephesus, Diejuste, Dimmer, Dinclinsin, Dragon King, Dragon King of the East Sea, Duamutef, Dumu-zi-abzu, Dzingbe, Ea, Ebisu, Edulia, Efile Mokulu, El, Elali, Elder Zhang Guo, Elum, Engurra, Enki, Enma, En-Mersi, Enurestu, Erlang Shen, Erzulie, Ezili Dantor, Fan Kuai, Fei Lian, Feng Bo, Four sons of Horus, Fu Lu Shou, Fu Xi, Fūjin, Fukurokuju, Furrina, Futsunushi, Gargomitch, Gasan lil, Gasan-abzu, Goibniu, Gong Gong, Govannon, Gran Maître, Grand Bois, Guan Yu, Guangchengzi, Gunfled, Gwydion, Hachiman, Hadad, Hakudo Maru, Han Xiang, Hapi, Hapy, Heka , Hemen, Hermanubis, Hermes , Heryshaf, Hoderi, Hongjun Laozu, Hoori, Horus, Houyi, Huang Feihu, Hung Shing, Iah, Ibong Adarna, Iho, Iku-Turso, Ilat, Ilmatar, Ilmatar, Imhotep, Imset, Iron-Crutch Li, Isis, Istar, Isum, Iuno Lucina, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Jar'Edo Wens, Ji Gong, Julana, Jumala, Jupiter, Juroujin, Kaawan, Kagu-tsuchi, Kalfu, Kalma, Kara Khan, Karakarook, Karei, Kari, Karora, Kerridwen, Khaltesh-Anki, Khepri, Khnum, Khonsu, Kidili, Kini'je, Kitchen God, Kmvum, Kneph, Kōjin, Ksitigarbha, Kui Xing, Kuk, Kumakatok, Kuski-banda, Kuu, Ku'urkil, Lagas, Lan Caihe, Lei Gong, Leizhenzi, Lempo, Ler, Leza, Li Jing , L'inglesou, Llaw Gyffes, Lleu, Loco (loa), Lü Dongbin, Lugal-Amarada, Maahes, Ma-banba-anna, Mademoiselle Charlotte, Maîtresse Délai, Maîtresse Hounon'gon, Maman Brigitte, Mamaragan, Mami, Mamlambo, Manawyddan, Mandulis, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Marassa Jumeaux, Marduk, Maria Cacao, Maria Makiling, Maria Sinukuan, Marinette, Mars, Marzin, Matet boat, Mawu, Mayari, Mbaba Mwana Waresa, Meditrina, Mehen, Melek, Memetona, Menthu, Merodach, Mider, Mielikki, Min , Molech, Mombu, Morrigu, Mounanchou, Mulu-hursang, Mu-ul-lil, Muzha , Na Tuk Kong, Naam, Nana Buluku, Naunet, Ndyambi, Nebo, Nehebkau, Nergal, Nezha , Nga, Ngai, Nin, Ninib, Ninigi-no-Mikoto, Nin-lil-la, Nin-man, Nio, Nirig, Ni-zu, Njirana, Nogomain, Nuada Argetlam, Numakulla, Num-Torum, Nusku, Nu'tenut, Nyan Kupon, Nyyrikki, Nzambi, Nzame, Odin, Ogma, Ogoun, Ogoun, Ogyrvan, Ohoyamatsumi, Ōkuninushi, Olorun, Omoikane (Shinto), Ops, Osiris, Pa-cha, Pangu, Papa Legba, Peko, Perkele, Persephone, Petbe, Pie (loa), Ple, Pluto, Potina, Ptah, Pugu, Puluga, Pundjel, Pwyll, Qarradu, Qebehsenuef, Qin Shubao, Qingxu Daode Zhenjun, Ra, Raijin, Randeng Daoren, Rauni , Resheph, Rigantona, Robigus, Royal Uncle Cao, Ruwa, Ryūjin, Saa, Sahi, Samas, Sarutahiko, Saturn, Sebek, Seker, Serapis, Sesmu, Shakpana, Shalem, Shangdi, Shango, Sharrab, Shen , Shennong, Shezmu, Shina-Tsu-Hiko, Simbi, Sin, Sirtumu, Sobek, Sobkou, Sōjōbō, Sokk-mimi, Sopdu, Sousson-Pannan, Statilinus, Suijin, Suiren, Suqamunu, Susanoo, Ta Pedn, Tagd, Taiyi Zhenren, Tala, Tam Kung, Tammuz, Tapio, Temaukel, Tenenet, Tengu, Tenjin, Theban Triad, Thoth, Ti Jean Quinto, Ti Malice, Tian, Ti-Jean Petro, Tilmun, Tirawa Atius, Todote, Toko'yoto, Tomam, Tororut, Tu Di Gong, Tu Er Shen, Tuonetar, Tuoni, Ubargisi, Ubilulu, U-dimmer-an-kia, Ueras, Ugayafukiaezu, U-ki, Ukko, UKqili, Umai, U-Mersi, Umvelinqangi, Ungud, Unkulunkulu, Ura-gala, U-sab-sib, Usiququmadevu, U-Tin-dir-ki, U-urugal, Vaisravana, Vaticanus, Vediovis, Vellamo, Venus, Vesta, Wadj-wer, Wen Zhong , Weneg, Wenshu Guangfa Tianzun, Wepwawet, Werethekau, Wollunqua, Wong Tai Sin, Wuluwaid, Xargi, Xaya Iccita, Xevioso, Xuan Wu , Yama, Yau, Yemaja, Youchao, Yuanshi Tianzun, Yuchi Jingde, Yunzhongzi, Zagaga, Zaraqu, Zer-panitu, Zhang Guifang, Zheng Lun, Zhongli Quan, Zhu Rong , Zonget.

He Has No Brain, So God Doesn't Exist

By every indication we have, immaterial souls, brainless minds, or entities that occupy some ethereal afterlife do not exist. The widespread belief that humans have an immortal soul that survives the death of the body is utterly unfounded. A body of neuroscience research that grows every day has given us an increasingly fine grained understanding of the neural architecture of the brain that is responsible for producing our thoughts, our feelings, our memories, our goals, our plans, and our consciousness. A mountain of evidence indicates that brain damage produces mind damage. And that the destruction of the brain causes the destruction of the mind. That is to say that everything that has been traditionally associated with the immortal soul is dependent upon the brain to exist. So when the brain dies, the soul goes with it.

God is thought to be a person. He has plans, desires, goals, and emotions. He acts, he creates, he loves, and he commands. He reacts to our behaviors. He is alleged to form personal relationships with people through prayer and meditation. He communicates to them through signs and indicators. Sometimes people claim to have heard his voice, felt him exert his will, or even to have encountered him directly.

So by the most common characterizations, God has a consciousness. By my account above, to have a mind is to have a soul. Minds and souls are different terms for the same thing. So God can be said, by common accounts, to have a mind or to have a soul. His soul, they say, filled with love for us, his creation.

God is thought to be immaterial. While God has contact with the material world, he is not in it.

Or alternately, God doesn’t have a brain. But if God is alleged to be a person, and being a person requires having a mind. But having a mind requires a brain, and God doesn’t have a brain.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The most likely responses to this argument will be something like these: First, “Isn’t it possible that God is not a person?” Second, “Isn’t it possible that God does have a brain? Maybe it’s something bigger than we have ever encountered, or it’s someplace we have never seen or been?”

Perhaps. These might be possible. But possibilities do not render a belief reasonable. It is possible there is a million dollars in my bank account. But it would be flagrantly irrational of me to conclude that there is a million dollars there because it is possible. What we need to see is some evidence, any real indicator that such a thing is true. And until that evidence is in hand, we are justified in concluding that that suggestion is as preposterous as it sounds.

God is Not Beyond Logic

It’s a widespread practice among believers to defend God from criticisms with some variation of “God is beyond comprehension,” “your logic is not God’s logic,” or “God it beyond the limitations of our logic.” Even many non-believers seem to be willing that these are fair points and that critiques of God can’t really survive this rebuttal.

But if we scratch below the surface on this kind of talk, we can see that it really doesn’t make any sense; it’s a muddle headed evasion. There is no “our” logic that is separate from God’s logic, or lack thereof. A lot of people who haven’t reflected on what they are saying will throw claims around like these, but they haven’t recognized that what they are suggesting is unintelligible. There are several problems with it. First, they don’t really want to go there. If they try to assert that God is beyond logic, beyond comprehension, or that God’s goodness (and evil) are things that we can’t fathom, then they have effectively disqualified themselves from making any assertions about him. If we can’t understand God’s goodness, or power, or nature, then we certainly aren’t entitled to assert that it is true that God exists or that God is good. If they want to say that belief is reasonable, intelligible, supported by the evidence, rational, or epistemically inculpable, then they can’t also insist that God is beyond comprehension. You can’t have it both ways. On what grounds would you stand where you could assert anything about God if you have categorically denied that we can have any vantage on God? Even worse, on what grounds could you possibly insist that belief in something like this is reasonable when it cannot, by definition, be accessed by us.

Second, there’s a long history on this issue and it’s not just atheists who are holding God to the bounds of logic. The non-logical theist (NLT) needs to Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Plantinga, Craig,Weirenga, and a host of other philosophical theologians who all agree that God’s properties are all had within the boundaries of logic. Without logic, there won’t be any way to say it is true that God is X, because logic is what allows us to demarcate between true and false. Logic and reason are not things you simply discard when the fancy strikes you. Without them, you’ve got no way to even make an assertion. Without them, human speech acts are just gibberish. To make an assertion, even one like, “God is beyond logic,” is to assert that there is some state of affairs that obtains in the world. A sentence of the form, “X is . . . . “ says that something—X—is one way and not another. People like to say that our logic is limited and there could be things beyond it, but if something is not a thing and if it doesn’t have properties, then it isn’t a something at all. To be, to have a property, or to exist is to be one way and not another. The claims “God exists,” or “God is beyond logic,” assert that it is not the case that there is no God, and that it is not the case that God is subject to logic. The irony, and the profound paradox, of the last claim is that the speaker employs the logic of the assertion to try to liberate God from logic. But there’s no escaping that making an assertion is making a claim about the way the world is, and it is denying claims about what the world is not. What rules of assertion are you going to employ to argue for or claim that “logic is limited”? Logic? Then it’s not limited. Something else? How do we discern truth from nonsense, and falsehood in claims about logic itself if not by employing it? Or should we just accept all claims about the limits of logic without any argument or reasons?

If someone tells you that God is beyond the law of non-contradiction, then they’ve just left the realm of any intelligible discourse. There’s nothing to talk about when the fabric of logic that makes assertions possible itself has been rejected. Within the philosophical community, it’s pretty much accepted across the board that the Stone Paradox creates a problem for an unrestricted account of omnipotence. No one who has thought about it seriously thinks that being omnipotent, where “omnipotent” means the unrestricted power to do anything, even logically impossible feats, is even intelligible.

What the NLT is usually trying to do is dismiss questions, objections, or problems that non-believers raise with the notion of God that is so often presented to us. If God is beyond logic, and beyond comprehension, it would seem, then we need not be troubled by what appear to be blinding contradictions and conflicts between different parts of the God story. Suppose the NLT is attempting to salvage a belief in God from problems generated by deductive disproofs or the problem of evil, for example. So he is saying, in effect, believing is correct, there really is a God because these problems are only problems of appearance not real problems for a God who is beyond our conceptual capacities. This all begins to sound a great deal like double speak in Orwell’s Ministry of Truth where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. If God exists no matter what, in someone’s mind, then it really doesn’t mean anything at all for God to exist.

So either the NLT is subject to the same conceptual limitations that he says you are or he isn’t. If he is, then he’s got the serious dilemma of explaining how his belief makes any sense in a context where he insists that humans cannot form reasonable beliefs. If he’s not subject to the conceptual limitations and he can comprehend God, then he’s contradicting himself.

The atheist, even though they would usually don’t make this kind of dirty move, is entitled to take the very same view is the theist is doing it. The atheist can say, “Look, I know that it seems like to you that all of the evidence and all of the indicators—design in the universe, miracles, etc.—all seem to indicate that God exists, but there’s really just the Big Nothing. But the Big Nothing, the vast empty void, the universal non-consciousness, is so far beyond our comprehension, we just can’t fathom how there can be a Big Nothing despite the fact that there are all of these indicators to the contrary. The Big Nothing doesn’t conform to our puny theistic logic.”

Put the problem another way. If God is beyond our conceptual abilities, and that’s how he can co-exist with evil, or exist even though such a thing seem incoherent, THEN ANYTHING GOES. That is, why can’t it be that the only supernatural being is Satan, or Vishnu, or Sobek, or Eeguu, or the Giant Marshmallow and even though it doesn’t make any sense with all that we know about the world, the Giant Marshmallow is not subject our puny logical and conceptual limitations. This is, of course, the point of the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster movement. The idea that there could be some sort of divine, supernatural pasta creature that is the creator of the universe is completely absurd and defies everything we know about the world. But if the believer gets to pull the “X is beyond comprehension” card—the get-out-of-any-jail-free card—in response to any counter evidence, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as viable as God, or Satan, or the Giant Marshmallow. Since absurdities and counter evidence aren’t being allowed to count against the view, even in principle, then there can be no grounds by which to discriminate between an infinite number of asinine views. Clearly there is something deeply mistaken about a view that implies that there can be no rational grounds for preferring one hypothesis over any other. And now we can begin to see just how serious the cost of taking the NLT view is. Defending God, if we can call it that, in this fashion means giving up the rules that make belief, thought, and reasoning themselves possible. it’s the sort of thing you can say, but you can’t really be serious about because the very act of asserting it makes it clear that what you are asserting is nonsense.

Matt McCormick

Believing in God is Immoral

It’s frequently argued that unless a person believes in God, they can’t or won’t be moral. If the threat of divine punishment and the promise of heavenly reward are removed, humans, sensing that no one is minding the shop, will rape, pillage, plunder and otherwise misbehave with wild abandon. Alternately, many people think that moral prescriptions cannot arise from purely natural sources—if we are only fancy, evolved monkeys, if we are nothing but physical creatures, then there can be nothing governing us except the law of the jungle. So many people think that only by believing in God will we be restrained enough to be moral.

We need to turn that argument around completely. Not only is it possible to be a moral person without a belief in God, there are some very good reasons for thinking that in many cases believing in God is itself actually immoral.

In general, isn’t it a bad thing to believe a claim that :

1. you know is false,
2. contributes to the confusion or false beliefs of others,
   
3. encourages supernatural, spooky, non-critical, fuzzy-headed thinking,
   
4. fosters fear and anxiety.
5. creates complacence about social problems, social policy, and the future of humanity on this planet.
   
6. undermines the advancement of science
7. contributes to the stagnation of human progress.
8. encourages a historically outdated, over-simplified worldview.
9. stalls our progress in dealing with new, complicated and important moral issues
   
10. has no good evidence in its favor.
    
11. encourages cultural and ethnic strife.
12. gives people false hopes.
13. is self-deluding.
14. fosters fear, confusion, and fuzzy, magical thinking in children.
    
15. fosters false beliefs in children.
16. impedes children’s acquisition of our most important, modern advancements in knowledge.
17. is a case of akrasia:
    

The ancient Greek concept of akrasia is acting against one’s better judgment or having a weakness of will. Consider the heroin junky, or the smoker who is trying to quit, or the alcoholic. In their clearer moments, they can see what's wrong with their lives. They know that quitting is the sensible thing to do. But those needs creep up, the rationalizations start gaining traction, rational thought lapses, and he finds himself with a hypodermic or a cigarette in his hand. The psychological, emotional, and physical desires are too strong, and the intellectual habits, the fortitude of will, and his resolve are too weak.

Isn’t it true that one does something blameworthy or bad if one succumbs to believe those things that we want to believe when we know full well that the belief is undermined by the evidence. If out of a weakness of will, you allow yourself to believe something because of your emotional, psychological, or social needs, but not because you see good reasons in the form of evidence for it, aren’t you letting yourself down? You are letting all of us down. You are condoning believing in that way, you are lowering the bar for yourself and for everyone else, you are acknowledging that you cannot or you will not submit your beliefs to the arbitration of reason.

And isn’t it also true that your belief in God fits many, most, or all of these conditions? The problem for those with the religious urge is that culturally we have widely endorsed sloppy, indulgent, irrational thinking, especially when it comes to religion. There's a church on every corner trying to draw them in. And we've all elevated the abdication of reason in matters of God to a noble virtue instead of rejecting it for the dangerous and demeaning practice that it is. Most people, when they are being clear headed and thoughtful, know that there are no good evidence in favor of theism, and there is a lot of evidence contradicting it. But, many people want there to be a God. They hope that he's listening to their prayers. They don't think they could face life without him.

So they permit themselves to "believe in" God in the "hope" sense of "believe." ("I believe that my husband will make it home safely from Iraq.") But we don't usually distinguish carefully between that sense of "believe" and the "I believe because the evidence indicates that it is true" sense of believe. (NASA says, "We believe that there is no water on the moon.") And the comforting, hoping kind of belief settles in naturally. Then we find ourselves surrounded by like minded people who feel the need to believe(h). No one is comfortable acknowledging their weaknesses, and no one wants to attribute flagrant irrationality to themselves. So in time, hoping beliefs slip into a stronger kind of belief. We talk ourselves into thinking that it really is true that God exists. We hear others acknowledging our belief and our needs. And they encourage us to be strong, to have faith, to sustain that belief. We rationalize, we blur, and we feel more and more strongly that this thing that we want to believe really isn't just a hope, it's correct, it's the truth.

What originated as something that we knew wasn't true but we hoped was true anyway exploits a weakness of the will and becomes a belief that we think is true and that we think there's good evidence for. The drug works its way into the crevasses of your reason. You find a way to get what you want and placate your reason: you believe because you hope it is true, and you enslave your reason to making it seem like it’s a legitimate claim to the truth.

What we need is a twelve step program for God beliefs and religiousness.

Matt McCormick

Atheists believe that everything is an accident

Religious people like to say that atheists believe everything is an "accident". But an accident would require a mind in the first place, which had intent. So by saying that atheists believe everything is an accident is implying that atheists believe in a designer, who strayed from it's intent, which is clearly not the position of an atheist, by definition, who does not believe in the existence of any deities that had intent or made an accident.

If there are no gods, then our existence is neither accidental or intentional. It just is. We are the ones who are speculating on whether it's an acccident or intentional, which is irrelevant because from what we can tell, our existence is not the result of a sentient mind.

What are your qualifications?

This is the fallacy that if someone has not studied or been educated in a particular topic on a high enough level, then that person not allowed to criticize that topic of interest at all.

It is deemed a fallacy for the reason that information is legitimate or illegitimate without needing the person stating it to be an expert or even authoritative. If someone is an expert then they may know more on the subject, may be more likely to be correct or be more believable, but that doesn't discredit the information.

Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs?

Everyone does have their own beliefs, but all beliefs are not equally valid nor do they equally reflect reality. An incorrect belief may occasionally be harmless, but it can also directly result in negative consequences (unnecessary guilt, bigotry, racism, oppression, strife, silencing of dissent, the death of the innocent, etc.)

Beliefs direct and guide our actions, and incorrect beliefs can lead to actions that increase harm, both for the individuals holding a particular belief and those around them. A perfect example of this is the preventable deaths of children at the hands of those who wait for a god to heal instead of taking their children to a doctor. If someone dies because their faith kept them from seeking medical treatment, it is tragic. It is far more so when an innocent child is lost due to their parent’s ignorance and their reliance on a belief that is not supported by logic, evidence or reason.

Another example of beliefs harming others is the oppression and hatred directed at homosexuals, atheists and others.

A belief or opinion that is based on lies, falsehoods or misunderstandings will have consequences. It is better that our beliefs and opinions reflect the world around us, and it is often necessary to change our beliefs as new evidence becomes available.