Christianity is the worst religion. Islam is not as bad as Christianity. This is a common mistake done by a lot of people because they compare the punishments for crimes found in Islam to that found in Christianity (For example the laws found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus). But the problem with Islam is bigger than just stoning gay people to death, or stoning to death adult married people who commit adultery, it is in the mind control, inhibition, restrains, and restrictions found in Islam. For example, the Hijab. It is like Islam rewires Muslims to derive pleasure, become elated, and become ecstatic from exercising mental inhibition, mental suppression, and mental repression almost all of the time. Islam contains numerous chains on the mind, the thinking, the behavior, and the practice of people that represses and suppresses Muslims all the time. For example, the concept of being always watched and monitored by God 24/7. If you think that something in Islam doesn’t make sense, if you disagree with or you disobey an order from God, if you attempt to disobey God in your mind without having taken any action, if you doubted anything that came from God, if you questioned your fate or destiny that is determined by God, or if you committed any of the countless thought Crimes of/in Islam, even as trivial as loving, trusting, and being loyal to someone who is Christian or just not Muslim, you are threatened to be expelled from Islam or you are risking being no longer considered a Muslim by God, and then you would become an ex-Muslim, an apostate, and not only you are supposed to be executed by other Muslims as commanded by God, but you are one of those who deserve the lowest (that is, the worst) place in Hell where you will be tortured and where you will suffer for eternity more than anywhere else in all God’s creation. This is not the case with Christianity, at least not anymore, because Christianity itself has changed through a period of around 500 years. But in case of Islam, these chains cannot be broken, because – unlike Christianity – no human assumed to have figured out or determined that these things are what God told us, how God treats us, or what is Islam’s stance on these questions. In the Islamic religion, from or according to the Divine texts of Islam, like the Quran itself, it is established beyond the shadow of a doubt or without any degree of uncertainty or probability that every single letter and word in the Quran is the exact actual words of God the one and only creator of the Universe. If you attempt to change that then you are replacing God’s inerrant all-knowing eternal words that are valid for all time with someone else’s words (some created entity) and give them the same power, authority, value, and regard in terms of how they describe what Islam really is and what Islam really states and dictates to Muslims. There is also the idea that you can only enjoy something when or because it is not forbidden in Islam. It is like you are given your share of enjoyment. Feel happy because of this, you slave. It is like you are given permission to get pleasure from something. The problem isn’t just with the huge quantity of stuff that is forbidden in Islam, that makes you unable to breathe from how hugely you feel you are restricted from moving. It is in the part that is not forbidden. It is in the humiliation, the pity. How pathetic your life becomes, that you are just enjoying something because you are allowed to, ordered to, or supposed to enjoy it within limits, because you are not here to feel good albeit live your life to the fullest, but you are here to please God and worship him. You are here temporarily as a passenger on a Journey to heaven. Why would you care about anything that you are just passing by through your journey or on your way to your intended main destination? You are supposed to derive pleasure from what you are dictated you are not forbidden to derive pleasure from, the way God expects and orders you, with the quantity and quality that God defines and describes, and at the time and place that God told you that you are allowed to enjoy yourself doing the non-forbidden stuff in it. Happy now? You are being monitored while trying to feel good, because this isn’t what you are in this life and world for, and then you will be expected to stop at a certain moment because more than this is or will be exceeding the permitted limits of the allowed pleasures and the non-forbidden stuff in Islam. Poverty of thoughts and poverty of the mind is sure to become a result of adopting such belief systems. The result of which is indefinite dissatisfaction with one’s own life, and believing and feeling that nothing really matters, then why not direct this negative energy toward destroying everything that is good in this world, in the Universe, or in this first life. You cannot expect to cultivate a mentality of violence in someone with an ideology that matches that resulting from believing and following the ideology of the Islamic Religion.

One of the arguments Theists use to defend their claims of the necessity of the existence of a creator of the Universe is the fine Tuning argument. Everything is exactly as we need to be able to exist inside the universe. Everything and all conditions are perfectly adjusted to suit everything inside the universe in it and to suit the survival and growth of all living organisms on earth.

One of the absurdities of this argument is that God has made all this just to make life on earth possible. This in and of itself refutes the claim that God has made everything. Why would God go through all this just to produce such a result. Couldn’t God make a world that all living organisms on earth could survive in it without creating countless galaxies and all he created just to reach the same result? Theists might respond to that by stating that God wants to impress us with what he can do, with his powers and capabilities, so that we would believe in him. Well, if he really wants to convince us that he is omnipotent then he would show us that through stronger methods. Clearly he doesn’t want anyone to notice how powerful he really is or else he would have tried to demonstrate his powers, capabilities, and omnipotence to us in greater quantity and quality. He is not making anything that shows anyone that he is all powerful. Just stuff that was created long ago, and that’s it. He is not trying hard enough to show us his powers or omnipotence. So this makes the entirety of the universe and all that is in it except maybe our galaxy totally useless. Also, it means that God couldn’t have created a life sustaining planet without all that useless stuff, that is, he cannot create a planet like earth without having to create an entire useless universe in the process. So God is not doing a good job convincing us that he is all powerful, and the examples that he intended to convey this message to us (the message that he is omnipotent) through them work against proving this message to be true, that is, these examples further demonstrate how incapable he really is, or how he is not omnipotent.

Theists have a habit of walking down the street and pointing to something and saying see how great, complex, beautiful, and wonderful it is, therefore God (God created it, God is very Great, and God is powerful). It is ironic and embarrassing how a deeper look at the universe and everything that is in it leads to the conclusion of how God is not powerful at all or not powerful enough. That is, Not omnipotent.

The Universe is not fine tuned for us or for life on earth. We and all living organisms or all life on earth are fine tuned for the Universe. Notice that we are trying to develop technology all the time that would protect us from the harsh environment, just because it is not perfectly modified to suit us, to not harm us in any way, or to not make us suffer at all. If the universe was fine tuned for us we would be able to live in any kind of environment, at least somewhere or in some part of the environment, or at least in some kind of environment that exists on earth without any technology, without there being any degree of suffering to humans or to any living organism at all. This is not the case. It is so hard to survive on your own, with other people, or with a group of people in a harsh environment (without any kind of technology at all). This cannot be called a place that was made just for us or just to fit people like us. Also, countless other life forms suffer in that same environment that is best suited for them. On the other hand, there are countless extinct species that show how life was not so adapted, so adjusted, or so fine tuned to accommodate for them, to fit them, or to suit their survival and growth. That is aside from this meaning that God was just experimenting or entertaining himself with creating all those species to annihilate, exterminate, wipe out, or make them go extinct in the end, for no gain from that or for no benefit from that on how the environment would be perfect for the survival of all the current living species on earth.

The following is an exempt from an article made by Richard M. Smith as a review or response to a book called “Where the conflict really lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism” and this part of that article below refutes the fine tuning argument.

“Fine-tuning

Plantinga also invokes a ‘fine-tuning’ design argument, one which claims that the universe’s basic constants are so narrowly tailored to allow life that the only plausible explanation is divine design. But is all of that true? First, we don’t even know that the physical constants can be varied: they may be fixed to their values by more fundamental properties. Second, we don’t know that our universe is really that special. Universes with different fundamental constants could be unusual and interesting in different ways. Life could arise through different chemistries or under different physical laws. Physicist Victor Stenger modeled a wide range of possible constants, and many variations met a key prerequisite for life—star lifetimes long enough to generate high nuclear-weight elements.[10]

Third, there may be an overarching mechanism for producing many separate universes or regions with varying laws. Physicist Paul Davies says that “some version of a multiverse is reasonable given the current world view of physics.”[11] Plantinga strangely argues that even so, why our particular universe has life-friendly constants still requires explanation. But if you’re in a bridge tournament so large that it includes all possible deals, then it’s no longer unusual that some people are dealt amazing hands. Once you add to this that we could only be in universes that are life-friendly, no further explanation is needed.[12]

But let us grant for the sake of argument that there is only one universe, the constants can vary widely, and our universe is the only vaguely interesting outcome of those variations. Even so, a very unlikely outcome does not support the inference that our universe’s features are due to some nonrandom process like design.[13] If a large number of outcomes is possible and any one of them is unlikely, then maybe our particular unlikely event simply happened. Then again, maybe it wasn’t as unlikely as we think. Cosmologist Stephen Hawking writes: “[T]he present state of the universe could have arisen from quite a large number of different initial configurations…. [which] shows that the initial state of the part of the universe that we inhabit did not have to be chosen with great care.”[14] And how plausible is Plantinga’s preferred alternative—that an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, immaterial, immanent being simply existed from all time, no explanation necessary? For his part, after mounting a defense that does not address the key objections adequately, Plantinga nonetheless concludes that he can’t put much weight on the fine-tuning argument.” ~ Alvin Plantinga Can’t Say That, Can He?
A Review of Where the Conflict Really Lies (2016) by Richard M. Smith