The same reasons that Christians reject Islam by applying are also reasons that they can reject Christianity with or because of. Islam makes claims that mean Christians who reject Islam after Islam being presented fully to them will be sentenced to an eternity in Hell due to them being considered infidels by God. Still Christians do not become Muslims despite all this because there is not enough proof or enough evidence of the claims made by Islam about Christianity being a religion that should not be believed in or followed after Islam came to this world. Also, there isn’t enough proof or evidence of the claims made by Christianity as a religion. That kind of thinking is not applied by Christians when it comes to judging their own religion. It its either Islam is correct about its claims or not. And Islam and Christianity are both mutually exclusive, you cannot believe one of them without rejecting the other as a true religion from God, not because the idea itself is impossible and tolerance is something they both fail to adhere to or practice, but because both religions contain teachings that indicate that the other religion is wrong about a lot of its claimed to be inerrant and divinely inspired statements and principles. The reasons by which either of the two religions reject the other religion despite these strong claims, without them following the other religion anyway because it is too risky to ignore such huge threats that would make them suffer for an eternity in the after life could be applied to reject their own faith and religion in turn, but neither of them go this far. Whatever reasons a Christian is not a Muslim this Christian can also be a non-Christian (that is, leave Christianity, no longer be a Christian, become an Ex-Christian, abandon Christianity, or reject Christianity) because of them and this is also the case for any Muslim. (Whatever reasons a Muslim is not a Christian this same Muslim can also be a non-Muslim (that is, leave Islam, stop believing in or following Islam, become an ex-Muslim, reject Islam, or abandon Islam) because of them). This is just the religion they happened to favor and defend because it is their religion, (like in they happened to be Christians, Muslims, Jews, or be believers and followers of any religion) not because it is the religion they chose and carefully hand picked because they were convinced that this is the one true religion or that this religion is inspired from a God to people but only because this is the religion they found themselves believing in and following out of all other religions out there.

There is a problem here that many atheists or religious non-believers don’t seem to get. It is commonly stated by atheists that they just took it one God further. They rejected just another God in addition to all the gods rejected by most monotheists out there including Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This is not accurate simply because there is a barrier between believing that there are Supernatural beings responsible for all there is to be the way it is, and the absence of that supernatural being or those supernatural beings. Combining all the numerous Gods into one God changes nothing in terms of how everything there is originated or came to existence or how the universe and all that is in it run or are managed or work. Who controls everything? Not just who created everything. Who does what he wants and what he wills and can change anything he wants the way he wants? It is not just about the origin of the Universe and the origin of anything in the Universe. In atheism you change all your beliefs and explanations for all of that, and you almost change your beliefs and explanations of everything there is. And this requires a massive increase in the knowledge of the atheist person to be able to become an atheist who is not just ignorant to why he should have been religious, but someone who understood that it turned out that atheism is the truth and that atheism explains everything. This does not occur in the transfer from polytheism to monotheism. Just canceling a large number of Gods to claim that only one God does all their jobs and responsibilities and work alone on his own without assistance or interference from any other entity whatsoever. So by understanding this, you now know that I do not believe that Atheism is just taking the process of canceling Gods one God further, it annihilates the concept of the necessity and the actual existence of any God whatsoever. And that in and of itself is an active positive affirmation and belief, not just the lack of one. Yes, anyone who doesn’t believe in God or lacks the belief in God is an Atheist, but atheism cannot be reached without actively rejecting the entirety of any kind of theistic claim to the necessity of the belief in the existence of any God, albeit following the religion delivered from this God to humanity for all time and worshiping this God or those Gods.

It is not that it is bad to follow the good stuff that is in The Bible or The Koran, if there is any. It is that it is bad to believe that this good stuff is the literal and actual inerrant word of a God that was divinely inspired to one human or to some humans who transferred this light to the entirety of humans or some group of people or community of people. It is that we should believe not just in that content and these teachings and principles but we should believe that this content and that these teachings and principles are what God told us to believe in and follow, or else we will suffer the consequences of disobeying God.

Religious believers actually hold their religious beliefs because they think they are true, not because it makes them feel good or comfortable. The problem with many criticisms of religion is that they just provide the believers with proof of their religious texts being wrong, incorrect, not from a divine origin, are all man made, and they should not adhere to them or consider them the inerrant word of god. Still they do not provide them with any kind of replacement for these obsolete and deceptive philosophies. Like when K told J in the original Men in Black movie: we were not looking for a partner, we were looking for a replacement. Where is the replacement of religion? Secularism is a replacement of the methods of religion in terms of how you get to what you count as what should be implemented in your life and the life of the whole society, community, and humanity in general. Secularism in and of itself does not provide the content that would replace or even match and rival that provided by religion, even if the latter should not be trusted because it turned out to be made by people who claim that what they say is of divine origin or inspired to them by God word by word. It is like you are offering them staying naked in public instead of offering them a different kind of clothes to wear. Like telling them such laws are oppressive and should be abandoned, without providing them with any other laws that are worthy of following, leaving them to cancel each other in the resultant anarchy, void, or nihilism. There may be laws that govern the criminal Justice system but what about the laws or teachings that we are going to live our lives by, albeit function neurologically, mentally, psychologically, emotionally, and physically through integrating them internally inside our system.
The problem of religious moderates is that they make it okay not to criticize religious fundamentalists because they claim that the version of religion adopted by religious extremists and fundamentalists to be false and not what religion actually means. It’s an incorrect version of religion, or an incorrect interpretation of religion. This or that are just metaphorical. They took it literally or seriously. It is their fault, and religion has nothing to do with such understandings. You know the drill. Religion will then always be regarded as innocent and irresponsible for any problem, and will always be considered as having nothing to do with anything that we criticize about religion, because there is a huge number or percentage of those who claim to be religious believers are moderates and do not necessarily believe in what these extremists or fundamentalists hold to be the actual truth and what religion really means, and so religion will be considered not what it actually is, and religion will be defended by people who don’t actually follow or believe anything in religion, but still prevent any criticism of religion by anyone because such people who do not believe or follow any of the aspects or parts of any religion that is being criticized exist without thinking that there is any problem with that religion and that those criticisms are not a criticism of the real religion but of an unapproved and an invalid version of it, despite it being the only version of religion there is. So we got here religious moderates diluting any problem with religion and deflecting, dodging, or blocking any attack on religion, while they are in fact not believing or following most of the religion(s) they claim they believe in or follow, and always defend religion by saying that religion is not that bad, only the extremist or fundamentalist version of it is, instead of abandoning religion altogether, or let us criticize and expose the real and only version of it out there.

So in front of us here are people who have either abandoned religion in its entirety without them believing or following any kind of alternative philosophy and body of laws, concepts, ideas, principles, pieces of advice, lessons, any helpful material, any words, or any source at all, or people who are strictly adhering to the word of God detailed in their religious texts (the religious extremists and religious fundamentalists), or people who don’t follow or believe in most of what is found in any religious text there is but still call themselves religious believers (which are the religious moderates), and still do not follow or believe in anything else outside the realm of religious texts (and whatever sources or words that build upon them and are based upon them being true and the inerrant word of God) except their hearts to run their lives. Everybody is happy. Everybody is deceiving himself/herself into feeling good and blocking his/her negative emotions. And everybody is just lost. And they are all enjoying their lives, or are barely trying to get by, and abuse whatever is available in front of them to function and survive, without an operating system to run them.

It is usually argued by theists that if you can explain how could everything in the universe be not created or that everything in the universe do not require a creator to come to existence the way it is, you still cannot explain how the universe itself came to existence. Everything had a previous cause and came from something else preceding it but what started all this? Why is there matter at all? Why is there a universe that kept developing until all the stars, planets, and galaxies within it were developed gradually on their own? From where did the matter that initially made all this up come from? Who created the universe? Who created any matter in the universe? And then Theists claim that God is responsible for all this. If you are going to assume that nothing was created in its current form from the start by a God, but has developed or evolved from something else preceding it gradually, whether this thing is biological or non-biological, you cannot explain the initial stuff that from which everything there is came from or started to deviate or develop from. But this criticism can be refuted by the understanding that matter need not be created to come to existence. That is aside from responding to the statement of “if everything has a cause, then who caused the universe and what’s in it?” If it is assumed to be God, then who created or caused this God?

Beautifully explained, the following is how the existence of matter is not proof of the existence of God and that matter does not require to be created by a God to come to existence.

 

“Until early in the twentieth century, there were strong indications that one or more miracles were required to create the universe. The universe currently contains a large amount of matter that is characterized by the physical quantity we define as mass. Prior to the twentieth century, it was believed that matter could neither be created nor destroyed, just changed from one type to another. So the very existence of matter seemed to be a miracle, a violation of the assumed law of conservation of mass that occurred just once—at the creation.
However, in his special theory of relativity published in 1905, Albert Einstein showed that matter can be created out of energy and can disappear into energy. What all science writers call “Einstein’s famous equation,” E = mc2, relates the mass m of a body to an equivalent rest energy, E, where c is a universal constant, the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, a body at rest still contains energy.
When a body is moving, it carries an additional energy of motion called kinetic energy. In chemical and nuclear interactions, kinetic energy can be converted into rest energy, which is equivalent to generating mass.3 Also, the reverse happens; mass or rest energy can be converted into kinetic energy. In that way, chemical and nuclear interactions can generate kinetic energy, which then can be used to run engines or blow things up.
So, the existence of mass in the universe violates no law of nature. Mass can come from energy. But, then, where does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.
However, neither observations nor theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, “In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.4 Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.5
A close balance between positive and negative energy is predicted by the modern extension of the big bang theory called the inflationary big bang, according to which the universe underwent a period of rapid, exponential inflation during a tiny fraction of its first second.6 The inflationary theory has recently undergone a number of stringent observational tests that would have been sufficient to prove it false. So far, it has successfully passed all these tests.
In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occurred. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.
This example also serves to once more refute the assertion that science has nothing to say about God. Suppose our measurement of the mass density of the universe had not turned out to be exactly the value required for a universe to have begun from a state of zero energy. Then we would have had a legitimate, scientific reason to conclude that a miracle, namely, a violation of energy conservation, was needed to bring the universe into being. While this might not conclusively prove the existence of a creator to everyone’s satisfaction, it would certainly be a strong mark in his favor.” ~ Victor J. Stenger.

It is commonly argued that it is too unconvincing that the entire universe and all that is in it arrived to existence through mere chance. It is mistakenly believed by a lot of theists that natural selection is a theory of chance although in fact it is the opposite. Everything that exists in the universe and even the universe itself is statistically impossible to be the way it is or to come to existence through chance. Regardless of how impossible the thing that you are trying to explain through it being created by an intelligent designer or intelligent creator, the creator or designer himself will be just as impossible to come to existence by chance or without having been designed by an intelligent designer or intelligent creator as well. There is nothing more improbable to not have been created without a creator or a designer more than God himself. Design is not the only alternative to chance. If chance is improbable then so is design, because in case of design, it would always be returning back to chance to explain the designer, which is deemed improbable by theists, and so the other alternative to the designer or creator coming to existence by chance is that the creator or designer was in turn created or designed by another entity or creator or designer. This is why invoking an intelligent creator or intelligent designer regresses us back to the original problem of all there is having come to existence through chance, as long as you deny that the original creator or God or designer didn’t come to existence through being created or designed by another entity or intelligent creator or intelligent designer as well. Aside from Natural Selection having been proven to be what has actually occurred in our real world, theoretically it can explain how something that is too improbable to have emerged by chance came to be or came to exist. Natural selection works. Or at least it would work if it were real. Unlike creationism or chance or design as alternative explanations to something that is statistically almost impossible to occur or be the way it is now. Something could have existed without being impossible to exist through chance. But if this probability is too low, because it is too complex, or very complex to emerge through coincidence, then an alternate explanation is sought. One cannot explain how something that is too complex to have come to existence through chance came to existence by stating that it was created or designed by a creator or designer because this attempts to explain it through a way that leads to chance being the end explanation of it (which is the case of design or creation). On the other hand there is another explanation or theory that can explain that very great improbability without resorting to something that would end up explaining that problem through chance. Natural Selection succeeds at this attempt. Through chunking or dividing, the collective impossible becomes a series of tiny improbabilities that are not too impossible to occur in the real world. Evolution happened gradually through some countless tiny steps that took place through a very long time interval the total of which has led to what seems to be impossible to occur in one step, and this is how the end result we have today concerning the universe and any entity or anything inside the universe managed to make it to being that complex without having been created or designed. It is now not too improbable to reach those huge results. Because it didn’t happen all in one giant step or jump, but through a large number of small steps that each of which isn’t impossible to take place separately or alone in the real world. Just as this was possible with Biological Evolution, this could also be possible with the physical world that is outside the realm of Biology.

“Once again, intelligent design is not the proper alternative to chance. Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible, and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested. Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself (/herself/itself) immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman’s Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman’s Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance.

Creationist “logic” is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe-inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a designer must have done it. And science’s answer to this faulty logic is also always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution, it is a solution of stunning elegance and power.

What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance. It is these end products that form the subjects of the creationist’s wearisomely recycled argument. The creationist completely misses the point, because he (women should for once not mind being excluded by the pronoun) insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn’t understand the power of accumulation.

Do not just declare things to be irreducibly complex; the chances are that you haven’t looked carefully enough at the details, or thought carefully enough about them. The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory. Darwin himself said as much: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” Darwin could find no such case, and nor has anybody since Darwin’s time, despite strenuous, indeed desperate, efforts. Many candidates for this holy grail of creationism have been proposed. None has stood up to analysis.
In any case, even though genuinely irreducible complexity would wreck Darwin’s theory if it were ever found, who is to say that it wouldn’t wreck the intelligent design theory as well? Indeed, it already has wrecked the intelligent design theory, for, as I keep saying and will say again, however little we know about God, the one thing we can be sure of is that he would have to be very very complex and presumably irreducibly so!” ~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

Okay, a lot of Muslims make a distinction between Jews as people or a race and Israel as a country or Jewish state, to win a debate and not look bad while attacking Israel, by saying they want to obliterate Israel out of existence because they occupied Palestinian territory back in 1948. Of course there is a religious based grudge and eternal hatred to Jews as people in the Core of the religion of Islam, but Muslims always dodge the necessity to answer for that by playing the occupation of originally Islamic territory by Jews card. Muslims state that Just because that occupation took place long ago doesn’t mean they give up on their land at present or for all time. They still regard this as a case of colonialism. Palestine is now considered to be just another western colony in the mind of almost all Muslims. A thorn at the back of Arabs to halt their prosperity, development, and flourishing. It is frequently blamed for all of their underdevelopment, suffering, problems, and anything bad that happens to any Arabian or Middle Eastern country. Everything is because of Israel and America and the west. The Evil western civilization. The Infidels. Like Russia and China are just lovely and are not related to anything bad or any harm that occurs in the Middle East, only the west is to be hated. It is unbelievably surprising that the regressive extreme Left wingers of the west adopt the same beliefs and stances stated here. Israel is just an excuse by America and western nations or Non-Muslim developed nations to bomb here and there in the Middle East at will. It would be a different case if Jews gathered in some unknown island in the middle of the Pacific ocean or something and founded their own Jewish state or country there. Muslims wouldn’t chase Jews to the ends of the earth or to another planet just to exterminate Jews and hunt them down to extinction (at least this is what they claim or maybe because it is not possible or the costs and harms of pursuing that quest outweighs the possibility or chance of victory at this excursion). It is like this Krogan saying: Wanna go to (some place) in Citadel Station? And The other Krogan asks: Why? To kill Turians? Muslim children fantasize about getting a chance to kill Jews and Israeli people some day when they grow up or when an opportunity presents itself. It is almost as if their governments are what is preventing them from fulfilling that wish or from going into full scale war with Israel with the intent to wipe out all Israel and all the Jews out of existence for good. Why isn’t there a chance to be in some battle or war like any of the battles or wars waged at the time of The prophet of Islam? It is always holy to kill the enemies of Allah in Islam and the Jews as people and as a race are the inherent eternal enemies of Allah. Denying that this is what almost all Muslims believe is just burying your head under the sand. But the problem is they often justify their stance against the state of Israel being where it is in the Middle east by the argument of “They took our land”. Muslims believe the land that Israel is now standing on is Arabic or Muslim or Palestinian land that has been kidnapped or snatched or taken by force from them since 1948. What makes Jews have no right to the land they now call their own country or Jewish state of Israel? Are you with or against the continued existence of the State of Israel where it is now in the Middle East and why?

Don’t trust your opinion about life or virtually anything, when your conditions and circumstances are terrible. If your mind is trapped, your thoughts will be trapped and restrained as well. Only through fixing your environmental and circumstancial issues and problems, that is, setting yourself free, will you be able to obtain a valid, accurate, trustworthy, reliable, opinion that deserves your attention and interest, about anything there is, including even figuring out that you were miserable and stuck, that your life sucked in its entirety, and including your thoughts and views about whether or not life is worth living, or whether or not it matters to pursue extraordinary quality of life, standards, and well-being. Your Suffering negatively affects and clouds your judgment.

The entire idea of shutting down your thinking because it is bad, negative mostly, and a huge source and contributor to our suffering is dangerous to say the least. If anything, meditation is more harmful than it is beneficial. It is based on suppression of your intelligence and suppression of the truth. It is okay to just sit there and relax while listening to music. But don’t stop or terminate every thought that arises. Instead, be on top of it, watch it, and be understanding of why it is coming to you. The only way to realize something new, get an idea, or come up with a solution to a problem is to either actively and consciously think about it or receive something about it (a preformed thought, result, conclusion, or answer) from your mind or brain that has figured it out on its own unconsciously. Arbitrarily suppressing or repressing that will hide all this from you, depriving you from knowing anything and depriving you from benefiting from your thoughts. Being able to relax while awake doesn’t make your entire day like a sprint without a moment of recovery or regeneration. It is so powerful to be able to decrease the amount of brain work and brain effort that is being exerted throughout your day, while you are awake (that is, outside of your sleeping or that is in addition to what occurs already during sleeping). We don’t have to mediate to reach that. There is relaxation or resting while doing nothing, really nothing at all, not even suppressing, repressing, controlling, caring about, or modifying your thoughts in any way. It is like creating without editing. Just do not exert any kind of mental effort, brain effort, brain work, or brain energy usage or spending whatsoever for quite some time (while you are resting but not sleeping). This is aside from the decreased brain working that occurs while sleeping. Any kind of benefit that comes from mediation might be attributed to resting that is a result of not being engaged in anything that requires any mental effort or energy (not even thinking). Do not inhibit the thoughts or inhibit thinking. Let the creation happen. Just don’t take it seriously or care about it. Do not edit anything. You will then rest and regenerate without sacrificing your intelligence and creativity in the process. Well rested people are capable of doing wonders. It is not because meditation made them better in any way. It is just that they got nothing to lose because they are so well rested that is it is almost impossible for them to be exhausted or fatigued or be energy drained and if they are anywhere near exhaustion or fatigue they would return or go back to mediation. At that time your brain actually repairs itself, in a way that is different from sleeping because your brain is shut down mostly while you are sleeping so it doesn’t fix and repair itself as efficiently or the exact same way. Resting while awake gives you the chance to recover at any moment during the day and catch your breath, and not just operate on maximum except when you are sleeping. You cannot hope to sprint maximally if you are not willing to really rest a little bit afterwords to catch your breath and calm your heart beating. You will not be able to initiate the sprint or massive workout without hope of totally resting and recovering from it afterwards. This is a major source of power and capability. People who are not like this are just jogging non-stop the entire day, and wonder why they feel tired all the time. They never rest except when they are asleep. How would they enjoy the beauty of the world or the beauty of life and have any kind of awareness or mindfulness or depth and richness of experience? They are barely making it through the day, just surviving.