On the atheists and the agnostics

I am pleasantly surprised by a person who calls herself an atheist who, as a designer and lover of delicious icings on cakes, was formerly a muslim. Muslims can’t be anything else than muslims – they must kill non-believers (i.e., who don’t believe in Islam and/or Koran, or even a part of it) following the dictats of Muhammed in the Koran, follow and retrace Muhammed’s life experiences in The Hadith and be subservient to what their priests call their law, The Shariah.
This blogger is Shaminam, and her blog is found here: https://www.blogger.com/profile/10484570296123138610 , with the title, The Passive Atheist.

There is a difference between an atheist and an agnostic. Atheists don’t tolerate believers, they oppose all kinds of believers. Atheists are bold, they tread the uncharted territories, rake up arguments on or against god(s) and actively practice their atheism. Agnostics are moderates. They allow others to practice their cults but stick to their own liberated existence.

The lady has to be really intelligent to have become free of the cultus and to have a lot of courage to remain free of blind faith, but she is not an atheist. Muslims generally are more intolerant towards their insiders who reject their faith than they are of the non-muslims.

Actually, strictly, Muslims were to be totally intolerant of non-muslims (the insiders, born in their cult, but rejecting it later, are also non-muslims). The Dar-al-Kitab title was a later addition, and appears to appease those religious-geographical groups — who were economically and militarily stronger than the muslims at the time — and settle down into a temporary uneasy peace.

Unfortunately, Islam originated in a barren land devoid of Brain nutrition (which are Alpha Lenolenic acid and Lenoleic acid). The muslims also constantly carry out a personal harakiri by denying their brains proper food at regular intervals (in fact unborn child in the womb is affected) for 40 days during their Ramadan and mindless rote-learning and analysing of their holy books. With these suicidal tendencies it is normal for them to believe in maritime discipline, structured, rigid hierarchy and aggressiveness. They compel their minds to find patterns where there is none.

This ensures that they remain in the lowest rational bracket. Wherever they have migrated and established their cultus on sword-power they have made that land devoid of large forests and replaced them with gardens. As if the gardens could rival trees in providing the earth with the same health benefits!

I have read a book, Will I Be Killed. In this book the author has collected all the Suras of the Koran that instigates believers to maim/plunder/kill the non-believers, for the Allah shall suitably reward them with plenty women and enjoyment!

Of course, the most important book for the Muslims, The Koran, sanctions violence against Non-Muslims and killing them as a pre-condition : it is the word of God. It is the comparatively lesser books like The Hadith and The Shariah that asks for soul-searching and debates before maiming, raping and killing.

Just think: If a strong voice was to say: Kill, and some feeble ones to say, Think Before Killing, to an emotionally-mentally conflicted Muslim, Kill is the Order that is to be followed. That is what is happening the world over.

In the middle of all these, here is a woman who is an agnostic! I bow to you, madam!

But do the passive agnostics serve a purpose for betterment of their rationalism? I believe the answer is NO. The agnostics are naturally self-restrained. They don’t return the hostilities they face, and they also don’t produce many children, but single, or two at most, quality children. Now, if two agnostics marry and produce only one child their population and bargaining powers will surely dwindle over the years, whereas the cultus-believers naturally outbreed the rationals and have more bargaining power in the long run.

Then, to the agnostics, my question is: What is the solution for this problem?

It is a well-documented fact that children of parents with better brains tend to have better brains! Generally, of course. [Disclaimer: Please don’t imagine more than what is written: it may well be that their children could be born as differently-abled. Such data is minuscule, but not zero. Simply, bad luck!
How you use your brain is a different issue, like how screwed your brain by ‘nurture’ is. But you tend to have a better brain than the rest if your parents were intelligent.
Chaos (randomness) and other factors conspire against this simplistic relationship.
The above doesn’t necessarily draw the same relationship regarding the opposite trait (dumbness). In fact, it may well be that a very small percentage of children of ‘normal’ parents may indeed become very bright.
This could be because of complementarity between two sets of distinct protein-making machinery. Singly the machinery might have been ineffective, but combined suitably, they might have the right proteins to build a better brain. … too complex to be dealt with here in its entirety. It is a complex Game of Genes, Evolution and Environment, but there are some strongly emergent correlations. (1) The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein & Charles Murray, (2) The Global_Bell Curve : Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide by Richard Lynn; etc., could be referred to.