RE

RE: Atheism and Atheist: Rational Judgment?

Avijit Roy

It is a response to K. Rahaman's post published in NFB on 06th August, 2001

<K.Rahman:> First I am quoting Mr. Faisal Halim.

<Avijit :> Mr.Halim's wood and boat story is quite clearly refuted. My response is published in the same day (06th August) of your posting. Please check (I collected and put it in my web):

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/god_design_argument_avijit.htm

<K.Rahman:> My heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Hassan for his timely exposition

<Avijit:> Who is Hasan, BTW ? It was a posting of Mr. faisal Halim. Did I miss something?

<K.Rahman:> Atheists claims themselves to be the free thinkers and promote judging things based on rationality and not belief. God is someone whose existence cannot be proven in any way and so it is a hoax. Everything should be based on what exists and can be felt and dealt with.

<Avijit:> Scientifically it is. god (Islamic or not Islamic) is such an entity whose existence can not be proved from the material frame of reference. The entity, which cannot be proved from a material frame, is just a meaning less entity, an unnecessary concept even in philosophical or theological sense- as is ether a useless concept in physics.

I personally think, it is nonsense to say that nobody has proved the non-existence of god. Why ? if you believe that the god exists, it is you who have to bring the scientific proof, cause, it is your duty to establish your concept, not my duty to disprove it in the first place. This is called "BURDEN OF PROOF". The burden of proof is always resides on the person making an extraordinary assertion or proposition (for e.g existence of god, angel, devil, alien etc.). It is a fallacy to push the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions such an assertion.

So, How can you convince an atheist about god ? Very simple. A clear definition of 'God', plus some objective and compelling supporting evidence, would be enough to convince many atheists. The evidence must be objective, though; anecdotal evidence of other people's religious experiences isn't good enough. And strong, compelling evidence is required, because the existence of God is an extraordinary claim -- and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also don't forget about "Occam's Razor" while arguing - "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

<K.Rahman:> Ask an atheist where he came from all on a sudden from nothing and where he ends up after a certain period of time. He should explain his beginning and end. If he ignores this very key to his own existence, he is just denying rationality and has no authority to speak of free thinking or rational thinking.

<Avijit:> Similarly an atheist also may argue- ask a believer how god created the universe? From where he got his material ? "Out of nothing". Ask a believer how god was created ? answer you will always get -"Oh ! he was always there !". So if you again ask, then why not our universe ? The answer - "Oh ! Universe is so complex, it cannot be accidental - it does need a creator!".

So, The first, most common, and most obvious objection to a believer's arguments is the fact that any god which would have been able to create the universe would itself have to be rather complex and certainly couldn't be "accidental." So, if the universe and the human body is too complex to be accidental, what about this god? Who or what created this god? The theist will normally respond by claiming this god is a "necessary being" and doesn't need a "creator." Unfortunately, this is totally unsupported and totally unsupportable. There is no basis for such an arbitrary assertion, except to try to excuse their god from the same standards they wish to apply to the universe. However, any excuse made for this god can be equally work for the universe. Why can't the universe be "necessary" or not need a "creator?" No one can say - after all, we really don't know enough about our universe or universes in general to make such a judgment.

You can read the following two articles for your reference:

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/avijit_response_mukul.htm

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/aparthib_response_mukul.htm

<K.Rahman:> If he still promotes so called free thinking, then that is arrogancy! Boundless arrogancy against all sense of logical and rational approach.

<Avijit:> Why arrogancy ? So you think that your blind faith would be the only solution ? You have to prove before calling the opponent "arrogant".

<K.Rahman:> If you are here not because you wanted to and you cannot stay here as long as you want to, what gives you authroity to take up command to claim sovereignty? Your entry and exit is not in your hand. Does someone control that?

<Avijit:> So, what is your point ? Entry can be controlled ! Have you heard about birth control pill !! (ha ha !! just joking !)

For exit- are you referring that we cannot avoid death so, we have to accept the existence of god ? Is that what you want to say ? Well, first of all you must understand - Why do we die? In short because we (i.e most plants and animals) have inherited through evolution death genes from our protist (single celled organisms with nucleus) ancestors that took to reproduction through sex purely due to a better evolutionary survival strategy in tough primitive environments. Death is brought about in a programmed way by certain genes (death genes). Those few life forms (bacteria) that did not and still do not reproduce sexually are immortal (See, even your God cannot kill them !) , barring accidental deaths. So if I answer you in a very lucid way, it will be...those developed organic species who has chosen sex as a means for reproduction, they eventually have accepted the inevitable death, and those who can reproduce themselves without having the need of any sexual means .. are immortal (When their body grows to a certain size, the whole body divides into two. Each part grows again. When it attains the adult size, it divides in its turn into two again. Thus no part of the body dies). So...Death is not the universal condition of all living beings. They can however be killed by some chemicals. In fact man made medicines (drugs) can kill these germs to cure the diseases caused by them, like malaria and dysentery. You have to understand evolution process before making any comment, Mr. Rahman.

<K.Rahman:> Who is going to buy such nonsense?

<Avijit:> First of all who is here talking "nonsense" ?

<K.Rahman:>What does your tiny existence of few decades [at best] signify in this universe extending billions of light years and the time domain of millions of years starting from the unimaginable past and stretching to ever extending future? There were millions of people before you and many of them were very very powerful. They are now nobody and disappeared in the vast domain of time and space. ]

<Avijit:> So, what's your point ? Does it some how prove the existence of god ?

<K.Rahman:> How then you dare to take up command on your own?

<Avijit:> So what should I say instead taking up command of my own ? "Allah koray, aami kori?" - is that the solution?

<K.Rahman:> There are so many injustice going on. Robbers are robbing and enjoying life. Innocent people are often being robbed, tortured and are suffering without any remedy or justice. This is contrary to the behavior of nature. Obviously if there is no reaction or remedy here, there must be some other place where justice will take place and that leads to the undeniable truth that there is a God and an afterworld!

<Avijit:> We Humanists do not stand before god but before man and must account for our actions in this world. We try to give peace to poor people, try to give them rights in present world. We examine the case of economic discrimination and exploitation from rational point of view and we are dedicated to establish justice in present life. We neither indicate their sufferings as the "test of god" nor we try to convert or transfer their demand of justice wickedly to afterlife. The first result of atheistic morality is the establishment of economic and social equalities at present (not wait for the judgment form god in afterlife, but trying to do so in present life). As all humans belong to the same kind, inequality is inconsistent with morality. But the indirect appeals to the fatherhood of god for justice failed to achieve the purpose. Moreover, we are not convinced by the cheap benefit that a believer expect in afterworld for the good deeds. We are not like you expecting those X-rated version of heavenly bliss (eternal huri, wine, sex, lust...) described in your religious scriptures in afterlife.- those stories which are full of carnal gratification, sensual pleasures are reserved for man. Rationalists are not convinced by those cheap fairy tales !

For Humanists the afterlife is what you leave behind in other people, what good things you did for the society.

<K.Rahman:> Ha atheism! Ha atheists!!

<Avijit:> Ha Rahman, Ha Allah !

<K.Rahman:> The fact remains that there are die hard atheists who will plug their ears and shut their eyes when the ultimate revealing truth is shown. Afteworld they will appear and again start playing that bigoted broken record of fallacy!!

<Avijit:> It's clearly understood who is playing that bigoted broken record of fallacy!!

<K.Rahman:> They will randomly quote Koran and Hadith taking things out of context to slander Islam! They will propagate false debate with Montazeri!!

<Avijit:> I wonder, who is taking things out of context. If your book is really perfect one, you don't have to worry about such silly things, right?

<K.Rahman:> All their action is centered around Islam bashing. This simply expose them.

<Avijit:> Please give me proof, where I bashed Islam.

<K.Rahman:> Muslims are concerned about understanding and promoting Islam while atheists are busy attacking Islam. Why is it that they have to attack Islam? If their atheism is so strong and perfect a thing, why can't they promote it without attacking islam? Doesn't it show the hollow nature of atheism and the fearful mind of the atheist?

<Avijit:> In the whole conversation I neither used any verse from Quran, nor from hadith. So you see it is obviously possible to refute any theistic argument without so called "bashing Islam". Please also check some of our language quoted above. You would understand who's actually attacking !

<K.Rahman:> Islam is a giant mountain and such pelting of week hands are not felt at all!

<Avijit:> is it? Then why so worried, dear?

<K.Rahman:> Koran calls these people "Bling, Deaf and Dumb"!

<Avijit:> oh ! Now I see true face of Quran !

<K.Rahman:> All Muslims should just ignore them and concentrate on their own business and promote Islam as usual.

<Avijit:> Then you obviously either not a Muslim or you don't have any business to concentrate with !