As you know, I am just a curious occasional reader of Mukto-Mona group to which my son Avijit introduced me. Sorry for late reaction on your touchy article 'Why I remain an Atheist' which grew out of your bitter personal experience. How I appreciate your feelings, sensitiveness and frankness. In a personal or private life it is mot very difficult for one to be a non-believer, or non-practicing follower of a religion. But to denounce one's religion publicly and to severe all links from tradition, time honored religious customs continued to be in vogue in the name of social and cultural phenomena is a different thing. This needs courage and boldness. And this precisely you have shown, my young lady. I praise your courage.

The courage does not come out automatically or spontaneously; it emanates from knowledge, conviction about truth, and freethinking based on logic and scientific philosophy. It took you long twenty years, if not more, even with your social educational background. You are fortunate that you have been brought out in an enlightened family, even then as a women you have suffered mentally, intellectually by your religion. Now think of those girls living in  remote villages or in  bustees of the cities, think of their sufferings in the hand of the religionist guardians, and the fotowabaz's. These guardians may be your parents, your kith kin, so called   social leaders, or even your teachers. How can I expect that those poor girls, when I see many of my intellectual friends and students (women) , though at personal level liberal having not much faith in religion dare not to denounce religion publicly,  will denounce the religion and free from the tentacles of the religion. They surrender to their fate.  Crux of the problem lies there. Individually one may denounce his or her faith, as you have done or Avijit did,- but problem of emancipation from the clutches of religion is the biggest challenge of the 21^st century.

 No matter whether atheism is 'simply a belief in the non-existence of God' ( Javacrucian 7/19/01) or 'Atheism treats human beings as adults- religion does not. Atheism believes that humanists are capable of living a good life, and are capable of living a good life. " as you wrote, you have courageously declared yourself as an atheist. It is a matter of view how you accept atheism, - Javacrucian interpreted it in a restricted sense given in a dictionary, you have widened its scope and meaning to include humanism within its fold. (By the by I don't consider Stalin as a monster, whether he was an atheist or not. Javacrucian, I do not want to make a debate on this issue, please !)  Just a passing remarks about atheism. It originates from the Greek word atheos meaning without a god opposite to the word theos i.e. god. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. According to Bacon "A little philosophy inclienth men's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's mind to religion". The idealist philosophers have always attacked the atheists, Bacon is no exception. Young sarcastically remarked about them " By night an atheist believes a God". But I believe atheists are not that weak. To me atheism is not just like another religious faith or belief in which one is born or accept one for some personal material reason. As I said atheism springs from courage, muktta-mon  o mukta-budhi (free thinking  intellect).

We the physicist believe a basic principle very kin to agnosticism. This is a principle of impossibility, which slowly but steadily found place in physics. There are certain things in material phenomena, which can not be, achieved, prove or made by men. In thermodynamics there are two well known such principle: Impossibility of making  machine which generates perpetual motion impossibility of achieving the absolute zero degree temperature. There are other examples also: no material particle can exceed the speed of light c. Another is the Uncertainty principle according to which no two canonically related physical quantities can be measured with 100% certainty at a time. There are certain things whose existence cannot be proved by doing experiments in inertial frames: examples - existence of absoluteness of  space time. Take the case of ether an entity conceived by 18^th century physicists as a vehicle of propagation of light. But no experiment of physics  will prove its existence. God (Islamic or not Islamic) is such an entity whose existence can not be proved from the material frame of reference. Agnosticism is precisely the same principle: it is a doctrine of an agnostic- distinguished from atheism. Theologically speaking, the doctrine that God is unknown and unknowable. In philosophy, the doctrine that a first cause and the essential nature of things are unknowable to us the material human beings. G.J. Romanes has put it in a nice way "By agnosticism, I understand a theory of things which abstains from either affirming or denouncing the existence of God; all it undertakes to affirm is that, upon existing evidence, the being of God is unknowable." So as a Physicist I am an agnostic. The entity, which cannot be proved from a material frame, does not exist to me - it is a meaning less entity, an unnecessary concept even in philosophical or theological sense-  as is ether a useless concept in physics.  If now I declare myself an atheist, my atheism springs out from the principle of agnosticism, a principle based on physics; it is not just a faith or belief in the religious sense.

 Nadiya, atheism is just not the western concept. The counter part term in Indian Philosophy ( I used the term Indian Philosophy, not Hindu philosophy as Avijit has allergic reaction to the term Hindu ) is Nastikata or Nastibad ( disbelieving in God, the creator) This is also identical with Karmanam - denying the consequences of work ). Nastikata or atheism, as a philosophy  was developed by Dhisan before Gautam Budha. According to him the Universe exists, but not God, the creator; only eternal entity is the matter, and matter consists of four elements: earth, water, energy and air. The creation of life is a specific process of nature and it evolves out of the composite composition of four elements. With death all ends. Perception is the only direct proof of existence. 

 Agnosticism has also its origin in Indian philosophy. Sanjoy Belthiputta was probably the founder of this school of philosophy who flourished during the time of Lord Budha. According his philosophy it is impossible to say whether an after-world (heaven and hell ), the soul (atma) exists or not. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.  

Sorry Nadiya for giving a long lecture like your father. Thanks once again for your straightforward article. But as I cautioned Avijit as a loving father, a word of advice for you too: keep yourself alert, and take good care of yourself. Remember you have started a fighting against a very powerful demon who leaves no stone unturned to stop you, ridicule you and finally eliminate you. It is not just an intellectual battle. If you are in Bangladesh you are exposed to more danger. Think what happened to Taslima. We the secularists or humanists could not do much for her. Such is the power of fundamentalism in Bangladesh.

 Thanks to Abul Kasem, Javacrucican, Avijit, Satya Sondhani, Free Person Smith, Aparthib, Fatemolla  for giving you most needed support.

 With love,             

Ajoy Roy