Response: Form your definition, one can find that not only atheism but also Marxism falls in the same category which you always love to propagate as a tool to 'abuse' capitalism and west each and every day. But ironically I am not calling you fundamentalist, fools, ignorant etc. On the contrary, I support your stand against imperialism.

Response: Kindly do not try to relate me with each and every writers. MM has more that 2500 members. I do not subscribe to each and every writers philosophy. Attacking Islam is not my favorite cup of tea. Unlike some anti-islamic (in your terms), I cover many topics and subject including women lib and feminism, metaphysics, evolution,  origin of life, history of science, ancient civilization, literature and many others. My of my write-ups are regularly being published in BD newspapers, books and reputed journals. I just don't write on Islam or any particular religion as a whole.

Response: Democratic secular humanism has been proven to be a powerful force in world culture. Its ideals can be traced to the philosophers, scientists, and poets of classical Greece and Rome, to ancient Chinese Confucian society, to the Carvaka movement of India, and to other distinguished intellectual and moral traditions. This philosophy has creatively flowered in modern times with the growth of freedom and democracy. Countless millions of thoughtful persons have espoused secular humanist ideals, have lived significant lives, and have contributed to the building of a more humane and democratic world. I follow that path of secular humanism by choice (to clarify, Secular humanists accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other "spiritual" beings outside the realm of the natural universe; kindly read Susan Jacoby's 'Freethinkers : A History of American Secularism' for reference). I do not criticize if anyone keep his faith (whatever it is) in personal level. But the rationalists find a problem if someone comes publicly to "prove" his faith scientific. My intention is not to hurt anybody but to critically examine their arguments. Many renowned scientists and philosophers including Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Michael Shermer, Mark Perakh, Paul Kurtz, Paul Edwards, Richard Carrier,  Niall Shanks, Matt Young, Eugenie C. Scott, Austin Dacey, Ahmed Sharif, Humayun Azad,  Prabir Ghosh, Bhabani Prasad Sahu, Joyantanuj Bondopadhay, James Randi have been  following the same principle. I don't think they all became "fundamentalist" by refuting apologist's pseudo-scientific and religious arguments.

Response: That's what is your view. I don't see the world in this way.  Atheism basically exists because of the existence of theistic arguments and ideas, not vise versa. By examining the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' The root word theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God. In Bangla Nastik also can be broken into two parts:  Na-Astik.  So atheism by definition is not any "fundamentalist idea" nor a "belief", rather its the rejection of theism. A study by the FFRF found that over 90% of the atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for them. They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible with what they observed around them. Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They have made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs. There are a number of books which lay out a philosophical justification for atheism, such as Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian", Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist", Martin's "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God", David Mills's "Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It" or Victor Stenger's "Has Science Found God?", Prabir Ghosh's "Why don't I believe in God"  etc.

Response: True. However, I found it's the theists who always bring religion into science to prove that their own belief scientific in the first place. There are hundreds of pseudo-scientific books in the market to propagate how science found god, how "scientifically" meeraj can happen, how scientific is genesis flood, how scientific Arjun's Biswa Darshan in Gita,  or even how "scientific" is today's ID. The rationalists and skeptics are refuting those argument based on solid logic and science. You may call these rationalists fools, but I think they are doing an important job for our sane life.

Response: As I said before, I am not abusing religion, just logically refuting unsound theistic arguments.  

Response: First of all my father does not think atheists and freethinkers are fundamentalists just as you do. He has been working for MM cause since long. Recently Austin Dacey, the renowned atheist philosopher of our time met him personally in Bangladesh and talked about secular humanism, atheism etc in a day long seminar. You can still find his write-up on Austin's visit  in MM website. Had he considered atheists are just fundamentalists he would not have met Austin to explore the platform to work together in future. Previously he did not find any problem working with Prof Ahmed Sharif and Humayun Azad too. 

 

Again, sorry to disappoint you for not fulfilling your high "expectation". Common people's sentiment is vague term for me. I work for scientific truth, not to protect lie for the sake of sentiment of "common people".  When theory of evolution was suggested thru the work of Darwin and Wallace, it indeed hurt the "common sentiment" of people. For example, when Bishop of Birmingham's wife heard about Darwin's theory in 1980, she said to her husband, "My dear let us hope it is not true; but if it is true, let us hope it will not become generally known". Hurting common people's sentiment is not a very sound argument to me for not to tell the fact to common people. We all are hurting peoples' sentiments by propagating our views anyways. For example, a supporter of Awamileague is always hurting BNP supporter's feelings, leftists are hurting right wing group's sentiments, a creationist is hurting evolutionist's feelings, a democrat is hurting a autocrats sentiment etc. This is the beauty of democracy that everybody can criticize any ideology if he/she is obliged to. But religion is so entrenched in our society that its proponents have been able to foist off onto popular culture the notion that religion always deserves kid glove treatment. But many like us think there is no rational basis for providing religious dogma with its own special exemption from harsh criticism especially when they deserves that. Let me give some examples of hurting peoples sentiment  vs. propagation of scientific truth. British Biologist  T. H. Huxley (1825 -95) who was an ardent propagator of evolution theory, many times uttered that theory of evolution smashed all those colorful myths of  religion - "slaying of beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact". However,  he decided to defend evolution as it was a scientific fact never mind about the common people's sentiment or belief. Same thing was done by Copernicus, Galileo or Bruno, even though their scientific findings hurt the common peoples sentiment. I am sure that you are not suggesting that Copernicus, Darwin or Galileo would hide their scientific finding for the sake of "sentiment" of common people! In fact it should work in the other way. Facts should be disclosed impersonally in order to remove superstition and blind belief from the society. This is how society advances.

Response: Sorry, I did not say anywhere that ideology depends upon gender. I used "Mr./Ms." because I was not sure what I ought to attribute to address you. I addressed you as "Ms Setara Hashem" in all of my previous write-ups. But recently Mr. Jahed Ahmed personally met you on the occasion of celebrating women's day by progressive forum and I came to know that you are actually not a female, even though you chose to adopt a female pseudonym. One of your closest friends also confirmed not only to Jahed but also to many other people. If this information is wrong, I will be glad to take my words back. My apology -lets forget the trivial issue. I will address you as "Ms Setara Hashem" as before if you want.    

Response: Yes my write-up indicates what I am, just as your write-up indicates what you are.  Let the readers judge instead of debating on this issue. I  don't consider you as my enemy, and I never did. We might have some disagreement in various issues, but calling each other "enemy",  "fool", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" etc. wont take us anywhere. That's why I asked for mutual respect and I don't think its an extraordinary demand from my side.

 

Regards

Avijit