Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: argument to oppose

Expand Messages
  • Avijit Roy
    Dear Mr.Abdul Quader, Thanks again for your response. I will like to answer you by mentioning a story first. Once great French Mathematician Laplace wrote his
    Message 1 of 16 , May 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mr.Abdul Quader,

      Thanks again for your response. I will like to answer you by mentioning a
      story first. Once great French Mathematician Laplace wrote his famous
      "Mecanique Celeste" to eplain the movement of moon and the planets, then he
      wished to dedicate the book to Napoplean and went to visit him. Napolean,
      after reading the book asked Laplace with humour---

      "Mons. Laplace, you have so well desribed and explained the mechanics of
      heavenly bodies, but I found that you have no where mentioned the Creator.
      Why?"

      Laplace gave his famous answer - "Sire, I found there is no necessity of
      such a hypothesis."

      Today's scientist much boldly utters same principle of Laplace--

      "This law of nature ("the wave function of the universe") is inconsistent
      with theism and implies that God does not exist."
      - Quentin Smith (Why Steven Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator)


      You said Every believer has his book from God. Yes that's true. But what
      those book say? For example, Islam says that Christ was a man, but
      Christianity says that he was a god. But , Truth is always unique. Two
      totally opposite statements cannot be true at a time. Muslim believes that
      Idol worship is a great sin but on the other hand, Hindus do this very
      meticulously as the fundamental parts of their religion. Muslims slaughter
      cows in the religious festival whereas Hindus consider it as a great sin.
      Which custom is absolutely good, can anyone tell ? Would you consider idol
      worship is both good and bad at a same time ? Do you want that people should
      support blindly their own religious custom because of their birth in a
      particular religion ? Do you think it is rational ? Is that what you want?

      Every religion defines god in its own way. In Greek mythology, the god of
      thunder is Zeus. To the Norse, he is Thor. In Hindu religion...Brommha,
      Bishnu, Ram, Hanuman, Shiva..all are god. We have invented these etiological
      myths to appease our fear of the unknown. " I uttered almost hundred
      times...Yet ignorance by any other name is ignorance nonetheless, even if we
      call it a "god." That means, "God did it" is just a alternative crude way of
      saying "I dont know".

      Now again come to the discussion of those religious books. Yes Quran has lot
      of good words that teaches good morals. But similarly it contains a lot of
      bad words too. Professor Ibn Warraq in his famous book "Why I am not a
      Muslim" said --- �a sincerely religious man is often an exceedingly bad man�
      this fact applies to no one more than to muslims. here is the proof (He
      quoted from Quran):

      �when you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have
      made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.�
      (quran47.4).

      "and when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with
      god [i.e. moshrekin.] wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege
      them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall
      convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go
      their way, for god is gracious, merciful."(quran 9:5)

      So he rejected Islam, even though he was born in a muslim family.



      Another Muslim Professor Dr. Ali Sina uttered in his article "Why I left
      Islam" that he was distressed and felt very uncomfortable to read teachings
      from Quran like these. (He quoted following verses from Quran)

      q.3: 5
      �but those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to
      their defiance of faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they
      are those who have gone astray�.

      q.16: 106
      �any one who, after accepting faith in allah, utters unbelief,- except under
      compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith - but such as open their
      breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from allah, and theirs will be a
      dreadful penalty.�

      In another article (who feeds fundamentalism) Dr Sina uttered --"for how
      long we want to fool ourselves? for how long we are going to keep our heads
      under the sand? for how long should we try to look for gems of wisdom in the
      dung?" He said, how can one be a �true� muslim and not hate the unbelievers?
      He pointed this is what quran teaches---

      "oh ye who believe! murder those of the disbelievers and let them find
      harshness in you." q.9:123

      "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" q. 9: 5

      "fight those who do not believe in god and the last day... and fight people
      of the book, who do not accept the religion of truth (islam) until they pay
      tribute by hand, being inferior" q. 9: 29

      �fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of
      allah� q. 2: 193




      Another Muslim Humanist Anwar Shaikh who rejected the teaching of Islam by
      saying-- "It simply means that a true Muslim has sold himself to God in
      return for paradise; he has become his paid soldier whose only aim of life
      is to kill infidels or get killed! No wonder a hadith from Al Bokhari: 4,
      says that:

      "Paradise lies under the shade of swords."

      The Prophet also said:

      "Acting as Allah's soldier for one night in a battlefield is superior to
      saying prayers at home for 1,000 years." (Ibne Majah, Vol. 2, page 166)


      Now, one can see for one's self the violent nature of Islam, its purpose and
      the methods of securing it."



      Have you forgotten the activities of rajakar bahini of 1971 who were engaged
      in rape, murder and genocide in Banladesh? Are you watching the activities
      of Taliban Mullahs nowadays ? Are you aware of the condition of Pakistan,
      Saudi Arab, Iran or Sudan? They are all inspired by those above-mentioned
      Quranic verses that teaches fanaticism. I remember once Nadia Islam in her
      posting in eShomabesh uttered ...While I open Qur�aan and read the divine
      instruction from Sura Al-Bakara ( Sura-Cow)-230:- "So if he divorces her
      then she shall not be lawful to him until she weds another husband; and if
      he (also) divorces her, then there shall be no sin on either of them if they
      return to each other..."... those verses really make me sad and mournful
      because those verses encourage those fundamentalists to implement Hila in
      our society. Yes Mr Abdul Quader - why blame Shaikhul Hadis or Amini Gang in
      Bangladesh ? Are not they sincerely following those devine instructions of
      Quran ?

      Now come to Hindu religion where I have born. Do you remember How brutally
      the stubborn Shiva Shenas destroyed Babri mosque ? You know why? Because
      hindu religious scripture imagined a god Rama. Lord Rama is the central
      character of the Epic RAMAYANA -which was written by Valmiki. Ramayana tells
      that this Ram once built a temple in Ajoddha which ithey call "Ram-mondir".
      Hindu fanatics believe that the temple was destroyed by emperor Babar when
      he was in the power. They also believe that after destroying the temple,
      emperor Babar built that "Babri mosque" in the same place of ram-mondir.
      But as a Humanist, shouldn't I questtion the existance of Ram? Who is ram
      any way? Was he not just an imaginary character of the Epic RAMAYANA only ?
      Was he a real fellow (let alone god)?

      So, my dear Abdul Quader, who actually teaches fundamentalism to the common
      religious people? Are not those books which you want to follow blindly?

      You came with your SATAN. Good. But what is satan? Is he not a imaginary
      things like Ghorar deem or Ponkhiraaj ghora? But religious people say there
      is procration in Satan's family, too, and the rate of reproduction is ten
      times higher than among human beinggs because ten infant satans are born at
      a time each womb. They are called Zalitan, Wasin Nafs, Awam, Afaf, Makram,
      Masud, Dahem, Ol-han and Bar. They will die on Doomsday when human race will
      be annihilated. what's those story about ? If the story is true... what then
      would be the population of deathless satans who multiply ten times more than
      human beings ? Let's say wold's population at present nearly about five
      thousand million (5,000,000,000)...so multiply by ten times...you
      imagine...how many satans are there in this world !!!! ha hahaa !!! It is
      more interesting to note that inspite of this overwhelmingly increasing
      satanic temptetion, wickedness has not been increasing proportionately. On
      the contrary with progress of education, human knowledge and civilization
      man's wickedness is gradually decreasing.

      By the by, Muslim theologists say that Allah created Adam for the purpose of
      filling the world with people thru him and propagating Islam thru the last
      prophet Hazrat Muhammad etc. All his plans are said to have been preordained
      and written down as a part of destiny. So why blame SATAN only ? Is not it
      that SATAN carried out hidden wish of Allah by feeding forbidden apple to
      Adam to fulfil the scroll of destiny ? In other worlds, the entire project
      of creating the human race in this world together with heaven, hell, Hashar
      etc in other world would have been utterly lost if Satan did not fulfil
      Allah's wish by feeding forbiden apple, wouldn't it ? So tell me --who is
      the root of all evil (Satan), dear A. Quader?


      An interesting site for you : http://humanists.net/avijit/aroj_ali/


      Regards,
      Avijit.




      >From: rabita@...
      >To: avijitroy@...
      >CC: eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: argument to oppose
      >Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:18:56 +0600
      >
      >To: Mr. Avijit
      >
      >From: Abdul Quader
      >
      >Dear Mr. Avijit:
      >
      >Sorry to call you Ajit, it was mistaken. I could not well understand your
      >all writing.
      >
      >Lastly and at least I am requesting you to think over the so big natural
      >universe and the human body physiology. If you properly watch and perceive
      >these things you will find these are natural. Only the thoughtful will find
      >a solution. Every believer has his book from God. For example, I say in the
      >Qur'an there is mentioning like this that those who think over God's
      >creation have the ways of salvation. Disbelievers do not think over the
      >God's creation, rather they think over physics or material synthesis. Only
      >material argument will not help you to find out God. You are seeking only
      >the smaller instances of Islamic way of life. ****** Another thing you
      >blamed me for calling you SATAN. This is not true. You see, I only said
      >once SATAN argued much more for not obeying God's order. At last SATAN
      >jealously said that it would try wholeheartedly to stray man.
      >
      >Thank you for writing me.
      >

      _________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Taneem Ahmed
      Dear Avijit Roy, I am not sure if you had the time to read my previous posting, if you have the time please feel free to reply. After reading your reference to
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Avijit Roy,

        I am not sure if you had the time to read my previous posting, if you have the time please feel
        free to reply.

        After reading your reference to Laplace and Hawking, I really found it very ironic (funny to be
        honest). So I just had to add this to this posting:

        "Laplace's determinism was incomplete in two ways. It did not say how the laws should be chosen
        and it did not specify the initial configuration of the universe. These were left to God. God
        would choose how the universe began and what the laws it obeyed, but he would not intervene in the
        universe once it had started. In effect, God was confined to the areas that nineteenth-century
        science did not understand" - Stephen Hawking

        However, I am posting this with a proposal for you. How about we, especially you and I, talk about
        creator, and exclude any personal god. I am sure you know what I mean by *personal god*, but if by
        any chance you are not sure please let us know and we will first make that clear. And also I would
        like to talk to *you*, not to all the great people you have read about. I would like to know your
        opinion, your logic; just as I will express my own (and I am hoping if anyone else wishes to join
        the discussion, they will also express their *own* opinion). If you think you are ready to discuss
        your believes supported by your own logic, please let us know.

        And please excuse me if I sound a bit aggressive. Honestly, it's not because my last name is
        "Ahmed" :) I just want to make sure you do accept my proposal, because I have a feeling you are
        not sure what you are talking about. You just read and like to argue a lot. Beside I seriously
        dislike fundamentalists (and I use the word "fundamentalist" in the broader sense), and your
        attitude, my dear sir, toward other peoples', especially strangers', believes are of a
        fundamentalist. A great philosopher (born 570 AD) said, "Try to know thyself". Maybe you should
        consider doing so.

        Anyway, in case you decide to discuss *your* believes please feel free to start by telling us what
        are the basis of your believes. As someone so concerned about "believes" as you are, I am sure we
        will get your response right away. As I will be away for the weekend, I guess I will read all
        about it Sunday :) I am sure we can go on from there.

        Oh one more thing, if you don't feel like discussing your own believes, IMHO, I think it will be
        very kind of you if you stay away from discussing other peoples' believes.

        Taneem


        _______________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
      • Avijit Roy
        Dear Tanim Ahmed, Thank you very much for your eloquent reply. Sorry I missed your previous posting that s why I could not reply. I feel really sorry for that.
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Tanim Ahmed,
          Thank you very much for your eloquent reply. Sorry I missed your previous
          posting that's why I could not reply. I feel really sorry for that. just now
          I have read your posting and happily willig to give a reply.

          I have no problem to discuss with you about such interesting matter. In fact
          you are among those rare person who wanted to discuss on such subject. One
          of my friend Aparthib also showed a lot of interest previously in this
          matter in eShomabesh. I hope you would not mind if I CC my reply to him.

          I am coming with your last argument of your previous posting.
          You said, Oh and you seem like the person to ask this question... what is
          the proof that *the* creator doesn't exist?

          It's just a common question that all theist asks to justify *their* god.
          This is called Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). The
          Reverse is called TANG. For me, it's nonsense to say that nobody has proved
          the non-existance of God (sorry for my language, if it sounds a bit
          offensive). Because, if I ask you in the same way -- "what is the proof that
          *the* ponkhiraaj-ghora doesn't exist?" what will be your answer? But If you
          want my opinion, my answer would be like --"Nobody has come out with a
          definite proof or evidence so that I may reconsider that Ponkhiraj Ghora may
          exist, isn't it?" Why I dont believe in god is quite simple-- the same
          reason behind for which I don't believe in ghosts, jin, bhut, feresta
          (Angel), fairies, ogre, Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorn, ponkhiraaj ghora or even
          "Ghorar Deem".

          Now come to the point : Can atheists prove God does not exist? well it is
          like illustrated by James Randi's `flying reindeer' [A large deer (Rangifer
          tarandus) of the Arctic and northern regions of Eurasia and North America]
          experiment.

          In American culture there exists a popular story of a man traveling the
          world one night every year delivering presents to children. This man makes
          the trip in a sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer. Because they lack wings
          and there is no other known way by which they could fly, flying reindeer
          appear to violate the laws of nature. What sort of experiment can I do to
          prove ``Reindeer can't fly''? Let's take a bunch of reindeer to the top of a
          tall building and start pushing them off. How many reindeer must be pushed
          and killed before we consider the statement proven? After seeing the first
          few fall to their death I'm willing to accept the postulate without further
          slaughter but I would not have absolute proof. The possibility still remains
          that the reindeer we tested were freaks in their lack of ability to fly. Or,
          they could fly but either chose not to or were prevented from doing so by
          the features of the experiment like the building not being tall enough or it
          not being Christmas Eve and hitched to Santa's sleigh. Every reindeer on the
          planet could fail the test under any number of varying conditions without
          eliminating all uncertainty. It will always be possible to come up with
          explanations after the fact as to why the reindeer didn't fly while keeping
          the central tenet. Eventually as the failures build one must start doubting
          the entire set of hypotheses and wonder how the idea got started if it is so
          difficult to find evidence for it. It becomes easier to believe that someone
          in the past either imagined seeing a reindeer fly or made it up. Regardless,
          it caught the imagination or met the needs and desires of people and the
          story was passed on to subsequent generations. So I reject flying reindeer
          without rigorous proof. Any doubt ??? any diversity ????

          I again remind you ....Why I dont believe in god is quite simple-- the same
          reason behind for which I don't believe in ghosts, jin, bhut, feresta
          (Angel), fairies, ogre, Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorn, ponkhiraaj ghora,
          "Ghorar Deem" or "flying reindeer". Please prove me if I am wrong.


          You gave me a proposal ....You said "How about we, especially you and I,
          talk about creator, and exclude any personal god. I am sure you know what I
          mean by *personal god*...."
          Yes sir, i know what is meant by personal God. I am quite happy to discuss
          about the matter. But, your intention made me skeptic for some reason. I
          hope you would not mind if I wish to clarify. I wish to know...
          Do you believe in most popular definition of Omnipotent, omniscient,
          benovalent god ? (Yes/NO)
          Do you believe in those characteristcs of God revealed in Quran/Bible/Vedas?
          (Yes/No)
          Do you believe that God seat on a throne ? (Yes/No)
          Do you believe that He send messengers to earth for the welbeing of Human
          being ? (Yes/No)
          Do you believe in the existance of Soul, salvation, rebirth, heaven, hell ?
          (Yes/No)
          Do you believe in the judgement of Hashar in afterlife or torture in grave
          (Kobor-ajab)? (Yes/No).
          List can be elongated but I wish to stop here. If your answer is "YES" in
          any single questions mentioned above, then I have no comment. Because it
          will show that you actually believe in *your* personal god and you're
          intentionaly trying to avoid the discussion on "religious god" for not being
          in a em�bar�rass�ing situation. But if your answer is "NO" -- that means you
          have NO faith in personal god.,Then what actually bothers you when I
          describe the negative verses from the holly scripture to refute those are
          the revelation of god? It should not bother you by any means if you dont
          think that Quran is a revelation of god. Am I right? Here your last sentence
          carries a lot of significane to me...."if you don't feel like discussing
          your own believes, IMHO, I think it will be very kind of you if you stay
          away from discussing other peoples' believes".

          So you found that Atheism or "acceptance of NON-existant of God" is also a
          belief ? Will you clarify the term "your own believe" kindly? I have
          previously explaind in one of my posting that When we examine the components
          of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is
          made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' 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. So
          you see...Atheism is not a belief as such. Rathar It is the lack of belief.

          If you still want to term "Atheism" as a belief then aagain it encounters
          another serious problem. You may have seen that I have not started spreading
          my "so-called" belief (!!???!!) in eShomabesh. I just gave my logical
          response to their arguments. Now it seems to you that I am
          intruding/discussing other peoples' believes.
          Logically you cannot come with such argument at this period. Because, if
          (according to you) atheism is a belief, then I have also a "basic right" to
          get offended if some one starts preaching those arguments in favour of god.
          So when they started posting those "Read and Learn" fables in eShomabesh,
          don't I possess any right to argue with them if I find they are
          "intruding/discussing my own believes" ? Why did not you response in the
          simillar manner at the very first time when they started preaching? or your
          unconcious mind have already set the idea ---"Believing in God or Preaching
          is the basic right whereas Disbelief is NOT" ????? any answer??
          clarification????? See, you were not in a neutral position that you are
          claiming now.


          Now I wish to come again to your proposal. You want me to talk about God
          (creator), excluding any personal god. Very well. But may I first humbly
          ask you to come out with the proper definition of God? It is very serious
          for us, because the "god-lovers" usually cannot even define the term "God"
          and it is not surprising at all, cause, if they could define their god, then
          we could set up a test to test for the existence of this deity. Since they
          cannot define it, and since we cannot test for it, it puts their god along
          with most of the other gods and goddesses, beyond the pale of meaning. They
          become meaningless constructs.

          Yes if you can give a crystal clear definition of god like Einstien
          --"Scince is God and God is science" then I have no obligation to accept. If
          it's just a superforce which was responsible for Grand Bigbang explotion and
          there by the cause of creation of the laws of physics: I may accept; but if
          you tell me that this superforce seats in throne, sends messenger time to
          time or give punishment or reward after death ---this is wholly absurd; Yes
          I dont accept this definition of "God".

          I hope you know the famous quotation of Einstien :

          "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education
          and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed
          be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope
          of reward after death.
          It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie
          which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God
          and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is
          in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for
          the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a
          letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in
          Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman,
          published by Princeton University Press.]

          Moreover it is not proven whether actually this superforce is responsible
          for Bigbang or the cause of Universe or not. It's still a theoritical
          concept. Please note that there are also a lot of arguments against it. You
          can read two articles for details:
          http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html
          http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

          The main tune of the two articles is --"there no evidence for the theist's
          causal assumption, there's evidence against it. The claim that the
          "beginning of our universe has a cause" conflicts with current scientific
          theory. The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe.
          It has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre
          Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a
          scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that
          implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics
          will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on
          assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out
          except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as
          containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high
          probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused."

          Anyway, even if any superforce is found in future which is prior cause of
          creation, I think it should be termed as "super force" only-- NOT "God" or
          any other supernatural term. Because these terms create obscurity within the
          common people.



          You gave some serious allegaion against me . You said --"I have a feeling
          you are not sure what you are talking about. You just read and like to argue
          a lot." Please clarify your points. In this world only Human being can
          argue on behalf of his belief or logic. No other creature have such a
          capability. Are you exceptional? Aren't you arguing on behalf of your
          belief/logic to refute me ????? This is human nature.

          You said...Beside I seriously dislike fundamentalists (and I use the word
          "fundamentalist" in the broader sense), and your attitude, my dear sir,
          toward other peoples', especially strangers', believes are of a
          fundamentalist. A great philosopher (born 570 AD) said, "Try to know
          thyself". Maybe you should consider doing so.

          Good preaching indeed. Why don't you start with yourself before giving
          suggestion to some one? "Try to know thyself" -- isn't it applicable to you
          also? And please define the term fundamentalism before calling some one
          fundamentalist. (Please check that I have not used this term to attack any
          of my friends in eShomabesh while giving my response) By definition
          Fundamentalism is a movement or point of view characterized by rigid
          adherence to fundamental or basic principles described in paricular
          dogma/scipture. So which scripture do I follow? I think you have invented a
          new term for us --- "fundamentalism in broader sense" !!! I wonder whether
          this broader region includes you or not!!


          Lastly, Mr. taneem with dew respect I wish to reflect your question towards
          you ---are you sure what you are talking about???????

          I feel sorry if I have offended you by any means in my posting.


          Regards,
          Avijit








          >From: Taneem Ahmed <taneemahmed@...>
          >Reply-To: taneem@...
          >To: eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com
          >CC: avijitroy@...
          >Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: argument to oppose (att. Mr Avijit Roy)
          >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:19:58 -0400 (EDT)
          >
          >Dear Avijit Roy,
          >
          >I am not sure if you had the time to read my previous posting, if you have
          >the time please feel
          >free to reply.
          >
          >After reading your reference to Laplace and Hawking, I really found it very
          >ironic (funny to be
          >honest). So I just had to add this to this posting:
          >
          >"Laplace's determinism was incomplete in two ways. It did not say how the
          >laws should be chosen
          >and it did not specify the initial configuration of the universe. These
          >were left to God. God
          >would choose how the universe began and what the laws it obeyed, but he
          >would not intervene in the
          >universe once it had started. In effect, God was confined to the areas that
          >nineteenth-century
          >science did not understand" - Stephen Hawking
          >
          >However, I am posting this with a proposal for you. How about we,
          >especially you and I, talk about
          >creator, and exclude any personal god. I am sure you know what I mean by
          >*personal god*, but if by
          >any chance you are not sure please let us know and we will first make that
          >clear. And also I would
          >like to talk to *you*, not to all the great people you have read about. I
          >would like to know your
          >opinion, your logic; just as I will express my own (and I am hoping if
          >anyone else wishes to join
          >the discussion, they will also express their *own* opinion). If you think
          >you are ready to discuss
          >your believes supported by your own logic, please let us know.
          >
          >And please excuse me if I sound a bit aggressive. Honestly, it's not
          >because my last name is
          >"Ahmed" :) I just want to make sure you do accept my proposal, because I
          >have a feeling you are
          >not sure what you are talking about. You just read and like to argue a lot.
          >Beside I seriously
          >dislike fundamentalists (and I use the word "fundamentalist" in the broader
          >sense), and your
          >attitude, my dear sir, toward other peoples', especially strangers',
          >believes are of a
          >fundamentalist. A great philosopher (born 570 AD) said, "Try to know
          >thyself". Maybe you should
          >consider doing so.
          >
          >Anyway, in case you decide to discuss *your* believes please feel free to
          >start by telling us what
          >are the basis of your believes. As someone so concerned about "believes" as
          >you are, I am sure we
          >will get your response right away. As I will be away for the weekend, I
          >guess I will read all
          >about it Sunday :) I am sure we can go on from there.
          >
          >Oh one more thing, if you don't feel like discussing your own believes,
          >IMHO, I think it will be
          >very kind of you if you stay away from discussing other peoples' believes.
          >
          >Taneem
          >
          >
          >_______________________________________________________
          >Do You Yahoo!?
          >Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

          _________________________________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
        • Mohammad Hossain
          Dear All (Specially people of faith): This latest posting is another proof that Mr. Avijit is a born basher of Islam and Muslims. I find it pointless to argue
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear All (Specially people of faith):

            This latest posting is another proof that Mr. Avijit is a born basher of
            Islam and Muslims. I find it pointless to argue with someone like Mr.
            Avijit who has declared himself as an atheist and whose only agenda is to
            spread lies and hatred against Islam for no reason. Rather than arguing with
            people in this forum, Mr. Avijit should learn from history that Islam is not
            a religion of violence. Unlike Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, Islam is
            not a religion that promotes violence. Islam has ruled the Asian
            subcontinent for more than six hundred years, and has preserved rights of
            all the minorities including Hindus and Jews and let them practice their
            religions.

            Had Islam been a violent religion, Hinduism and other religions would have
            been wiped out from the face of the subcontinent or any other place that
            Islam ruled. A point in case, when Muslim Spain fell to the Roman Catholic
            Christians, they killed all the Muslims and wiped out Islam. Whereas, when
            the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, under the leadership of Caliph Umar Ibnul
            Khattab, he made a treaty with both the Christians and Jews and their rights
            were protected and their places of worship preserved.

            Also, unprecedented things happened when the Mongols invaded India. Instead
            of killing the Muslims and wiping out Islam, the Mongols were so charmed by
            the faith and simplicity of Islam that they accepted Islam. Where in history
            do you find an invader accepting the religion of the defeated.

            To make this short, I would draw everyone's attention to the latest
            documentary by PBS, "Islam, The Emperor of Faith." Since this has been made
            by an western media, this should provide a neutral ground without any bias.
            I invite everyone including Avijit to view this documentary and learn it
            yourself.

            You might also enjoy visiting the ISLAM: EMPIRE OF FAITH website located at
            <http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/>. It has more information about the
            program, including a timeline, video clips and online postcards.

            Let there be light! Let the truth come to light.

            Thank you for reading.

            Mohammad Hossain, Ph.D.
          • Taneem Ahmed
            Dear Avijit Roy, ... Just for the sake of humor I have to say, Thanks [for] your response. I would humbly like to correct you that my name is Taneem not
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Avijit Roy,

              >Dear Tanim Ahmed,

              Just for the sake of humor I have to say, "Thanks [for] your response. I would humbly like to
              correct you that my name is "Taneem" not "Tanim". Anyway, I am taking it as a typo mistake, never
              mind." :)

              > just now I have read your posting and happily willig to give a reply.
              [sinp]
              > I am coming with your last argument of your previous posting.
              > You said, Oh and you seem like the person to ask this question... what is
              > the proof that *the* creator doesn't exist?

              Hmmm if I remember correctly, that was a question I had for you, it wasn't an argument. And hey,
              how come you ignored everything else? I seriously wanted to know whether you believe that the
              speed of light is constant, or quantum tunneling, or aliens. Also you didn't say anything about
              the "middle man" issue. You skipped all the fun stuff, not fair :)

              [snip]
              > But If you
              > want my opinion, my answer would be like --"Nobody has come out with a
              > definite proof or evidence so that I may reconsider that Ponkhiraj Ghora may
              > exist, isn't it?" Why I dont believe in god is quite simple-- the same
              > reason behind for which I don't believe in ghosts, jin, bhut, feresta
              > (Angel), fairies, ogre, Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorn, ponkhiraaj ghora or even
              > "Ghorar Deem".
              [snip]
              > So I reject flying reindeer without rigorous proof. Any doubt ??? any diversity ????

              Even though I didn't ask you why you don't believe in god, but what you have said in a way tells
              me what is the basis of your believes (which was actually my question to you in my first posting).
              If I understand correctly, then "definite proof or evidence" is the basis of your believes. That's
              great. Now I have a question for you. In some of your recent postings you have mentioned about few
              scientific theories (three if I am not mistaken). Do you believe those theories? If you do then
              according to you, you must have some "definite proof or evidence". Can you please tell me what
              they are (except the background radiation for Big Bang theory)? As far as I know, there are no
              "definite proof or evidence" and these are just mathematical models that try to describe the
              universe. BUT, if you actually don't believe these theories because they lack proof and evidence,
              may I ask why you are using them as arguments?

              > Do you believe in most popular definition of Omnipotent, omniscient, benovalent god ? (Yes/NO)
              * YES

              [sinp]
              > List can be elongated but I wish to stop here. If your answer is "YES" in
              > any single questions mentioned above, then I have no comment. Because it
              > will show that you actually believe in *your* personal god and you're
              > intentionaly trying to avoid the discussion on "religious god" for not being
              > in a em�bar�rass�ing situation.

              The list of my answers could have been longer. However, it seems like only one "YES" is enough for
              you. And you are 100% correct. I don't want to discuss my "personal god", i.e. the God of Islam,
              because I don't want to embarrass myself. See I am not capable of understanding Quran, let alone
              Allah. And I think only an idiot argues about topics they don't even understand.

              > So you found that Atheism or "acceptance of NON-existant of God" is also a
              > belief ? Will you clarify the term "your own believe" kindly?
              [snip]

              I guess you misunderstood me. I wanted to know what are the basis of your believes in general. You
              must believe in a lot of things in your life, I just wanted to know what those believes are based
              on.

              > So when they started posting those "Read and Learn" fables in eShomabesh,
              > don't I possess any right to argue with them if I find they are
              > "intruding/discussing my own believes" ? Why did not you response in the
              > simillar manner at the very first time when they started preaching? or your
              > unconcious mind have already set the idea ---"Believing in God or Preaching
              > is the basic right whereas Disbelief is NOT" ????? any answer??
              > clarification????? See, you were not in a neutral position that you are
              > claiming now.

              You got me totally wrong. I delete those "Read and Learn" fables with the same respect I delete
              your usual e-mails. To me either of them doesn't make much sense. The reason I replied to your
              posting is because you brought up science. Bringing up science only makes me interested in reading
              a posting, unfortunately the way you are trying use science is a shame if anything. You mention
              few big names and few proposed theories and make it sound like that all these great people are
              trying to prove God doesn't exist. However, they are not trying to argue whether God exists or
              not, they are simply trying to explain our universe. And yes, some of these proposed theories do
              imply that it is not necessary to have a Creator. I hope you don't fail to see that this is not
              same as saying these theories imply, forget about proving, that a Creator doesn't exist. In my
              previous e-mail I quoted Stephen Hawking regarding Laplace just to let everyone know what are the
              real implications of Laplace's theories, otherwise from your e-mail it sounded like
              Laplace/Hawking has proved that God doesn't exist.

              > Now I wish to come again to your proposal. You want me to talk about God
              > (creator), excluding any personal god. Very well. But may I first humbly
              > ask you to come out with the proper definition of God? It is very serious
              > for us, because the "god-lovers" usually cannot even define the term "God".

              The God (even though I prefer using the term Creator than God) I would like to discuss is the
              *Entity* who has setup the initial configuration of this universe. Is that a clear enough
              definition for you?

              > but if
              > you tell me that this superforce seats in throne, sends messenger time to
              > time or give punishment or reward after death ---this is wholly absurd; Yes
              > I dont accept this definition of "God".

              I am surprised how you say you understand that I don't want to discuss the *personal god* and then
              expect me to define the personal god as the God I want to discuss.

              > Moreover it is not proven whether actually this superforce is responsible
              > for Bigbang or the cause of Universe or not. It's still a theoritical
              > concept. Please note that there are also a lot of arguments against it. You
              > can read two articles for details:
              > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html
              > http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

              Side note: There is a word called "plagiarism". I am not sure if you know it, but in most places
              it is considered unethical. And either you or the author of the first article you mentioned is
              practicing it. The first link you provided has part of one of your recent emails *word-by-word*.
              In the article I didn't see any reference to your email, and I don't remember you giving any
              reference to this article either. I wonder who is plagiarizing.

              > The main tune of the two articles is --"there no evidence for the theist's
              > causal assumption, there's evidence against it. The claim that the
              > "beginning of our universe has a cause" conflicts with current scientific
              > theory. The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe.
              > It has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre
              > Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a
              > scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that
              > implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics
              > will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on
              > assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out
              > except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as
              > containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high
              > probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused."

              You are a big fan of Quentin Smith huh? The idea of a philosophy professor explaining quantum
              physics for some reason makes me a bit uncomfortable; I would rather prefer a physics professor
              explaining the philosophical implications of quantum physics. But that's just me. As I said
              before, my background is not physics. I don't understand Wave function theory, matter of fact I
              haven't even read the paper that describes this theory. And I am not going to go do some web
              search to find out which philosophy professor has tried to explain this theory such a way to
              support God's existence. But what I would like to ask (I was not sure whether to ask you or
              Quentin Smith), assuming this wave function theory is correct, thus is a law of physics, how did
              this law itself come to existence? Does this physical law itself explain the cause of its own
              existence?

              > You gave some serious allegaion against me . You said --"I have a feeling
              > you are not sure what you are talking about. You just read and like to argue
              > a lot." Please clarify your points. In this world only Human being can
              > argue on behalf of his belief or logic. No other creature have such a
              > capability. Are you exceptional? Aren't you arguing on behalf of your
              > belief/logic to refute me ????? This is human nature.

              My mistake. I should have said, "I have a feeling you are not sure what you are talking about
              regarding science." And as for arguing "on behalf of his belief or logic", that's exactly what I
              had invited you to do. However, when I read your email I get the feeling that I am reading parts
              of different articles (except the parts about "ghorar dim", etc.). Have I clarified my points?

              > Good preaching indeed. Why don't you start with yourself before giving
              > suggestion to some one? "Try to know thyself" -- isn't it applicable to you
              > also?

              Oh trust me, ever since I have gained consciousness I have been trying to know myself. I argue
              with myself about every single issue in an effort to understand myself better. One thing I really
              try to understand is why/how I exist. However, so far I have failed miserably.

              > And please define the term fundamentalism before calling some one
              > fundamentalist. (Please check that I have not used this term to attack any
              > of my friends in eShomabesh while giving my response) By definition
              > Fundamentalism is a movement or point of view characterized by rigid
              > adherence to fundamental or basic principles described in paricular
              > dogma/scipture. So which scripture do I follow? I think you have invented a
              > new term for us --- "fundamentalism in broader sense" !!! I wonder whether
              > this broader region includes you or not!!

              According to www.dictionary.com (sorry I don't have any dictionary at home), fundamentalism is:
              "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental
              principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and
              opposition to secularism."

              To me fundamentalism is about intolerance, and that's my "broader sense".

              > Lastly, Mr. taneem with dew respect I wish to reflect your question towards
              > you ---are you sure what you are talking about???????

              Yes I am quite sure what I am talking about in these e-mails. If it is not clear then I will try
              to make it clear - what I am saying is that you talk about all these scientific theories with out
              understanding any of them. I have a wild guess that you haven't even read a single original paper
              about these theories. You read articles on some of your favorite web sites and take the content of
              those articles for granted. And then you argue based on what these articles said. That is what I
              am talking about.

              > Anyway, even if any superforce is found in future which is prior cause of
              > creation, I think it should be termed as "super force" only-- NOT "God" or
              > any other supernatural term. Because these terms create obscurity within the
              > common people.

              <sorry, but I took this part of your email from the middle and placed it here because this makes
              more sense to be the ending.>

              I am very glad to hear you say this. If you are willing to agree that it is *possible* a super
              force is the prior cause of creation, then we have nothing more to discuss. Whether to call this
              super force "God" or not, will lead to personal god, and eventually to religion. I always accepted
              religion to be a personal choice, and I hope you agree it is not appropriate to argue about
              people, especially strangers', personal choice.

              And Mr. Roy, let me tell you something personal about myself. I have studied a bit of quantum
              physics, and I realized I am not capable of appreciating the true beauty of it :( But whatever
              tiny bit I understood simply amazed me. Before that I believed in "Allah" simply because I was
              born in a Muslim family. But now I believe in "Allah" because I believe in a Creator. And the
              reason I believe in a Creator is because I want to thank someone for something so beautiful. Call
              me a romantic fool if you will :) I don't know if you have studied quantum physics, but if you
              haven't I invite you to do so. Maybe you will become a fool like me too :)

              I have wasted enough of the eShomabesh readers' (at least the moderator's) valuable time with my
              emails. I have one last thing to say before I go back to "knowing myself" :) As Stephen Hawking
              said,
              "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad
              principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and
              just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we
              and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human
              reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

              Maybe we should we should wait for that *time*?

              Hope I didn't cause any hard feelings, especially Mr. Roy.

              Regards,
              Taneem Ahmed


              _______________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
            • Anwarul Kabir
              Dear Avijit : I live in Canada and this is my first such e-mail that I am writing. Could you please tell me what is really wrong with you ? why can t you let
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Avijit :

                I live in Canada and this is my first such e-mail that I am writing.
                Could you please tell me what is really wrong with you ? why can't you let
                the other people live with their own beleives, if you feel that their is no
                god then fine, it is your own problem don't try educating the other people
                who beleives in God. YOu have to understand that it is one own Beleives that
                keeps a person alive , you seem to look for evidence in every aspect of your
                life, here is a question for you - Do you beleive that you are your Father's
                son ? please don't get offended but their is a logic behind it, it is
                basically your mother who can really answer that - Now, Do you want to
                question your own mother and go for test to find out the truth ? I don't
                suppose so, now you see it is your own beleive that you know that you are
                your parents son ( If you have gone for any test then I really have nothing
                to say to you). You might argue and say that I can do test and find out but
                how can you do the test and find out that their is a God ? I know you will,
                but you see Avijit, just like you will feel ashamed in trying to go into
                this kind of scenerio and offend your parents, people do not always looks
                for evidence in every aspect of their life like you do, specially in a
                sensitive issue like this, I am a muslim but not a fanatic, I do understand
                what you really want to say, but please stay out of a issues like this which
                does not make any sense. Tell me What proof have you got that their is no
                God ? have you done any test on that, unlike your Ghorar Dim which you love
                to say quite often, you also do not have any logic in saying that their is
                no God ? please put yourself on the other side of the coin.

                Thanks, take care.

                Anwarul Kabir


                >From: "Avijit Roy" <avijitroy@...>
                >Reply-To: eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com
                >To: taneem@...
                >CC: eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com, aparthib@...
                >Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] Re: argument to oppose (att. Mr Avijit Roy)
                >Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 10:27:30
                >
                >Dear Tanim Ahmed,
                >Thank you very much for your eloquent reply. Sorry I missed your previous
                >posting that's why I could not reply. I feel really sorry for that. just
                >now
                >I have read your posting and happily willig to give a reply.
                >
                >I have no problem to discuss with you about such interesting matter. In
                >fact
                >you are among those rare person who wanted to discuss on such subject. One
                >of my friend Aparthib also showed a lot of interest previously in this
                >matter in eShomabesh. I hope you would not mind if I CC my reply to him.
                >
                >I am coming with your last argument of your previous posting.
                >You said, Oh and you seem like the person to ask this question... what is
                >the proof that *the* creator doesn't exist?
                >
                >It's just a common question that all theist asks to justify *their* god.
                >This is called Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). The
                >Reverse is called TANG. For me, it's nonsense to say that nobody has proved
                >the non-existance of God (sorry for my language, if it sounds a bit
                >offensive). Because, if I ask you in the same way -- "what is the proof
                >that
                >*the* ponkhiraaj-ghora doesn't exist?" what will be your answer? But If you
                >want my opinion, my answer would be like --"Nobody has come out with a
                >definite proof or evidence so that I may reconsider that Ponkhiraj Ghora
                >may
                >exist, isn't it?" Why I dont believe in god is quite simple-- the same
                >reason behind for which I don't believe in ghosts, jin, bhut, feresta
                >(Angel), fairies, ogre, Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorn, ponkhiraaj ghora or
                >even
                >"Ghorar Deem".
                >
                >Now come to the point : Can atheists prove God does not exist? well it is
                >like illustrated by James Randi's `flying reindeer' [A large deer (Rangifer
                >tarandus) of the Arctic and northern regions of Eurasia and North America]
                >experiment.
                >
                >In American culture there exists a popular story of a man traveling the
                >world one night every year delivering presents to children. This man makes
                >the trip in a sleigh pulled by 8 flying reindeer. Because they lack wings
                >and there is no other known way by which they could fly, flying reindeer
                >appear to violate the laws of nature. What sort of experiment can I do to
                >prove ``Reindeer can't fly''? Let's take a bunch of reindeer to the top of
                >a
                >tall building and start pushing them off. How many reindeer must be pushed
                >and killed before we consider the statement proven? After seeing the first
                >few fall to their death I'm willing to accept the postulate without further
                >slaughter but I would not have absolute proof. The possibility still
                >remains
                >that the reindeer we tested were freaks in their lack of ability to fly.
                >Or,
                >they could fly but either chose not to or were prevented from doing so by
                >the features of the experiment like the building not being tall enough or
                >it
                >not being Christmas Eve and hitched to Santa's sleigh. Every reindeer on
                >the
                >planet could fail the test under any number of varying conditions without
                >eliminating all uncertainty. It will always be possible to come up with
                >explanations after the fact as to why the reindeer didn't fly while keeping
                >the central tenet. Eventually as the failures build one must start doubting
                >the entire set of hypotheses and wonder how the idea got started if it is
                >so
                >difficult to find evidence for it. It becomes easier to believe that
                >someone
                >in the past either imagined seeing a reindeer fly or made it up.
                >Regardless,
                >it caught the imagination or met the needs and desires of people and the
                >story was passed on to subsequent generations. So I reject flying reindeer
                >without rigorous proof. Any doubt ??? any diversity ????
                >
                >I again remind you ....Why I dont believe in god is quite simple-- the same
                >reason behind for which I don't believe in ghosts, jin, bhut, feresta
                >(Angel), fairies, ogre, Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorn, ponkhiraaj ghora,
                >"Ghorar Deem" or "flying reindeer". Please prove me if I am wrong.
                >
                >
                >You gave me a proposal ....You said "How about we, especially you and I,
                >talk about creator, and exclude any personal god. I am sure you know what I
                >mean by *personal god*...."
                >Yes sir, i know what is meant by personal God. I am quite happy to discuss
                >about the matter. But, your intention made me skeptic for some reason. I
                >hope you would not mind if I wish to clarify. I wish to know...
                >Do you believe in most popular definition of Omnipotent, omniscient,
                >benovalent god ? (Yes/NO)
                >Do you believe in those characteristcs of God revealed in
                >Quran/Bible/Vedas?
                >(Yes/No)
                >Do you believe that God seat on a throne ? (Yes/No)
                >Do you believe that He send messengers to earth for the welbeing of Human
                >being ? (Yes/No)
                >Do you believe in the existance of Soul, salvation, rebirth, heaven, hell ?
                >(Yes/No)
                >Do you believe in the judgement of Hashar in afterlife or torture in grave
                >(Kobor-ajab)? (Yes/No).
                >List can be elongated but I wish to stop here. If your answer is "YES" in
                >any single questions mentioned above, then I have no comment. Because it
                >will show that you actually believe in *your* personal god and you're
                >intentionaly trying to avoid the discussion on "religious god" for not
                >being
                >in a em�bar�rass�ing situation. But if your answer is "NO" -- that means
                >you
                >have NO faith in personal god.,Then what actually bothers you when I
                >describe the negative verses from the holly scripture to refute those are
                >the revelation of god? It should not bother you by any means if you dont
                >think that Quran is a revelation of god. Am I right? Here your last
                >sentence
                >carries a lot of significane to me...."if you don't feel like discussing
                >your own believes, IMHO, I think it will be very kind of you if you stay
                >away from discussing other peoples' believes".
                >
                >So you found that Atheism or "acceptance of NON-existant of God" is also a
                >belief ? Will you clarify the term "your own believe" kindly? I have
                >previously explaind in one of my posting that When we examine the
                >components
                >of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word
                >is
                >made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' 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. So
                >you see...Atheism is not a belief as such. Rathar It is the lack of belief.
                >
                >If you still want to term "Atheism" as a belief then aagain it encounters
                >another serious problem. You may have seen that I have not started
                >spreading
                >my "so-called" belief (!!???!!) in eShomabesh. I just gave my logical
                >response to their arguments. Now it seems to you that I am
                >intruding/discussing other peoples' believes.
                >Logically you cannot come with such argument at this period. Because, if
                >(according to you) atheism is a belief, then I have also a "basic right" to
                >get offended if some one starts preaching those arguments in favour of god.
                >So when they started posting those "Read and Learn" fables in eShomabesh,
                >don't I possess any right to argue with them if I find they are
                >"intruding/discussing my own believes" ? Why did not you response in the
                >simillar manner at the very first time when they started preaching? or your
                >unconcious mind have already set the idea ---"Believing in God or Preaching
                >is the basic right whereas Disbelief is NOT" ????? any answer??
                >clarification????? See, you were not in a neutral position that you are
                >claiming now.
                >
                >
                >Now I wish to come again to your proposal. You want me to talk about God
                >(creator), excluding any personal god. Very well. But may I first humbly
                >ask you to come out with the proper definition of God? It is very serious
                >for us, because the "god-lovers" usually cannot even define the term "God"
                >and it is not surprising at all, cause, if they could define their god,
                >then
                >we could set up a test to test for the existence of this deity. Since they
                >cannot define it, and since we cannot test for it, it puts their god along
                >with most of the other gods and goddesses, beyond the pale of meaning. They
                >become meaningless constructs.
                >
                >Yes if you can give a crystal clear definition of god like Einstien
                >--"Scince is God and God is science" then I have no obligation to accept.
                >If
                >it's just a superforce which was responsible for Grand Bigbang explotion
                >and
                >there by the cause of creation of the laws of physics: I may accept; but if
                >you tell me that this superforce seats in throne, sends messenger time to
                >time or give punishment or reward after death ---this is wholly absurd; Yes
                >I dont accept this definition of "God".
                >
                >I hope you know the famous quotation of Einstien :
                >
                >"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
                >education
                >and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
                >indeed
                >be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope
                >of reward after death.
                >It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
                >lie
                >which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God
                >and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is
                >in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for
                >the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a
                >letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in
                >Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman,
                >published by Princeton University Press.]
                >
                >Moreover it is not proven whether actually this superforce is responsible
                >for Bigbang or the cause of Universe or not. It's still a theoritical
                >concept. Please note that there are also a lot of arguments against it. You
                >can read two articles for details:
                >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html
                >http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html
                >
                >The main tune of the two articles is --"there no evidence for the theist's
                >causal assumption, there's evidence against it. The claim that the
                >"beginning of our universe has a cause" conflicts with current scientific
                >theory. The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe.
                >It has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre
                >Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a
                >scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that
                >implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics
                >will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on
                >assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out
                >except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as
                >containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high
                >probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused."
                >
                >Anyway, even if any superforce is found in future which is prior cause of
                >creation, I think it should be termed as "super force" only-- NOT "God" or
                >any other supernatural term. Because these terms create obscurity within
                >the
                >common people.
                >
                >
                >
                >You gave some serious allegaion against me . You said --"I have a feeling
                >you are not sure what you are talking about. You just read and like to
                >argue
                >a lot." Please clarify your points. In this world only Human being can
                >argue on behalf of his belief or logic. No other creature have such a
                >capability. Are you exceptional? Aren't you arguing on behalf of your
                >belief/logic to refute me ????? This is human nature.
                >
                >You said...Beside I seriously dislike fundamentalists (and I use the word
                >"fundamentalist" in the broader sense), and your attitude, my dear sir,
                >toward other peoples', especially strangers', believes are of a
                >fundamentalist. A great philosopher (born 570 AD) said, "Try to know
                >thyself". Maybe you should consider doing so.
                >
                >Good preaching indeed. Why don't you start with yourself before giving
                >suggestion to some one? "Try to know thyself" -- isn't it applicable to you
                >also? And please define the term fundamentalism before calling some one
                >fundamentalist. (Please check that I have not used this term to attack any
                >of my friends in eShomabesh while giving my response) By definition
                >Fundamentalism is a movement or point of view characterized by rigid
                >adherence to fundamental or basic principles described in paricular
                >dogma/scipture. So which scripture do I follow? I think you have invented a
                >new term for us --- "fundamentalism in broader sense" !!! I wonder whether
                >this broader region includes you or not!!
                >
                >
                >Lastly, Mr. taneem with dew respect I wish to reflect your question towards
                >you ---are you sure what you are talking about???????
                >
                >I feel sorry if I have offended you by any means in my posting.
                >
                >
                >Regards,
                >Avijit
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > >From: Taneem Ahmed <taneemahmed@...>
                > >Reply-To: taneem@...
                > >To: eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com
                > >CC: avijitroy@...
                > >Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: argument to oppose (att. Mr Avijit Roy)
                > >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:19:58 -0400 (EDT)
                > >
                > >Dear Avijit Roy,
                > >
                > >I am not sure if you had the time to read my previous posting, if you
                >have
                > >the time please feel
                > >free to reply.
                > >
                > >After reading your reference to Laplace and Hawking, I really found it
                >very
                > >ironic (funny to be
                > >honest). So I just had to add this to this posting:
                > >
                > >"Laplace's determinism was incomplete in two ways. It did not say how the
                > >laws should be chosen
                > >and it did not specify the initial configuration of the universe. These
                > >were left to God. God
                > >would choose how the universe began and what the laws it obeyed, but he
                > >would not intervene in the
                > >universe once it had started. In effect, God was confined to the areas
                >that
                > >nineteenth-century
                > >science did not understand" - Stephen Hawking
                > >
                > >However, I am posting this with a proposal for you. How about we,
                > >especially you and I, talk about
                > >creator, and exclude any personal god. I am sure you know what I mean by
                > >*personal god*, but if by
                > >any chance you are not sure please let us know and we will first make
                >that
                > >clear. And also I would
                > >like to talk to *you*, not to all the great people you have read about. I
                > >would like to know your
                > >opinion, your logic; just as I will express my own (and I am hoping if
                > >anyone else wishes to join
                > >the discussion, they will also express their *own* opinion). If you think
                > >you are ready to discuss
                > >your believes supported by your own logic, please let us know.
                > >
                > >And please excuse me if I sound a bit aggressive. Honestly, it's not
                > >because my last name is
                > >"Ahmed" :) I just want to make sure you do accept my proposal, because I
                > >have a feeling you are
                > >not sure what you are talking about. You just read and like to argue a
                >lot.
                > >Beside I seriously
                > >dislike fundamentalists (and I use the word "fundamentalist" in the
                >broader
                > >sense), and your
                > >attitude, my dear sir, toward other peoples', especially strangers',
                > >believes are of a
                > >fundamentalist. A great philosopher (born 570 AD) said, "Try to know
                > >thyself". Maybe you should
                > >consider doing so.
                > >
                > >Anyway, in case you decide to discuss *your* believes please feel free to
                > >start by telling us what
                > >are the basis of your believes. As someone so concerned about "believes"
                >as
                > >you are, I am sure we
                > >will get your response right away. As I will be away for the weekend, I
                > >guess I will read all
                > >about it Sunday :) I am sure we can go on from there.
                > >
                > >Oh one more thing, if you don't feel like discussing your own believes,
                > >IMHO, I think it will be
                > >very kind of you if you stay away from discussing other peoples'
                >believes.
                > >
                > >Taneem
                > >
                > >
                > >_______________________________________________________
                > >Do You Yahoo!?
                > >Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
                >
                >_________________________________________________________________________
                >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                >
                >
                >
                >You can also read eShomabesh mails on our web archive at:
                >
                >www.egroups.com/group/eshomabesh/ Please try to avoid copying
                >
                >the original mail that you are responding to. Mails less than 15 lines
                >
                >in length must be sent to eShomabesh_Compilation@...
                >
                >To unsubscribe please write to eshomabesh-manager@egroups.com
                >
                >Visit our homepage at www.eshomabesh.com
                >
                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >

                _________________________________________________________________________
                Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
              • Nadia Islam
                Just wish to put my few notes here! ... What is the meaning of people of faith ? will you kindly explain? Are you referring the people having any kind of
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 7, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Just wish to put my few notes here!

                  >From: Mohammad Hossain <MHossain@...>
                  >Reply-To: eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com
                  >To: "'eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com'" <eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com>
                  >Subject: RE: [eSHOMABESH] Re: argument to oppose
                  >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:31:09 -0400
                  >
                  >Dear All (Specially people of faith):
                  >
                  What is the meaning of 'people of faith' ? will you kindly explain? Are you
                  referring the people having any kind of faith or particularly Islami faith?
                  If belief or faith is the basic criterion ... it can be anything. Even those
                  who believe that pyramid is made by aliens. This is just their belief
                  (faith). But truth shall not be dependent on any kind of 'personal' belief
                  or faith, right ?



                  >This latest posting is another proof that Mr. Avijit is a born basher of
                  >Islam and Muslims. I find it pointless to argue with someone like Mr.
                  >Avijit who has declared himself as an atheist and whose only agenda is to
                  >spread lies and hatred against Islam for no reason.


                  please again clarify "born basher of Islam". I did not find Avijit is
                  spreading lies and hatred against Islam. On the contrary, I feel that he is
                  spreading the real truth. The real truth of religious bigotry. Moreover I
                  have not found that you guys could refute any of his points. Has he tempered
                  any of the verse from Quran ? Has he interpreted wrongly for his own
                  purpose ? It would be highly appreciated if you can prove it so rather than
                  giving false accusation of �spreading lies�. Our eyes will be more opened if
                  you come out with your solid evidence. Why the �perfect� book of the perfect
                  God contains such kind of negative verses that encourages fundamentalism and
                  hatred ?

                  Other point is, Avijit also mentioned how Ramayan influence common Hindus to
                  create fundamentalism. He explained logically why those Hindus are
                  influenced to destroy Babri mosque by the Hindu religion. Why do you avoid
                  this agenda ?



                  "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
                  religious conviction." -Pascal




                  Rather than arguing with
                  >people in this forum, Mr. Avijit should learn from history that Islam is
                  >not
                  >a religion of violence. Unlike Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, Islam
                  >is
                  >not a religion that promotes violence.


                  Some people really want to remain blind through out his entire life. "Islam
                  is not a religion that promotes violence" !!!! Dont' you see the condition
                  of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran ? When I argue, the blind believers
                  always shouts -- "Those are not the followers of real islam. Real Islam can
                  never teach violence". But what is real islam ? Is there any ? I cannot help
                  quoting from one of the Article of Mr. K. Mirza in NFB:

                  Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia�s political and social fallacies has nothing
                  to do with real Islamic country !

                  The Taliban's destruction of Bhuddist antiquities has nothing to do with
                  real Islam !!

                  The forcible conversion of helpless Christians in Indonesia has nothing to
                  do with real Islam !!!

                  The genocide being perpetrated in Sudan by the Islamists in Khartoum has
                  nothing to do with real Islam !!!!

                  The unwillingness of the Saudi authorities to allow women to drive has
                  nothing to do with real Islam !!!!!

                  The sectarian violence in Pakistan between Sunni and Shiite has nothing to
                  do with real Islam !!!!!!

                  The practice of female genital mutilation by Muslims all over North Africa,
                  Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. have nothing to do with real Islam
                  !!!!!!!

                  Having sex with slave girls in Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with real
                  Islam !!!!!!!!

                  Women oppression and inequality with men has nothing to do with real Islam
                  !!!!!!!!!

                  The decapitations of the inhabitants of entire villages by jihadists in
                  Algeria has nothing to do with real Islam !!!!!!!!!!

                  Acts of terror committed frequently around the world in the name of Islam
                  have nothing to do with real Islam !!!!!!!!!!!!

                  The hadiths depicting Muhammed (pbuh) as a pedophilic, murderous, thief have
                  nothing to do with real Islam !!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  The verses in the Quran and hadiths justifying the slaughter of the Banu
                  Qurayza by Allah's Apostle (pbuh) have nothing to do with real Islam
                  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  Actually, It's high time to say - Islam itself has nothing to do with real
                  Islam.



                  Islam has ruled the Asian
                  >subcontinent for more than six hundred years, and has preserved rights of
                  >all the minorities including Hindus and Jews and let them practice their
                  >religions.


                  Islam preserves the rihgt of Hindus/Jews/Disbelievers/Idolaters ? How ?
                  Abide by the following Suras ?




                  "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
                  forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
                  acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the
                  Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves
                  subdued." Quran :009.029 (Translation : YUSUFALI)


                  "Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We
                  pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in
                  sin." Quran : 009.066 (Translation : YUSUFALI)

                  "when you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have
                  made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
                  (quran47.4). etc. etc...

                  I completely agree with Ms. Nasrin in this regard -"fundamentalism is a
                  poisonous branch that stems from the trunk of religion. until you do not
                  uproot the tree, that poisonous branch will keep shooting out."





                  >
                  >Had Islam been a violent religion, Hinduism and other religions would have
                  >been wiped out from the face of the subcontinent or any other place that
                  >Islam ruled. A point in case, when Muslim Spain fell to the Roman Catholic
                  >Christians, they killed all the Muslims and wiped out Islam. Whereas, when
                  >the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, under the leadership of Caliph Umar Ibnul
                  >Khattab, he made a treaty with both the Christians and Jews and their
                  >rights
                  >were protected and their places of worship preserved.
                  >
                  >Also, unprecedented things happened when the Mongols invaded India. Instead
                  >of killing the Muslims and wiping out Islam, the Mongols were so charmed by
                  >the faith and simplicity of Islam that they accepted Islam. Where in
                  >history
                  >do you find an invader accepting the religion of the defeated.


                  Got charmed ? Oh yes ! Probably Afghanistan women are also got charmed of
                  accepting �generous� sharia rules of Islam. Nur Jahan also got charmed when
                  he got killed by throwing stone by mullahs in Bangladesh. That Police
                  officer also got charmed when he was killed in the mosque by fanatic
                  mullahs. The two Judges who were responsible for the ban of Hila also got
                  charmed while they were labeled as �Murtad� by honorable Moulana Fazlul Haq
                  Amini. Our practical situation describes how pathetic the situation is .
                  But you people always want to keep your heads down under the sand and utter
                  those sweet words/historical story from religious book.

                  >
                  >Let there be light! Let the truth come to light.


                  Yes, let it be !!!! Avijit, Aparthib, Mirza (Biddut), Fatemolla, Jahed are
                  those tiny tiny lamp who are trying to remove century old darkness from our
                  mind. I appreciate them from the bottom of my heart for illuminating me.

                  Best wishes.

                  Nadia.


                  _________________________________________________________________________
                  Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                • aparthib
                  The response below is a  typical example of the utter intolerance shown towards dissenting  and critical views when it  doesn t seem favourable to one. 
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jun 7, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The response below is a  typical example of the utter intolerance
                    shown towards dissenting  and critical views when it  doesn't seem
                    favourable to one.  First of all calling someone "A"  a  "basher/hater"
                    of religion "X"  or condemning  A's personal  view of life is no
                    respectable or accepted way to engage in a dialog/debate as is expected
                    in a forum like this one. If "A" is truly a basher of  "X" then it should be
                    self -evident to anyone. Nobody in that case needs to be spoon fed
                    to identify A as a basher of  "X".  It is an insult to all the others to assume
                    they cannot identify a  true basher for themselves. Second, calling
                    someone a basher  or accusing  him of "spreading lies" is highly charged
                    personal judgment against somone, even in a free country like USA this
                    can provide a legal ground for suing  as a libel case if one has the resources
                    to do that. Worse even, no supporting evidence was provided to  justify
                    such strong accusations. There  was no no mention of what the "lies"
                    were that were being spread. This is irrespsonsible criticism. Besdies
                    accusing an atheist of bashing religion "X" when he is  also critical of
                    religion "Y", is a biased accusation and mischaracterizes  him as a  "X"
                    hater which he is not. He is only a  non-believer and "critical" of religious
                    belief , period. And CRITICAL DOES NOT  TRANSLATE INTO INTOLERANT
                    necessarily. Nothing he has said can shake/weakeneven an iota the faith
                    of anyone.

                    It is unfortunate that almost always an impersonal article posted by an
                    author is followed up by someone with personal remarks, innuendos
                    and impressions about the messenger, where  the article should have
                    been followed up with differing views, opinions or arguments on the
                    MESSAGE of the article, not about the MESSENGER.  If a criticism/view
                    does not appear valid  to  someone then he/she can certainly offer a
                    counter criticism/view with points. It should be taken as a golden rule
                    that  if a message contains factual mistake or an incorrect reasoning or
                    conclusion (having decided that after carefully and correctly
                    interpreting it) then one should only provide a counter argument
                    or correct the factual mistake, not dissect the mind of the messenger
                    or make an announcement about one's personal reaction  to the
                    message . The emphasis  should be  to focus on the message, not
                    on judging the messenger's motive/intentions  and or accusing the
                    messenger of such motives/intentions based on one's personal
                    biased  interpretations of the message. It strains the imagination to
                    see how someone's impersonal words/views/ideas not directed
                    against anyone personally can HURT/INSULT anyone's personal
                    BELIEF/FAITH. This defies any rhyme or reason. Faith is an abstract
                    entity that should reside safely inside one's mind/heart  beyond
                    anyone's reach. There is no conceivable way someone's faith can be
                    weakened/destroyed/insulted by another's views or remarks (correct
                    or mistaken). A faith may appear illogical to someone and it is consistent
                    with freedom of expression for anyone to express the fact that a certain
                    faith/belief appears illogical to him/her. There are countless instances
                    of academicians declaring some well established scientific principles
                    as baseless . Now a scientist's conviction in a scientific principle is no
                    less sacred or no less justified (if not more)  than someone's faith in
                    religious or other beliefs. No faith qualifies as priviledged or more
                    sacred than others. Scientists never feel their belief in scientific 
                    principles is HURT by such counter assertions of non/pseudo-scientists.
                    So why should religious/cultural faith holders be given a privildged
                    position of immunity to any critical views? That goes against the
                    principle of equality and  fairness.  The most important historical
                    fact that is often forgotten is that it is the religious believers who
                    first inititated  this tension between believers and non-believers by
                    criticizing  the non-believers or trying to impose their belief on
                    others provoking a counter reaction by freethinkers/non-believers
                    of  debunking believers. It is cause-effect relationship.  If all believers
                    kept their belief private or never tried to persuade/impose on
                    non-believers there would be no counter arguments by freethinkers.
                    This is indeed the case in Buddhism where no religious Buddhists
                    ever criticizes/condemns other fellow born buddhists for not believing
                    or practicing Buddhist precepts and rituals. This is not unfortunately the
                    case in Islam, Judaism or christianity.
                    Anyway my purpose of this respsosne is  more to emphasize and remind
                    ourselves of the principles of acceptable forms of exchange of views in a
                    forum  Hope my response will help to remind all of us about the spirit of
                    posting guidelines which emphasizes impersonal exchange of ideas and
                    opninions, showing tolerance towards contrary views and criticisms of views
                    and expressing counter views/criticisms if needed, but not making personal
                    insinuations.  I don't have to agree with Avijit's views to make this general
                    statments of principles above. I would also have made a similar remark if a
                    free thinker made similar personal remarks/accusations against a religious
                    believer for affirming his belief or making a logical point against atheism.

                    Aparthib


                    At 6/4/01 03:31 PM, you wrote:
                    >
                    > Dear All (Specially people of faith):
                    >
                    > This latest posting is another proof that Mr. Avijit is a born basher of
                    > Islam and Muslims.  I find it pointless to argue with someone like Mr.
                    > Avijit who has declared himself as an atheist and whose only agenda is to
                    > spread lies and hatred against Islam for no reason. Rather than arguing with
                  • aparthib
                    Mr. Kabir, Few questions for you: 1. Can you clarify in precise terms what did you mean by let the other people LIVE with their own believes a) Have you
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jun 8, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mr. Kabir,
                      Few questions for you:

                      1. Can you clarify in precise terms what did you mean by " let
                      the other people LIVE with their own believes"

                      a) Have you been prevented from "LIVING" ? If so, how. Or are
                      you or your belief having difficulty staying alive after reading
                      Avijit's post?

                      b) Do you realize that Islam, Christianity would not have been established
                      had your policy of " let the other people LIVE with their own believes"
                      been followed to the letter by the prophets and you wouldn't be making
                      this statement defending your faith in religion to begin with!

                      2. Are you asking Avijit to stop expressing his view (Shutting up?), in other
                      words are you advocating suppressing freedom of expression? (Remember
                      his post was approved by the moderator).

                      3. If you affirm that if someone argues against the religious concept of God then
                      it is his own problem and tell him not to try educating the other people, then by
                      the logic will you also affirm that if someone argues in favour of God then it
                      is also his own problem and tell him not to try educating the other people?
                      And this statement of principle should then retroactively apply to the prophets
                      of religions as well? And that in that case you cannot justify the religion
                      (including the one you are defending) which owes its birth to preaching
                      in past?

                      4. Do you recognize that certain beliefs (call it B-1) become a topic of debate
                      only because they are preached (religious notion of God for example) and
                      that certain beliefs (call them B-2) are not debated simply because they
                      do not require preaching and are not preached (e.g Process theology,
                      Spinozza's God, Omega Point, Brahma, Shaman God , Unicorn, Ghorar Dim
                      etc AND the belief in the true identity of one's mother ). If you do
                      recognize then don't you agree that it is a logical fallacy to make a
                      case for not arguing about B-1 by citing B-2 ?

                      I hope you don't my asking you these questions.
                      Thanks,

                      Aparthib


                      At 6/5/01 11:51 PM, you wrote:
                      >Dear Avijit :
                      >
                      >I live in Canada and this is my first such e-mail that I am writing.
                      >Could you please tell me what is really wrong with you ? why can't you let
                      >the other people live with their own beleives, if you feel that their is no
                      >god then fine, it is your own problem don't try educating the other people
                      >who beleives in God. YOu have to understand that it is one own Beleives that
                      >keeps a person alive , you seem to look for evidence in every aspect of your
                      >life, here is a question for you - Do you beleive that you are your Father's
                      >son ? please don't get offended but their is a logic behind it, it is
                      >basically your mother who can really answer that - Now, Do you want to
                      >question your own mother and go for test to find out the truth ? I don't
                      >suppose so, now you see it is your own beleive that you know that you are
                      >your parents son ( If you have gone for any test then I really have nothing
                      >to say to you). You might argue and say that I can do test and find out but

                      >how can you do the test and find out that their is a God ? I know you will,
                      >but you see Avijit, just like you will feel ashamed in trying to go into
                      >this kind of scenerio and offend your parents, people do not always looks
                      >for evidence in every aspect of their life like you do, specially in a
                      >sensitive issue like this, I am a muslim but not a fanatic, I do understand
                      >what you really want to say, but please stay out of a issues like this which
                      >does not make any sense. Tell me What proof have you got that their is no
                      >God ? have you done any test on that, unlike your Ghorar Dim which you love
                      >to say quite often, you also do not have any logic in saying that their is
                      >no God ? please put yourself on the other side of the coin.
                      >
                      >Thanks, take care.
                      >
                      >Anwarul Kabir
                      >
                    • perilous_pariah@yahoo.com
                      Dear Mr. Kabir, Greetings! This is a response to your, contradictory, myopic and above all ludicrous , comments towards Mr. Avijit Roy. Now who is Pyro to poke
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jun 9, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Mr. Kabir,

                        Greetings! This is a response to your, contradictory, myopic and
                        above all ludicrous , comments towards Mr. Avijit Roy. Now who is
                        Pyro to poke his nose into someone else's business? Well, I am a
                        Bangladeshi, and thus it is in my nature to poke my `long' nose into
                        anything and everything that does not meet my approval! Now, may
                        ask, "Who gives a flying rodent's anus regarding your approval? Who
                        died and made you the king"? No sire, Pyro is not an Intellectual,
                        but a mere semi-literate mortal, who would like to beg to differ with
                        your points of view on God, and the words that you hurled at Mr. Roy.
                        Please let me make it crystal clear for you, so that you have no
                        problem in fathoming Pyro's words! I do not know Mr. Roy, and no way
                        am I associated with him or his friends! Anyway off Pyro goes……

                        [[ why can't you let the other people live with their own beleives,
                        if you feel that their is no god then fine, it is your own problem
                        don't try educating the other people who beleives in God. YOu have to
                        understand that it is one own Beleives that keeps a person alive..]]

                        And you really fathom your own words, I suppose? Here's a question
                        for you to ponder sire, "Why can't the faithful leave us alone with
                        our points of view on God"? If you faithful have kept your thoughts
                        on God all to your wee selves, then we the `kafirs' didn't need to
                        come on to this forum, and enlighten you with our `horse feces', did
                        we? If you believe that you faithful have every God given right to
                        preach the words of your Lord, then don't we have the same right to
                        protest against your hollow points of view on life? Well, I am an
                        oaf, thus whatever you say about the Lord, I tend to discard it away
                        through the window of my lavatory, as I assume you do the same,
                        whenever someone points out to you that there is no God! I don't know
                        about God, for I have never met this being, but I did meet Jesus
                        once! He used to talk to God on a regular basis! Yes sire, Jesus
                        Morales had his share of monologues with the Ancient One! God is but
                        eternal, thus it would not be presumptuous of me, if I dare to call
                        it, The Ancient One, would it? In your Quran, it is written that God
                        has no physical form, thus I don't think it would be an act of
                        blaspheme if I want to use "it", instead of "Him", would it? As for
                        one's beliefs keeping one alive, well sire, it is my shallow
                        observations, which led me to believe that it is not one's beliefs,
                        but one's convictions that keep one alive. After all, our belief
                        changes in time, but our convictions remain unchanged! Then again,
                        what do I know, I am but a semi-literate, kindergarten intellectual,
                        who is trying to get some attention on this message board! Quite
                        pathetic, isn't it? I knew you'd agree! For some of us are quite
                        transparent!

                        [[Do you beleive that you are your Father's son ……………?]]

                        Well said! Spoken like a true palooka, though I am sincerely hoping
                        that you are anything but a palooka! This is as ludicrous as stating
                        to a Muslim, "if you don't believe in God, why do you still use an
                        Islamic name"? Only a person with the IQ level of an amoeba would
                        send forth such queries! We humans sire, have evolved far since our
                        ancestors the primates, and considering that fact, an amoeba is but
                        quite prehistoric, wouldn't you agree? Dare I ask you sire, "Do you
                        talk to God"? If so, then my sincere condolences to you, for I do not
                        wish you to meet the faith of Jesus Morales! He had to go through six
                        months of vigorous psychotherapy for he thought he spoke to God on a
                        quotidian routine!

                        [[but please stay out of a issues like this which does not make any
                        sense………… please put yourself on the other side of the coin]

                        Ah there you go! Spoken like a true scholar! Alas! We humans tend to
                        not practice what we preach! Then again, it is not our fault, that we
                        do so! We are God's greatest creation, and the High Lord had made us
                        in his likeness! Since the Lord has no physical form, it created us
                        in the likeness of its psyche! The very aspects of God's life are but
                        the very aspects of the human life, give or take a few, here and
                        there. Human beings inherited deception, vengeance, arrogance, envy,
                        hypocrisy and lust from the Father of Life, the Ancient One! Please
                        sire, dazzle us with your brilliance, but do not baffle us with
                        your `horse feces' on God!

                        Bob Dylan is preaching on the airwaves;

                        {[Well, now time passed and now it seems
                        Everybody's having them dreams.
                        Everybody sees his self, walkin' around with no one else.
                        Half of the people can be part right, all of the time,
                        Some of the people can be all right, part of the time.
                        But all the people can't be all right all of the time
                        I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
                        "I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours," I said that.]]

                        "If'n when we accept this fact, would this world be a better place"
                        and in retrospect, Pyro said that!


                        Thank you very much for your patronage! Peace!

                        Pyro Hossain
                      • Naufal Arshad Zamir
                        Dear eShomabesh readers (Specially to Tamanna(John Chowdhury johnc@nktllc.com) and Islam_Nadia, needless to mention Avijit Roy) First part consists of
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jun 12, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Dear eShomabesh readers

                          First part consists of arguments and points already made in previous mails.

                          Second part contains some idea how we can say Islam is Probably the right Religion/belief or may be it can prove one aspect of Quran that there is nothing Human about it

                          PART 1

                          It will need some detailed discussion so far Mr. Avijit is concerned.  Firstly coming to Ms Nadia:  It will need some detailed discussion so far Mr. Avijit is concerned. Firstly coming to Ms Nadia: Seems that you are always arguing regarding some weak points. You did understand what Mr. Qadir was talking about, specially the meaning of "people of faith". You need not read it as you consider yourself not to be one of them, yet you went on participating and blaming to a mail, which did not concern you at all!!!!!!The reason I say you understood what he meant is the very thing that you were arguing as one opposing his entire contention in the rest of your mail and not asking what he means by the very term. I smell malice here!!

                          Lately, I have been away for a while though had the opportunity to follow the interesting mails of Mr. Avijit & co.  To understand properly what I will be saying readers need to look at messages (one can take a look after reading this mail and relate if one wishes): 3107 (Avijit Roy to Quader), 3108 (Taneem A to Avijit Roy), 3113 (A  Roy to A Qader), 3117 (Taneem A to Avijit Roy), 3132 (A. Roy’s answer to Taneem A), 3133 (Aparthib (defending!! A Roy) to Taneem A), 3141 (interesting mail by M Hussain), 3148 (Taneem A to Aparthib), 3139 (Taneem A to A Roy), 3155 (a logical mail by Mab R). (These mails can be read from web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eshomabesh/messages

                          I shall try not to give a detail explanation of my views, because that becomes boring. One who wishes to know the whole accord should read and try to rationalise the mails I listed.  Here are not much of my own views but just my observation on the above mails and readers are invited to check my assertions and make their own conclusions.  The later part of this mail deals with some statistics of proving the possibility that Islam is true.

                           1)  The false attempt of Mr Avijit to quote big names of Science is bizarre.  He attempts to justify his proposition with the help of some big names, which actually either does not stand for his proposition or are very much argumentative.  As Mr. Taneem A. remarked that it would be better to get a physics authority to explain philosophy of quantum physics rather than a philosophy Prof. explaining Quantum Physics.  In the mail No: 3107 Mr. Roy used the name of Stephen Hawkins so many times…but his assertion seems funny. Why? (See 3149 by Taneem A)  Stephen Hawkins: "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists,  and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we  and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." 

                          2)  I quote Taneem A from 3149: (to Mr. Avijit Roy)  “My mistake. I should have said, "I have a feeling you are not sure
                           what you are talking about regarding science." And as for arguing "on behalf of his belief or logic", that's 
                          exactly what I had invited you to do. However, when I read your email I get the feeling that 
                          I am reading parts of different articles (except the parts about "ghorar dim", etc.). Have I clarified my points?

                           
                          Once again in the same mail Taneem A said:  “Yes I am quite sure what I am talking about in these e-mails.
                           If it is not clear then I will try to make it clear - what I am saying is that you talk about all these scientific
                          theories with out understanding any of them. I have a wild guess that you haven't even read
                           a single original paper about these theories. You read articles on some of your favorite web sites and take
                          the content of those articles for granted. And then you argue based on what these articles said. That is what 
                          I am talking about.”

                            We are still waiting for Mr. Avijit's response; guess he is seeking some assistance!!!.  He got some help from Masud bhai and posted the answer to us but he TOTALLY AVOIDED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS and its been more than 7/8 days, he has time to answer Mr. Qaders (poor fella) mail which is inherently weak but avoided answering the Burning issues.  He thinks we don’t follow the mails? He is thinking like a daft ....

                           3)         Mr Avijit,  What is your answer to the allegation of Plagiarism? (made in mail number 3149 by Taneem A)

                           4)         One thing Mr Avijit is escaping.  The question of Burden of Proof should never arise.  The reason being that this is a question of possibility.  No conclusive proof is needed so far things between B and N is concerned (as you mentioned a theory in answer to Mr. Qader).  What you are saying is, you don’t believe because there is no proof.  As a defence some are saying that there is no proof that God does not exist.  You are taking this to the Question of proving.  But one thing is the B need not prove but to show a possibility, just to say it is more probable according to science as well as logic.   When you are asking for proof you are yourself creating a circle.  Ask your self how many scientific theories are not yet proved so far your notion of proof is concerned.  Coming back to your mail, what B is doing is preaching and preaching includes necessarily belief of the preached.   None of the B’s (who are preached) are asking for proof but they are taking it as probable and believing on the probability.  What you are doing is, with out a good reasoning asking B’s to stop preaching.  Ns’ should keep away from it.  They don’t have to submit nor they have to listen.  They can just delete the mails and refuse to read.  But you are taking a positive approach of preaching the other way.  That’s why you need to prove your statements or show a better possibility to believe that God does not exist than the one B’s are offering.  Till you prove, the difference between B and N is nothing but difference of opinion and believe, no question of proof in any side.  That is why N’s should stick to their believes and if they wish preach it as well.  The inherent problems of Ns are they cannot preach because they are not in the positive stand but in the negative.  They don’t have anything to disprove unless something is proved.  B’s are not proving but believing.  The problem is created when B is preaching to A (who is neither B nor N) N is not ignoring but making a positive assertion that B is wrong.  That is the inherent problem of Ns.  No matter how many times Ns are told that it is a matter of believe and not one of proof they just chirp and bark “we want proof”.  Don’t worry, says B, we are not proving, we are just giving the best probable answer and if you are not satisfied be my guest and reject but do not disturb me while I am preaching.

                           

                          5) Most importantly Mr. Avijit at last submits, There is a possibility of a super power in mail No: 3132 A Roy in response to Taneem A.,I quote: “Anyway, even if any superforce is found in future which is prior cause of creation, I think it should be termed as "super force" only-- NOT "God" or any other supernatural term. Because these terms create obscurity within the common people

                          Does it need any more explanation that we talk about this Super force as our Allah or God?  Well, can you ever wake a man who is trying hard not to wake up?  So much careful about not obscuring the term super force when it comes to common people.  I guess, Mr. Taneem is much as a commoner as the readers or myself.  That leaves Mr. Avijit Roy to be  …………(something uncommon)? The gist is, tell us once:  I agree to you if you mean the Almighty Allah as the Super force.   Say it in a clear way. Will you? Or you will be ashamed to do that after putting yourself in such a hardliner position through out these days?  And one other thing…. What worries you if you are a commoner and you are able to understand the obscurity? Why do you think others would not (then u must not be a part of commoners)? 

                          It will be very clear to the readers when they read the mails (I have mentioned in the beginning) to ascertain how far Mr. Avijit talks sense and talks with full knowledge of the subject matter.  His favourite tactics as well as Islam Nadia is to go after some silly points like “specially believers” or making some illegal generalisation on how bloody Islamic rule was.  Indeed Islamic ruling was bloody. One who asserts that Islam talks of peace is not true in the whole sense of it. So far I understand Islam does not speak of peace when Islam itself is at stake, which definitely warrants a war.  Their job is to attack these trivial grounds and the lack of understanding of people.  Amazingly, they accept the possibility of a superpower as setting the universe in motion!!!!!! 

                          More amazingly, Mr  Roy is just sitting on the rebuttals and allegations put forward by Taneem A. (3149) and not answering to any of them. Well, he will soon come up with some ‘GHORAR DIM Theory’ as we can assume.

                          All Mr. Roy does is giving wrong interpretations of Quranic verses and try to find out flaws without proper understanding.  While he is quick enough to hire some philosophical aspect of bigbang theory from Q. smith he is quite blind to accept that Quran can have broader meanings than the face value of some verses.  It is not easy to rationalise all Quranic verses since some invalidates the face value of others depending on the time of the verse being sent to Muhammad (peace be upon Him).  He does not understand the simple logic that just by reading Quran and searching its flaws on the secular websites or to his personal gods, he can never get the right idea of Quran since he is making a shortcut of another shortcut.  Shortcut is an inherent problem of most bangalees, I do agree.  They always look for shortcuts getting them to a dead end.

                          PART II

                          How much is it probable that God exists?

                          How about giving these ideas a try: 

                          Quranic Verses:  

                          Do the unbelievers not realize that

                          The heavens and earth used to be

                          Once solid mass that we exploded to existence

                          And from water we made all living things

                          Would they believe? The Holy Quran 21:30

                          A possible similarity with Bigbang theory?

                          ------------------------------

                          He created seven universes in layers

                          You do not see any imperfection

                          in the creation by the Most Gracious.

                          Keep looking; do you see any flaw?

                          Look again and again; your eyes will

                          Come back stumped and conquered.

                          Qur'an 67:3-4.

                          Can we see Causation mentioned here?

                          -------------------------------------

                          51/47:  And it is we who have built the universe with our power, and verily, it is we who are steadily expanding it.

                          51/48. And we made the earth habitable; a perfect design

                          Possibly : Expansion of universe theory?

                          -----------------------------------------

                          When you look at the mountains

                          You think that they are standing still.

                          But they are moving, like the clouds.

                          Such is the manufacture of God,

                          Who perfected everything.

                          He is fully cognizant of

                          Everything you do.  Quran 27:88

                          Possibility that this talks about geological facts?

                          ---------------------------------------

                          For creation of Human being see The Quran 96:1-8

                          ------------------

                          Embryology  The Quran 23:12-16

                          -------------------

                          Preservation of Genetic Data  The Quran 75:3, 75:4.

                          ----------------------

                          (These verses are to be found : http://www.ummah.org.uk/science/default.html )

                          Mr Avijit will say well, these do not point or stand for the scientific explanations, but all I am saying that there is a possibility that these do stand for such theories definitely on the face of it.

                          Now just a small scientific equation.  In 592 AD (Think this is the time from when Allah started revelation), if we take that it was Muhammad (PBUH) who made it all up, then lets consider the possibilities….(here I shall assume some numbers, if you think I have over/under estimated the possibilities then you can change as you wish).  The probability that Muhammad was just making throw away remarks, (if we take that the Quran is not sent by God), is 100%.    Now lets see…..

                          Say, there could be a 500 reasons a man could imagine how universe was created.  So 1/500 probability that His explanation of Bigbang would be true.

                          Causation, assuming there could be 100 of theories to pluck from air and he picked this one so it has a probability of 1/100 to be true.

                          Expanding Theory….Guessing that in 592 AD you would have to get this from your dreams.  A normal person would experience dream at least 1000 times and he just picked this one and the probability is 1/1000 that this would be true

                          Geological facts…..possibility I assume would be 5000 to 1 to get such idea that mountains are moving!  So Probability is 1/5000 of that to be true.

                          Embryology , I assume 1/100 Probability

                          Preservation of Genetic Data,  Assume 1/500 probability

                          (Any one has some knowledge of astronomy or other facts to add to this list?  I am sorry that for my limited knowledge I could not add more)

                          And now what?

                          What is the probability that they will all be true out of a stroke of LUCK?

                          X..Y.Z.Q.W.E == ?

                          1/500.100.1000.5000.100.500 == 1/7500000000000000  anyone has a calculator?  Does it not look like NEGLIGIBLE? 

                          Negligible is a quite useful concept used by scientists when it comes to proving theories.  Any student of science would know that negligible are not counted.

                          We are talking about probability here…here it is, there are two more things to consider: Firstly There are many other things that Quran said proved to be right, which I did not consider here.  There should be a list of more things, I am sorry I heard a bulk of these aspects and again I forgot.

                          Secondly: there will always be people like Mr. Q. Smith to assert that Hawkins’s Bigbang does not stand for the Quranic Verses.  That is not conclusive>  Mr Roy always thinks that the secular homepage gives him something conclusive. Well, it just gives him some arguments and rest is to rationalize by our own logic.  So next time Mr. Roy says some theory it will be appreciated if he does not assert to prove that but say that it is a possible construction.  

                          Well, I am not particularly a science graduate but guess any one would have some common knowledge of statistics to grasp what I am trying to say.  This procedure I came to know from a well-known Scholar, unfortunately whose name I forgot!.

                          And if we just think logically as a normal human being with common sense please see the mail of Mr. Mab Rahman (msg no.3154).

                          Thanking you all for being with me such long time

                          M Naufal A Zamir

                        • Avijit Roy
                          Thank you Mr. Zamair for your colourful writing. Here is my reply... ... My Reply : May be you people are fond of Stephen Hawking without knowing the proper
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jun 13, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thank you Mr. Zamair for your "colourful" writing. Here is my reply...


                            >From: "Naufal Arshad Zamir" <nzamir@...>
                            >>
                            >
                            >Dear eShomabesh readers
                            >(Specially to Tamanna(John Chowdhury johnc@...) and Islam_Nadia,
                            >needless to mention Avijit Roy)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >PART 1
                            >
                            >
                            >> 1) The false attempt of Mr Avijit to quote big names of Science is
                            >>bizarre. He attempts to justify his proposition with the help of some big
                            >>names, which actually either does not stand for his proposition or are
                            >>very much argumentative. As Mr. Taneem A. remarked that it would be
                            >>better to get a physics authority to explain philosophy of quantum physics
                            >>rather than a philosophy Prof. explaining Quantum Physics. In the mail
                            >>No: 3107 Mr. Roy used the name of Stephen Hawkins so many times.but his
                            >>assertion seems funny. Why? (See 3149 by Taneem A) Stephen Hawkins:
                            >>"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be
                            >>understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists.
                            >>Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be
                            >>able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we
                            >>and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
                            >>ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
                            >>God."]


                            My Reply : May be you people are fond of Stephen Hawking without knowing the
                            proper backgruond of philosophy and science. Although he speaks of "God" in
                            the metaphorical sense of some creative force, he has stated that he is an
                            atheist (in a sense the he is NOT believer of personal God"). At a
                            physicist's conference Hawking was attending after his book A Brief History
                            of Time was published, a reporter approached him to ask if he did in fact
                            believe in God, given the "mind of God" reference near the end of the book.
                            Hawking responded quickly (suggesting his answer was pre-prepared) "I do not
                            believe in a personal God." Scientists some times uses "God" in many cases
                            to denote nature. Einstien also said once "God does not play with dice" but
                            it only to show the harmony and beauty of the nature, not to describe the
                            omnipontent & omniscient god that we know. He clearly said about his belief
                            many times...

                            "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.
                            [Albert Einstein, as quoted in a memoir by Life editory William Miller in
                            Life, May 2, 1955]

                            or---

                            "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy
                            created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were
                            supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The
                            idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old
                            conception of the gods." . [Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy
                            and Religion: A Symposium, edited by L. Bryson and L. Finkelstein. Quoted
                            in: 2000 Years of Disbelief. by James Haught]


                            Does, these quotes refer you that Einstien was a "believer" of God Mr.
                            Zamir? I dont think so. Beause if he would believe in god, he should not say
                            like this....

                            I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to
                            be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
                            [Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman,
                            and published by Princeton University Press.] or "I cannot conceive of a
                            personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or
                            would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. ...." etc.


                            Stephen Hawking also used the term god in the same sense of harmony. If he
                            believes in god, then why does he quoted like this ? ---

                            "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe
                            began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be
                            necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't
                            prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." [Stephen W.
                            Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

                            Please read the above quote very carefully.
                            Mr. Taneem and Mr. Zamir, is it not the same hypothesis that Laplace gave to
                            Nepolean -"Sire, I found that this hypothesis (god) is not necessary" ?!

                            Now come to the question why Stephen Hawking used "God" in "Brief History of
                            time" ? I personally think it is to make his writing poular to the common
                            people. We all know that even in last moment he wanted to strikeout the
                            sentence having "mind of god" for his book. But publishers requested Hawking
                            not to strike out the sentence.

                            There is also another possibility that we apostates all aware about it.
                            Shephen Hawking also knows it quite well ---

                            "...I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time
                            was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no
                            moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom
                            I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of
                            having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A
                            Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]


                            I hope you have understood clearly.






                            >
                            >2) I quote Taneem A from 3149: (to Mr. Avijit Roy) "My mistake. I should
                            >have said, "I have a feeling you are not sure
                            > what you are talking about regarding science." And as for arguing "on
                            >behalf of his belief or logic", that's
                            >exactly what I had invited you to do. However, when I read your email I get
                            >the feeling that
                            >I am reading parts of different articles (except the parts about "ghorar
                            >dim", etc.). Have I clarified my points?
                            >
                            >
                            >Once again in the same mail Taneem A said: "Yes I am quite sure what I am
                            >talking about in these e-mails.
                            > If it is not clear then I will try to make it clear - what I am saying is
                            >that you talk about all these scientific
                            >theories with out understanding any of them. I have a wild guess that you
                            >haven't even read
                            > a single original paper about these theories. You read articles on some
                            >of your favorite web sites and take
                            >the content of those articles for granted. And then you argue based on what
                            >these articles said. That is what
                            >I am talking about."


                            Good Guess indeed. Atleast you people understand that I read articles rather
                            than passing time here n there. The above allegation you quoted from
                            Taneem's e-mail is entirely personal. I normally dont wish to comment on
                            personal issue, but Mr. Zamir enforces me to give a reply. I would like to
                            refer the reader to go back to Mr. Taneem's original posting. He wrote
                            ...."let me tell you something personal about myself. I have studied a bit
                            of quantum physics,....I don't know if you have studied quantum physics, but
                            if you haven't I invite you to do so. Maybe you will become a fool like me
                            too".
                            I wish to give a personal reply to this quotation. Reading Quantum Physics
                            not essentially can make a person "believer". The best example is my father.
                            He is is a phrofessor of Physics of Dhaka University. He joined in DU in the
                            year of 1960 and and finished his career (Retired) this year. Through out
                            his entire life he passed most of the time dealing quantum physics and
                            teaching the subject to his students. Even then he is quite skeptic in
                            believing in god. I never saw him to go to temple to pray to any god thru
                            out his entire life time; even he plans to donate his eyes and organ for the
                            common people (for transplantation after his death), as he do not believe in
                            Heaven or hell or any rewards/punishment after death. so you see...EVEN
                            QUANTUM PHYSICS COULD NOT MAKE HIS EYES OPEN ! or may be he is not as
                            knowlegeable as Taneem is. Anyway, I dont want to comment in this area any
                            more.

                            But when I see his comment "...I was born in a Muslim family. But now I
                            believe in "Allah" because I believe in a Creator." then his entire
                            intention becomes quite crystal clear to me. All his argument relating to
                            impersonal (!) god, quantum tunneling, light speed indicates his intention
                            to establish his "Islamic God" Allah and authenticity of Quran (on which he
                            do not want want to discuss !) . If you have " Islamic belief" in the first
                            place (sticked in your head), then in every single thing you will find your
                            "Allah" there (not the laws of physics). When we say it is the laws of
                            physics which controlling the harmony of nature, then he argues "who created
                            those laws of physics? " and says, "I still have a problem understanding
                            how these laws of physics came to existence. I find it very hard to
                            visualize that a bunch of physical laws had a round table meeting and
                            decided to behave so nicely to create this universe ". Probably ancient
                            people also argued in the same manner - "who controls the rain?" May be
                            ...It was also very hard for them to "visualise" that some laws of physics
                            picking the water from the ground into a bucket and take them up in the sky
                            to form cloud which actually causes rain. That's why they imagined Mekyl
                            Feresta or Indro behind the fact. Now we know about the water cycle behing
                            the scene, not Mekyl Feresta.

                            Yes, we honestly say that do not know yet how those laws of physics are
                            created. But that does not mean that surely God has created those laws. May
                            be in future we would know. Science is a dynamic area. In every moment it is
                            flourishing. If you believe that "God has creted those laws which science
                            will never able to explain" then there is no scope for research there. Right
                            ? I will like to add from Stephen Hawking, whom you like most !!! ---

                            "One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the
                            creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the
                            laws of physics." [Stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes]

                            By the by, Mr. Zamir, neither Stephen Hawking, nor Einstien believed in your
                            Islamic God, which I dont have any necessity to say (what about your part 2,
                            are those also supported by Hawking)!


                            > We are still waiting for Mr. Avijit's response; guess he is seeking some
                            >assistance to his personal gods (so called shottoshondhani or some other
                            >'masud bhai' or his favourite seculars web pages). He got some help from
                            >Masud bhai and posted the answer to us but he TOTALLY AVOIDED ALL THE
                            >ALLEGATIONS and its been more than 7/8 days, he has time to answer Mr.
                            >Qaders (poor fella) mail which is inherently weak but avoided answering the
                            >Burning issues. He thinks we don't follow the mails? He is thinking like a
                            >daft ...
                            >
                            > 3) Mr Avijit, What is your answer to the allegation of
                            >Plagiarism? (made in mail number 3149 by Taneem A)


                            My reply : do you people understand the meaning of inverted coma ("") ? When
                            I quote from Stephen Hawking or Einstein, does it mean that I am doing
                            Plagirarism ? I try to give reference (of book/article) everytime when I
                            include any quotation from any article. That's how Taneem came to know about
                            Quentin Smith's article and others. May be I untentionally overlooked in
                            some cases. Please let me know.
                            Do you mr. Zamir read any scientific journal ? Do you undersatnd giving
                            credit or giving reference ? When I give any reference to any author (even
                            indicating any comment of eShomabesh) I do it from my ethics and principle
                            that i hold. Because those comments/analysis are not mine. Those analysis
                            makes the the reader to focus directly to the related topic and also avoids
                            the old "reinvention of wheel". Do you understand or NOT ? Now it seems to
                            you that "He got some help from Masud bhai...." Good reward indeed. How
                            about your help fro Taneem ? I did not find any difference!

                            Another point, when I read Quran and other Islamic authenticated books I
                            find many things they inherited (or should I say stole) from other religion
                            (such as biblical six day creation, Adam-eve story, jewish culture, stone
                            worship like pagan, swear by sun and moon......etc. etc. ) May be Omnipotent
                            Allah need not give any credit to others for this plagiarism!!!!


                            >
                            > 4) One thing Mr Avijit is escaping. The question of Burden of
                            >Proof should never arise. The reason being that this is a question of
                            >possibility. No conclusive proof is needed so far things between B and N
                            >is concerned (as you mentioned a theory in answer to Mr. Qader). What you
                            >are saying is, you don't believe because there is no proof. As a defence
                            >some are saying that there is no proof that God does not exist. You are
                            >taking this to the Question of proving. But one thing is the B need not
                            >prove but to show a possibility, just to say it is more probable according
                            >to science as well as logic.

                            My response : Yes posibility. That you may say. But possibilty does not mean
                            Certainty, right ? As long as there is no definite scientific prove is found
                            (not only regarding god, but also for every rational argument), we have
                            every right to "disagree" with Exaggerated proposition. You must understand
                            that Atheism is an "effect" ---not a "cause". If it scientifically proved
                            that god exists by an unanimous attempt, there will be no reason for anyone
                            to disagree. But the believers who should possess the "burden of proof"
                            failed miserably in various cases, I must say !



                            When you are asking for proof you are yourself creating a circle. Ask your
                            self how many scientific theories are not yet proved so far your notion of
                            proof is concerned. Coming back to your mail, what B is doing is preaching
                            and preaching includes necessarily belief of the preached. None of the B's
                            (who are preached) are asking for proof but they are taking it as probable
                            and believing on the probability. What you are doing is, with out a good
                            reasoning asking B's to stop preaching.

                            My reply : Who argued to stop preaching ? Is it not the believers in the
                            first place to stop educate people egarding this? Why do you ignore the root
                            always ? By the by there are thousand of atheists celebrity in this world
                            who have rejected the primitive concept of god.

                            I would like to refer you to take a look :
                            http://www.celebatheists.com/

                            I dont think they are all claimed themselves as atheists for just silly
                            reason that you want to imply.



                            Ns' should keep away from it. They don't have to submit nor they have to
                            listen. They can just delete the mails and refuse to read. But you are
                            taking a positive approach of preaching the other way. That's why you need
                            to prove your statements or show a better possibility to believe that God
                            does not exist than the one B's are offering. Till you prove, the
                            difference between B and N is nothing but difference of opinion and believe,
                            no question of proof in any side. That is why N's should stick to their
                            believes and if they wish preach it as well. The inherent problems of Ns
                            are they cannot preach because they are not in the positive stand but in the
                            negative. They don't have anything to disprove unless something is proved.
                            B's are not proving but believing. The problem is created when B is
                            preaching to A (who is neither B nor N) N is not ignoring but making a
                            positive assertion that B is wrong. That is the inherent problem of Ns. No
                            matter how many times Ns are told that it is a matter of believe and not one
                            of proof they just chirp and bark "we want proof". Don't worry, says B, we
                            are not proving, we are just giving the best probable answer and if you are
                            not satisfied be my guest and reject but do not disturb me while I am
                            preaching.

                            My reply : Best probable answer ? How do you know which one is the best
                            probable answer without examining it ? What is the best probale answer lying
                            in believing in existance of satan, feresta, jin, bhut, Avatars etc ? A lot
                            of people still believing in those superstition. Hope they also got their
                            "logical" answer like you in their life!

                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >5) Most importantly Mr. Avijit at last submits, There is a possibility of a
                            >super power in mail No: 3132 A Roy in response to Taneem A., I quote:
                            >"Anyway, even if any superforce is found in future which is prior cause of
                            >creation, I think it should be termed as "super force" only-- NOT "God" or
                            >any other supernatural term. Because these terms create obscurity within
                            >the common people."
                            >
                            >Does it need any more explanation that we talk about this Super force as
                            >our Allah or God?

                            My reply : Oh !! is this the same superforce that I am describing to referr
                            your allah who seats on throne ? is it the same superforce who sends
                            mesenger like muhammad time to time to "hedayet" people? Is this the same
                            god who created our universe in just six days ? is this the same superforce
                            who send human being to earth for Adam-Hawa-Satan story ? is this the same
                            superforce who have a children also (Jesus - the son of god !!!!). Is this
                            the same superforce who come to our earth in in diferent form of Avatars
                            like Ram, Honuman, Shiva etc ? Is this the same superforce which are is
                            indulged and flattered by praise and worship? is it the same superforce who
                            reveals quran, bible, gita -- some so called misleading "supernatural" book
                            ? Did I say any this time ? No !! I just raised a possibility "may or may
                            not" for future for explaing the initial condition of universe. And I also
                            said most of the scientists think that god is not a necessary assumption for
                            explaining any perticular event or laws of nature. Why do you ignore this
                            fact? Haven't I quoted from Laplace, Stephen Hawking, Q.Smith's article to
                            reveal a neutral scenario?

                            Remember, when I asked the same question to Taneem ? He said -- "And you are
                            100% correct. I don't want to discuss my "personal god", i.e. the God of
                            Islam, because I don't want to embarrass myself. See I am not capable of
                            understanding Quran, let alone Allah". So even a knowlegable person like
                            taneem avoids those discussion when it comes to their personal belief.
                            Indeed it's Just easy to escape by saying "I dont know". But I wonder when
                            the situation comes to explain physical laws...Most of the believer's
                            evidence is of the god-of-the-gaps nature, meaning that those believers try
                            to poke holes in science and then stuff their God into them. They invent
                            their god in missing link, they invent their god in bigbang, they invent
                            their god in quantum tunneling ! This is essentially an argument from
                            ignorance: "Since we don't know how this happened, it must mean God did it."
                            Yet ignorance is never an argument and cannot be considered evidence in any
                            meaningful sense.



                            >
                            >All Mr. Roy does is giving wrong interpretations of Quranic verses and try
                            >to find out flaws without proper understanding. While he is quick enough
                            >to hire some philosophical aspect of bigbang theory from Q. smith he is
                            >quite blind to accept that Quran can have broader meanings than the face
                            >value of some verses. It is not easy to rationalise all Quranic verses
                            >since some invalidates the face value of others depending on the time of
                            >the verse being sent to Muhammad (peace be upon Him).


                            No comment. Describing "Islamic God" again. Not any kind of superforce. If I
                            say something you will again tell that I am insulting your personal belief.
                            I have answered a lot previously against those common argument. I am not
                            going to comment on it now. Hopefully other readers will point out your
                            falacies regarding this issue and part 2.


                            Regards,

                            Avijit




                            >
                            >PART II
                            >
                            >How much is it probable that God exists?
                            >
                            >How about giving these ideas a try:
                            >
                            >Quranic Verses:
                            >
                            >Do the unbelievers not realize that
                            >
                            >The heavens and earth used to be
                            >
                            >Once solid mass that we exploded to existence
                            >
                            >And from water we made all living things
                            >
                            >Would they believe? The Holy Quran 21:30
                            >
                            >A possible similarity with Bigbang theory?
                            >
                            >------------------------------
                            >
                            >He created seven universes in layers
                            >
                            >You do not see any imperfection
                            >
                            >in the creation by the Most Gracious.
                            >
                            >Keep looking; do you see any flaw?
                            >
                            >Look again and again; your eyes will
                            >
                            >Come back stumped and conquered.
                            >
                            >Qur'an 67:3-4.
                            >
                            >Can we see Causation mentioned here?
                            >
                            >-------------------------------------
                            >
                            >51/47: And it is we who have built the universe with our power, and
                            >verily, it is we who are steadily expanding it.
                            >
                            >51/48. And we made the earth habitable; a perfect design
                            >
                            >Possibly : Expansion of universe theory?
                            >
                            >-----------------------------------------
                            >
                            >When you look at the mountains
                            >
                            >You think that they are standing still.
                            >
                            >But they are moving, like the clouds.
                            >
                            >Such is the manufacture of God,
                            >
                            >Who perfected everything.
                            >
                            >He is fully cognizant of
                            >
                            >Everything you do. Quran 27:88
                            >
                            >Possibility that this talks about geological facts?
                            >
                            >---------------------------------------
                            >
                            >For creation of Human being see The Quran 96:1-8
                            >
                            >------------------
                            >
                            >Embryology The Quran 23:12-16
                            >
                            >-------------------
                            >
                            >Preservation of Genetic Data The Quran 75:3, 75:4.
                            >
                            >----------------------
                            >
                            >(These verses are to be found :
                            >http://www.ummah.org.uk/science/default.html )
                            >
                            >Mr Avijit will say well, these do not point or stand for the scientific
                            >explanations, but all I am saying that there is a possibility that these do
                            >stand for such theories definitely on the face of it.
                            >
                            >Now just a small scientific equation. In 592 AD (Think this is the time
                            >from when Allah started revelation), if we take that it was Muhammad (PBUH)
                            >who made it all up, then lets consider the possibilities..(here I shall
                            >assume some numbers, if you think I have over/under estimated the
                            >possibilities then you can change as you wish). The probability that
                            >Muhammad was just making throw away remarks, (if we take that the Quran is
                            >not sent by God), is 100%. Now lets see...
                            >
                            >Say, there could be a 500 reasons a man could imagine how universe was
                            >created. So 1/500 probability that His explanation of Bigbang would be
                            >true.
                            >
                            >Causation, assuming there could be 100 of theories to pluck from air and he
                            >picked this one so it has a probability of 1/100 to be true.
                            >
                            >Expanding Theory..Guessing that in 592 AD you would have to get this from
                            >your dreams. A normal person would experience dream at least 1000 times
                            >and he just picked this one and the probability is 1/1000 that this would
                            >be true
                            >
                            >Geological facts...possibility I assume would be 5000 to 1 to get such idea
                            >that mountains are moving! So Probability is 1/5000 of that to be true.
                            >
                            >Embryology , I assume 1/100 Probability
                            >
                            >Preservation of Genetic Data, Assume 1/500 probability
                            >
                            >(Any one has some knowledge of astronomy or other facts to add to this
                            >list? I am sorry that for my limited knowledge I could not add more)
                            >
                            >And now what?
                            >
                            >What is the probability that they will all be true out of a stroke of LUCK?
                            >
                            >X..Y.Z.Q.W.E == ?
                            >
                            >1/500.100.1000.5000.100.500 == 1/7500000000000000 anyone has a calculator?
                            > Does it not look like NEGLIGIBLE?
                            >
                            >Negligible is a quite useful concept used by scientists when it comes to
                            >proving theories. Any student of science would know that negligible are
                            >not counted.
                            >
                            >We are talking about probability here.here it is, there are two more things
                            >to consider: Firstly There are many other things that Quran said proved to
                            >be right, which I did not consider here. There should be a list of more
                            >things, I am sorry I heard a bulk of these aspects and again I forgot.
                            >
                            >Secondly: there will always be people like Mr. Q. Smith to assert that
                            >Hawkins's Bigbang does not stand for the Quranic Verses. That is not
                            >conclusive> Mr Roy always thinks that the secular homepage gives him
                            >something conclusive. Well, it just gives him some arguments and rest is to
                            >rationalize by our own logic. So next time Mr. Roy says some theory it
                            >will be appreciated if he does not assert to prove that but say that it is
                            >a possible construction.
                            >
                            >Well, I am not particularly a science graduate but guess any one would have
                            >some common knowledge of statistics to grasp what I am trying to say. This
                            >procedure I came to know from a well-known Scholar, unfortunately whose
                            >name I forgot!.
                            >
                            >And if we just think logically as a normal human being with common sense
                            >please see the mail of Mr. Mab Rahman (msg no.3154).
                            >
                            >Thanking you all for being with me such long time
                            >
                            >M Naufal A Zamir
                            >

                            _________________________________________________________________________
                            Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                          • Mohammad Hossain
                            Dear All: Peace be upon you! I smell fish here! After reading many of the posting in this forum, I have a strong hunch that Mr Avijit is using more than one
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jun 13, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear All:
                               
                              Peace be upon you!
                               
                              I smell fish here!  After reading many of the posting in this forum, I have a strong hunch that Mr Avijit is using more than one aliases here and other egroups to propagate his agenda of animosity, hostility and hatred against Muslims and Islam.  Can some IT expert do some research and find out if Mr. Avijit is using the following aliases:
                               
                              -Aparthib (why not use a real name?
                              -Nadia Islam
                               
                              The reason I say this is because of the same style and tone of writing, using the same reference and examples and pointing to the similar web addresses as backup arguments.  I find too much coincidence in all of these postings.  They all involved in copying from the similar sources. Specially, all of these writers are using "Ghorar Dim" for God or Allah (May Allah forgive me).
                               
                              Not too long ago( about two years ago), eSHOMABESH discovered that one member was using too many aliases to create a division and incite hostility among Muslim and Hindu participants in this forum.  I remember, that member (from New Hampshire) was later on barred from any more participation in the discussion.
                               
                              I am not an expert in computer.  However, I highly appreciate if anyone who can do the search.  Thank you in advance
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: aparthib [mailto:aparthib@...]
                              Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:30 AM
                              To: eshomabesh@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [eSHOMABESH] Re: argument to oppose (att. Mr Avijit Roy)

                              Mr. Kabir,
                              Few questions for you:

                              1. Can you clarify in precise terms what did you  mean by  " let
                                 the other people LIVE with their own believes"
                                        
                                 a) Have you been prevented from "LIVING" ? If so, how.  Or are
                                   you or  your belief  having difficulty staying alive after reading
                                   Avijit's post?
                                        
                                b) Do you realize that Islam, Christianity would not have been established
                                  had  your  policy of  " let  the other people LIVE with their own believes"
                                  been followed  to the letter by the prophets and you wouldn't  be making
                                  this  statement defending your faith in religion to begin with!

                              2. Are you asking Avijit to stop expressing his view (Shutting up?), in other
                                 words are you advocating suppressing  freedom of expression? (Remember
                                 his post was approved by the moderator).

                              3.  If you affirm that if someone argues against the religious concept of God then 
                                 it is his own problem and tell him not to try educating the other people, then by
                                 the logic will you also  affirm  that if someone argues in favour of God  then it
                                 is  also  his own problem and tell him not to try educating the other people?
                                 And this statement of principle should then retroactively apply to the prophets
                                of religions as well? And  that in that case you cannot justify the  religion
                                (including the one you are defending)  which owes its birth to  preaching
                                   in past?

                              4.  Do you recognize that certain beliefs  (call it B-1) become a  topic of debate
                                  only because they are  preached  (religious notion of God for example) and
                                  that certain beliefs  (call them B-2) are not debated  simply because they
                                  do not  require preaching and are not preached  (e.g  Process theology,
                                  Spinozza's God, Omega Point, Brahma, Shaman God , Unicorn, Ghorar Dim
                                  etc AND  the  belief  in the true identity of  one's mother ). If you do
                                  recognize then don't you agree that it  is a  logical fallacy  to  make  a
                                  case for not arguing  about  B-1 by citing  B-2 ?

                              I  hope you don't my asking you these questions.
                              Thanks,

                              Aparthib
                                    

                              At 6/5/01 11:51 PM, you wrote:
                              >Dear Avijit :
                              >
                              >I live in Canada and this is my first such e-mail that I am writing.
                              >Could you please tell me what is really wrong with you ? why can't you let
                              >the other people live with their own beleives, if you feel that their is no
                              >god then fine, it is your own problem don't try educating the other people
                              >who beleives in God. YOu have to understand that it is one own Beleives that
                              >keeps a person alive , you seem to look for evidence in every aspect of your
                              >life, here is a question for you - Do you beleive that you are your Father's
                              >son ? please don't get offended but their is a logic behind it, it is
                              >basically your mother who can really answer that - Now, Do you want to
                              >question your own mother and go for test to find out the truth ? I don't
                              >suppose so, now you see it is your own beleive that you know that you are
                              >your parents son ( If you have gone for any test then I really have nothing
                              >to say to you). You might argue and say that I can do test and find out but

                              >how can you do the test and find out that their is a God ? I know you will,
                              >but you see Avijit, just like you will feel ashamed in trying to go into
                              >this kind of scenerio and offend your parents, people do not always looks
                              >for evidence in every aspect of their life like you do, specially in a
                              >sensitive issue like this, I am a muslim but not a fanatic, I do understand
                              >what you really want to say, but please stay out of a issues like this which
                              >does not make any sense. Tell me What proof have you got that their is no
                              >God ? have you done any test on that, unlike your Ghorar Dim which you love
                              >to say quite often, you also do not have any logic in saying that their is
                              >no God ? please put yourself on the other side of the coin.
                              >
                              >Thanks, take care.
                              >
                              >Anwarul Kabir
                              >







                              You can also read eShomabesh mails on our web archive at:

                              www.egroups.com/group/eshomabesh/ Please try to avoid copying

                              the original mail that you are responding to. Mails less than 15 lines

                              in length must be sent to eShomabesh_Compilation@...

                              To unsubscribe please write to eshomabesh-manager@egroups.com

                              Visit our homepage at www.eshomabesh.com


                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            • Naufal Arshad Zamir
                              Dear Mr. Roy and readers, Thank you for your reply. Before coming to the point I want to make a few things clear. Firstly, I appreciate that you are a true
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jun 15, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                 

                                Dear Mr. Roy and readers,

                                 Thank you for your reply.  Before coming to the point I want to make a few things clear.  Firstly, I appreciate that you are a true seeker and you read articles and journals a lot.  It is just that if you had passed a bit more time here and there then you might have developed a thing called social approach towards life.  By that I mean it would be difficult for you to interfere between Bs when a question of belief and religion comes up. And by the by, I do not read scientific journals, as I am not a student of science in a graduate level but I rather try to read some Law journals sometimes.  You are most welcome as you thanked me for the colourful reply, which I shall try to do in this mail as well J.

                                 I must say that I am amazed by reading all the mails put forward by you and aparthib as to the falsehood of Islam and the questions as to the character of Muhammad (PBUH).  When I shall be considering those aspects of Islam I shall request you, aparthib and Ms Nadia to let me know personally the number (e.g.3128, 3453 etc as in eshomabesh) of the mails I shall be dealing with.   I shall come to those points one after another but before starting those I shall deal with the present reply.  I must admit that I thought there would be more of a logical approach on your part than the way you tried to rebut my previous posting.

                                Regarding Stephen Hawkins, Einstein and Laplace:

                                I quote you:

                                May be you people are fond of Stephen Hawking without knowing the 

                                proper backgruond of philosophy and science.

                                Why did it occur to you that I am fan of Hawkins?  That is for you to say.  And I don’t remember saying that I am a fan of him or whatsoever.  All I said that the quotations you make or the names you use do not stand for the propositions you put forward (remember the root of the issue? I quoted Hawkins because you mentioned his name and not other way round).  Guess you already understood that I am a layman when it comes to science and scientific theories.  But what is science? Science is not only mathematics or some bunch of theories but includes a rational relational understanding.  Inherently if science had been a game of football the ball would be logic and which is I am more comfortable with than the caricature of the players i.e. the scientists and theories. 

                                I could quote your reply but that would be burdensome for readers to read once again what you have said, the summary as I understood is: Einstein and Hawkins are atheist and the book A Brief History of Time does not stand for the existence of GOD (you explained it by quite a number of quotations how the term GOD is used by scientists, thanks for enlightening me on that).

                                My reply to that: 

                                There is no problem what so ever to concede that both the scientists are atheist.  But as I said I am more comfortable on logic, the problem occurs when you relate them to Laplace and say it is not necessary to have a God and that whenever there is a missing link or something science cannot explain then we try to push into the notion of GOD in those holes.  Both of these propositions are flawed. 

                                The question whether GOD is necessary or not:  It is a matter of perception as I see it.  Take a well-known example:  Optimists says: there is half a glass of water while the Pessimists say the glass is half empty.  The perception of Laplace is the later one and how can I be blamed to take the previous contention that the glass is half full?  Well, I also appreciate that you tried to fill in the flaw of logic by saying we try to push our God in the holes of science.  The problem here is not that there is half glass of water or not; the problem is we cannot see what material the glass has if there is any at all.  The most popular method of believers is to say that – as science cannot explain it must be God’s will/act. Well I do not say that and never did.  What I say is as you said it and most of us would say similarly is:  Science is ever flourishing; there are lots of ‘dont knows’ there fore science might or should not be the standard (considering the ever existing missing links which is inherent to science cuz science, I assume will never come up with the ULTIMATE theory of everything) to measure whether my/your/his/her religion/belief is true or false or what is the meaning of life etc. 

                                I think so far the holes of science are concerned we agree with each other, the question is whether you agree that science should be a standard or not.  If it is a standard after all, then the question is obviously one of possibility or probability and not one of proof.  Am I right? Or do I make sense? This is how I see it, let me know your understanding.

                                If so, then I forwarded a statistical proposition, just a model of it (PART II of Mail:3169 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eshomabesh/messages)(it needs to be worked out so far the facts are concerned and how one would consider the probabilities in each issues).  Now please do not muddle up with the other theories and the one I gave in Part II because those theories (e.g. bigbang) are not one heading for the proposition we are specifically dealing with here while my approach is specific towards the possible reasoning of Islam).

                                If science is not a standard when it comes to religion, then we are left with the historical backgrounds and logic of Islam which has more to do with the common arguments of character of Muhammad (PBUH), Quranic verses on specific issues, standard of females etc. which I shall be delighted to discuss once we come to some sort of understanding as to our views in the previous part. Remember, this mail only deals with the part taking science as some sort of standard.

                                Thinking about science of some standard, coming back to the root of the issue as you have mentioned, Hawkins, Einstein, Laplace or Smith, I do not see how your proposition stand for the contention that there is no GOD. They simply say God is not necessary and that obviously leave rooms for argument on the other way.  How do you relate that with atheism?  Atheists do not say that there is a ‘possibility that there is no GOD’ but they say there is ‘NO GOD’, or did I misunderstand atheism? That is why I said your quotations do not stand for what you said.

                                PERSONAL ATTACK and PLAGIARISM

                                I quote you:

                                “Do you mr. Zamir read any scientific journal ? Do you undersatnd giving credit or giving reference ?
                                 When I give any reference to any author (even indicating any comment of eShomabesh) I do it from my ethics
                                 and principle that i hold. Because those comments/analysis are not mine. Those analysis makes the the reader 
                                to focus directly to the related topic and also avoids the old "reinvention of wheel". Do you understand or NOT ?
                                 Now it seems to you that "He got some help from Masud bhai...." Good reward indeed. How about your help fro Taneem ?
                                 I did not find any difference!”

                                I do not intend to rebut or answer the points you made to Taneem A; since you brought me to the issue, I shall answer only to the extent you gave some new points and so far my name is concerned. And for your knowledge, Oh I just understood the meaning of inverted commas(“”) after you mentioned in the last mail, I was wholly unaware of that.  Sorry for being so illiterate.  How on earth I missed such important aspect of a language?!!! I should have known it when I was in class 1 ????? Must be mistake on the part of my teachers, I shall let them know what you said.  Thanks for your nice judgement.  While you don’t stop to mention in a funny and sarcastic way if someone misspell your name, I did a grievous mistake by referring to a mail that said you used word to word of some Article and did not refer it?

                                 

                                My reply: 

                                FIRSTLY:            While you do not see any difference, I see a sea of difference. And what that may be?  You remember I was talking from the beginning in line that your propositions do not stand for what you say or you do not have a good grasp on what you are saying?  Taneem A said similar thing.  That is why I quoted Taneem A and asked you to answer the allegation.  I did not say where you Plagiarise, I just quoted Taneem and guess he will show you and as you also said if it was done at all, it was done unintentionally, I understand common mistakes people can make.  But one point here.  Coming to the root again, why did I make a sarcastic remark on your help of shottoshondhani or masud bhai??????  Big question but a simple one to answer.  The difference between you and me are- you say something; and when you are rebutted you look to others to get some point to defend yourself, while I do not make a claim that I cannot defend.  What you did, showed that you did not have a good grasp and original thought on what you were talking about while on the other hand I just quoted Taneem A to get an answer from you on this regard.  The deference is one of time when you give credit to others.  I give credit to Taneem when after he has said something himself and you give credit to someone when they are to help you to establish YOUR POINT.  It’s a very subtle point but I assume people will be able to get it rather than saying it is nonsensical.

                                 Secondly:  While discussing plagiarism you gave another example:

                                About the Quran – that it used previous history and plagiarised the Bible or other religious books.

                                 MY reply: Your contention is wholly fallacious from all viewpoints:

                                 If there is a GOD (from believers view):  Taking that there is a GOD then no question of Plagiarising since GOD Himself is repeating the historical facts mentioned earlier.

                                If there is no GOD (from atheist’s view):  Taking that God does not exist, then Muhammad must have been plagiarising.  Then we have to consider these independent issues: 1) was it word to word? Just as of evidential value to seek the question whether they where directly COPIED.  2) Remembering that it is a history issue; on how many history books you see quotations Mr. Avijit? How can history be plagiarised??? There must have been hundreds of books to this context (in a stricter sense) 3) When we are talking about plagiarism we have to take into account the common understanding that: when you copy one book you plagiarise but when you copy a number of books you have done a research. 

                                 Plagiarise stands for: take without referencing from someone else's writing or speech; of intellectual property.  Take it from me, Intellectual Property law was not in play in those times and as you are not a believer, you have to take the time in context cuz human morality and ethics is a matter of evolution.  Simple example is if after 100 years capital punishment is abolished then the US Govt will not be liable of murdering McVeigh.  In law we call it ex post facto (latin terminology). Neither in law nor in ethics you can try the people done some wrongs in a different standard than that of the time when the act was done.  Also don’t forget the 3 points that are very much independent.

                                 Be careful here, don’t try to find a relation or link between the two different views.

                                 Burden of Proof, Probability and PART II of my mail 3169:

                                 Somehow I could not help feeling that Mr. Roy is using loose connections among these terms and approaching to the issue in a way that serves him the best.  Your approach is flawed.  Ok, let it be; now take a look on how I see it/ or think it should be seen.  Let me first clear out the PART II of my mail 3169.  I am sorry but I have to quote him to make sense of what I will be saying.  Mr. Roy said (quote): “My reply : Best probable answer ? How do you know which one is the best probable answer without examining it ? What is the best probale answer lying in believing in existance of satan, feresta, jin, bhut, Avatars etc ? A lot of people still believing in those superstition. Hope they also got their "logical" answer like you in their life!”

                                again I quote: “My response : Yes posibility. That you may say. But possibilty does not mean Certainty, right ? As long as there is no definite scientific prove is found (not only regarding god, but also for every rational argument), we have every right to "disagree" with exaggerated proposition. You must understand that Atheism is an "effect" ---not a "cause". If it scientifically proved that god exists by an unanimous attempt, there will be no reason for anyone to disagree. But the believers who should possess the "burden of proof" failed miserably in various cases, I must say !”

                                 Lastly I quote:    “Hopefully other readers will point out your falacies regarding this issue and part 2.”

                                 My reply:

                                You said about having right to disagree, I do not have a problem with your right to disagree!!.  It is just that you do not disturb while we are preaching.  You did not give any rebuttal to the Burden of proof context I said on the specific point that N’s do not have a right to stop B’s from preaching A (who is neither a believer nor a non believer).  Even if I am proved wrong (which I don’t foresee) it does not warrant N’s to stop Bs from discussing within themselves.  There is a difference in these two circumstances.  Mr Wahed in a personal mail said something, which is in line with your use of the words “disagree with exaggerated disposition”.  Mr Avijit, you remember the Nicely made chart you sent us in the mail addressed to Mr. Qader??  The chart, let me remind you, shows that the N’s are not at all connected in any way and now you are extending that right (the right I have no problem with and seems more than sensible) to a right to disagree with an exaggerated disposition – if it means to stop us preaching neutrals then you are contradicting yourself. 

                                 Your forceful and repeated demand to prove satan, jin or fereshta is also flawed in the present context.  I don’t think a reasonable neutral reader should be blamed if he thinks that you are using these as escape goats.  These are independent issues and should be dealt independently.  I shall be very happy to discuss on a later point.  Let us not jump to other issues before dealing with one.

                                 I was amazed to see that your idea of commoner’s logic is very high indeed.  I would definitely not have published Part II if I any fallacies were apparent!  And just saying that it has fallacies does not change anything for me at least.  Show me the fallacy and I shall answer that.  As Ms. Nadia pointed out in her mail that I have made allegations but did not say what the problem really was rendering the allegations meaningless.  I agreed and I said that I shall come to that on a later point.  Now let me have your basis of this contention and I shall be happy to reply.   By the way I want to ask common readers, do you think there is a fallacy?  And which can be figured out so easily? And need no arguments to disprove? I am sorry, I couldn’t see any, clear it out.

                                 Well, Islam failed miserably on various issues of proving that Islam is the ONE & ONLY RELIGION of TRUTH.  Mr Roy you are again and again saying the same thing and I am getting a bit restless how the way you abuse logic.  Think it out yourself, chill out, what did I say?  I said it is not a matter of proof but belief and also for a person like me it is the best probable answer.  Why then asking for proof again and again???  Then you asked how is it probable?  That is what I said in PART II.  Which was inherently fallacious to you unfortunately.  I am seriously in doubt as to whether you are really discussing or arguing for the sake of it.  I said, here is x,y,z,a,b,c,v, as a result of that it (Existence of GOD/ISLAM) is right or much more probable.  You said M, N, O, P aspects are nonsense therefore I (Naufal) am/is wrong.  What kind of LOGIC is that???? Am I missing something?????  It looks soooooo funny to me.  I would be happy if you can come up with some specific argument to deal with.

                                 In a personal mail Mr. Wahed said my part II was fallacious. Here is what he said:

                                I quote: “4. Zamir says 'we are not proving'...then dear readers please do explain why does the quotations from Quran appear in this posting and what has Statistics to do with the question of believing and disbelieving”

                                 As I get it he was talking about- I said no proof needed to believe in Islam and again I quoted Quranic verses in Part II and appears that I tried to prove something.  Well it is a double-ended solution.  Depends what your point of view is…

                                 Firstly: I am invoking the same logic you said regarding Laplace just in another way: that is, to believe in Islam Proof is not necessary.  IN part I of my mail I therefore discussed about probability and Burden of Proof.  Here is only one meaning and no second meaning/view.

                                Secondly:  Part II created some doubt as I used the term “PROVE/PROOF”.  Remember that I was talking about probability?  On the first view it is to show that it is MORE PROBABLE.  On the second view: Since the probability goes to the extent that only a NEGLIGIBLE part is remaining, It may be (if that is the proper rationalisation of scientific method and way the term NEGLIGIBLE is used) a proof and not just to show that it is more probable. 

                                 And as to why Quranic verses are used there? Simple, how can you prove/disprove/show probability with out considering whatever It contains?!  The burden is on me show probability, you are to contradict my probability on my given point, any other point shall be discussed independently.

                                 Lastly, please do me a favour and make my life easier to deal in particular points.  Say one thing at a time, and don’t bring 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 while we are talking about Q,W,E,R,T,Y.  Does it make sense? I hope it will, cuz I shall also discuss whatever 1.2.3.4.5 are there but one after another. 

                                Thanking you all 

                                M Naufal A Zamir

                              • Madhabilata Basu
                                Anybody here from Switzerland. Pls contact me. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo!
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jun 25, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Anybody here from Switzerland.
                                  Pls contact me.

                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                                  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.