Response to
Avijit's Article
"Most of them follow not but conjecture. Assuredly conjecture
can by no means take the place of truth." (Qur'an
10:36)
Note:
Avijit Roy is promoting Hitler and Stalin type evils in the name
of promoting (pseudo) science. Because not only he doesn't
believe in God but also he preaches his belief in the name of
(pseudo) science. And according to his belief, Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam and Bush type evils and all those terrorists,
killers and rapists will never ever be judged! He is trying his
best to let them go free without any judgment in the name of
(pseudo) science. You see, how loving, kind and merciful he is!
Even the so-called greatest terrorist Bin-Laden never preached
this kind of belief! If he thinks otherwise, then he must come
up with solid argument. He can also take help from his idol,
Oxford Prof. Richard Dawkins, if he wants.
According to Muslim belief, however, this temporal world is a
test for the hereafter (18:7, 67:2, 2:155, 2:214), and each and
every individual will be judged perfectly according to his/her
own deeds and actions including Prophet Muhammad (11:35, 46:9,
36:54, 4:85, 40:17, 21:47, 36:54, 2:281, 7:29, 16:111, 17:13-15,
20:134-135). Therefore, there is not an iota of inhumanity or
irrationality in Muslim belief.
Avijit has
written a long article as a response to Mr. Gani's write-up on
"Science and Religion: Reality vs. Emotion!" I would not have to
write this response, had he not brought up all those old issues
that have already been refuted without leaving any gap. He has
also tried to show that how ignorant and dishonest the people
like Mr. Gani are who believe in God and also try to match
ancient holy book with science! He has even tried to make lots
of fun out of almost nothing. Let's see whether it's other way
round.
The way
some people are trying to give an idea to their readers as
though it's a crime/sin to try to match ancient holy book with
science! This kind of new 'crime/sin' has emerged suddenly when
Muslims have started doing the same. It was probably not
considered as a crime/sin before Maurice Bucaille's book "The
Bible, the Qur'an and Science" in general and 9-11 event in
particular.
Anyway,
there is no doubt that he is an excellent writer, especially
from literary viewpoint; but he severely lacks logic,
rationality, common sense, and above all honesty. Although he
blindly believes in all those fairytales (to-date) of Darwinism
in the name of (pseudo) science (ex: reptiles were evolved from
fish through random mutation and natural selection and yet
fishes are there, birds were evolved from reptiles and yet
reptiles are there, apple trees were evolved from jackfruit tree
and yet jackfruit trees are there, humans were evolved from ape
like animal and yet ape like animals are there, etc. etc. etc.)
yet he himself doesn't seem to evolve! He composed some articles
several years ago without doing any study and research. But he
probably never bothered to realize that his 'logics and
arguments' might have already been refuted. Instead, he is
playing with the same old stuffs again and again and over again
to mislead some unwary readers. He also has a habit of mixing up
wheat with rubbish to hide the truth.
Let's
address his arguments on "Theism and Atheism" issue first. The
readers may want to go through my below write-ups on this issue
where one can see that all possible common arguments of Atheists
have been refuted with the help of clear-cut logic and
established science, not pseudo science:
http://shodalap.com/R_File-1.pdf
http://shodalap.com/R_File-2.pdf
http://shodalap.com/R_File-3.pdf
http://shodalap.com/R_File-4.pdf
http://shodalap.com/R_File-5.pdf
If he
thinks otherwise on any point, then he must come up with solid
argument and to-the-point without beating around the bush. The
ball is now in his court.
He wrote in his response to Mr. Gani:
In the first step, the authors start with typical 'God in Gaps'
argument - i.e., try to poke holes in science and then stuff
their God into them. Their typical argument is - "Science cannot
explain that, cannot do this", and then conclude, "God did this"
or if put in a more humble way, "There must be a place for God
in science". I will start from 'God in Gaps' argument. To me and
many others, this is not an argument; this is actually an
argument from ignorance: "Since we don't know how this happened,
it must mean God did it."
My response:
I'm really sorry to say that Avijit is probably talking about
his previous (traditional) belief or he has no idea what he is
talking about! I don't think even an illiterate mullah believes
in the God (Creator) the funniest way he has tried to suggest!
This is more than just funny! This old and funny argument "god
in gaps" has been refuted very clearly in my above write-ups,
and it has also been shifted on the shoulder of Atheists. The
readers can check it out. He wrote about the argument from
ignorance, "Since we don't know how this happened, it must mean
God did it." Well, there are only two possible options regarding
the origin of the natural universe: (1) Creator; (2) Accident.
Is there any third option?
He wrote:
As a second step, these "premise keepers" will try to reconcile
their particular faith with recent scientific advancements. If
one is brought up in an Islamic faith, he will find Big Bang in
Qur'an, if he is a Christian, he will find Black holes in
Biblical verses, and if the person is Hindu, he will find 'time
dilation' in Vedic slokes etc.
Response:
Well, Muslims have got no problem if other religious people have
also found some scientific information in their holy books.
Muslims do not try to forcefully prove other holy books
unscientific, anyway. If other holy books really contain some
scientific info, then let it be. So, what is he trying to say?
Is he trying to say that other holy books contain some
scientific info, and therefore Qur'anic scientific info are
invalid? Or he is trying to legitimate others' claim? Or he is
trying to mislead the readers? If not, then what's the point of
bringing others' claim here!
He wrote:
After doing such 'eminent research' in reconciling, he would
eventually conclude that it was indeed a miracle to have the
advanced scientific information in such so-and so-ancient holly
books; it must be the act of God.
Response:
Not necessarily. 'Scientific info' may not be the criterion to
logically prove that a book is the word of God. Had it really
been so, then all the scientific books and journals would have
been the words of Gods and Goddesses! 'Scientific info' is just
one logical argument among many. For example, Muslims have
presented many logical arguments including scientific info to
show that it's not possible for a human being to write a book
like the Qur'an; and finally they conclude that it's a
revelation from God, as the Qur'an strongly claims to be so
(4:82, 17:88, 2:23-24, 10:37, 32.2, 26.192-4, 16.102, etc.).
Qur'an very emphatically and probably uniquely claims to be a
revelation from the Lord of the Worlds (Muhammad? LOL!). This
point alone could be sufficient for a person to believe in it.
What else does Avijit want to be convinced? Can he logically
answer this question? Yet Muslims have presented many more
logical arguments to substantiate their faith. Interested
readers may want to take a look:
http://shodalap.com/R_Koranic_Belief.pdf
http://www.answering-faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=586
http://youtube.com/watch?v=muFJX880cOc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zATtBLSOpec&feature=related
What other
religious people try to prove when they claim that their holy
books contain some scientific info, by the way? For example,
does having some scientific info in the New Testament, although
there is hardly any, anyway prove that Jesus is the Creator of
the universe in human form or the begotten son of Creator? If
the answer is yes, then how? If not, then what they try to prove
with scientific info!
He wrote:
If any rational person look at the past 100 years of scientific
advancement and he will notice that scientists were indeed able
to solve many such puzzles which were thought to be impossible.
Response:
Yes, it's true. For example, Avijit can't see Angels (that are
made up of light, according to Qur'an) with his naked eyes, and
therefore he doesn't believe in it. So, it's a puzzle for him!
Maybe several years later it will no longer be a puzzle to the
scientists, like black hole, ultra violate rays and many other
things that can't be seen with naked eyes. It works!
He wrote:
For anything could not be explained by science was thought to be
guided by supernatural causes indeed. For example it was not
known before Newton how earth hangs upon nothing in space
circling around the sun. Many people must have thought of a
mysterious "supernatural force" behind it.
Response:
What is he trying to say here? And what does he mean by
'supernatural causes'? For example, let's say, scientist X has
manufactured a mobile phone. Is he trying to say that 'scientist
X' is a 'supernatural cause'? Or believing in the existence of
'scientist X' is considered to be supernatural? What's the
definition of his 'natural cause', anyway? And how does he
distinguish between 'natural cause' and 'supernatural cause'?
He wrote:
Mr. Gani cannot see how the universe came about naturally, so it
must be an act of God. He cannot see how the universe became
orderly by natural processes, so order must have come about by
supernatural processes. He cannot see how the physical laws can
be originated, so it must be divine. In each of these cases I
can give a plausible natural explanation
that requires no divine actions.
None can show in proving these natural explanations wrong. That
is, it provides an economical explanation of the origin of the
universe without creation or design.
A creator is not required by the
data.
Response:
Here he has cited some technical papers to show high court to
some 'blind' people in the name of (pseudo) science. Nowhere in
any scientific journal does it say that "divine action is not
required" or "creator is not required by the data"! Scientific
journals cannot say anything like that! Because this is not
within the realm of science. He is challenged to produce his
evidence. It is he who blindly believes that creator is not
required by the 'data'. But he is propagating the same in the
name of (pseudo) science. What does he mean when he says
"creator is not required by the data", anyway? What kind of
'data' is he talking about? It seems like he is trying to make a
fool out of himself! What does he mean when he says "I can give
a plausible natural explanation"? He seems to have no idea about
the difference between 'explanation' and 'proof' either.
Explanation is not a proof at all! For example, scientists can
scientifically explain (not plausible natural explanation) how a
watch was manufactured and how it works. None can show in
proving this scientific explanation wrong! Yet that doesn't
anyway prove that the watch doesn't have any maker, or does it!
This kind of "argument from ignorance" has already been refuted
in the above write-ups. Although he has an excellent ability to
read, write and memorize lots of stuffs but he probably thinks
and ponders less.
He wrote:
But that will not satisfy Mr. Gani for sure. Mr. Gani believes
in a Creator (God) because he 'sees the creation around' him
everyday. Unfortunately, I do not.
Response:
Avijit can't see anything around! Maybe he can't even see
himself! Well, if he doesn't see anything around and even
himself, then what kind of 'evidence' he wants to see to believe
in God, one may wonder! He is probably living in his own fancy
world or doesn't know what he is talking about.
He wrote:
If an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God existed, he
could posses the power to comfort a child dying an excruciating
death from leukemia or cancer. He chooses not to do so.
Response:
This is called "argument from emotion" that has nothing to do
with reality. This kind of argument doesn't anyway disprove the
existence of Creator. This is not an argument to start with.
He wrote:
Moreover, humans cannot be held responsible for a massive flood,
earthquake, plague or Tsunami. In fact, we can explain such
calamities only by concluding that God is malevolent, because he
knew of terrible destructive events to occur. It suggests that
God is impotent to prevent evil.
Response:
This is called "argument from evil" that is also based on
nothing. This age old argument has been refuted without any gap
in my above write-ups. What is his definition of 'evil', by the
way? How did he make sure that 'evil' does exist? And how did he
make sure when he says, "God is impotent to prevent evil"? Does
the existence of 'evil' disprove the existence of God? If not,
then what's the point here! It may appear to the readers that
although he doesn't believe in God but he believes in evil, and
he really does. People believe in God to eradicate evil. But he
needs an evil to eradicate God, to justify Hitler's actions!
He wrote:
Needless to say, this would also suggest an unintelligent,
deficient, faulty or evil designer, no doubt. The most logical
position for me- such evil God does not exist at all.
Response:
Once again "argument from emotion" based on nothing. Who says
that God must only be all-loving and all-kind? Or is he talking
about a dead god! What is his 'yardstick' to judge God's
actions, anyway? There is none! So, this kind of empty and
emotional argument has nothing to do with fact and reality. He
is trying to judge anything and everything from his self-created
'50 year old' fancy world. He can't think anything beyond the
periphery of his little tinny world. He wants to see everything
and every result instantly before his own eyes to believe in it!
This kind of belief is even inferior to paganism. He says, "The
most logical position for me- such evil God does not exist at
all." Well, science never draws this kind of 'absolute
conclusion' on probabilistic issues. So, it's crystal clear that
he is a No.1 pseudo scientist masquerading as a 'man of
science', probably having some evil agenda, maybe to forgive
Hitler's crime!
Bottom line:
The same old but irrefutable argument! Mobile phone has a maker
(no?), it never evolves through random mutation and natural
selection (RMNS)! Laptop has a maker (no?), it never evolves
through RMNS! Radar has a maker (no?), it never evolves through
RMNS! Aero-plane has a maker (no?), it never evolves through
RMNS! Watch has a maker (no?), it never evolves through RMNS! No
animal evolves from another animal through RMNS before our eyes
and observation! Even if it does, that doesn't prove/disprove
anything. And so on so forth. Using the same logic and known
facts, the vast natural universe including billions of living
species and trillions of stars and planets must have a Grand
Maker. No? But why?
Now, if
Avijit doesn't believe that the universe has a Maker and if it's
really true, although most unlikely, then the scientists will
never ever be able to prove his 'belief' (i.e. the Maker doesn't
exist)! On the other hand, if the Maker of the universe does
indeed exist, most likely it does, then the scientists may be
able to prove His existence one day. So, it's been proved
conclusively that his 'belief' has nothing to do with science,
logic and rationality. Therefore, he should stop from fooling
himself and others in the name of promoting logic, rationality
and (pseudo) science. It might sound harsh but this is the fact
and reality, not emotion!
He should
immediately tell his idol, Oxford Prof. Richard Dawkins, that he
(Dawkins) is fooling some gullible people in the name of logic,
rationality and (pseudo) science, to make some bucks?
Some of his favorite arguments on this subject:
- Once
upon a time scientists couldn't explain how a laptop (say) was
manufactured and how it works. Some ignorant people believed
that laptop has a maker! Scientists are now able to explain
everything about the laptop. The ignorant people gave up (?)
their belief on the maker of the laptop! That's how some
ignorant people believe in God! And this is called "god in gaps"
argument (aka "argument from ignorance") that science is
eliminating day by day, although I never tried to realize that I
am the one who doesn't know how a person believes in the God in
the first place!
-
Scientists can explain how a watch was manufactured and how it
works. They do not require any 'data' of the maker of the watch
to explain all these. Therefore, the maker of the watch doesn't
exist!
Now let's address his allegations on the Qur'an. Let's see what
he repeatedly says about the Qur'an.
He wrote in his response to Mr. Gani:
The Qur'anic solar system also contains the invisible Jinns.
These Jinns, according to Qur'an are made of fire and they
climb over each other's shoulders
and reach the heaven to eavesdrop the conversation of
the "Exalted Assembly".
My response:
He claimed the same in a debate with me long ago. But he
couldn't produce any evidence when he was asked! Then I proved
with solid evidence that he got this stuff from (Dr) Ali Sina's
article without ever checking with the Qur'an! Now he is
claiming the same in the debate with another person without any
reference! He seems to be playing jackal-crocodile game! Nowhere
in the Qur'an does it say that "Jinns climb over each other's
shoulders to reach the heaven"! This is the 'point' that he has
inserted into the verse to make it look like unscientific.
He wrote:
But the most interesting part is that Allah believed that the
shooting stars and the
meteors are the missiles
thrown at the
eavesdropping Jinns.
Response:
Yet again another manipulation. It is Avijit, and not Allah, who
believes in the above statement! Nowhere in the Qur'an does it
say so, the way he has presented. 'Shooting stars', 'meteors'
and 'thrown at the Jinns' are not mentioned in the verse! He has
inserted his own (copy-paste) fancy words into the verse to
prove his point. So, he has made it even more interesting!
Anybody can check it out. Oh btw, he has not given any
reference!
He wrote:
Qur'an said that the Sun also must arise from the muddy waters
and must enter the murky waters just as Zul Qaranain had
witnessed.
Response:
This is a clear-cut misrepresentation of the verse. Also one can
see his usage of the word 'must'! WOW! Qur'an never states the
way he has imposed his own imagination into the verse. This
issue has been answered in many places throughout the net
including my write-up long ago, and I also had a debate with him
on the same! Zakir Naik has also answered this allegation very
clearly in the debate with Dr. Campbell several years ago.
In another
write-up he claimed that Angel Mikhail controls rains without
any reference. But nowhere in the Qur'an does it say so! Rather
one can find some natural description of how clouds are formed
and how it rains (24:43, 30:48, etc.).
He says
lots of stuffs in the name of Qur'an that do not exist in it to
begin with! He thinks that Qur'an says so and so and he believes
in it, and also propagates the same to mislead others. Only
Nature knows how someone could refute this kind of blind and
random allegations without even any reference!
Readers!
It has been shown with at least four examples from one article
that he has used lies and deceptions to desperately prove his
points. He has again claimed that the Qur'anic earth is flat,
immovable, geo-centric, etc.; although I already had a debate
with him on these issues where he could not present a single
clear-cut argument to support his claim. Yet he is propagating
the same time and again. He is simply beating around the bush to
prove his points. The funniest thing is that, the same person is
accusing Muslim and non-Muslim scholars (who try to match some
Qur'anic statements with established scientific facts) of being
liar, dishonest, pseudo scientist, and what not! It sounds like
the pot calling the kettle black!
He wrote:
Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many
of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were
embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new
scientific advance. In fact in the past we have seen how science
falsified various religious claims (six days creation,
earth-centric solar system, age of earth, various fancy creation
stories etc) and came out with correct answers. Even today many
religionists put "Adam Eve" story or some religious holy verse
as an evidence to oppose evolution. However, needless to say,
scientific evidences are going entirely opposite direction
refuting all such fancy religious claims.
Response:
Here he has tried to mislead the readers by mixing up apple with
pineapples that he always does. He should address the issue
to-the-point without beating around the bush. What does he mean
when he says "fancy creation stories"? Where has he found
"Adam-Eve" 'fancy story' in the Qur'an and how science has
disproved this 'fancy story'? Can he clearly explain his point
in the light of Qur'an and established scientific fact? Which
(pseudo) scientist says that Qur'anic creation story is a 'fancy
story', and how? Where is that 'fancy story', anyway! Why
doesn't he produce Qur'anic reference with logical explanation
as to why this or that sounds 'fancy story', and as such
unscientific? Otherwise how could someone address his
allegations and how would someone know whether his allegations
are true or not! Is this a (pseudo) scientific way, who knows!
Muslims do
not believe in anything blindly - be it with religion or
science. Unlike other religions, they have very strong and solid
foundation of their faith, and it's a fact. Therefore, they will
never accept anything without solid evidence that goes directly
against the Qur'an. So, it's a kind of idiocy to try to bring
some hypotheses or fairytales in the name of (pseudo) science to
make a conflict between Qur'an and science. One can believe in
anything and everything that s/he wishes. But if anybody wants
to bring a conflict between Qur'an and science, then s/he must
come up with solid scientific evidence that is verifiable
without any doubt. Otherwise it's just garbage!
He wrote regarding Big-Bang:
If these few words are really the proof of 'Big-Bang', then one
may legitimately ask; where is the mention of the huge
explosion? The word 'Big-Bang', itself, is very significant
here. Where do we find the sign of that famous 'Bang?' From
Quantum theory we know that moments after the explosion
occurred, the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak
nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single
"super force" (Wald). Where are those indications in those
verses of Qur'an? How can someone derive Hubble's constant from
those verses? How can some one calculate red shift? How can we
measure Doppler shifts? No answer.
Response:
It seems he has tried to make a fun of it. He curiously asks,
"Where is the 'Bang' of the Big-Bang in this verse?", as though
he has heard the 'Bang' of the Big-Bang! What exploded, by the
way? He further asks, "How do I derive this or that from these
verses?" Here is the cake! He wants to derive all those
constants from these verses to be convinced! WOW! He pretends
not to know the difference between a 'statement' and its
scientific proof with mathematical model and experimental data.
He also pretends not to know the difference between a religious
book and a scientific book, and their aim and purpose.
He has
quoted a verse (13:2) from Pickthal's translation that says
"Allah raised up the heavens
without visible supports" without looking at Yusuf
Ali and Shakir's translations that states "Allah raised up the
heavens without any pillars that
ye can see", as he probably thought that he has got a
point in Pickthal's translation. This point has been addressed
very clearly in my write-up long ago. Even if we take Pickthal's
translation as correct one yet it doesn't justify his fun.
Unlike Bible, Qur'an uses 'invisible supports', to avoid
Biblical confusion? 'Invisible supports' could easily mean some
kind of forces. What's the problem with that? Is he saying that
there is no force between the planets? However, Qur'an is not a
book of science; it's a book of signs. So, it's not expected to
explain the things using all those scientific terms that he is
expecting as a 'man of science'! Instead, Qur'an talks about
this kind of things symbolically and advices the readers to do
research. For example, Qur'an says, "The heavenly bodies are
sustaining in the space on invisible supports". Now, it's the
job of scientists to find out the 'invisible supports'. They
have already discovered the 'invisible supports' and they have
also given it a name, for example 'gravitational force',
although it cannot be seen or touch! I am afraid if he further
asks, "Where is the mention of the 'gravitational force' in this
verse?"
He has
also claimed that Qur'anic statements have been plagiarized from
previous myths and scriptures, without any solid evidence and
how Muhammad did it. This is called "old missionary argument"
that has been challenged by many scholars but none can produce
any convincing evidence. Like missionary, he also thinks that
Qur'an was plagiarized from previous scriptures and he believes
in it. He is trying to say that Muhammad had a big collection of
all the previous scriptures and myths in his library and he used
to do research and experiment everyday to write the Qur'an!
For
example, Biblical authors clearly thought that the sun moves
around the earth (Ecclesiastes 1:5), the shape of the earth is
like flat circle (Luke 4-5, Matthew 4:8, Job 28:24, Daniel
4:11), the earth has foundations (1 Samuel 2-8), the earth has
got pillars (Job 9-6, Psalm 75-3), heavens have also got pillars
(Job 26-11), the earth has ends and it has no gravitational
force (Job 38:13), clear-cut universal flood (Genesis 7:19-20),
and so on. Muhammad discarded all these Biblical verses after
having a thorough experiment in his lab with astounding
accuracy! Not to be mentioned many other Biblical verses and
many clear-cut mathematical contradictions.
In Gita
11:39, Krishna (God, according to Hindu belief) talks about
'water god' and 'moon god'. (Note: 'god' with small 'g' means a
kind of deity having some power and intelligence; in that sense
a human can also be a god.) After having substantial research in
space, Muhammad thought that it cannot be true. So, he discarded
this verse. In Gita 10:21 (I am the moon among the stars),
Krishna thought that the moon is the biggest (shinning) object
among the stars (as he is comparing himself with moon), as it
appears to be with naked eyes at night. In Gita 10:31 (I am the
crocodile among the fishes), he thought that the crocodile is a
fish and it's the biggest one among the fishes (as he is
comparing himself with crocodile), as it appears to be in river.
Again, after having experiment in rivers and oceans, Muhammad
thought that it cannot be true. So, he discarded these verses.
According to Rig-Veda 10:90:12, God created Brahman from his
mouth, Rajanya from his arms, Vaisya from his thighs and Sudra
from his feet. Once again Muhammad thought that this is not only
discrimination among human beings, it could also be anything but
scientific. So, he discarded this verse. Not to be mentioned
dozens of other scriptures of Hinduism that Hindus themselves do
not believe, many other religious scriptures, and myths.
Is that
what Avijit is trying to establish? I don't think so! He would
rather take a u-turn saying that how could Muhammad be a
researcher and scientist! Does it make any sense? He just got
the things 'out of air' and wrote them in the Qur'an, and a
bunch of goats and sheep believe in it as the revelation from
God! It seems he wants to have his cake and eat it too! He
probably feels good with this kind of belief. Moreover, who
knows whether he has ever thought about the 'chalk and cheese'
difference between the Qur'an and Hadiths, although Hadiths were
compiled long after the Qur'an!
Readers! I
showed only a few samples against a fancy claim that Muhammad
plagiarized Qur'anic statements from previous scriptures and
myths. Nadir Ahmed has answered this kind of allegation
considering all possible probabilities long ago:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R9VKKOXjYB4&feature=related
If you ask
them, how did Muhammad know this or that? They will immediately
tell you, well, he has plagiarized from the previous scriptures.
If you further ask, where did the authors of the previous
scriptures plagiarize from? This time, no answer! Why didn't he
copy all those myths and lots of clear-cut unscientific stuffs
that were roaming around at that time and some of them can even
be found in Hadiths? Again, no answer! It appears that evils
don't even want to give credit to Muhammad!
The way he
has tried to represent the Qur'an, had there been a fraction of
truth in it, educated Muslims would have given up defending the
Qur'an long ago! He probably never tried to realize the 'chalk
and cheese' difference between Muslim belief and other religious
beliefs. No other religious people believe in their scriptures
the way Muslims believe in the Qur'an and also try to defend it
from cover-to-cover, especially among educated people. This is a
fact and a vital point that cannot be ignored so easily. Unless
someone thinks that all Muslims are a bunch of ducks and chicks,
and do not know what they believe! He has been trying to mix up
apple with pineapples to make a fool of himself and some unwary
readers for a long time. He cannot be an unbiased researcher,
anyway.
Having
said that, almost all possible allegations against the Qur'an
(ex: flat earth, immovable earth, geo-centric universe, sun rise
and sun set, six days creation, big-bang, jinns, Noah's flood,
contradictions, etc.) have been refuted in my below write-up
long ago:
http://shodalap.com/R_Koranic_Discrepancies.pdf
If he
thinks otherwise on any point, then he has to come up with
clear-cut argument as to why he thinks so and so. Beside this
write-up, if he thinks he has some new points on the Qur'an then
he has to address them too. Subjective issues, imagination, etc.
will not be considered as valid argument. He can also take help
from (Dr) Ali Sina and Dr. Campbell on this issue. However, he
has to present his arguments in brief and to-the-point so that
the readers can easily follow them without getting bored. The
ball is now in his court.
He claims,
in debate with Muslims, that Vedas and Gita also contain some
scientific information. Well, I don't think Muslims should have
any problem with that! Why should anybody have any problem, if
it's really true? However, can he present all those verses of
Vedas and Gita that indicate scientific information with a brief
logical explanation of every point? How many scientific
information has he found in Vedas and Gita so far? Is there any
clear-cut unscientific information or anything like that? (Note:
Vedas and Gita are two independent books written by different
people, and Vedas also consist of four independent books written
by different people. So, they cannot be added up all together.
Moreover, the name 'Krishna' is probably not even mentioned in
Vedas. So, Vedas have nothing to do with Krishna. But he is
probably the central figure of Hinduism now.)
Moreover,
does 'some scientific information' alone anyway prove that a
book may be the word of God? If not, then what's the point! Can
he mention some prominent Hindu scholars who strongly claim that
Vedas and Gita are the word of God from cover-to-cover and
without any doubt, and the name of that God? If he cannot, then
even being an Atheist why does he bring those books in his
write-ups on the Qur'an and in the debate with Muslims, one may
wonder!
Most
importantly, can he anyway prove from Gita and Mahabharata (the
source of Krishna) that Krishna is the Creator of the universe
in human form, the way Hindus believe in him? If yes, then how?
How in the world a book can prove that a human is the Creator of
the universe in the first place! And if it's really true, then
why doesn't he believe in it even after seeing God with his
naked eyes, when millions of people believe in the same! If he
cannot believe in God even after seeing with his naked eyes
(solid evidence!), then what more 'evidence' does he expect to
believe in God, the most legitimate question that he should have
answered for the readers long ago. Most surprisingly, if he
cannot believe in a God even after seeing with his naked eyes,
then why does he ask others to believe in the same! Does it make
any sense? Can he address this important issue very clearly for
the readers? He can also take help from Oxford Prof. Richard
Dawkins who often says, "There is no evidence to believe in
God!" What kind of 'evidence' are they looking for then?
Some of his direct/indirect arguments on this subject:
-
According to Hadith, Muhammad had no idea where the sun goes at
night! LOL! Isn't funny, although I do not seem to know the
difference between Muhammad and God in the first place! I
probably think from some other religious viewpoint, you know!
Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.
- Qur'an
says, "God hath appointed the
earth as a bed for you (20:53)". Although the earth
appears to be 'circular' in shape but my bed is 'rectangular'!
So, Qur'an didn't intend to compare the 'shape of the earth'
with the 'shape of my bed' in the first place, which I have been
propagating for a long time! LOL! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be
the word of God. Otherwise I will be proven wrong, unless I have
already made a 'circular bed' in my room secretly!
- When
Qur'an says "Heavens and earth were joined together and We clove
them asunder", it may indicates anything but the concept of
Big-Bang. It's idiotic to try to link it with Big-Bang. Because
it was plagiarized from pagan belief, as (Dr) Ali Sina rightly
said. Prof. Abdus Salam has also advised Muslims not to do that.
But when Qur'an says "God hath appointed the earth as a bed for
you, God hath made the earth a wide expanse for you, God hath
made for you the earth like a carpet spread out", it must
indicate the flat-shape of the earth. It cannot have any other
interpretation. Period. And Prof. Salam didn't say anything
about this kind of 'attempt', btw!
- When
someone claims to find some Qur'anic statements that match with
scientific facts, s/he must be a pseudo scientist. Because
Qur'an doesn't have any empirical data to begin with! But I can
prove the same Qur'anic statements unscientific by hooks or by
crooks; and I am not a pseudo scientist, btw!
-
Non-Muslim scholars have said something in favor of the Qur'an.
But I don't like them, as it goes against my point. Therefore,
it must be an act of evil! But when some other people say
something against Qur'an and Muhammad, no matter how idiotic or
BS it may sound, I blindly believe in them as it goes fine with
my point. So, it must be an act of anti-evil!
- Other
ancient holy books have been proven (?) to be unscientific.
Qur'an is an ancient holy book. Therefore, Qur'an must also be
unscientific, as it was plagiarized from previous myths and
scriptures. Even if it's not, I will make it look like
unscientific by any means. Because I am an Atheist! I don't
bother what Muslim scholars say about the Qur'an; although I
care what Darwinists say about evolution theory, what Atheists
say about atheism, what Physicists say about physics, what
Chemists say about chemistry, what Scientists say about science,
and so on. Because Muslim scholars are all dishonest and liar.
They can't be trusted you know, although I have profound faith
on (Dr) Ali Sina and Evangelist Dr. Campbell type people. When
my Qur'anic 'faith' becomes weak, I would rather visit some
anti-Muslim racist sites to regain my 'faith', although I do not
like Muslims to visit creationist sites to know anything about
Darwinism that I preach in the name of (pseudo) science to
disprove some myth. I use one myth to disprove another myth,
scientifically! I do whatever I wish. Because I am a
freethinker, although I never realized whether an Atheist can
also be a freethinker! Anyway, I don't care at all. Because I am
not accounted for my deeds and actions. Above all I am an
Atheist!
- Qur'an
threats to punish criminal and evil minded kafirs in the
hereafter (47:32, 38:28, 16:88, 47:1). But I don't like it.
Although I do not believe in the life after death yet I am also
afraid of the Qur'anic punishment! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be
the word of God.
- Qur'an
orders Muslim man to beat his innocent wife with hot iron rod
without any reason and without giving any chance for amendment.
This sounds to me a barbaric teaching just like widow and witch
burning, although I don't care to read the verse in context and
whether there is any other interpretation. Therefore, Qur'an
cannot be the word of God.
- Qur'an
orders Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends and
protectors. But I don't like it, no matter whether they are
terrorist or intolerant or hypocrite (5:57-61, 60:8-9). Because
I love those kinds of people and also trying to forgive their
crimes in the name of (pseudo) science, you know! Therefore,
Qur'an cannot be the word of God.
- So far I
have found only two teachings in the Qur'an: (1) Beating
innocent wife with hot iron rod (solid evidence, 4:34); (2)
Innocent Jews and Christians cannot be taken as friends and
protectors (solid evidence, 5:51). How could progressive and
modern people follow this kind of backdated, barbaric, hateful
and tribal teachings? Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of
God.
-
According to Hadith (not sure whether it's true or not),
Muhammad used to hear some kind of ring-tone (like telephone
ring to alert someone to convey message, a practical way) before
receiving message from Angel Gabriel (a conveyer of the
message). After checking Muhammad's blood and brain in American
lab, Christian missionaries have come to the conclusion that
Muhammad was suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. I never had
any doubt about their ground shattering discovery though.
Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God. It could be the
word of an epileptic patient though, although I don't have any
proof whether an epileptic patient has ever produced any book
let alone the book like Qur'an. And neither did I!
- I never
wrote a book myself and gave full credit to an imaginary God,
although I was asked to do so. Yet I believe that Muhammad wrote
a book (Qur'an, the only book) and gave full credit to an
imaginary God! Because he was a liar! Or he was deceived by
Satan! Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God. It could be
the word of Satan though, as Salman Rushdie said.
- The
suicide bombers of 9-11 event killed more than 3000 innocent
people. They (suicide bombers) were true Muslims. Although
dozens of American scholars and Professors have rejected the
9-11 commission report based on many facts and logics yet I
never had any doubt about it in my mind. Instead, I try to
propagate it as a fact. Oh btw, I am also trying my best to save
those innocent suicide bombers in the name of (pseudo) science
at the same time! How could a loving God punish those innocent
suicide bombers (5:32, 4:29-30, 4:92-93, 17:33, 25:68, 3:21,
2:195)? Does it make any sense? Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the
word of God.
-
Christian priests have tortured and burned alive some scientists
whose discoveries went directly against their established
beliefs that were based on the Bible. Therefore, Qur'an cannot
be the word of God.
-
According to Judio-Christian tradition (based on the Bible), the
earth is only six thousand years old. But according to
established science, the earth is about five billion years old.
Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.
- Qur'an
offers falsification test and challenge to falsify its claim
(4:82, 17:88, 2:23-24, 10:37). But I don't think this kind of
logical approach can be offered in an ancient holy book!
Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God.
- Oxford
Prof. Richard Dawkins is a very logical and intelligent man. He
says that God doesn't exist. Although it's nothing new to me but
another (fundamentalist Atheist) American Professor has proven
mathematically that 'God is not required by the data' (?) to
explain this universe. I'm not sure whether that Professor is
talking about 'Jesus is not required by the data' though!
Therefore, Qur'an cannot be the word of God. How could it be in
the first place when God Himself told an Oxford Professor that
He doesn't exist? Does it make any sense?
- I can go
on and on, you know! Yet some ignorant people not only believe
in God but also believe in a book as the revelation from God!
You see, how deluded they are! They even believe that people
like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Bush, Saddam, Modi and all
those terrorists, rapists, killers and suicide bombers must be
judged and punished according to their own deeds and actions!
And these kinds of teachings come from their ancient holy book!
Oh my Gosh! You see, how backdated, barbaric, merciless and
tribal minded people they are! Not only that, they are also
ignorant about Modern Science and Technology, you know! Look at
Afghanistan, for example, and see the truth yourself with your
naked eyes what I am talking about. Solid evidence, man!
