|
Dear Rashid
No one is asking anyone to
believe. There are two kinds of belief, one with knowledge and one on
faith. Faith is unquestioning belief in something for which there is no
proof. Since you have no proof that
God does not exist, I can safely say that you are a person of blind faith,
much like the the Ulema,
except they have overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Of course, this is
still not a substitute for believe based on positive knowledge.
The positive knowledge is based
on the stark reality that such a complex universe composed on quadrillion
atoms, all of which have pillar less orbits (all the scientists in the
world have not even created one pillar less orbit) obviously has a
designer. Serious scientists, like Einstein have concluded that there is a
designer to the universe. Because these serious men of science were
genuinely smart, they did not have inflated egos like the wannabees.
Therefore it makes sense that to
win an argument when one has no substance to take on the challenge, one has
to impress with fancy terminology that one can hardly understand
themselves, and bring comparisons to a 'book fashioned out of two other
books' and statements like "nothing becomes a belief unless we
agree". The feeble hope here is that by camouflaging the real issue,
one might make people forget the real argument.
Once again, we are talking about
positive knowledge and flawless deductions from very straight forward facts
about the universe. We are not
talking about beliefs, or agreement on beliefs. Even if we were to agree on
beliefs we could both be wrong, unless the beliefs are based on facts. So
what you propose about beliefs and agreement has absolutely no value
whatsoever.
And in a hopeless situation, with
a failing argument, one flees to take cover by calling on their humanist
leaders, akin to the Ulema, asking them to
confirm their mumbo jumbo, in the hopes that someone out there might listen
and place some credibility so that self indulgent egos might be given a
boost.
Feroz
|