WIXLIB

Blasting The Foundations of Atheismfact that people differed in interpreting a certain text, does not disprove theauthenticity of that text, neither does it render it obsolete! The fact that acertain volume of scripture has been proven inconsistent, does not prove thatthere is not a single statement of truth anywhere in its midst! The fact that acertain religion has been proven corrupt does not prove that all religions onEarth are nonsense, not to mention disprove the existence of God Himself!Those – my kind reader - are but a few examples of a barrage of scandalouslogical errors and irrationalities underlying the arguments made by theprofessor throughout his book, as shall be elaborated in detail in this volume.As I pointed out earlier, it is not science we are going to be discussing herefor the most part; it is the underlying philosophy that constitutes the westernsecular understanding of what science itself is and what it is about, in thefirst place!One of the signs any sane man should identify for the truth about themeaning of life – even before he examines it – when it is taken from anyscripture, is that it should be by definition: Quite simple! You do not have tohold a PHD in philosophy to understand – as a human – what your creator isaddressing to you! It is inherently unfair that only the most intelligent ofmen could understand it! If indeed the Lord creator is the source of this bulkof knowledge that you people – from any faith - ascribe to Him, then it mustbe comprehensible and easily accessible to every healthy human mind: andat that; you will never need to practice philosophy in attempt to explain it orunderstand it! Once you‟re sufficiently educated in the language of scripture,you should only have to use the clearest, the simplest and the most profoundaxioms of human reason to understand it, the way those people who wereoriginally addressed by it did! Otherwise, what wisdom would there be in aGod that chooses to teach meaningless riddles or irrational claims tohumanity?Now, let me tell you what this book is not.This book is not about the refutation of (The God Delusion). It certainlydoesn‟t take two volumes spanning over a thousand pages to refute (TheGod Delusion)! I chose (The God Delusion) in particular to achieve my9

Blasting The Foundations of Atheismhigher ends in this book, because to me it represents a conclusive example ofall the damage that atheism and secularism have been doing to the worldwithin the last century in particular, especially since Darwin turned thissenseless belief into a philosophical doctrine of science! It gives a cleardemonstration of how ultimately vacuous every atheist argument really is. Italso portraits the dreams and ambitions of atheists, their views of moralityand justice, what they are so desperately trying to create and propagate forthe world to take in the place of religion, and their self-contradiction withregards to the way they think the world should be running with all thosereligions competing over the hearts and minds of men! Thus it appeared tome that it would be very convenient to destroy all the foundations of atheismand secular thought in our time, by means of tailoring a detailed response tothe bestseller of a man who is currently considered to be the most effectiveand influential preacher of atheism in our times! It is – to my eyes - an idealexample to demonstrate to the world how inverse rationality and utternonsense can be made into mainstream „science‟, not only so, but even startto wage ideological warfare against human reason and clear commonsense,in the name of “raising people‟s consciousness”, promoting science anddefending proper reason against „superstition‟!This book is not a literature of apologetics! Its object is clear from its title!There‟s too much fallacy taking radical dominion over modern thought andscientific academia in the Western world today that I decided it‟s about timesomebody did something about it! Let the world see the depth of the fallacy,the magnitude of the loss and darkness, and the logarithmic descent on thecurve of humanity, that mankind had gone through ever since theyoverthrew the leadership of the true wisdom of their creator! It‟s a pity that Ihad to respond to all sorts of uneducated and brainwashed bloggers,reporters and authors, who are enjoying the freedom to write and publish onreligion even though they really do not know the first thing about Islam orabout any religion for that matter, but that‟s the way it is in the world today,thanks to the circus of “freedom of nonsense”!As I hope the reader will realize by the end of his long journey throughoutthis fat literature; it is not this large because I was having difficulty10

Blasting The Foundations of Atheismexplaining what I believe to be the right answer, no, but because I took mytime in arguing forcefully and effectively against a great deal of fundamentalfallacies that have become mainstream in our times, and I took greatpleasure – I may add – in exposing in fair detail the irrationality and sheeremptiness of almost every fallacy that I came across as I read (The GodDelusion)!Thus I took liberty in quoting and commenting on so much of the professor‟swords, page by page, in a way I suppose my reader may have never seen inany western literature before, not because I needed to do so for the sake ofproving that he stands upon nothing, but because I wanted to show thereader how empty, self-contradictory, inconsistent, anti-semiotic, antirational and even anti-scientific everybody who chooses to deny theundeniable will have to go in every claim that he makes in support of hisposition! This demonstration in itself was one of my goals for this book, andis one of the reasons why I chose (The God Delusion) in particular for myliterary end. Sometimes I would find myself saying: “But my comment tothis quotation will not add anything new to the main argument that I havealready proven and demonstrated, so why bother make it?” but then I wouldfind myself compelled to proceed with it for the sake of piling up furthereffective demonstrations of how fallacy only begets more fallacy. So as thereader approaches the conclusion of this book (Both of its volumes), he willhave seen that it‟s not the building of the truth that took me so many pages;it‟s the demolition of the foundations of fallacy (along with many of itsbranches) that has become mainstream in a world of ideological chaos! Hewill see that he needs not be a biologist or a philosopher to accept the perfectand simple truth that has always been there before his eyes!Here‟s an atheist biologist who believes that man needs a lot of“consciousness raising” to accept Darwinism and become a total liberalist!So let‟s see if it‟s really “consciousness raising” or “consciousnessRAZING” that he‟s doing to his readers in the (The God Delusion)! Readthrough this literature and be the judge! So many are the ideas and theoriesthat have been taken for granted within the last century that I know myreader will find the mere suggestion of challenging them or shaking them is11

Blasting The Foundations of Atheismunthinkable! But I urge him to remember that some of the greatestbreakthroughs in science itself were at one time “unthinkable”!I appeal to your decency and self-respect my reader, to be brave! To havethe courage to admit the truth as soon as it is revealed to you, no matter whatpeople would think about you, no matter how many academics of your fieldmay disregard you; the truth we are talking about here is no less than yourown fate after death! This is a question of eternal fate; it is not the urge toconsult a good doctor lest we get serious physical trouble for not doing so! Itis a question of eternity!You never know when you‟ll die! Death could come to take you any minute!And once you‟re there, there‟s no coming back! It will be too late! Too lateindeed! So you really have to take this question seriously, very seriously,and be brave!In a very popular video clip on Youtube, when asked a very simple questionby a student: “What if you‟re wrong?” Professor Dawkins replies in clearscorn – not unexpectedly though – saying: ―Well, What if I‘m wrong, I meananybody could be wrong! We could all be wrong about the flying spaghettimonster and the pink unicorn and the flying tee-pot! .‖ And after a shortlecture making the point that every child is naturally brought up on the faithof his parents, he winds up in an even more pompous comment saying: ―Youask me what if I‘m wrong, What if you‘re wrong about the great JuJu at thebottom of the sea?‖At that, the audience breaks in laughter and he rejoices in his answer,pretending that it doesn‟t concern him in the least that he could actually bewrong! While the question was plain and simple; the professor obviouslyhated to declare the clear and simple fact – a fact even to him - that if he iswrong, then he may - at least in what should be in his eyes a minuteprobability - meet with an unknown fate to him after his death; one that isdetermined by some of those many systems of faith he easily makes fun of,and could easily be that eternal inferno claimed by the three major religions:Islam, Judaism and Christianity!12

Blasting The Foundations of AtheismHe does recognize the likeliness of it, doesn‟t he? Shouldn‟t it make him – atleast – a bit more humble in his reply towards the magnitude of knowledgein question and the possible consequences of the choice he is talking about?So why reply in such a scornful and arrogant manner?Of course he knows it‟s a possibility! Very little probability (according tohis philosophical position and understanding), but still a possibilitynonetheless!Well, he simply couldn‟t find it in him to make that brave andstraightforward admission! Instead he strikes it right back in the face of hisinterrogator as though she insulted him with the question! He was defendinghis position by dropping his opponent down to his level saying, ―so what?You could be wrong too! You being born Christian means you have to sufferthe same probability yourself as well, because your being born on a certainfaith does not by any means prove that faith itself to be the truth!‖ Well,you‟re right, it doesn‟t! So what if you‟re BOTH wrong? Suppose she askedthe question this way: “What if we‟re both, you and I, Wrong?” Does thismake the question more comfortable and more worthy of a straightforwardand honest reply from you, professor?One has no choice but to wonder then: as a scientist, is he not prepared toaccept the natural „probability‟ that he might be wrong on this question, andtake the responsibility for his choice and the choices of those who followedhis teaching? It is not a falsifiable theory of science then that he ispreaching! It is another doctrine of blind faith, one that he obviously takesgreat pride in holding, no matter how hard he tries to look and sound asskeptic about evolutionism as any natural scientist should really be!I hope my reader is not that biased, not that proud in dealing with such adangerous issue! I hope he does realize that it is evidence he is looking forand that he should accept it no matter where it comes from, or who it is thatholds it!Initially, this book was planned to be published as a single volume of athousand pages! However, I was advised to split it in two volumes, for easeof publishing and reading. Thus I chose to assign „volume 1‟ to the13

Blasting The Foundations of Atheismrefutation of the core arguments in (The God Delusion) as presented by theprofessor in Chapters 3 and 4, hence making this Volume the core of theliterature that may suffice for a reader who does not find ease in goingthrough as much as a thousand pages! „Volume 2‟ included the discussion ofthe rest of the (The God Delusion), and the fundamental refutation of somebasic misconceptions about Islam that the professor – unsurprisingly –regurgitated in his book, especially in the last few chapters.I now place this First Volume in my reader‟s hands, hoping that by the timethe second volume was published, he will be more than willing to read it May the Lord guide every honest truth seeker to the truth, and take him intoHis limitless grace and mercy Amen.14

Blasting The Foundations of Atheism15

Blasting The Foundations of AtheismChapter OneAnswering Chapter Three of the Delusion:Arguments for GOD‟sExistenceIn this chapter, professor Dawkins approaches the arguments for theexistence of the creator in a manner as though he is criticizing a theory ofscience! As though he is falsifying the postulates of a manmade theory! Heprobably imagines that there once came along a philosopher, long ago,somewhere in the world, who was contemplating in the beauty andmagnificence of the universe, and after a long tiresome struggle withmathematics and philosophy; all of a sudden it struck him and he burst outsaying: ―Eureka! That‘s it! The universe must have had a Creator!‖16

Blasting The Foundations of Atheism17

Blasting The Foundations of AtheismAs mentioned in the introduction, I have chosen to start this literature withresponse and thorough discussion of Chapters 3 and 4 of (The GodDelusion) in particular because they represent the footing of the book, or thecore argument so to speak! Once we got those two chapters out of the way,I‟d then proceed with discussion of the rest of the book, putting forth the restof what I wish to say.Now let me begin by maintaining that the existence of a creator is not theadvent of some human postulation or presumption that just appeared or camealong at some point in history, the way Dawkins believes! It is – bynecessity - the only reasonable outcome of axiomatic reason based onaccumulative perception in every healthy mind! So, prophets or no prophets,doctrine or no doctrine, people never need – because of the very nature ofhuman reason - to be told that a superior creator exists or to have somebodyprove it for them! The concept of the creator was always conceived of astrue and perfectly rational not through a single source of perception, butthrough ALL income of human perception; not in a single fragment of theuniverse; but in the entire universe! Such is – quite simply, and as I shallcome to elaborate – the natural way the human mind works! Creation – andperfection at it to say the least - never needed to be “proven” in the samesense that any theory demands proof, not because people are being broughtup on it, taking it for granted among other things as „blind faith‟ withoutever daring to question it, but because it is simply not possible that anyreasonable man could look at this marvelous universe and find himselfcompelled to think otherwise! It is indeed a meaning too clear andreasonable to be questioned or to demand any particular proof for it! It is nota theory or a philosophy! It‟s basic axiomatic reason! A marvelous systemthat is perfectly composed, restricted, balanced and controlled necessitatesan ultimately perfect composer, restrictor, balancer, and controller! This isnot a statement that people make from blind faith in any given religion, it isan argument that is as axiomatic and self-evident – in terms of language andreason – as the argument – for example - that since I can think then I musthave a mind!18

Blasting The Foundations of AtheismLet me express it mathematically: Since system A is a set that is composedof elements {a,b,c,d,e,f} and since system A is decomposable by nature andits elements – in principle - can be made to compose system A once again,or any other system, therefore system A was composed. And since “to becomposed” necessitates that there be a willful composer that causescomposition of elements to be initiated, and a system to be made up, thenthere must be a composer for A. The same goes for any given system B, C,D, and so forth. Now, if set U is the universal set of ALL systems that havesmaller components (U set A U B U C U D etc: the set of all systemsthat we see around us that are compose and decomposed), where all thosesystems interact, some of which decompose in due time, leaving elementsthat would then be made parts of new systems that come to take their placein perfect integration within this coherently stable and perfectly consistentsystem U, then U necessitates a superior composer and keeper, who made allthose components and composed U, and then kept it running in thisparticular way (the way of systems and subsystems interacting, composingand decomposing).In short: Everything around us is composed therefore it has a composer!Because composing is a deed that demands a doer! It‟s not just the effect ofa cause, it is a complex work of organized causes that demands a willful,purposeful and determined doer; a composer. We are talking about theestablishment of the very meaning of the verb (to compose), which is whatbegets the meaning: (composed)!Now this meaning, my reader, is rationally indisputable! This is basicreason! It is not a theory! If we did not see it as a rational necessity, then weshould never trust our minds anymore! My previous statement of it is onlymy mathematical attempt to express a meaning that is as axiomatic to humanreason as this statement: (1 1 1 3)! Without the willful composer andkeeper there would be no order, and no natural law to keep systems andcomponents bound to this particular path; it would be just like saying (1 1 1 0)! This meaning was never proposed or theorized! It emergesnaturally from our observation of everything in the world around us;everything we can observe is made of components that are “put together”, so19

Blasting The Foundations of Atheismthere must be an initial “putter”; thus the entire universe (the sum ofeverything that is composed of components) necessitates a superiorcomposer! A composer that is by necessity not composed Himself, otherwisehe would be just like us: only another element of the set U (the sum of allsystems that are composed of subsystems and components)!I ask every reasonable reader now: Does this rationale demand “proof”? Dowe need to prove that since something consists of perfectly functionalelements, then they must be put together in this particular way by a superiormaker for a particular purpose? It‟s quite obvious that we don‟t! This is theway the mind works; it cannot think of this universe as anything

And the same goes to Richard Dawkins, author of (The God Delusion)! Perhaps he takes pride in studying some philosophy, Blasting The Foundations of Atheism 5 searching for the truth in that literature the way he does, I - on the other hand - do not! And I may