War Against Superstition Part-II
Needless to say, even though billions of people believe in god, it is not in the same god they all believe. This is where the hypocrisy begins. People believe in their own god without any real proof, and yet dismiss the beliefs of other religions, which are no more superstitious than their own, referring to them as vain superstitions and foolish fables. So I cannot help but saying, you cannot believe in a religion without being hypocritical. Religion is for hypocrites… There are lot of gods and it’d take a lifetime to learn and write about all of them. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam talk about a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and is the creator of the universe (he’s quite vengeful too). Other religions, such as Hinduism, talk about different gods. To me, they all are the same: vain superstitions of hypocrites all over the globe… Now a theist would say, “okay, fine, people can be hypocritical. But you can’t scientifically prove that god doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, he is right. I cannot scientifically prove that god doesn’t exist. But then I would say, there are so many other things that science can neither prove nor disprove. For an example, if I say there’s a giant rabbit from an infinite distance away from earth, which has a tail that is infinitely long, and that science can never find out about it, science will never be able to disprove my claim. Then I’ll say, this rabbit is the creator of the universe (science can’t disprove this either), and call myself Rabbit + Jesus = Rabses… The burden of proof always lies with the person who makes a claim. A sceptic should try not to let the one who makes a superstitious claim, to shift the burden of proof by saying “well then prove me wrong.” If someone makes a claim, he is obligated to support it with empirical evidence, or at least matters like these, with logical arguments. No one else is obligated to prove him wrong. So it is I who should support my rabbit claim with something. This however, is true only as long as the one who listened to that claim, does not make a claim that the claim the other one made is not credible or reasonable. If he makes such a claim, now the burden of proof is on him… In my debate with Lanka Libertarian blogger Sittingnut, this is what I tried to explain. The opposition party had claimed that Sarath Fonseka was physically abused during his arrest. Let’s forget for a moment the fact that they had four eyewitnesses to support their claim. Let’s just concentrate on the fact that they made a claim. Now anybody, including Sittingnut, can doubt this claim and ask the claimants to support their claim with facts and evidence. But if he claims that their claim is false, then the burden of proof is on him to support his claim. He should be able to explain why. Since Sittingnut couldn’t, he began insulting me… Since the theist is the one who initially makes a claim, the initial burden of proof lies with him. He should offer ‘something’ to support his claim. If he can produce a strong, valid argument, the burden of proof automatically shifts to us. After thousands of years since the invention of god, they have produced only one such argument. They present it to us in many different ways. Basically it goes like, ” are you saying everything is just random? That everything is just a coincidence?”… Our answer to this is “yep.” But now we have to support our claim. How many chains of chemical reactions must have happened in this universe? Do you think it is impossible that one of them resulted in the creation of life? It was nothing more than a mere coincidence. Among many other possible events, some events actually happened, and made this universe. And in this universe, we aren’t at all special… Look at how big the universe is. It is infinite. Look how insignificant we are. One big asteroid is enough to kill us all…. What’s so special about humans being the only intelligent specie on earth? Forget about the fact that we killed all the Neanderthals. Why don’t you ask why only birds can fly? Of course birds do not belong to one specie. But then “specie” is a concept we created, just like other concepts like race. Why do you think people of different races were capable of creating different civilisations? Or are you saying that god created something named “specie” and decided only those who belong to the human specie can create civilisations?… In part 3, I’ll write about reincarnation.