This article is found in my website, Uncompromising Rhetoric



Prelude: Are Atheists reluctant to confront Islam?

As I was reading about professor Hawking blasting his way onto headline news online, I stumbled on a quite astonishing website of an Islamic fundamentalist, Hamza Tzortzis, known to his fellow muslims to have quite a track record of debates with prominent Atheists and non-believers. Of course, they will always arrogantly claim that they were successful in the debate. If you can manage the time to look at his website, those selected debates are underhandedly biased. A debating venue where all the audiences are muslims, people who will only agree, even if he was wrong. Even if the atheist faction of the debate were to say something rhetorically correct, the audience will still mock him. Last of my point, even the moderator is a muslim who is a friend of Tzortzis, who ignorantly jokes about atheism having "prophets", like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Nonsense.


Muslims are so arrogantly proud about other things as well. Arguments such as:

  1. Claims that there are more converts from christianity to islam;
  2. Their Qur'an [or islam] is much better than the Torah or the Bible [or Christianity and Judaism];
  3. Christians becoming non-believers are more often than muslims becoming non-believers;
  4. The fourth —which is our topic for this article —they claim that intellectual non-believers are incapable of debunking Islam.

So, do Atheists not have the ability to confront islam? This is unfortunately untrue and misleading, and there are many reasons why. Most ‘open’ atheists (those who have freedom of speech), often sprang out of christianity, but there are probably closeted atheists perhaps even more than christians, in every muslim nations out there. The 3rd argument might be slightly true, but there is a reason why the doubtful muslims are rare, or afraid to come out as atheists and criticize islam —Moslems are ordered according to the Qur'an and it's Shari'a law, to kill anyone who strays away from their faith. If you would like to question my point, here is a video that will explain to you even further:




I will also advise any reader to take the video’s word, to read the Qur’an yourself. Read it with understanding, criticism and rational judgment. Do not take religious books by heart nor take them literally otherwise, you are not opening your eyes to true reason.


Stephen Hawking is Not Deluded

Now that we have answered number 3 and number 4 of the argument, let us go back to Hamza Tzortzis (I’ll get back to arguments 1 and 2 later[ 1, 2 ]). As I was saying, I was reading about Stephen Hawking’s astounding, yet a little too late (for me to be surprised) statement where in his new book, The Grand Design. He states, “The universe can and will create itself from nothing, spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going”.


I was reading fortuitously on religious rebuttals and responses to professor Hawking, and there were quite a few, but I caught one interesting fellow. Mr. Hamza Tzortzis. His blabbers about Philosophy, Quantum Physics, and logic (imagine that) are quite vaque, veering towards the cause of islam. Moreover, in his response to professor Hawking, Hamza naturally thinks he is wrong (in his opinion, anyway). Here is an excerpt from his website:


(Note, the next excerpts are of Intelligent Design[ 3 ] garbage material, read it for yourself)

Statement paragraph 1 (Tzortzis): We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. The contention that this is just an assumption is not true because without causality we would not be able to have the concept of an external reality. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

Statement paragraph 2 (Tzortzis):
The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless we had the concept of causality. In absence of causality our experience would be very different from the way it is. It would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another.

Statement paragraph 3 (Tzortzis):
You may be wondering how this relate to God’s existence. Well, if spontaneous creation from nothing was true and that causality did not make sense in the quantum vacuum, then from a scientific perspective God could be out of the picture. But since causality is true and spontaneous creation out of nothing is false, then we have a strong argument for the existence of God. Take the following premises into account,
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Statement paragraph 4 (Tzortzis):
Since premises 1 and 2 are true, it logically follows that premise 3 is true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must also have a cause. However, to believe that this cause is God can be perceived as a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion, because this cause could have been a mechanical cause or necessary pre-existing conditions. In light of this how can we justify that this cause is a transcendent immaterial being?

*** Read Paragraph-4 closely., Read it carefully and think about it. He said, "However, to believe that this cause is God can be perceived as a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion". This is a total, complete failure in scientific methodology. First, he had hundreds of words of abstracted blathering about 'science' —and then he pulls people back to fairy tales (most probably because of a religious technique to confuse your readers (Taqiyya), get them bored, then once they’re bored, they’ll just say 'yes' to whatever he explains).

...Let’s continue his excerpt:
Statement paragraph 6 (Tzortzis): Using conceptual analysis, we can conclude that it must not be subject to time because it created time. This cause must also be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, if the cause of the universe had a cause, and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn't be a universe to talk about in the first place! The cause of the universe must also be immaterial and beyond matter because it created the universe, and the universe is the sum of all matter. Significantly, this cause must have a will because since this cause is eternal, and it caused a finite effect, in other words the universe, then it must have chosen to do so, and choice indicates the existence of a will. Since this cause has a will it can interact and have relationships with personal agents, like human beings.

I don’t know what’s wrong with Mr. Tzortzis, but he is contradicting himself repeatedly in these statements.

I actually posted a comment on his website to inquire to his rather absurd and egotistic knowledge of the Universe. A knowledge that he thinks surpasses those who actually have years and years of study in Physics and Mathematics, by kneeling on rugs. My comment reads:

(4 SEPTEMBER 2010 05:59) The Sojourner said... Oh Wow.
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
So, are you speculating that a god caused it to exist? Or are you arrogantly sure god did it as if you were there watching him do it?
Either way, if your answer to this next question is “nothing”, or “no one” because he's the ‘ultimate beginning’, you are seriously contradicting your LAW of "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"...
Question: Who or what created the creator of the Universe?

(4 SEPTEMBER 2010 06:16) Hamza Andreas Tzortzis said... You have not understood premise number 1. I am saying "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" NOT "whatever exists has a cause". God never began to exist, so it doesn't apply. And in the post I discussed the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes. I hope this helps.

I responded again, and here is a summary of my response: Ironically, he proves to me that god does not exist, because he said so himself —"HE NEVER BEGAN TO EXIST". (I bashfully added as well that all these efforts to prove a god exist are nothing but schemes to preserve their religions.)


The second comment never got approved on his website. It seems he censored my writings, which I speculate that it could have been seriously disturbing to his followers and anger them (and who’s afraid of islam now?)


He further wrote in a comment (after deliberately not posting my comment):

(5 SEPTEMBER 2010 16:08)what is meant by "God never began to exist" is that He never started to exist or has never been caused by anything. God is uncaused by definition and this is understood by using rational thought. The main reason for this, as mentioned in the comment, is that if we say there is a cause for the cause of the universe, then what stops us from continuing this ad infinitum (forever)?

Observe well, as he changes his statement from "leap of faith", to "…understood by using rational thought" in an attempt to confuse me and his readers by trying to conform to my thinking (because he realize I am a rational person, he used the word, ‘rational’). This is very contradictory to what he said earlier in his statement that to believe that this cause is God can be perceived as a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion. He is arrogant, because he deliberately dismisses Professor Hawking’s scientific theory —and he then wants to add that there is a floating magical space being who did everything since the beginning of time… as if Mr. Tzortzis was there, watching Magic-Man play billiards with sub-atomic particles, or perhaps, he would suggest, that their deluded prophet, mohammed, was there.


The Difference of the scientific view versus the Religious view on ...

I do not disagree with the logic 'whatever exist must have a cause'. It could be be true that there MIGHT be something more to it before “gravity” existed (as crazy as it may sound). However, we do not know yet. You do NOT claim a speculation as a conclusion. If you want something to conform to science, not hocus pocus, you have to use rationality and logical analysis, NOT faith.


Imagine, you are in a trial for murder. In truth, you did not commit the murder, but let’s say nobody knows that. We all know that everyone has a right to a due process, and a systematic problem solving to identify the real cause of the crime –but let’s say we take it away. Your prosecutors, or the plaintiff, just egotistically and arrogantly assume that, “We have faith that he actually committed murder”. With no proof, with no evidence, and no witnesses to back you up, you are locked up and the search for truth was treated as garbage.


The point of this analogy is, if there is no evidence or a proof, there is NO fact. Religious fundamentalists will eventually respond to this by claiming that, “god does not need a proof, the proof is everywhere around you”. This answer is absurd. I can prove anything has it's origin, but it should be classified as UNKNOWN if that something is beyond the range of experimentation and the observable. That is the way of Science.


As he mentioned earlier, he said that indentifying god is “a leap of faith”. This seriously kills his stance on science alone because FAITH IS ABOUT DISCARDING REASONING AND ABANDONING THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. Faith is a strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence [dic]. It is an act of believing in something without hesitation or questions. (I will soon film a video called, “Faith 101: When to use it, and when not to use it”. This video will explain how irrational and stupid those who live their lives in pure religious and superstitious faith).


Science never uses faith. It feeds on proof, logic, criticism and reasoning.


Religions, superstitions, palm reading, unicorns, Lycanthropy, Vampires and the flying spaghetti-covered meatball monster however, NEEDS your faith.


With this logic, we can consider the following premises (as usual, using my opponents' own medicine against them):

  • In order to confirm something as a fact, it has to have evidence
  • Faith does not constitute an evidence
  • Therefore, your faith is not a fact

Can we safely say that someone who has faith has things only in their head? Yes.


Can these things on their head likely an imagination? Yes.


And these people who are imagining things are not only called Delusional, they are also Schizophrenics.




Footnotes

  1. Argument 1: More christians are converting to islam - We cannot claim the validity of this argument because both sides will untruthfully claim they have more converts. There are data on the internet, but they're highly speculative, biased or forged, or the data might have been repressed to conceal embarrassment.
  2. Argument 2: islam is better than Christianity - Highly biased and untrue. Religions altogether are pile of nonsense and superstitious garbage, but to look more carefully, islam has no choice and freedom. Women are slaves and 2nd class citizens, and all the peaceful things in the Qur'an are meant to be discarded and replaced by an aggressive ideology and domination of the world. Judeo-christian teachings are no better, but the christians have choices and freedoms.
  3. Intelligent Design - Theoretical Arguments that have been dismissed by both scientific communities and prestigious Universities because of its attempt to turn speculation into a conclusion that the universe is created by god.
(the first video was actually posted here on this website days earlier)*

Views: 1717

Tags: Abrogations, Atheism, Atheists, Hamza, Tzortzis, bang, big, fundamentalists, hawking, islam, More…no, of, origin, quran, sharia, stephen, taqiyya, the, to, universe

Comment by Mario Rodgers on September 7, 2010 at 7:26pm
Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Not true and everybody knows it, including the religious. Ask them about Allah or God's existence and whether it had a cause.
Comment by V John Merc on September 8, 2010 at 12:49am
Thank you doone for the information and the website. As if you knew that I am still starting to research about islam. And I do. (Tomorrow a mosque will donate a Qur'an for me to read, unaware of my intentions).
Comment by Velogiraptor on September 8, 2010 at 8:19pm
Obviously he's never read any of Hawking's work, let alone the newest book. Let's just look at membrane theory shall we? (If I can remember it correctly) The 'branes exist, and have always existed, and never 'began' to exist. (according to 'The Universe in a Nutshell') They may not be subject to time as we know it at all. If you want to call infinite cosmic tarps that tap each other every now and again God, then have at it. It is NOT however, the anthropomorphized entity described by our illogical friend.
Other religious leaders have said that Hawking describes the "What" and religion describes the "Why". I have two main problems with this. One is the problem of intent. To have a 'why' in the first place, (as addressed by religion) you imply intent. Does a rock sit on the ground because it intends to, or because it's a rock and that's what it does? If you are a theist and believe that there must be an intent behind natural phenomena, then you should probably say that the rock sits there because it intends to. It does not feel like walking away. This would be at least consistent with the propensity to anthropomorphize nature. To say that it must have been God is no different from anthropomorphizing a rock.
Secondly, religion does not explain why! It explains only an alternate 'what'! God did it! That's what happened, not why. Why did God do it? Oh right, he works in mysterious ways and we can't possibly understand his intentions etc... If science covers the why, then religion is moot.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 0 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service