(Excerpts from ‘Echoes of Common Sense’)
“Faith is the determination to remain ignorant in the face of all evidence that you are ignorant.” — Shaun Mason
Down the ages, in round about every society of the human race, the vast majority of the people passionately profess belief in invisible supernatural beings they usually refer to as “gods.” The three subsidiaries of Abrahamic religion, Judaism/Christianity/Islam, altogether affirm monotheism—the model of one God—whom they adore and worship as the supreme creator of the universe. However, these religions have varied conception of this monotheistic God, as well as the mode of worship they devote to his reverence.
Civilizations at large, undoubtedly, have assumed the idea of God and the quaint grotesque of religious practices from primitive cultures that far predated our modern age. But how did the idea of God originate into the human culture? Who or what is God? Is God an abstract word coined to designate the hidden forces of Nature, or rather a mathematical point having neither length and breadth, nor thickness? Is God merely “a prostration of the human intellects on the threshold of the unknown,” as Charles Bradlaugh has described it in 1864? Moreso, is God an unnecessary postulate or merely an unavoidable redundancy in human life? Alternatively, is God’ truly the eternal existence who is conceived by Theists as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator and supreme governor of the universe?
...For any proposition to be considered valid, all of its components must be convincingly seen to a wide-ranging extent to be well-founded on categorical truth. The evidence of clear-cut truth is grossly deficient in every of the alleged guidebook that theologians have imposed upon humankind as the word of the creator of the universe. Credible authentication of anything called ‘truth’ is noticeably not present, at all, in that which is called the ‘word of God in print’. According to Bertrand Russell, “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.” When a proposition is offered to any reasonable person, a critical and unbiased assessment of the validity of the proofs adduced to the proposition is the only reasonable way under which to ascertain the truth of its claim.
In 1903, the innovatory automobile manufacturer, Henry Ford, proclaimed to the entire world, “I will build a car for the great multitudes.” Five years later, he made good his words, and rolled out his first batch of Model T cars with instruction manual that carried the signature and official seal of the Ford Motor Company. The instruction manual itemized every component parts in the new car according to their exacting positions. It was very obvious to the discernment of every user and mechanic that this, indeed, was an authentic guidebook duly issued and certified by the rightful manufacturer of the product; as every detail could so be fittingly confirmed to the clear observation of all, just exactly as the authentic designer of the product had documented it in the instruction booklet.
True to brand quality assurance certification, all users and mechanics were able to locate the propeller, radiator, head lamp, spark plugs, and all other component parts accurately at the precise spot the designer had clearly outlined they were to be found in his guidebook. Definitely, the record of constant evidence in Henry Ford’s instruction manual required no defence of compulsory professional ‘argumentators’ to safeguard his assertion as the legitimate designer of Model T series, because every confirmation that reality could afford us, especially from the merit of his bonafide instruction manual, clearly approved of Mr Ford as the true designer of Model T cars. Therefore, not a single case of doubtful inkling could rear its ugly head anywhere next to the reputation and character of Henry Ford anytime the debate arose as to who the original maker of the Model T car truly was.
However, basket cases of suspicion, inconsistent forgery, and mistrust will naturally mount against the claim of Mr Ford only when people detect his guidebook as nothing more than spurious and absurd contradictions, as well as patent forgery of flight-by-night impostor, which is no different to run-of-the-mill tales that normally do the rounds in fiction books. It is, obviously, in the light of such doubtful cases that the service of professional argumentators and skilful attorneys of superstition are most obligatory to fill the heads of gullible bigots with absurdities of validating corrupt and illegitimate manual through the fraud of inconsistent rationalization based on fallacy...