Leaving Islam




For the complete debate with materialists see this list

Sina responds to Meeker 1


Dear Mr. Meeker,  

You wrote:

Sina notes the contrast between this and religious and political doctrines that are held to be beyond criticism and revision. But he presents a false dichotomy between dogmatism and rationalism - as though one can be rational simply by not being dogmatic.” 

Yes I actually do think that dogmatism and rationalism are mutually excluding. You seem to disagree, however you did not provide any further explanation. Are you saying it is possible to be dogmatic and rationalist on one particular issue at the same time? 

You also gave me your scientific explanation of the globe of light that I saw. I do not believe what I saw was ball lightning. The light that I saw was very dim, it was three feet in diameter; it seemed to act with intelligence. It was first hovering over my sister’s bed. As soon as I entered the room it moved rapidly to the center of the room and stayed there as if indecisive for a couple of seconds. Then it zoomed out of the window. Why through the window? How this globe knew there was the opening? This thing was not sizzling and contrary to the reports of those who say have seen ball lightning, it had no odors. My impression is that it was a thinking willful being.  It was also a serene summer night and the skies were clear. No sign of thunder or lightning. The ball lightning is often associated to stormy weather and lightning. See this link please. 

Now, I admit that my theory that this thing was actually an intelligent being might not be true. I could have just imagined so. Despite the discrepancies, let us assume that what I saw was a variety of ball lighting. Would that make it any more obvious phenomenon? Ball lightnings are just as unexplained as UFOs and other mysteries. There are tens of theories about them but none of them are conclusive. 

You ask:
“So is this the correct explanation of his experience? I don't know. It could have been something else - like little green men in a kind of space craft. But the point is that Sina doesn't have any reason to jump to the conclusion that it was paranormal.” 

Let me again quote the dictionary definition of paranormal.  “Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.”  If the globe I saw and what many other people see as ghosts cannot be explained by science what other names you have for them? Your best explanation is that we are all hallucinating. This is more plausible than any other explanation such as lighting ball or “little green men in a kind of spacecraft”. However, I am not prone to hallucinations and that thing did not seem to be hallucination at all. It was as real as any other object I have seen in my awaken life. We also have cases of several people reporting to have seen the same ghost at the same time. How can you scientifically prove that several people hallucinate together and see the same thing? We are not talking about guided imagery or induced hypnosis. So what is your explanation? Dogmatism is inability to accept anything that defies one’s preconceived notion of reality. I am not using this in derogatory way. 

As for Van Praagh's performance you said it is vague and often wrong, and “Nothing in the least impressive.” I think that statement is subjective. I had not seen or heard of Van Praagh before that show and since I know there are more charlatans out there claiming to be psychic than the real ones I am naturally suspicious of anyone making such claim. However, after I saw that show I was impressed. 

You have a very valid theory about Van Praagh having done some homework on how Larry kings father had died prior to coming to his show. That is absolutely possible. You may also claim that Van Praagh has a group of friends across North America who call the shows where he appears and agree with whatever he says. That is also a possibility. However, I want to ask you what is the probability of that? 

I also have one challenge for you. Looks like issuing challenges is fun. So let me make one challenge. Please present yourself as a psychic in a radio or an assembly of people and convince as many people as Van Praagh does, that you are bringing messages from their dead relatives. 

This should not be difficult to do. You seem to have found the trick that Van Praagh and other so called psychics play. Why don’t you replicate that trick for us? If I discover the tricks of any magician, with a little practice I can do exactly what they do. So what do you say?  You will manage to prove without the shadow of doubt that this is all a hoax and psychic power does not exist. 

You also said that Van Praagh does not get any useful information from the other side. Okay, who said the other side has any useful information to give us? That is an assumption that people make but there is no evidence that this assumption it true. Van Praagh said that in the other world people keep their religions, i.e. the Christians remain Christians, the Muslims remain Muslims, and so on. Of course not all the religions can be true. So why the dead people do not follow the true religion assuming one of them is the true one. In the case of Islam there is ample proof that Muhammad was an evil monster and not a messenger of any god. So how come when people die keep their religions? If what he said is true, and this is what others have said as well, then there is no doubt that everything does not become clear to you after you die. If you die ignorant you will remain ignorant even in the other world. 

We do not have to bundle everything together. Is it possible that there is a life after this life? My response is that yes it is possible. I have not seen it myself but that is the most plausible explanation I have heard of the out of the body experiences and mediums. I have also heard the explanation of the pseudo skeptics. I did not find their explanation logical. So I am more inclined to believe there is life after life and consciousness survives our physical demise. I do not believe this to be absolutely true dogmatically. However this is the more plausible explanation I heard so far. 

The next question is if we survive our death, does everything become clear to us? I do not know, but there is no reason to believe that it will. If the stories of dead people maintaining their religions after death is true then it is clear that ignorance survives our death too. 

How about God, should we assume that if spirits are real then God also must be real? I see no relation between the two. Some of those who have had near death experience report having been engulfed in love and a beautiful sensation of oneness. Let us assume this is not a biological response of the brain but an actual experience of the dying person. Why should we assume that this love is the same sadistic deity that told Muhammad to massacre innocent people and rape their wives, or played pranks with Pharaoh, killing the Egyptians?  

I cannot prove whether there is life after death or whether God exists. But I can prove that Allah and Jehovah are false deities and their messengers were either charlatans or lunatics. 

I have no problem embracing my spiritual reality. I know I am a spiritual being foremost. I experience the universe through immense love. I sense that there is a reality that transcends what is tangible and visible. I feel my oneness with all my fellow human beings and beyond. I feel that oneness even with my cat, with the cypress tree growing in front of my window, with the blue ocean and the creatures there in. I feel this oneness with the whole universe. I am at awe and in love with everyone and everything. I do not believe in the selfish genes. I see cooperation and coordination in the molecules. I see love, in every being and in every atom of the universe. This universe is filled with God. This it is indeed a reflection of God. We are all reflections of God. 

I am hesitant to talk about God because it has been defiled by charlatans and impostors. These self-proclaimed prophets were liars. They had no knowledge of God. They had no understanding of God. God is not a he or a she. It is “IT”, because God is not a being but a non-being. It is the non-being that is the mother of all beings. God is the single principle underlying the creation. God does not send messengers, it does not talk to people, it is not aware of us; it is not good and it is not bad. God is the beauty of existence; it is the principle of creation. 

Ruefully, since the so called rationalists have kept their heads deep under the sand, denying that we are spiritual beings despite the fact that time and again it is shown that there is more to this universe than what meets the eyes the arena is left empty for the cons to misguide people who sense deep in their soul what the pseudo rationalists are unable to define and hence deny it. People just know they are spiritual beings, just as they know when they are hot and when they are cold. The denial of our spiritual dimension will only make the stocks of the religious brokers to soar. 

 You ended your response by stating:
The opposite of dogmatic denial isn't rationality; it's uncritical credulity.”


Uncritical credulity is irrationality. I see no difference between the two. But that is beside he point. Do you really think uncritical credulity is opposite to dogmatic denial? I must be missing something here. My experience says that dogmatic people are often credulous people who accept things without critical skepticism. For example a religious person who claims his prophet has split the moon is credulous and when he strongly believes in such nonsense and does not question it, he is dogmatic. You seem to believe that these are opposite things. I assume you mistyped something, because your statement makes no sense. I know you are a rational person and I don’t think you actually wanted to say dogmatism is opposite to uncritical thinking or uncritical thinking is something different than irrationality. That sentence must be phrased wrongly. I am sure you meant something different. 

Now that you mentioned “uncritical credulity”, let us talk about it. Don’t you think the belief that everything can be explained by our limited science and if it is not then it should be dismissed is uncritical credulity? We have people who are adamant to deny “out of body experience” even though some of these cases are amazing, like for example when a patient lying in the operation room and completely unconscious not only hears the conversation of the doctors operating on him but also can tell what his anxious relatives in the adjacent room did and said while he was unconscious. The credulous pseudo rationalists tell us this, one day will be explained by science and they insist that extra sensory perception does not exist. Isn’t this uncritical credulity? I think it is. See this link for further talk on NDE. 

The problem is not of course science. The problem is uncritical credulity. You also say that uncritical credulity is opposite to dogmatism. I absolutely disagree. Excessive credulity is dogmatism.






Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.