|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Mr. Roy,
Please place this link in your site.
Defining Materialism: A response to Aparthib Zaman
This link should go right under Aparthib's latest article.
Also for the third time please place this link beneath James Randi's last message.
James Randi writes back and reveals his trick
Finally please post this shorf message at the end of Alamgir Hussain's mockery or simply as an independent article right under his link.
| Quote: |
"When logic fails mockery must be soothing."
Mockery or the Horse Laugh in logics is known as Appeal to Ridicule.
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."
Apeal to mockery like apeal to ad hominem is the weapon of the loser.
My opponents by resorting to these vile and unscholarly attitudes are demonstrating their intellectual bankruptcy. Compare that with what one would expect from the Muslims. Obviously something never changes.
Ali Sina |
In FFI we have a forum and anyone can post anything he or she wishes. Since you do not have such feature in your site and everything passes under your hand, when you delight so much in publishing brainless mockeries in what is supposed to be scholarly debate, as a token of your intellectual honesty it is important that you also make my responses visible in your site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MarkTwain
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 197
Location: Judean People's Front
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mellow is the man
Who knows what he's been missing
Many many men
Can't see the open road
Many is the word
That only leaves you guessing
Guessing about a thing
We really ought to know
_________________
Dark Ages--shaking the dead
Closed pages--better not read
Cold rages--burn in your head? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kisan
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:44 pm Post subject: my 2 cents |
|
|
I read something from another website that reminded me of this debate:
Ref : Mr Mirza's response
Thursday March 25 2004 00:00:44 AM BDT
Shamim Chaudhury , from Canada
It will be below my dignity to reply to Mr Mirza's response.
May Almighty show him the right path and forgive his sins (Sobhan Allahu Wa Bi Hamdih - Ameen)
-------------------
Shamim Chaudhury
Milton
Canada
It reminded me of Ali's refusal to respond to Paul Edwards and other responses without the requisite dignity.
Obviously these authors may have said some things that are sarcastic or mocking but when Ali himself engages in plenty of heavy tactics like name calling etc then it seems a bit rich for him to expect only scholarly responses.
Ali's continual likening of "materialists" as being very similar to believers in Islam on the most flimsy grounds is one example of stooping pretty low.
Perhaps Ali could reflect on the golden rule of doing to others what you would like done to oneself in case he would only like scholarly responses to his arguments.
Ali is of course entitled to his own beliefs in dreams or psychic powers and his own revelations of spirituality.
This is also his site in the final analysis. Although it may be called faithfreedom.org in fact there isn't any organisational group in control making decisions about the content of the site apart from what gets sanctioned by Ali.
So, although it is likely that in case there was a group of people deciding on editorial policy it is unlikely that Ali's spiritual viewpoints would make headline news on the mainpage, as Ali is the boss and makes his own decisions then FFI takes periodic detours from rational thinking into Ali's spiritual opinions which are termed as "reality" and "beyond doubt".
It's a bit of a shame but as there are no checks and balances in place that is that.
Of course Ali has said that as opposed to mukto-mona.com here in this forum anyone can post anything without censorship or moderation.
This isn't quite true though. A particularly bothersome Marxist who continually attacked the US was eventually banned. I have seen over time in mukto-mona that people of all views can post and do and eventually they get tackled on their arguments and many people grow intellectually from this free for all.
Ali began this fight after being asked to contribute to a mukto-mona event called rationalist day. Ali took the opportunity to attack the "pseudo rationalists" over at mukto-mona.
The main attack was on communism. Of course mukto-mona has and does feature writings of several Marxists and a wide diversity of opinions. This diversity of viewpoints is a healthy environment for interaction far richer by the participation of more people (and funnily enough the popularity of the site has mushroomed whilst FFI's readership has contracted over the last year).
This attack on communism didn't get anyone to bite. As Avijit and others are not communists they don't need to defend communism.
Then Ali's opinions about the paranormal were used to attack.
The illustrating proof offered included a dream of a family member of a giant falling and breaking into pieces and this corelating to a later fall of a big housekeeper of a neighbours house falling from the upstairs of a building and getting splattered on the ground.
Now, to most, this attempt to use a story like this as a compelling support for trying to convince people that scientific method is insufficient and that a paranormal explanation is necessary seems to be a bit silly.
Not unsurprisingly this logic was mocked. This ridicule seems to have quite upset Ali and he is refusing to dignify these mockers with a response.
I guess we can emphasize with Mohammed who had his mockers too.
Of course we know how these mockers were killed by Mohammeds followers and these killings were approved of.
Anyhow, the analogies aren't necessarily very relevant as Ali's analogies repeatedly comparing pseudo rationalists with Muslims were also pretty silly.
That'll do for now,
Kisan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sea Sharp
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 11
Location: US
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:54 pm Post subject: My opinion |
|
|
After the first part of the debate, both sides talked past each other like two fast running trains on parallel tracks going in opposite directions. Paul -- while he made some points -- was abusively antagonistic and I stopped reading him after the first reply. The only person who seems to be in the know of what's he talking about is Aparthib, the rest were just trying to win the debate by hook or by crook. Avijhit's reply to Ali lacks a coherent organization and sounds more like slashed up pieces put together to send a quick reply.
My zero-valued opinion re the debate aside, I am wondering about the end result of debate assuming Ali won (by "win", I mean he made a more persuasive case than his opponents). Suppose, we are not to hastily mop away the paranormal experiences with a snide attitude. But then what good are they if they can't be assembled into a system that's amenable to research and testing. If someone experiences a paranormal experience, what reason suffices to convince me that that's true? I could hardly care if someone encountered a talking oak tree or got their paralyzed arms miraculously come back to functioning normally, if I could not utilize that technique to cure my paralyzed arms. Ergo, the need for replication. You need to be able to replicate the paranormal process or at least render it possible for other people to study and make use of it. If paranormal experiences are to be exempted of skeptic's radar and accepted by mainstream media, I feel a utility of it needs to be shown that can serve a purpose to mankind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An email received from Alamgir
| Quote: |
Hi Ali,
I was finally delighted to see an excellent piece of your work on Muhammad on FFI. This is what we should be doing. Instead, you engaged in that raging battle on your psychic issue which has little value to humanity. We must make every effort to save those innocents going to be killed or stoned to be death by Mullahs and the Islamic terrorists. Instead, you engaged in eulogizing those vague psychic fraudsters like Van Praagh and McMoneagle et al. Although you might have been delighted, I was terribly shocked by that unjustified, slanderous and inflammatory comment of Van Praagh about skeptics - that too on a CNN show. It is the skeptics who has mostly made this world so beautiful for us. And while doing that they had had to suffer immensely at the hands of the believers of supernatural/paranoral. He should have been brought to court. These poeple have done nothing visibly good to humanity, whilst what you are doing have immense value to human cause.
Let's join hands to finish off Islam first. This is the most urgent thing in our hand. Anything else should come afterwards if at all.
Thanks,
Alamgir. |
Alamgir,
I do not consider your mockery to be a scholarly behavior. Van Praagh is entitled to his opinion. He might be a psychic but not a scholar. Probably he too, just like you, is confusing the skeptics with the pseudo-skeptics and his attack is directed at the latter and not the former. I regard myself a skeptic and do not share Van Praagh’s opinion. Nevertheless I maintained that the pseudo skeptics are just as dogmatic as religionists and in reality the difference is in semantics and in the eyes of the beholder.
You not only did not refute any of my points, as Aparthib or others tried to do, you acted like a Muslim bigot and resorted to the most primitive human instincts, i.e. mockery to gain advantage.
I respond to people who use their brain and present their arguments rationally. Sometimes I agree with their reasoning and sometimes I don’t. But at least the discussion is scholarly.
I am afraid you and Paul Edwards did not use your brain but another part of your anatomy to create that mockery and hence I see no reason to respond to you. If either of you can intelligently refute my points I will be glad to respond.
Kissan wrote:
| Quote: |
| A particularly bothersome Marxist who continually attacked the US was eventually banned. |
My instructions are that no one be banned for expressing ideas no matter how obnoxious those ideas may be. I do not think even racist remarks should be banned. Someone openly called for my death and even then I saw no reason to ban him. The only time I would condone a ban is when someone tries to sabotage the forum by attacking other members, flooding it or acting in a way that disturb other forumers or lower the scholarly standard of this forum.
However, the moderators have their own criteria and not always they agree with me. I am not the dictator here and I do not intervene in the moderation.
And Kissan, you say I should not keep aloof and respond to mockeries. How? How can one respond to mockeries? That is not what this forum is about. We do not want to drag it into gutters of mudslinging and horse laughter. Every forum has its own standards and I do not want to reduce this place into an arena of brainless people who all they can do is to make jokes of each other and mock.
Also Kissan, The Meccans did not just mock Muhammad, they also refuted him. If all they did was horse laugh then Muhammad was right not to respond.
Basically mockery has no response. Mockery is not a loigical or an intellectual argument. The only way you can respond to mockery is with Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, i.e. mock your opponet back. But Tu Quoque is also a logical fallacy. Two logical fallacies do not make a logical argument.
Last edited by Ali Sina on Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:20 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Truthspeaker
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 647
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: My opinion |
|
|
| Sea Sharp wrote: |
After the first part of the debate, both sides talked past each other like two fast running trains on parallel tracks going in opposite directions. Paul -- while he made some points -- was abusively antagonistic and I stopped reading him after the first reply. The only person who seems to be in the know of what's he talking about is Aparthib, the rest were just trying to win the debate by hook or by crook. Avijhit's reply to Ali lacks a coherent organization and sounds more like slashed up pieces put together to send a quick reply.
My zero-valued opinion re the debate aside, I am wondering about the end result of debate assuming Ali won (by "win", I mean he made a more persuasive case than his opponents). Suppose, we are not to hastily mop away the paranormal experiences with a snide attitude. But then what good are they if they can't be assembled into a system that's amenable to research and testing. If someone experiences a paranormal experience, what reason suffices to convince me that that's true? I could hardly care if someone encountered a talking oak tree or got their paralyzed arms miraculously come back to functioning normally, if I could not utilize that technique to cure my paralyzed arms. Ergo, the need for replication. You need to be able to replicate the paranormal process or at least render it possible for other people to study and make use of it. If paranormal experiences are to be exempted of skeptic's radar and accepted by mainstream media, I feel a utility of it needs to be shown that can serve a purpose to mankind. |
It is much ado about nothing. You are right but the correct word might not be replication but application. To apply something or to make it generally useful it needs to be replicable ofcourse.
The skeptics have no issue with an individual when he claims some unique sight, power, ability, etc. if he limits his claim to his own self. "I saw a flying talking pig and only I can see that". Then who cares! It is only when it becomes "I saw a flying talking pig who tells me secrets of the universe, and I tell you those gems in return for xyz" that it becomes a social issue and then an objective verification and replication becomes crucial.
Doubt everything is fine as a slogan as long as its limitations are kept in mind. When I act, I act within the rules that I accept to be true. Without that I cannot act. I could doubt that the ground in front of me is real, but when I take the next step I act as if it is real. When I run out of a burning building I act as if the fire is real, although I can claim that I doubt that it is real and I weigh the possibility that I am hallucinating. It is my actions that speak clearly what I hold to be really true. (And that is why the claim that it is not the true islam or the true christianity when one looks at the actions of the true believers rings so hollow).
Claims for extra-materialism are fine and most are most welcome to hold them privately, but when those claims are to affect others then they need to be verifiable and for them to be verifiable they need to be reprodoucible. There is a Journal of irreproducible results, and people do publish in it. Just do a search and you will find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: My opinion |
|
|
| Truthspeaker wrote: |
| The skeptics have no issue with an individual when he claims some unique sight, power, ability, etc. if he limits his claim to his own self. "I saw a flying talking pig and only I can see that". Then who cares! |
Dear Truthspeaker,
Not all who claim to have experienced something beyond our ability to explain, say a paranormal experience, necesarily claim some unique sight, power, ability, etc. limiting this potential to themself.
A person who may describe a paranormal experience is merely sharing information, in may cases seeking to find others who may have had similar experiences.
You say "who cares", I say, there are many out there who do care, to both be informed and to connect with others of like experience, if they did not report or talk about these experiences with others then how would they find out if others have had such experiences.
When you say who cares, consider your little child coming to you and saying, "daddy I had a horrible night-mare last night" or "daddy I had a beautiful dream last night" - would you say to your child "who cares"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brave_soul
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 876
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am sory, but this debate is only giving muslim a chance to mock this site. I think Ali Sina is using similar logic as muslim, and other relgionists
When Avijite and Randi and others said that there is no empirical data, reproducible evidence of any kind of paranormal event and we can not accepte it therefore, Ali sina replied in exactly the same way as religionists do: Can you prove that paranormal events were not real. This, in one word, is ridiculous. The burden of proofs is on the one who makes positive claim. When a person makes supernatural claim, how on earth we can disprove it? This logic is very dangerous; religion have succeded only because of this kind of "logic."
The mail which supported your views Ali, have no importance. There are many people in the world who do not understand the basics of logic and impotance and dynamics of scientific evidence. They are fond of comics stories, folklores, lagends, and they want this in the real world. So, be happy Ali, you will receive these kind of e-mails in good number. I can only say that i am disappointed by this debate.
beave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sea Sharp
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 11
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:15 am Post subject: Re: My opinion |
|
|
| piggy wrote: |
You say "who cares", I say, there are many out there who do care, to both be informed and to connect with others of like experience, if they did not report or talk about these experiences with others then how would they find out if others have had such experiences.
When you say who cares, consider your little child coming to you and saying, "daddy I had a horrible night-mare last night" or "daddy I had a beautiful dream last night" - would you say to your child "who cares"? |
I can see your point and I would be upset if skeptics would try to shove their skeptical outlook down your throat. But I am also wary of cultic trends that can eminate from paranormal experiences if let run abound without a challenge. Sometimes it seems some people are looking for a public acceptance of paranormal experiences with the ultimate motive that it will silence the troublemakers that challenge the way John Edwards, Silvya Brown, and their ilk are raking up money. Getting paid for fooling gullible people is not to be appreciated by society and skeptics do the required part in this regard. However, in their zeal, skeptical types can also unnecessarily talk or look down upon people who feel mystical about their experiences that can't be explained by Science -- an attitude that attributed to the creationo of the term Scientism.
-SS
PS: Oh and why the need for using invectives when responding to one another? It can be a controversial issue but nothing that should cause loss of temper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The skeptics have no issue with an individual when he claims some unique sight, power, ability, etc. if he limits his claim to his own self. "I saw a flying talking pig and only I can see that". Then who cares! |
This is basically like a Muslim saying people in Islamic countreis are free to practice their relition as long as they keep it to themselves.
Fortunately the pseudo skeptics limit themselve to mockeries and sophistries but do not actually harm you physically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:56 am Post subject: Re: My opinion |
|
|
| Sea Sharp wrote: |
| piggy wrote: |
You say "who cares", I say, there are many out there who do care, to both be informed and to connect with others of like experience, if they did not report or talk about these experiences with others then how would they find out if others have had such experiences.
When you say who cares, consider your little child coming to you and saying, "daddy I had a horrible night-mare last night" or "daddy I had a beautiful dream last night" - would you say to your child "who cares"? |
Oh and why the need for using invectives when responding to one another? It can be a controversial issue but nothing that should cause loss of temper. |
Sea Sharp,
I don't see where I have done what you say, I am quite calm, with no temper-loss.
Please point out precisely where you see this to have occured, as I have not attempted to give this impression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
beave_soul
You did not read the whole discussion. I already answered your question.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes a definitive assersion whether in favor or against an theory. Those who propose a theory as a theory and not as facts, do not have to prove anything. As long as a theory is palusible and it is not illogical, it is possible. Possible does not mean probable. Any theory could be proven false. But untill they are proven false they are valid as theories.
More detail here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40323.htm
Dear Sea Sharp,
I think you expressed the crux of the matter. The answer is the balance and constant vigil that we do not fall into religious credulity or dogmatic materialism. I agree that not everyone can walk that fine line and it is easier to jump from one camp to the other than walk on the fence.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| Oh and why the need for using invectives when responding to one another? It can be a controversial issue but nothing that should cause loss of temper. |
When people defend irrationality and when they are at the end of thier wits they often tend to be vindictive and compensate their weakness with mockery. This is a feel good factor.
This was supposed to be a scholarly debate. But when people take their beliefs as a dogma then tempers rise and insults fly.
Avijit asked whether I would be offended if he expressed his views. I said it is absurd to be offended by opposing views .What is offensive to me is arrogance and rudeness. Unfortunately he stooped into latter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piggy
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:46 am Post subject: Re: My opinion |
|
|
| Sea Sharp wrote: |
| piggy wrote: |
You say "who cares", I say, there are many out there who do care, to both be informed and to connect with others of like experience, if they did not report or talk about these experiences with others then how would they find out if others have had such experiences.
When you say who cares, consider your little child coming to you and saying, "daddy I had a horrible night-mare last night" or "daddy I had a beautiful dream last night" - would you say to your child "who cares"? |
I can see your point and I would be upset if skeptics would try to shove their skeptical outlook down your throat. But I am also wary of cultic trends that can eminate from paranormal experiences if let run abound without a challenge. Sometimes it seems some people are looking for a public acceptance of paranormal experiences with the ultimate motive that it will silence the troublemakers that challenge the way John Edwards, Silvya Brown, and their ilk are raking up money. Getting paid for fooling gullible people is not to be appreciated by society and skeptics do the required part in this regard. However, in their zeal, skeptical types can also unnecessarily talk or look down upon people who feel mystical about their experiences that can't be explained by Science -- an attitude that attributed to the creationo of the term Scientism.
|
Sea Sharp,
(in red)
This is a form of pre-conditioning, that may lead to all those who report paranormal experiences as being caregorized in the same league as the charlatans as far as intentions and integrity goes.
Personally I know nothing of those types that you speak of, I don't see them, folow them, read about them, etc, they have no influence on me whatsoever.
Those who may have been influenced by the charlatans, and are ever ready to denounce paranormal reports, have no affect on my willingness to speak openly the truth of my experience, I am not intimidated by the thought that these people may be ready to ridicule me or what I have to report.
I am not out to prove the happening in the first instance, and any amount of ridicule that may be forth-coming will not cause any fevor on my part to try convince them of something.
The people who are out there such as the like of Mr. Randi are obviously interested in paranormal for one reason or another, whether it be for money, statistics gathering or both.
It is partly because there are people who are interested, that I report any occurances that I consider might fall in the category of paranormal.
When I report on an experience that I consider might fall into the category of paranormal, I do so also to offer evidence, connect with and stimulate discussion, on something that those who may have similar experiences in common.
Not to convince or prove, simply to report.
I doubt that paranormal experiences can be self induced or invoked at will, yet I think it is possible that if one puts themself in the right state of mind, or say, no mind, they open up to be more receptive to the potential.
Moving along.
I often wonder what relative time and distance exists when one dreams.
What do you think of the many people who report seeing a light, i.e. near death experiences? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sea Sharp
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 11
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Piggy, I didn't direct the invective remark at you, rather posters in general. I took up the part from your post that I quoted to help myself continue and give my opinion without meaning to score a point against you. The cult remark wasn't intended for you either since I don't know anything about you in the first place. That was just my best attempt at a summary of what I generally observe regarding this matter. I have never had any paranormal experiences but I am in no position to cursorily dismiss people's paranormal claims. I am also of the opinion that empirical methods (the application/replication stuff) don't necessarily ensure truth, neither are they only methods to reach truth. Although I will prefer empirism over paranormal phenomena to decide the veracity of a fact, I can respect other paths leading to truth as long as they are approached with honesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
