|
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 |
atheist
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:12 pm Post subject: Re: my 2 cents |
 |
|
| kisan wrote: |
I read something from another website that reminded me of this debate:
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. |
I completely agree with Kisan. Ali Sina’s outrage on is expected. He is hurt because his own belief is under rational scrutiny now! For long he was hurting other people’s faith with his anti-Islamic typhoon; it was interesting to observe how a cult figure of “Rational thinking” under the mask of a paranormalist reacts when the same storm hits the shore. Of course he will see M-M as fanatic, autocratic and what not, cause some members of M-M dared to question Ali’s own belief system!!!!! We understand Ali’s strong feeling of displeasure just as we understand a Muslim believer’s discomfort against strong logic. Ali has never been faced such a fortified challenge from any circle since FFI was created. Of course Ali can find sarcasm in Alamgir and Paul Edwards and many other’s writing; but be reminded, Ali himself wrote sarcastic stories including “[url=http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/my_mi'raj.htm]The Unbelievable But Honest To God True Story of My Ascension To Heaven[/url]” while one Islamist named Mr. Malik Usman was asserting that Mi’raj (Ascension to Heaven) was scientific. Of course mocking on Muhammad’s Meraj while responding Malik Usman is completely OK for him ( no “Apeal to mockery or apeal to ad hominem” at that time), But mockery on paranormal event (such as talking with dead) or sarcasm on psychic fraud like Van Pharagh or McMoneagle is unacceptable to him!!!! Any honest reader may want to find the reason behind! To be frank, the reason has already been exposed to all. The reason is- Ali is no more than a believer – Believer of a Paranormal and psychic stuff. His outrageous remark towards some of M-M members shows that his “religious sentiment” (like other believers) is hurt now! Just remember how many times he used a derogatory phrase like “pseudo-rationalist”, “mask of materialist”, “dogmatic denial”, “fanatic” in his pieces while defending his own belief! I wonder whether his opponents deserves any right to get hurt too!
Ali said,
| Quote: |
| “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.” |
which is not a true statement by any means. Like FFI forum, M-M also has a dynamic forum of having around 1600 members. Anyone can post his messages; and we published Ali’s article, responses whenever we got from him. Besides, I myself personally posted many of Ali’s responses, even though I did not agree with his view at all. Here are some proofs:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15980
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15925
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15909
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15864
etc.
I already linked Ali sina’s responses to Aparthib and Randi in our debate site quite a long time ago:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/rationalist_debate.htm
There I posted Aparthib’s latest response (http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/rationalist_day/science_paranormal_aparthib5.htm ) which to my best knowledge, Ali did not respond back.
As I was away from my work place (and still I have limited access of internet), I could not update many of the valuable contribution of our members in our site. I apologize for my inability. However, Ali is solely victimizing himself too seek sympathy exactly like the other believers here. Unlike FFI, every member’s view is important for us, there is no prime exception. I will publish the pending articles of all members when I will return to my place.
It seems Ali only tends to publish those responses in his opening page that he or any of his followers try to refute. This is how democracy works? Ali repeatedly accused me for publishing “Brainless mockery” of Paul Edwards in M-M even though he used to play the same “brainless game” while responding the Islamist. It is quite interesting to note, for the Islamists he applies one “golden” rule and for the paranormalist he creates another. BTW, a question to ponder - Why I have to take Ali’s opinion as absolute for deciding the fate of Paul’s write-up in M-M? In fact, many of our members found Paul’s write-up much logical, acute and his write-up was appreciated by many of our members. Here is one example:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15781
Tell me, why should not I publish Paul’s writeup then? Just because Paul opposes Ali’s view on paranorlormal issues or just because Ali thinks his piece is “brainless”? I am sorry to say, we do not give any “special” importance to any of our members. I published Ali’s view as well as Randi, Aparthib, Alamgir and Paul and many others in our site. Let the Readers be judge to decide who is actually “brainless” in the debate. This is how democracy works in my dictionary. But in FFI the scenario is just opposite. Ali Sina is appeared as a “cult figure” among his followers. Nobody can question his belief. No body can mock, nobody can show his logical fallacies either. If you do, you will be taken to “gulag” and all of your previous scholarly work will be wiped out from the site. This is what happened in case of Dr. Alamgir Hussain! Ali removed all the previous contributions of Dr. Alamgir Hussain from his site and deleted the author’s name just after the “brainless mockery” was put forward to FFI. Please check yourself, you will not find Dr. Hussain’s name in the list:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Authors.htm
Of course Ali can claim that he is the founder and moderator of his site, and he can do whatever he likes with his own site. He can go ahed with his abnormal/paranormal/psychic or whatever “rational” view that he wishes to propagate ; cause, it is comforting; it is consoling for him too. We know weird beliefs also offer "immediate gratification." People like weird beliefs because they are simple. Weird beliefs also satisfy the quest for significance: they satisfy his moral needs and desire that life be meaningful. Paranormalists do not want to understand the need for controlled studies to eliminate self-deception from influencing weird beliefs. They are also unaware of the fallacy of the argument to ignorance. List may go on. What ever he wants to do to convert “Rational/Anti Islamic” site to “paranormal” site, can do but my only request to Dr. Sina is to refrain himself from using “fanatic”, "dishonest", “undemocratic”, “autocratic”, “dogmatic”, “pseudo-rationalist” etc. to the others before counterchecking his own action!
This is all for now. I am not going to follow FFI forum for time being. I had no intention to carry on the unnecessary debate either. One of M-M members sent me the forum link the day before yesterday and requested me to respond. This is the reason I penned again on this issue. May be it's a high time to stop responding. My oponent can continue though. If someone thinks that s/he can win just by uttering his last word in a debate, I would respectfully refrain myself in doing so. I had a great admiration for Ali Sina (still I have) when he started his mission with FFI for the purpose of rational scrutiny of Islam; I think he should run FFI with his mission rather than preaching paranormal propaganda. It is my personal suggestion and Ali himself is the sole authority to decide what he would do...
If any of you guys have anything to say please send directly at: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Avijit Roy
April 1, 2004 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ali Sina
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 4607
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Avijit Roy wrote:
| Quote: |
| I completely agree with Kisan. Ali Sina’s outrage on is expected. He is hurt because his own belief is under rational scrutiny now! For long he was hurting other people’s faith with his anti-Islamic typhoon; |
Mr. Roy,
You are engaging in tu quoque rhetoric. I have no beliefs. For me things are classified in two categories. They are either facts and hence make part of human knowledge or they are hypothesis. I leave beliefs for weaker minds. Some people like to believe in religious absurdities and others in materialistic dogmatism. Each thinks his position is superior to the other. As far as I am concerned only doubt is superior. You should have found another argument for ad hominem if you really wanted to sooth your bruised pride.
| Quote: |
| Ali has never been faced such a fortified challenge from any circle since FFI was created. |
I have been faced with hooliganism since the start of my online activities. The hooliganism of the materialists is no different. The arguments may be different but the technique, the language, the mindset (denial of the obvious), the zealotry and the arrogance is all too familiar.
| Quote: |
| Of course Ali can find sarcasm in Alamgir and Paul Edwards and many other’s writing; but be reminded, Ali himself wrote sarcastic stories including “The Unbelievable But Honest To God True Story of My Ascension To Heaven” |
There is nothing wrong in sarcasm. But if sarcasm and ridicule take the place of rational arguments as in the case of these two individuals then there is nothing to refute. I do not expect Muslims respond to my sarcasm. I expect them to respond to my logical arguments. And I have responded to all those who rebutted my arguments using their brains.
I already clarified this point in responding to Kisan who said Muhammad also complained Meccans mocked him. I said Meccans did not just mock him. If that was all they did then Muhammad was right not responding. They also refuted him. If these two mockers had written anything beside mockeries I would have responded them as well. Obviously you did not understand this in the first time. I hope you understand it now.
You called Van Praagh a psychic fraud. I said I can’t make a judgment on this person until I study a video of one of his cold reading demonstrations. My first impression of him was that he is genuine. However you call him fraud without ever seeing him. Why? … Because, your gurus say so. Is this how a rationalist would pass judgment? Is this how a skeptic would think? I even showed to you that your two gurus who judged Van Praagh contradicted each other. One said he was a “master of deception”, i.e. very impressive and the other said he is “extremely unimpressive”. All this double talk does not give you any suspicion about the lack objectivity of these two guys. And you want to be called as a rational person? Oh please!
| Quote: |
| Ali is no more than a believer – Believer of a Paranormal and psychic stuff. |
I explained this in my very first article “What it takes to be a rationalist” and repeated in the subsequent ones that one should neither believe nor disbelieve in anything until that thing is proven or disproven. This is a simple concept. If you have difficulty understanding it, that is another problem.
Anyway, since it seems to me that you have difficulty with comprehension, I will repeat in clear language the gist of my argument.
- Paranormal is any scientifically unexplainable phenomena
- All phenomena may eventually be explained by science.
- Paranormal Phenomena do happen and denial of that is dogmatic materialism.
- Dogmatic materialism is not scientific. It is a religion not based on facts but on a beliefs.
- Many self proclaimed rationalists and skeptics are neither rationalists, nor skeptics. They are dogmatic believers,
A good example of that is acupuncture. Here we saw how acupuncture was first dismissed as placebo. When it was demonstrated that acupuncture works also on animals and hence it can’t be placebo, the placebo theory was no more perused but the argument presented was that acupuncture stops the flow of blood to the brain. Of course if all we needed to heal was reducing the flow of the blood to the brain then all we have to do is to shrink the main arteries that carry the blood to the brain. I can’t see how by putting needles or pressing a point in someone’s palms, feet or back, we can reduce the flow of blood to his brain. Are the blood veins going to the brain in our feet? Furthermore the acupoints are not on our veins or nervous system at all. So the theory that there is a vital energy in our bodies is a very valid theory. Of course the main function of this “energy” is to regulate the function of the body. Controlling the flow of blood is one of its functions. So by discovering the mechanism, we have not found the cause.
| Quote: |
| I already linked Ali sina’s responses to Aparthib and Randi in our debate site quite a long time ago: |
Compare your list with mine and you’ll see some of my responses are still missing.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/materialists.htm
| Quote: |
| Ali Sina is appeared as a “cult figure” among his followers |
This is another charade. My main goal is to let the world know that in matters of understanding there is no leader and follower. The co workers of FFI are not following anyone but their own intelligence. Of course you are not the first one to make such mindless accusations. Muslims have been doing this all along. I encourage people not to believe in anything and never follow anyone blindly and “be a prophet unto themselves”. You would do better if you too took to heart what I say and instead of parroting your materialist gurus, investigated the facts. Of course it is okay to quote rational arguments of others that make sense to you. But it is quite unintelligent to quote their contradictory observations of a single event. If two people describe a car; one saying it was nicely painted and could fool anyone and the other say, it was extremely unimpressive, don’t you think at least one of them must be lying or perhaps both of them have ulterior motives? This of course is no proof that the car is in good condition. It only shows the gullibility of the person who believes in these two guys without realizing the obvious contradiction. Now you see? You are a follower. We do not have followers and leaders here. We try to doubt everything and find our own light.
Frankly only this accusation of yours is proof enough of your irrationality. This is basically a give away of how your mind works when you write with anger. All you care is to attack even though that may reflect poorly on you.
Now why would you say the members of FFI are followers? Because you are hurt, your pride is shattered and you feel humiliated. All you care is to spew your venom. It really does not matter anymore whether you make a fool of yourself or not. The important thing is to say anything and feel good. Well, be my guest. I do not see you as a worthy contender. You can stoop as low as you like.
| Quote: |
| many of our members found Paul’s write-up much logical, acute and his write-up was appreciated by many of our members. |
Should I be surprised? A billion Muslims think Muhammad’s words are divine.
| Quote: |
| Tell me, why should not I publish Paul’s writeup then? |
No one said you should not! I simply wanted to point out to your standards of scholarship. You have published his charades even in this forum and they are staying.
| Quote: |
| Ali removed all the previous contributions of Dr. Alamgir Hussain from his site and deleted the author’s name just after the “brainless mockery” was put forward to FFI. |
The contributors to FFI are true scholars. I have great respect for them and learn from them. Of course they come from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs and certainly I can’t agree with all of them nor do they agree with everything I say. Anyone who has been familiar with FFI knows that people come here and use all sort of language against me. Some even issue death fatwas. Even that is okay. However if you read the terms of service of the forum you’ll see I demand good scholarship. I do not see mockers as scholars. The forum is free for everyone but the main page is for scholars.
| Quote: |
| I think he should run FFI with his mission rather than preaching paranormal propaganda. |
I am not preaching anything including paranormal. This site’s original name was Rational Thinking. This whole debate started when you people could not take the heat and ambushed me when I called for rationalism and skepticism.
I made it clear that denial is not going to take us anywhere but it will backfire. I said the scientific community should, instead of denial, study these cases rationally and find the truth behind them. Not just study them with the preconceived idea that they are all tricks like Randi does, but study them with open mind. A good example of that is the Chinese medicine that is based on qi and it is not just placebo. In some cases it works when conventional medicine does not. I also highlighted the risk of denial of facts. I said if the scientific community keeps denying these evidences, the religionists and the new age charlatans will provide their “explanations” and fool people. The reaction of the pseudo rationalist crowd was unanimous attack at me and denial of those facts and evidences.
The facts are:
People have experiences that can’t be explained.
That not all these experiences are generated in their minds
That in some cases there are hard evidences of these facts. Not all of them are anecdotal.
Three years ago, a skeptic materialist friend of mine posted an article about the effect of prayer on recovery of the sick people. (I am afraid I do not know how to find that article.) It was a scientific research, where a group of patients were chosen to be prayed for and then their recovery compared to another group who were not prayed for. The result was that the group that was prayed for had a markedly better rate of recovery. When he wrote that, I said it was of course the placebo effect. But the article claimed that neither group of the patients had any knowledge of this experiment.
The idea of praying for someone else is difficult for me to accept. However I am a skeptic and I can’t dismiss it either. I do not know if more studies have been done on this or whether that case was a fluke.
There must be an explanation to all these. We have to study them rationally and scientifically and not deny thim dogmatically.
The response I got so far is from the materialists is that they are all anecdotal, hallucinations or ticks.
This is obviously a lie. It takes a believer to accept this lie.
Why dismiss things that we do not understand automatically. Take the example of acupuncture. Why say it is placebo before knowing all the facts? This kind of denial is consistent. The first thing the materialists do when they are presented with evidence is to deny its authenticity. Why this obsession? Doesn’t this prove that materialism is a faith?
Instead of denying, I think we should study them. The qi or the vital energy may exist after all. It makes sense and is logical. So why not research it? Truthspeaker said some studies are being done on qi. That is a good start.
Extra sensory perception exists. Denying does not make it go away. Most people have had such experiences and you can’t convince them it is all in their imagination. That is why people have no sympathy for materialists. They lie. So the case must be studied.
I even gave a possible theory. I said thoughts are made of waves and waves are particles. According to quantum physics, particles in a very sub atomic level, do not obey time. So is it possible that thought work in future? This is not entirely illogical. According to quantum physics, a particle can be in once place before ariving there. This sounds absurd but that is what they physicits say. This theory may be true or it may not be. However, it is a rational attempt to resolve a problem.
What is irrational is denial of ESP. And this is the position you and your ilk have taken.
Aparthib was the only exception. At times he was defending dogmatic denial and eventually he was saying things that are more in line with agnosticism. I think he is shifting between the materialism and agnosticism. Shifting opinions are okay. supple minds change. It is fossilized minds that don't. I often shift my views and consider both sides as possible. However, Aparthib seems to be convinced each time when he seems to say two different things. Since his latest essays were more akin to my thinking, i.e. agnostic in nature, I am more comfortable with them. Even though he seems to think I am in disagreement with him, it is in fact what I said from the begining. If he is really an agnostic I wonder why he rebutted me in the first place.
Last edited by Ali Sina on Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sea Sharp
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 11
Location: US
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Atheist, Ali please calm down. Both of you use -- in otherwise entertaining and informative articles -- words that serious writers should never use. It seems this debate has turned into an ugly street brawl which is sad since both sides are capable of rational thoughts (judging by reading your articles); more so, if you think how much miscommunication went into the debate. I wish both of you best of luck.
--SS
p.s. I also wish both of you just pause a bit and reflect about your debating style. you both have amazing debating talent -- but it's too raw for being called "scholarly". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sea Sharp
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 11
Location: US
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ali, I just read your reply to atheist's last post. Much much better job, professional response, clean tone. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeacefulMeadows
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 pm Post subject: A Dogmatic Rationalist? |
|
|
Ali said-----
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| "As an atheist, even I can answer this: Muslims basically do think that their God is malevolent, since he makes disbelievers drink boiling water. If you want to change his name from God to Satan, that's fine by me. This in no way constitutes proof for the absence of a God. He may well be malevolent, or maybe he can do only one thing at a time. E.g. if you have kids, are you able to control all your grandchildren all the time? Who knows. What you CAN say is that if there is a God, there is no evidence to suggest that he interferes on the earth." |
This is the typical irrational and dogmatic reasoning we can see in religionists. As you can see even the self-proclaimed rationalists are not immune to irrational thinking. |
-----
First off: Isn't claiming to be an athiest dogmatic? I think you already covered that but I am not sure.
Anyways, I don't understand how it is irrational to think that perhaps God only works in a certain way and that perhaps God does not interfere in the Earth for very good reasons.
Many religions and spiritual thinkers have different depictions of what God is exactly. You say "He" but you fail to realize that a lot of other religions do not refer to God as a human or even an animal. To think that "God" does not exist with the premises that there is no apparent significant male or human controling things is incorrect because it is only encompasing a small view of what God is. The definition of God is actually very broad and encompassing.
God (n.) - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.
Being (n.) - To exist in actuality; have life or reality; To occupy a specified position.
According to the definition of being you do not have to be a certain shape, size, animal, plant, or consistancy of fluids and matter. According to the definition you do not have to have a particular behavior relating to any other noticable lifeform, even though we ourselves can realize that all living things tend to express the same emotions. Therefore this leaves open the doors to the idea that perhaps everything in existance combined, makes up one "absolute" being. After all how do any of us really know there is a line between me and you other than the illusory line that we can see? We all know that in reality there is no line between us, oxygen, and all of the other matter, gases, and chemicals in the universe. The different densities and behaviors are what define our shapes, sensitivity, chemicals, and gases.
For example, just because the eye is separate than the eye lid according to what we see that does not necessarily mean there really is a black line that separates the eye from the eye lid. That is an illusion of light.
Perhaps God is the superior "mind" of the universe. For example, there are times when we think things and we are aware of our own estranged "minds" and "thoughts" but our bodies and the chemicals within them make us do other things or make us feel impulsed towards other things, like someone else is controlling us, but we still think of it as "our being." Although, even though we have this sense of our own mind and thoughts there are cells and atoms within our own bodies that have minds of their own. Even though this is true, and scientists are becoming aware of it, we still look at ourselves as separate beings from one another and we still constitute our bodies as ourselves even though there are different smaller beings making parts of the decisions within us.
We can all come to the conclusion now that that the words self and no-self are both false in rationality. We can conclude that self and no-self are just terms to be used in subjectivity. Because in all absoluteness there is no self in the sense that there are no absolute lines just as much as there is a self that we witness separate from everyone else. This is a phenomena which will always remain a miracle.
Omnipotent (adj.) - Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Perhaps God does have absolute power but within that power God also has the wisdom to do what is "wise." Everyone knows that with power wisdom is needed on how to use that power. And if we are all a part of God's body, like in my previous statement of "being," then perhaps God does not have complete control over everything for the sake of freedom of will.
Perhaps it is better to separate the origin of God, the mind, from the lesser bodies and minds, ourselves. When we ourselves think of doing what is right we don't always do right. Sometimes we just can not convince our bodies to do what is right. We will be thinking one thing but our impulses will make us do other things. Perhaps some of the voices we hear in our minds is really the God head trying to convince us, its body, to do a particular thing. And of course there has to be a forward or growing motion to make it significant. Perhaps the universe is infinately big and small and big and small is just an illusion just as much as self and no-self. Perhaps the illusion is for a purpose. Perhaps the purpose is purpose itself when, on the other hand, there is no purpose. The infinite journey to discovering the God head, or the originating mind, and its nature just as the cells in our bodies further learn the nature of our bodies to benefit our illusory selves.
Omniscient (adj.) - Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
This word, also, is subjective. The definition does not say to have absolute knowledge of every action, recipe, and gymnastic trick in existance.
Perhaps God does know everything about everything. But of course controling everyone on earth and making them do what it wants kind isn't going to make anyone learn anything except that God likes to be boss. But I think the idea is that God wants to be a "friend" not a "boss." And sometimes we have to try to persuade our friends not to do things but being their boss just makes them dislike us and drives them away. Even if God could appear in a human figure it would mess up the "purpose" of us learning from experience. After all this is not irrational thinking it is very rational. If God were to appear everywhere to save everything, correct everything, fix everything, then there would be no lesson to learn and the only significance would be that God said so. And like we all agree it is hard to understand pain unless you feel pain and can learn pain. And if you don't know pain then there is no such thing as friendly love. If you just are born and everything is done for you you never actually learn to cherish anything. That is why there is pain in the universe... this makes significance and teaches love and teaches you to cherish and what to cherish. To make "direction" and "purpose". After all we can all admit that going through painful lives has made us realize what really is special in our lives and that is how we learn to cherish it.
Originator and Ruler:
Of course the idea is that God is the originator of the idea of the material and "spiritual" universe, its purpose, and its advantage. After all something living and conscious had to give birth to life and consciousness. It is actually irrational to believe that it can just "appear" from nowhere. According to cause and effect there has to be a cuase in order for there to be an effect. In other words if the universe is flat line then "some" thing has to influence it to move. Most likely something "conscious." I would find it hard for something unconscious to come to life.
Many say that the origin of God, or God's "Throne" (place of origin) is invisible because it is like seeing the beginning of the Golden Spiral. Point: You can't see it!! There is no smallest or biggest thing in the universe. It is an illusion. The ability to create the golden spiral of Pi is evidence itself. This is why small insects are just as definded in texture as dinosaurs 20 times the size of ourselves.
And if there is no beginning or end and just "forward" then life will be created forever and ever. That is the "purpose". Love, pro-creation, having friends and siblings. If there was an end to the universe then we'd have to stop procreating and wait for people to die. That would inhibit the purpose. We all know, deep inside, that universe is infinite space, matter, and energy.
Therefore the last idea is that if the universe can not unconsciously bring life to itself then obviously it must have been something conscious and a lot bigger than us since we just rotate around a little star. Therefore the idea is that God is Energy, Life itself, uses matter to create bodies, different souls to make its purpose work, and darkness to create color. If the whole universe was light then you'd just be able to see light. That would ruin the idea.
And well I already talked about the "Ruler" part up above.
Perfect:
Perfect is really relative so I don't think anyone can argue with whether or not God is perfect or not in an absolute manner. So there is no point in really going there.
It is good to stop thinking of God as an animal or human. Every prophet tells us that God is invisible and beyond our imagination but the religious followers of the spiritual teachers make material idols and start thinking God is a human, animal, or alien. This is probably why Moses got angry for the Jews worshipping the golden calf. People keep associating human wisdom and human/animal/alien/angel form to God and it is against the teaching of most renowned religious teachers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeacefulMeadows
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:32 pm Post subject: Material World VS. Nature |
|
|
We all know, or atleast we are finding out, that organic natural foods are a lot better than we could ever make. And well I personally think nature is very beautiful. The trees, flowers, birds, and grass can be very peaceful.
On the other hand though I do not believe the material world is "evil". I think it is very subjective. You can do good things with materials or you can do bad. Same with nature. There are some animals which are kind and friendly and others who are predatory and will eat your children.
I do not think the material world is totally evil. I am not fully materialist and I am not a "nature only allowed" person either.
....
And about my last post: I am not trying to make people become religious. I believe in God and I am still a rationalist. I do not believe in religion but I do believe in morals. Because everyone must admit morals work. No one likes being called a jerk or offensive words. No one likes to have their wife stolen by their friend... etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mycos
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:28 am Post subject: Credulity = irrationality |
|
|
This statement is repeated so frequently by him that I must conclude that something said previously rests solely on this assertion.
In any case, credulity and irrationality are not only /not/ equivalent, but to suggest so is irrational. It would be like equating apples and oranges. Ironically, your having done this irrational act in no way shows you to be prone to credulity. It is simply showing you as wrong on one issue.
If, on the other hand you believe something is entirely fact only because you heard it stated by another person, that would be an example of credulous belief, and a somewhat irrational way of behaving as well. But look around you! Precisely that form of credulous behaviour among religious sorts is commonplace! It is precisely the thing encouraged by clerics we have come to know as "faith". But credulity or faith when used by the churches is so extreme as to say that irrational claims are necessary to their religion. This is especially dangerous in that it takes credulity of children and the otherwise suggestible, and teaches them that irrational thought is as valid a belief system as is one based solely on rational conclusions. This is the "slippery slope" of all slippery slopes. It is the bridge that allows irrationality to become acceptable. What follows is to allow, or even prefer such a quality in our leaders.
Ali Sina simply has a hard time accepting that he's wrong. Probably because he thinks of himself to be exceptionally mindful of keeping objectivity and reason behind any conclusions he reaches. A noble and worthy standard by which to measure oneself, indeed. But, here he is very close to having made a perfectly rational decision, albeit for one small problem..apparently his opinion of himself as being above bias is itself a powerful bias. It leads one directly to a dogma, in that ones own opinions are as law; law that is to be followed dogmatically because they are always correct due the rigorous gauntlet they must travel to reach the status of spoken opinion.
I should say however that many of is other opinions on matters are refreshingly well thought out, with an objectivity that is disturbingly absent in many of the posters who have been attracted by his anti-Muslim stance.
If you chance to read this Ali Sina, please do yourself and I a favour by not letting the far-right/left wing-nuts hi-jack your critique of Islam, and thereby you. You are a thinker, a rarity, particularly among the pro-Bush crowd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eopithecus
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 1815
Location: Paleolithic State
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: In another thread recently |
|
|
I suggested Ali Sina could write anything he wanted to write about, whether Bigfoot or Crop Circles. A faith in the supernatural isn't rational and I find it extremely weird that some of his alleged postings, expecially the ones concerning the Randi challenge, are sounding extremely muslim in tone. Just compare the letters here concerning the Sina challenge. Is something quite Schizo going on here? Is Sina playing a role on both sides of the Islam issue?
_________________
Confirmed Evolutionist: Biology is God and DNA is the Messanger of God |
|
| 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
