Leaving Islam



For the complete debate with materialists see this list

More Holes in the Materialist's bucket 


This is  Ali Sina's response to Aparthib Zaman's 2nd rebuttal.


Dear Aparthib,  

In your defense of the Brent Meeker’s argument you stated:

“Brent was simply pointing out the false dichotomy between dogma and rationality. Pointing out the False dichotomy does not imply that dogmatism and rationalism are NOT mutually excluding, as Ali Sina is alleging it did. What Brent meant that one can be irrational but still NOT dogmatic. So there are 3 possibilities: (1) Dogmatic (2) Irrational (e.g non-dogmatic credulity) (3) Rational

Not being (1) does not guarantee being (3), one can be (2).”

Mr. Brent Meeker stated clearly that the dichotomy between dogmatism and rationalism is false.

He also said: “The opposite of dogmatic denial isn't rationality; it's uncritical credulity.”

He is very mistaken. Rational people cannot be dogmatic and dogmatic people cannot be rational. “Uncritical credulity” is irrational.

Let us assume I believe in the fantastic and demagogical tale of Muhammad ascending the seventh heaven. This would be uncritical credulity. Now let’s say you come and tell me all what I believe is fairytale and is contrary to science and logic. What would be my natural reaction? Typically, if I am a believer, I would deny science and logic dogmatically and stick to my belief. So how can you say dogmatic denial is opposite to uncritical credulity?  

You say “Brent meant one can be irrational but still NOT dogmatic”. Although it is difficult for me to figure out,  how one can be irrational if he is not dogmatic, but for the sake of argument let us agree on this hypothesis. Here we are talking about rational and irrational beliefs. We are not talking about irrational behavior which is entirely different animal. It is not clear to me how you can be irrational in your beliefs if you are not dogmatic.    

Meeker’s statement implies two things:  

a)     Dogmatism and rationality are not opposite, which entails one can be rational and dogmatic at the same time over the same belief system.

b)       Dogmatism is opposite to uncritical credulity.  

Both these statements are wrong.  


In your second point you tried to clarify this controversy and wrote:  

“By "dogmatic denial" (he was really quoting Sina using such _expression) he meant the denial of paranormal of so-called "pseudo-rationalists".

If that was what Meeker intended to say, he worded it wrongly. He should have stated “denial of dogmatism” and not “dogmatic denial” which means entirely a different thing. “Opposing violence” is not the same thing as “violently opposing”.  When I used “dogmatic denial” I meant denying the facts and the evidence dogmatically.  

So let us rephrase what Meeker said with the right syntax and see what we get.  

The opposite of “denial of dogmatism” isn't rationality; it's uncritical credulity.  

Now it makes more sense. If you reject dogmas you can’t be called a credulous person. I said this might be a typo.  

However the denial of dogma is also rationality. It is rational to reject the dogma. So with the corrections to the sentence, still that sentence is partially true.



Your point 3 is the claim that all the reports of paranormal are anecdotal. I already talked about this in my response to Avijit Please refer to it.  

You also said:

"The last part of the above is an example of the fallacy of complex question, there is a built in assumption that paranormal event HAS occurred, and since there is no scientific explanation, then why not call it as paranormal, right?. But before something is declared as paranormal due to lack of scientific explanation, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have actually occurred. Again anecdotes do not qualify as proof beyond reasonable doubt to a rationalist.   "

In your previous message you however wrote:    

“For example, the case of Hindu Lord Ganesh oozing milk was a real occurrence. Here the occurrence was scientifically measurable.”

Of course the story was that Ganesh was drinking milk not oozing it. But I had not paid much attention to this story until I read your statement that this phenomenon was “scientifically measurable”.  If that was scientifically measurable, is it still anecdotal?  How can something be scientifically measurable and anecdotal at the same time?  

Do you realize that all human history is also anecdotal? The fact that the Earth is round for Sheik Abdel-Azi Ibn Baaz, Saudi Arabia ’s top cleric and the Flat Earth Society is also anecdotal? In fact since you and I have not gone to the space personally, it is also anecdotal for us. Are you going to deny this too?  

Once you decide not to accept something, any excuse will do and everything becomes “anecdotal”. If I have a pain and I go to a doctor, I can’t show my pain. There is no proof of it. All I have is my words. Is that hallucination? Is that anecdotal?  

Anecdotes do not prove the existence of something beyond doubt. I am not also advocating we should accept the immaterial world uncritically either. It would be unwarranted to believe in anything without evidence.  However it is equally irrational to deny all those claims and dismiss them as "anecdotes" because they cannot be proven.  

Sometimes examples can explain things better.  

Say Sheriff Joe Dandi is a police officer. Several people report to him that a woman is missing. Several of them say they saw the husband beating or may be stabbing her. They also say they saw him wrapping something that looked like a body in a blanket putting it in his car and drove away. Since that day they did not see the woman. According to other rumors the husband had told others that he wanted his wife dead, etc. etc.  However no “body” is found and the husband denies any foul play.  His story is that he and his wife had a fight and she fled to live with her secret lover in South America .  

What do you think officer Dandi should do? Should he charge the man or should he let him go? That is a hard decision. If you said he should not charge him I understand and do not blame you even though my gut feeling say he is guilty. After all no body has been found and eye witnesses could be mistaken. Those who say he planned to kill his wife also could be lying or he could have said this when he was angry and did not mean it. All these numerous eyewitnesses, although compelling are “anecdotal” after all.  

However, what if this police officer starts attacking the credibility of the witnesses, mocking them, accusing them of hallucinating things and saying they are liars? What if Officer Dandy claim categorically that all the witnesses are anecdotal and he is not going to believe in anyone unless they can produce the body?  

Wouldn’t that make you raise an eyebrow? Something must be fishy here. A police officer should not take side.  Don’t you agree?  Not only he is not searching for the body, which is his duty, he is actually denying that the body exist.

This is what is happening with our case. We have no proof that an immaterial world exists. However we have millions of witnesses who come forth and tell us their stories that point to the fact that such a world MAY exist. We know many of those stories are fake and many of them are hallucinations. But are all of them fake and hallucinations?  

In any police investigation, when public is asked to cooperate, thousands of tips pour in. Of course not all of them are related to the case. Should the police attack the program and say it is a waste of time to ask for tips because we verified that most of them are not related and discredit those who call? Should they say all those who call to give tips are hallucinating and their stories are anecdotal?

I am not saying we should accept that an immaterial world definitely exists. No “body” has been found after all. But should we attack and ridicule the people who come forth to witness? The idea seems to be silencing those who make such reports and making them ashamed. The materialists immediately attack this person and question his sanity.  

Now why the materialists are so adamant to deny and dismiss all those reports? It is because they are not impartial. They actually deny any crime has ever taken place. They do not want you to find any "body" that might destroy their credibility.  Asking the materialists to verify the existence or inexistence of a world beyond the Matter is like asking the Vatican to research the claim of the virginity of Mary. the conclusion is foregone.  

My point is not that we should believe that an immaterial world exists. Personally I believe it is a possibility that something exist. The “anecdotal” evidences are too many to ignore and my own experiences make me believe this is the most likely scenario. However, if solid evidence is provided against this belief, I will stand corrected.  After all a theory is a theory. It does not have to be proven to be believed. If a theory is proven, it is no more a theory it is a fact. As long as a theory is not irrational and unscientific, like those attributed to Muhammad, Jesus and Moses for example, as long as they are possible, there is no harm in believing them. After all the theory of evolution was just a theory until it was proven and became a fact. When a theory is proven, then we do not have to believe in it anymore. Facts are things that we KNOW they are not things that we doubt and hence BELIEVE.

What I want to establish is that the materialists and the pseudo rationalists are not objective or impartial. They are not the people who can tell us the truth about the other worlds. These people are believers in materialism. Their god is Mater. It is not that they lie or they are insincere all the time. They are most of the time genuine.  Nevertheless, they are believers and like other believers they are the last people who can tell us the truth.    

We need objective people, rational people, impartial people and skeptics to find the truth. When it comes to the question of the immaterial world, the materialists are not the people we should rely upon. They are not to be trusted because they are not impartial. They have already made their mind that all those millions of people who report paranormal are liars or are hallucinating. Materialism should be treated like any other religion.   

The "million-dollar-challenge", not only underlies the fact that these people have no understanding of the nature of the spiritual world, it also proves that they have already made their minds. Imagine a judge claiming impartiality and at the same time offering a million dollar to the witnesses CHALLENGING them to prove their case? Would you say this judge is impartial? Mr. Randi might be a mentalist but as Abraham Lincoln said, you can’t fool all the people all the time. The materialists are not investigating the paranormal phenomena, they are helping in the cover-up and the reason is obvious. Any notion of an immaterial world, shatters their belief in materialism.  






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.