Ali Sina's new Religion: . By Paul Edwards




		Ali Sina's new Religion: By Paul Edwards E-mail: [email protected] Ali: With regards to your latest article... http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40313.htm > This should sever as a waking call to the pseudo "serve". > rationalists who cannot see beyond their nose and > deny the existence of any reality that does not fall > within their limited understanding of the matter. I don't know ANY skeptics who deny the POSSIBILITY that <xyz> exists. To a man, they demand evidence of anyone claiming that <xyz> exists. I don't even deny the POSSIBILITY that a God or Gods (of some sort) exist. Perhaps you should spend more time questioning yourself, making up your own reality when you have no evidence of such things? > There is no dispute over the brain's function as > the processor of thoughts. What the Western > science has no understanding of is the function > of the brain as the receiver of thoughts. You can't start the process of understanding something, until you actually have some evidence it even exists. > If our brain was nothing more than an advanced > computer, then there would be no ways for human > knowledge to grow. Incorrect. Even computers gain knowledge. An airline reservation system now "knows" that Mr Smith just boarded a plane leaving Chicago, en-route to Michigan. That is knowledge. Growing knowledge. > dreams The same physical brain that is responsible for concious thought is also responsible for the dreaming. Most scientific discoveries are found while concious. There is no evidence of any paranormal phenomena in this, any more than in the Grand Canyon. > The information we receive through intuition cannot > come from our mind. Wrong. You are DENYING that the mind could be working away at this in your subconcious. Denial, denial, denial. > These are new information that were not available > to us before. That's exactly what logical deductions are. > They most likely, come form an external source. Guided by Occam's Razor, the most likely explanation is that they came from the same place that logical deductions normally come from - your own brain. It's a great pity that this "external knowledge" never gives something that couldn't otherwise have been a logical deduction, e.g. the knowledge of lottery numbers, or the colour of the shirt that I am wearing at the moment, etc etc, something that we can easily see couldn't possibly be a simple logical deduction, or some knowledge learnt long ago and semi-forgotten that has come to the fore. You can see this with remember people's names from school. > That must be The Source of all being. It must be the > same Principle that is the cause of creation. All > existence, all knowledge, all laws and all being > derive from this Single Source. And so now, we've gone from the scantest of evidence, to wild and absolute "truths" with the "must". This is dogmatic belief, no matter how much you like to DENY it. > Everything depends on this Principle while it is > oblivious of everything. More wild speculation about things that we don't even have evidence even exist at this stage. > The Principles cannot be broken without impunity. Bizarre. You can't break something you have not even shown to exist. > Just as breaking the law of gravity has consequences, > breaking spiritual laws applying to human sphere is > not without consequence. As far as I can tell, what you are trying to say is "human psychology is an important branch of science". It may not sound as mystical though. > As humans, we are also spiritual beings. It is, only > through understanding this aspect of our humanity > that we can understand the strange and "illogical" > willingness of man to sacrifice his own life for the > sake of his fellow human. In human psychology, some have a more well-developed sense of empathy than others. The development of empathy has a lot to do with the environment. Nothing mystical. > Perfection is unlimited and evolution is the matter's > way to gain perfection. In our evolutionary trajectory > we pass through different stages of existence. In each > stage we gain more existence and more awareness. > This is what we called the creative force or the �lan > vital. As we evolve we become more sophisticated > instruments and can receive more of this creative force. This is what is called "human psychology being influenced by societal norms". Doesn't sound nearly as mystical, but nevermind. > Chinese call this force Qi (pronounced chi). They are welcome to call the universe obeying physical principles anything they want. > Qi must be real, because the entire Chinese medicine, > acupuncture, Qigong, Tai qi and even their herbal > medicine is based on manipulation of this Qi and the > Chinese medicine works. It works even in cases > where the modern medicine fails. Please be precise. Show me the double-blind placebo-controlled experiment that shows that <some medicine> does <something> and I will ask my local doctor why it hasn't been incorporated into western medicine. > Even in our western idiom we have expressions > such as "I feel run down", "I am low in energy", > "I need to recharge my batteries", "I feel energized" > and similar expressions that show, at a subconscious > level, we are aware of this life energy within us. Or, they could just show that humans get tired, and that's why we sleep. > This creative impulse is independent from our body. Either that, or it is generated from our brain. > It is reflected in the body. Or generated in the brain. > If so, it can survive our body and it can continue to > evolve after our death. Wild speculation with no evidence. > It is important to note that the creative impulse is > not a function of our body but rather the force behind it. It is important to note that you just completely made this up without evidence, because you can't bear the thought of living in a world with no mysticism. > If this vital energy exists, and we know that it does > because we see its effect like in Qi Effects like WHAT? What specific phenomenan do you claim we KNOW (your word) can't possibly be generated from within our own body by normal physical means. > In the western world we call this "soul". Or "conscious thought" as the case may be. > Interestingly all cultures from all parts of the world > have a name for it and acknowledge its existence. Most people acknowledge concious thought, including the culture of atheism, that is correct. > The Hindus believe in many gods and the Chinese > do not believe in any god. Chinese race or Chinese country? In either case, the Chinese do not speak with one voice. > When the earthly experience is over, the soul will > continue its evolution in other worlds -worlds that > are of different dimensions distinct from this world > but not separate from it. In other words, "I'm shit-scared of dying and ending up as nothing more than worm-food". > It is time that we stop believing in religions that > deny reason, stop believing in gods that are man's > own figments of imagination and stop believing in > pseudo rationalists who deny human spirituality. Or stop believing in people fabricating magic spirits without a shred of evidence. Ali, you are making up your own religion. It is exactly the same dogmatic religion as every other religion. You insist that these things are "beyond doubt" even when there is not a shred of evidence. You're not questioning your own religion. That's why it is a religion. This is completely obvious to anyone who is not part of your religion. You can insist that they are all wrong if you want, that's what all other religions do. Ask Avijit if he's planning on hopping on board your new religion, which I will dub "Sinality" after it's founder. It is pronounced "senility". You've gone from dumping Islam because it's a load of crap, to starting Sinality, because you can't face the very high probabilty that DEAD IS DEAD. This is obvious to any skeptic/rationalist. You saw rebuttals to your previous attempts at jumping on Praagh's bandwagon. Did you actually get any rationalists at all supporting you? You can believe that all the others are pseudo-rationalist, and that you are the "one true rationalist". Everyone else can see how you deny everything, no matter what evidence is given to you, and what little evidence you have is completely demolished with an analysis of cold-reading. Denial, denial, denial. I know you don't like to think it is denial, I know you don't like to think of yourself as dogmatic, but even Blind Freddy can see it for what it is. I hope one day you will manage to turn your back on Sinality, in the same way you turned your back on Islam. It is difficult to do, when you're scared shitless of being eaten by worms, but, at least you will be free before death, which hopefully counts for something. Good luck with Sinality/worms/whatever. Oh, one other thing. I would suggest you put these articles on the Avijit's site, so that you can have a debate over there, rather than draw attention away from the goal of faithfreedom which should simply be to debunk Islam and show the dangers. You will lose all credibility otherwise, as the Muslims will be lining up to say "look, he's got this bizarre interest in the occult and is trying to convert people from Islam to Sinality", rather than simply "convert people FROM Islam to ANYTHING ELSE". BFN. Paul.


Women	Human Rights violation		Great Personalities		Humor