Well Carl, I certainly understand each and every term I use. What you
said about that is not acceptable. You are exercising prejudice once
again. I won't defer to these attempts to evade answering the
question. What has incredulity brought to you so far? I am quite
confident, not arrogant. People like Roger who hate religion have
reasons for that. These reasons are divided into two major categories.
Actual motives and fraudulent causes. They fallaciously claim that
science intercepts with fundamental religious propositions. They
thence submit to the doctrine of Darwinism. Well, it's just a theory
of organic evolution. It allegedly claims that new species arise and
are perpetuated by natural selection. . Nonetheless, this averred
hypothesis hasn't yet been examined. Each and every supposed proof has
been countered. People in the scientific community who are dare to
oppugn or oppose the Darwinian myth, are critically subjected to
redundancy and deprivation. Evolutionists act so strenuously to keep
their sacred surmisal inviolate. So, as proven numerously, science is
not the real reason for them to decline and despise faith. If anyone
acted presumptuously toward holy evolution, he is threatened with
being deposed. The theory of intelligent design is not even an option
for those people. Why? Well, because the Darwinian excogitation has
somewhat been coerced to be ecumenical. Its guardians have incessantly
inhibited anyone who just attempts to doubt or interrogate its
factuality. Each and every physical substance is made of Elements,
Atoms and Molecules. How has this rarified complexity been brought
into its current state of perfection within the theory of evolution? A
molecule is the smallest particle of a substance that exists
independently. Curiously, how has this developed arbitrarily? I never
measured scientific concepts to be of any opposition to Islam. The
Koran talks about and occasionally, refers to scientific facts such as
the consecutive phases of an embryo, as it gradually maturates inside
the womb. The Koran talks about that in details. This of course would
offend someone like Roger, the never proved Biologist, because he
hates associating faith with human science. Is there anything in
classical Chemistry, Physics or Biology that refutes the existence of
God? Theology is in fact a psychical discipline. To those who complain
about my use of vocabulary, this means settled outside the sphere of
physical science, mainly attained with human intellectual effort and
development. I hope someone has the courage to confront what I posed.
If someone has chosen to cowardly delude himself of eh, defeating his
rival, this just counts as another form of evasion. It furthermore
proves his utterly untutored disposal. He is impious, impercipient and
hence, empiricist. Have evolutionists purposely orientated scientific
facts to make them fit their interest of maintaining mass disbelief?
What scientists say about life after death? On what basis they negate
its probability?
On 6/6/19, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Roger,
What I try to point out to Mostafa is that his use of words which he
obviously does not understand, detract from whatever point he is
trying to make.
While I will never agree with Mostafa on his fundamental religious
beliefs, I would like to be able to follow his rationale...or what
passes for rationale.
I understand the difficulty of debating in a language that is not your
native tongue.
The cultural differences alone, make it very difficult to handle the
subtle nuances. But Mostafa projects himself to me with a "wiser than
Thou" attitude. I find myself wanting to give him "tit for tat", but
in sober reflection, that would not be..."the Christian thing to do".
What I envision is a cocky, brash young blind Egyptian man trying to
find his way through a difficult world. Maybe I'm imposing my own
early years as a newly blind man. I keep thinking that given time and
understanding, he will modify his rather radical religious posturing.
But, as my Grandma Ludwig used to say, "A closed mind gathers no wisdom".
Carl Jarvis
On 6/5/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
That was a bit stilted, Carl, but I am inclined to look over his word
choice until it becomes incomprehensible. I think your objection is to
what are commonly called big words. For the most part they are not
really big words. I have even heard the word id called a big word. What
they are is rare words. They are rare because they have subtle meanings
and very specific meanings and connotations that are rarely called for.
Not too long ago I was accused of using the big word peruse. I think the
person who did that did not even know the word at all and if I had known
that I would have avoided it. I explained that it meant to read and I
was asked why I didn't just say read. The reason I didn't say read was
because the specific context in which I was using it called for the word
peruse to precisely convey my meaning. The trouble was that I still did
not precisely convey my meaning if the person I was talking to did not
understand the word. But all these subtleties of word meaning are
especially prone to get lost when someone is in incomplete understanding
of the language. Have you ever learned a foreign language??? I have.
Through all four years of high school I took Spanish classes. When I
graduated I felt like I was speaking Spanish fairly fluently. But don't
expect me to translate anything for you now. I have forgotten so much of
it through disuse that now if I listen to a Spanish language broadcast
the best I can do is pick out an occasional word. I think I might be
able to pick out a few more words if they would only slow down. But as
fluently as I thought I was speaking on my high school graduation I
might not have come off that way to a native speaker. I had no native
speakers to test it on, though, so I can't be really sure. But as much
of the language as I have forgotten I seem to remember the learning
process better than what I actually learned. Part of the learning
process was memorizing vocabulary lists. Each word came with the English
equivalent. There was no attempt to define the words and certainly no
attempt to explain the specific contexts in which one word meaning
essentially the same thing should be used instead of another word.
Spanish-English dictionaries were the same except that they usually
contained more Spanish equivalents for an English word than the class
vocabulary lists did. I expect that some of these words were more rare
than others and there was no way for me to know the specific contexts in
which a more rare word should be used rather than a more common word.
You have to learn a language really well before you can start picking up
on subtleties that fine. I imagine that is what Mostafa is dealing with
when he uses a so-called big word. It can be really hard to tell which
words are the rare ones and which contexts call for the rare usage. I
will admit, though, that sometimes I do find his misuse of some words
irritating. I try to look over it, but when he uses the word destine
where he should be using either the word mean or the word intend I find
myself irritated by it. Still, though, I have to remind myself that he
probably does not have a way to determine just in what contexts the word
destine should be used. It is a little hard for me to explain it myself.
There is something that irritates me far more though. That is why he
seems to have bothered to learn English in the first place. It appears
that he learned the language specifically to use it to beat English
speakers over the head with his religion. Like I have said, there are
any number of religious people whom I have known with whom I have gotten
along with perfectly well. I don't bother them about their religion and
they don't bother me with it. One thing I have a really hard time
abiding, though, is a person who goes around harassing others with his
or her religion. That is what Mostafa does.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/5/2019 10:40 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Mostafa,
Part of the problem here, although certainly not the central problem,
but part of it is your use of the English language. You have improved
greatly over the time you have been posting on Blind Democracy, but
you are still tossing out Word Salad that has little meaning. If you
were to use more basic language, and check with the dictionary the
meanings of the central words, you might be better understood. This
is not to say that your positions are acceptable to me, but they would
be clearer and allow us to discuss them more comfortably.
Below is a sample. If you can, would you tell me in American English
just what your point is?
Carl Jarvis
"why are you so baited with the subject of faith? Is it because
it urges fatuity and retardation? Or, it actually punches out
something into your perceptive conscience? You're attempting quite
strenuously to evade confronting your own scruples. Nonetheless, these
attempts are unfortunately futile. Thence, you are so rebellious,
malcontented and psychologically straitened with religion in general.
What has incredulity brought to you so far?"
On 6/4/19, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roger, why are you so baited with the subject of faith? Is it because
it urges fatuity and retardation? Or, it actually punches out
something into your perceptive conscience? You're attempting quite
strenuously to evade confronting your own scruples. Nonetheless, these
attempts are unfortunately futile. Thence, you are so rebellious,
malcontented and psychologically straitened with religion in general.
What has incredulity brought to you so far? What am I going to attain
if I'd to embrace this enormously despondent notion? I stated earlier,
despite what Carl has stereotypically prejudiced, I am flawlessly
felicitous with being religious. My faith gives me hope and aids me to
cope. Haven't any of you examined the awkward phenomenon, that
disbelievers are more potential to be critically suicidal than others?
What am I suppose to strive for in the rough state of disbelief? I
wish to be presented with plain answers.
On 6/4/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You aren't being of any help right now, Mostafa. Now let me try again
with something that I have tried over and over to help you with
before.
Without dying just how do you know that Allah exists and how do you
know
that hell exists? Try answering with the kind of answer that you have
not tried yet. Give me an answer that has something to do with it
being
true. If you cannot do that - and I think you cannot because you have
never been able to yet and no religious person in the history of
humanity has yet - then that would be a strong indication that there
is
no reason to believe it at all. But please be my guest. Become the
greatest prophet that ever lived. Be the first person who can actually
mount an argument for that absurd proposition that actually addresses
its truth. If you cannot do that it doesn't help your position one bit
to start hurling insults and to start calling names. That is exactly
what you have done before when you found one of my points
unanswerable.
This time if you cannot come up with an answer then let me help you.
If
you become ready to pay attention I will be glad to help you
understand
how to arrive at the truth.
---
Carl Sagan
??? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ???
??? Carl Sagan
On 6/3/2019 3:59 AM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Carl, when you die and go to hell, you will realise that Allah
exists.
That's the time when I won't be able to help you.
On 6/3/19, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My Dear Mostafa,
I know, without your needing to tell me, that in your eyes I am
"worthless". You have made that clear all along. Not just for me,
or
Roger, but for everyone who dares disagree with your "Truth".
I can only hope for a day when you awaken and realize that your
Allah
is nothing but a paper tiger, the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz. And
when the curtain is rolled away, you and all people of Planet Earth
will learn to trust themselves.
Cordially,
Carl Jarvis
On 6/2/19, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl, you are worthless to me. That's it, adieu.
On 6/2/19, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa,
You wrote, "Religion has given my life a meaning. Yours is
absolutely
meaningless."
And therein lies the problem. I, as an Agnostic, do not have the
power to enter your head and tell what you think, and feel what
you
feel. You, as a devout Man of Allah, feel that your Absolute
Wisdom
enables you to enter my head and understand all about me, my
feelings,
my dreams and my culture.
To which I say, "Hog Wash!!!"
And by the way, my comment about my belief that you live in a more
precarious situation comes only via the news that is aired here in
the
USA. But if you say you live a safe life, I can accept that.
However, I am not so self satisfied as to believe that some Great
Power is protecting me. Even if I believed that such a Being
existed,
I am not such an important being that He would keep me safe. You
seem
to feel that you are such a person. I recall a mine accident back
around 1971, in Idaho. 92 miners were killed. Only 2 survived.
And
what did the one man say?
"God was watching over me!" So, God looked down and saw 94 miners
about to be killed due to the lack of safety measures by the mine
owners. God then said, "I can only save one or two of these
fellows."
And he allowed the others to "enter the gates of Heaven". But
here's
a funny thing. The mine owners, the ones that had allowed their
equipment and tunnels to fall into disrepair, they went on living
the
Good Life. Mostafa, in my mind the Trinity consists of God the
Father, the Power Hungry, and Greed. Every religion, including
yours,
works to expand and to dominate all other religions...and all
people.
Believe what you will, but that is the sad and real truth.
This is a true fact. I am not dumping on religions. It is in the
nature of all religions.
Just the thought of looking down my nose at several billions of
people
just because they refused to believe what I believe. How selfish
and
arrogant! But it is what it is.
Cordially,
Carl Jarvis
On 6/2/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa, if you are so satisfied with your life then why do you
try
to
force your religion on others and why do you throw tantrums when
you
have no refutation to a logical argument? Throwing tantrums does
not
sound like the behavior of a complacent and satisfied person.
---
David Hume
??? In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all
imaginable
degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest
species
of
moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to
the
evidence. ???
??? David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
On 5/31/2019 4:17 PM, Mostafa wrote:
Carl, I do not live a far more precarious life than you in the
United
States. Your manner of referring to my life here indicates
prejudice.
It also proves that you incorrectly assume I am affected with
any
of
the civil wars or the brutal famishments out there.
Fortuitously,
I
am
mentally confident and contented. My life is quite stable and it
hasn't been impacted with major dominance of philistinism. Roger
seems
to be somewhat your mentor. Well, good for you. He isn't more
than
just a blind embracer of empiricism. Over the course of my
constant
debates with him, I proved to this unworthy character his
enormous
incompetency and unprecedented nescience of basic rational
premisses.
He overused circular reasoning while fallaciously presuming it's
counterfeit to do so. Back to Carl, has incredulity solved world
junctures? As someone who doesn't believe in any form of deity
and
thence, has no purpose in life. What are you here for? I urge
you
to
search, as to why many people who do not believe, are
generically
more
potential to consider channeling suicidal thoughts and acts. Why
many
people in your glorious nation periodically jump off the Golden
Gate
Bridge? Religion has given my life a meaning. Yours is
absolutely
meaningless. The state of unjustified disbelief is a major
threat
to
natural human development. The gap broadens, as disbelievers
lose
the
discernment of the supreme aim of this life. Gradually, they
become
numb to canonical perceptions and life thereupon becomes quite
terrifying and insignificant. So, if you are struck with a
toughly
catastrophic incident, who would you turn to for aid? A friend
of
mine
lives in Britain. He tells me, that a typical worker there would
depart to the pub after his business day is over to drink. This
happens on almost a routinely fashion. They do so to distract
themselves from the arduous pressure they incessantly are
besieged
with. I as a believer never had the pressure or the stress that
demands such model of insalubrious beguilement. I am pretty
satisfied
with my life. At least, I am not threatened with someone
entering
a
public complex with a loaded rifle and insanely, shoots
arbitrarily.
I
am safe here with the grace of Allah and His providential
conservation.
On 5/31/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
But you do seem to have a lot of time to waste with silly
theology.
And
it is silly. It is silly because as long as you are
contemplating
and
working out the implications of premises that have not been
proven
to
exist every bit of that work is meaningless. As I have pointed
out
before, when a fantasy writer does the same thing it is called
world
building and the more time he or she invests in the world
building
the
better the fantasy novel is. But when you just keep up the
world
building and you never write the fantasy novel you are doing
nothing
but
wasting your time. Again, Mostafa, you don't have to do this.
You
can
still give up the theology and have plenty of time left to make
something useful of yourself. You do not have to antagonize
people
all
over the Internet. You are so determined to make yourself
unpopular,
but
you really do not have to.
---
David Hume
??? In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all
imaginable
degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest
species
of
moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief
to
the
evidence. ???
??? David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
On 5/31/2019 9:16 AM, Mostafa wrote:
I don't have time to waste with some bunch of rapscallions.
On 5/29/19, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In all my years as an interested onlooker, and as a reformed
Christian, I have never known God to disagree with those who
are
"Called" by Him.
The closest to that are those folks who tell me, "I didn't
want
to
do
what God told me to do, but I had no choice".
Carl Jarvis
On 5/28/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
It was Robert Ingersoll who pointed out that whenever
someone
asserts
that god wants something it always agrees with what the
person
making
the claim wants. Have you ever heard anyone say, "I don't
like
this,
but
god wants it."
---
David Hume
??? In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are
all
imaginable
degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the
lowest
species
of
moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his
belief
to
the
evidence. ???
??? David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
On 5/28/2019 8:48 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Jews and Christians are one and the same religion. Men
wrote
down
God's Word and followed that Word for centuries. Then a
young
prophet
named Jesus came along, teaching as a Jewish Teacher, and
when
he
was
murdered for his crimes against the Roman Empire, his name
became
a
rallying point. New men wrote new rules as the Word of
God,
changed
the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and claimed to have a
New
Testament. Most of the governing Word of this new fringe
group
was
written by Saul/Paul.
If we think that government can glut the world with piles
of
rules,
laws, regulations and interpretations of all that stuff, we
should
understand that men...human people like you and me, can
write
mountains of words claimed to have fallen from the lips of
God.
But
it's all bogus. Just like government leveling laws to
protect
those
in power, *ALL religions set down volumes of Laws aimed at
protecting
whatever God they are backing at the time.
Life would be so much easier if we would only learn to rely
on
our
inner selves, rather than feeling the need to make up a
Superman
in
whom we are told we can place our total trust. And the
very
first
teaching of each of our Gods is to smite our opponents,
those
who
worship false gods.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/28/19, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Antisemitism is a major crime everywhere in the west. If
you
say
something that seems to be unfavourable to Israel and its
practices,
you will be instantly labeled as antisemite, Jew-baiter,
hater
of
Jews. Are Jews uniquely the Semite people in the Middle
East?
Not
too
many think so. They actually are claiming the smallest
proportion
of
Semite subspecieses. So, Ethiopians and Arabs, both belong
to
Semitic
descent. Nonetheless, neither of them incites western
people
if
they
were harassed or pestered. In fact, they themselves are
hassled
by
white westerns. I exposed how white western Christians are
wholly
possessed by Jews. The latter fully controls what
Christians
embrace.
Paul wrote for them a tremendous amount of their
scripture.
What
first
came in religion proceeded into politics and beyond. How
many
Christian today opposes the move of US embassy to
Jerusalem
proposed
by Trump the scoundrel? Not much of them. Christians are
ridden
by
Jews. They are not ashamed of admitting that. Jews are the
ones
who
say we crucified Christ and Christians agree with them.
So,
we
could
conveniently assert, that Christians are inspired by Jews
to
formulate
their faith for them. Therefore, if someone criticises
their
masters,
they'd call him antisemitic. Jews declined to follow
prophet
Muhammad
because he came from Ishmael lineage. They consider the
great
grandfather of prophet Muhammad a pariah. They wished the
last
messenger would have came from the posterity of Isaac.
Thence,
they
justify their hostility to all Arabs. Unfortunately,
Christians
are
codded by Jews to despise Arabs. Yes, because most of them
follow
the
prophet whom they previously rejected. Allah confirms in
the
Koran
what I stated above. Jews lead, Christians follow. This is
why,
Christians generically are somewhat constrained to comply
to
what
Jews
desire. Each and every missile discharged into the hearts
of
Palestinian children is paid up by US tax revenue.
Taxpayers
in
the
US
are implicitly murdering innocent civilians on virtually a
daily
basis. No one could deny this unless he has the proof for
that.
What
do Christians think of Israel? Many of them say, it has
the
right
to
exist. Despite the fact that Jews have invaded Palestine
and
displaced
its people into refugee camps, allegedly peaceful
Christians
endorse
them. I therefore urge westerns to redress their
definition
of
antisemitism. It's crucial to do so.
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave
because
it
is
a
shoreless ocean.)
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
shoreless ocean.)
