I don't see it as a stalemate. I showed your major argument to be a
logical fallacy and you never answered my point. You have already
effectively conceded defeat by not answering it and instead throwing
insults just like you continue to do here by impugning my mental state,
but it is your move. If I made an argument that you could not answer and
you made an argument that I could not answer then that would be a
stalemate. But that has not happened. Now you concede defeat, but it is
a sarcastic concession of defeat. You still have not shown that you
understand why your major argument is the logical fallacy of circular
logic, the attempt to decide what your conclusion will be before you
reach your conclusion. As for what makes me happy, a number of things
make me happy. When I encounter a pompous preacher who insists on
harassing me or other people with his religion it makes me happy to
expose him as a fraud who knows nothing about logical thinking nor how
to tell reality from fairy tales. It makes me happy to show such a
religious harasser what it feels like to be pestered to no end with the
same old thing. Mostafa, I first became aware of you because you were
subscribing to blindness related lists and otherwise gathering email
addresses to harass people with your religion. Others have tried to
block you or beg you to stop it or even report you to whomever. That
doesn't do a lot of good when the harasser is in another country. I, on
the other hand, have allowed you to say anything you want. I have not
tried to confront your irrationality with more religious irrationality.
I have challenged, not only your religion, but the very concept of
religion, any religion. I have shown that you, a certified theologist,
are incapable of defending religion against my criticisms. I have also
not backed down, not in the face of your insults and not in the face of
your threats. I am persistent, Mostafa, because you are persistent. Do
you get tired of my persistence? You do seem to indicate that you have
gotten tired of it in this message. But other people get tired of being
beaten over the head with your religion too. If you are tired of my
persistence maybe you should consider that other people get tired of
your persistence in the same way. I am not so tired though. Oh, I might
be tired of the religious harassment itself, but I am not tired of
countering it. I can keep it up as long as you do. Try having normal
conversations without taking advantage of every opportunity to push
religion on people and I expect you will find it a lot more pleasant.
Stop harassing people with religion and I will stop fighting back. I
will have nothing to fight back against in that case.
---
Carl Sagan
“ The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be
counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be
consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not
determine what's true. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 3/22/2019 11:35 AM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Roger, I really don't have interest to waste my time with you anymore.
I've reached the stalemate with you. If you like me to admit being
defeated and declare you the winner, I'll be just glad to do so. I
plainly see you nothing but a hater of faith. You seem to be wanting
to merely make a fuss and that's fine. I understand that you might be
mentally distressed and that's why you act the way you do. I've
thanked the prime minister of New Zealand for something positive she
has done. Why would I praise someone for what he hasn't attained?
That's quite hypocritical by the way. I believe you are a hater of
faith and that's what I said. You, however, returned to the old song
of accusing me of insulting you. If you like to think you defeated me
on rational basis, fine, I declare you to be flawlessly victorious.
Are you happy now? I feel sorry for your mental state. I really urge
list members to help you find a competent psychotherapist in your
area. I truly believe you are immensely struck with a massively
bestial trauma. Thence, you are acting pettishly. You must be winning
despite what the situation is. Otherwise, you'll accuse your rival of
dissing you. Petulance is ostensibly resembled in your disposal.
Disappointment is plain in your malcontented rhetoric. I'm rather
pleased with my life. I have just returned from Friday service, had my
shawarma dish for lunch and I'm now having my favourite potable. In
the evening, I intend to go see my friends and sit with them in a
local cafe or something to just chew the fat. Pre daylight, I pray at
dawn to start my day. I then pray two times during daylight and two
times during evening hours. I am blessed with happy marriage and
progressively prosperous career. I am encircled with family, friends
and loved ones. Overall, I am contented with my life. What about you?
Are you happy? Does Atheism make you happy? I am gratefully indulged
in both private and professional aspects of my life. You seem to be
enormously infelicitous, exerting dissatisfaction and resentment.
You're mentally straitened and woefully perturbed. I therefore
wouldn't mind declaring you the winner, leastwise, pretentiously. This
may hopefully make you feel a bit better about yourself. You
desperately demand to be treated for mental instability. You are
dissembling to be of somewhat substantial nimbleness. Well again, if
this aids expediting your bade healing, I'm happy to temporarily
delude you with being so. Roger, have you ever rogered? Why don't you
attempt chasing a relationship with anyone? Perhaps, this may ease
your mind a bit. I am serious in my intent to help you relevantly
assuaging your incessant distress. Despite my dissonance with you and
decline of your misbehaviour, you are still tied to me with human
fraternity. So, you may openly declare yourself the winner, deride my
faith and just say whatever makes you feel better. I should be more
sane and wisely overcome this. In spite of our difference of opinions
on various subjects, if I am capable of doing something to help you
sweep over your exceptionally mental condition, please, don't hesitate
to keep me notified. I say bye-bye to mr Roger, the incredibly
olympian philosopher and certified biologist. I'd thank him so much
for persistently shooting down the idiotic delegacy of faith that I
preposterously asserted to absurdly exemplify. I'll go now to see my
friends. I'll surely tell them about Roger's affective engagement with
me. He certainly made me change my mind concerning the myth of
embracing faith superstitious symbles. The belief in superpower has
led to my intellectual and civil retardation. I feel sorry for this
grave loss. I should have hastened to rectify the miserable situation.
My position has been proved to be pathetically weak and mr Roger has
toppled me in this argument. I've decided to be finally an empiricist.
If God doesn't show Himself on my IPhone screen and tell me He exists,
I don't have to believe in the stupid concept of religion. Thank you
Roger, you owe me a fortune for helping me seeing the bright light of
proper intellect. Atheism is great.
On 3/22/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
My experience mirrors yours, Carl. I have known many more atheists than
I can count and not one was driven by hatred. I can't say the same thing
about religious people, though. That is not to say that all religious
people are driven by hate. In fact,, most of them are not. However, the
ones who are driven by hate are all religious and most often use their
religion as a justification for their hatred.
---
Carl Sagan
“ The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may
be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be
consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do
not determine what's true. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 3/21/2019 10:01 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Mostafa,
I beg to differ with your remarks regarding Atheists. Among my many
acquaintances I number a significant number of Atheists. None, not a
single one of these Atheists, many of whom I've known for half a
century or better, not one of these good, caring people are driven by
Hatred. Most are people I have labored alongside, in the field of
social service. I, as a devout Agnostic, am also filled with love for
my fellow human beings.
This is the problem with Labels. We can generalize and then declare
all whom we label, to be possessing of the same characteristics. Life
is not so simple.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/21/19, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, just for the fact that I am not typically available on a casual
basis, I'd miss plenty of threads that have been sent in the last
couple of sidereal days or so. It is plain that each and everyone here
resembles his own singular experience regarding faith and its related
issues. Faith in the west has primarily been used as a symbolic
gesture to indicate and extensively influence white supremacy. The
recently detonated callous terror assault on two Mosques in New
Zealand last Friday proves this proposition. Friday is the Sabbath
for Muslims and therefore, the two Mosques were filled with
worshippers. The murderer knew that and thence, his intent was to kill
a substantial amount of individuals beforehand to cause intimidation
among immigrants to the west from the Muslim world. Brenton Tarrant, a
pseudonym used by that demented terrorist who was allegedly Aussie,
has labeled his firearms that he used in the shooting with abhorrently
racist, detestable and xenophobic remarks that are pertained to
specific dates during which Catholic Crusaders subordinated Muslims
through imposing consecutive expeditions. As announced in major news
bulletins, the terrorist admitted in his lengthy manifesto his
attraction to Trump. He described him in his 74-page long dossier as
"a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose." I auspicated
his ascendency onto the whole incident ahead to this implicitly
motivational affiliation. While Trump may have not directly
perpetrated this insensate carnage, he certainly has prompted its
motif. Religion is gravely abused to justify extremism in the west,
perhaps more than here. Faith haters are hornswoggled. Religion is
abducted for viciously political objectives. This is the case for
Islam as it is unethically perverted by rambunctiously fringe elements
as of Da'ish and others which are mainly designed by the CIA.
Christendom has been stiflingly pirated by majorly white supremacists
in the United States and beyond. So, faith is not to be scolded if
some people unfalteringly sullied its essence. This introduction is
absolutely significant because it provides a denotative tie to my last
post. While faith is immensely despised by Atheists in general, they
typically do not expose their actual motive for that which is nothing
but hate. It's hate that is sufficient to fill out an ocean. In the
fifties of the last century, Americans demonised socialism. While the
latter has its pros and cons, it has been strained to justify hate and
racial disparity against certain nations for essentially political
purposes. So to everyone here, analogically, the concept of religion
in itself hasn't ever been a problem for anyone. Just as any
philosophical or doctrinal tenet, it doesn't directly incite evil
unless someone deliberately profanes it for his own interest. So, the
second amendment, for instance, is a stiffly codified legal authority
which is indispensably indentured to the United States Constitution.
While the text itself doesn't incite nor provoke violence as we shall
notice below, it has been purposefully misconstrued by mainly gun
lobbyists to justify the broad merchandise of deadly firearms in civil
sphere. As I'd defined it earlier, lobbyism is the strenuous strive to
influence public officials and executives in favor of specific
sentiment or notion. Subsequent to the deadly assault on two Mosques
in Christchurch New Zealand last Friday, the prime minister has
announced the ban of military style firearms. Furthermore, in
compliance to this regulation, New Zealanders are expected to
volitionally hand over their weapons to authorities. Also, she
directed officials to develop a gun buyback scheme for those who
already own such weapons. She said “fair and reasonable compensation”
would be paid. She will return to Christchurch tomorrow for a
nationwide reflection. The Muslim call to prayer will be broadcast
around the country on television and radio and will be followed by a
two-minute silence. The commemoration ceremony is scheduled to begin
at noon. It should be held at a Park opposite to one of the two
Mosques that have witnessed the attack in Deans Ave, Christchurch.
This positive temperament vividly reflects absolute tolerance,
deference and solidarity. I therefore sent her a thanking message,
prayed to her and her people. I am not wholly against the west and if
something has been done as an expression of tribute to my Muslim
fellows in New Zealand, it has to be fairly recognised. This is what
Islam has taught me. Now, a question, after one mass shooting in New
Zealand, the government reacted quickly and firearms have been banned.
While in Capitol Hill, congressional staff are spiked and bribed by
NRA to keep the situation unaltered, despite the perennial occurrence
of mass shootings across the country. Another question though, if this
assault had occurred on a Mosque in the States, would've the
government reacted similarly? So, which one is to be reasonably
described as a genuinely democratic entity? Washington or Wellington?
The United States lectures the world on human rights principles.
Nonetheless, it demonstrably exhibits in imperious manner
incomparable adequacy to measuredly bend and deform potentially
efficacious statute law that has proposed by some senators to enforce
gun reform. It's evidentiary that congressional staff are perfect at
breaching human rights and assaying loopholes. After the mass shooting
in Florida secondary school which claimed the lives of seventeen
innocent souls, students demanded congress to enact gun control, but
this has never happened. Congressional staff are enamored with
catching legislative equivocalnesses. And as for the second amendment,
it clearly doesn't incite or justify gun violence. The Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'd like to
draw the situation as namely. The way many Americans fathom the second
amendment is pretty much equal to the way southern evangelists would
relate the text of the Koran or Hadith. They'd just take the text out
of context to viciously make it fit their interest. So, as for the
text above, what does it talk about? It basically talks about a well
regulated militia, what is this? Those are ordinary civilians trained
as soldiers but not part of the regular army. So, it doesn't talk
about jackleg individuals bearing arms. It talks about reserves. The
second sentence says, being necessary to the security of a free state,
so it talks about a specific condition as of subjection or clamp down
by the government. Within this quite prodigious situation, the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. So, if the
government exercised military means to subdue civilians, they have the
right to bear arms and execute their usage in defence of themselves
and their families. They are stipulated to be indisciplined, they must
be trained on the use of such dangerous weapons. So, typically, the
initial segment of the text which reads, a well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state is intentionally
disposed. Although what follows is inevitably tied to the first part,
it is deliberately neglected. You may just ponder on the sentence that
says, being necessary to the security of a free state. It requires
necessity which is the condition of being noticeably indispensable.
Honestly, the text of the second amendment is a jural gem that is
unfortunately, left in the hands of utterly incompetent people. The
vicious misinterpretation of the second amendment is explicitly
designated to misguide lay people. It is strictly plain as of its
significance. I've spoke to certified English speaking barristers
about my discernment of the second amendment's essence and they
concurred with me. I respectfully urge Americans to redress their
incorrect apprehension of the second amendment. It must be looked at
with plainly juristic discretion. I've written this thorough editorial
to broadly publicise my rumination. Ranging from hate of faith,
lobbying disbursements to religious extremism emersion in the west,
I'd reckon that worse is yet to come, unless proper edification is
earnestly implemented in American public and private education
sectors. Thank you for patiently reading, Mustafa
