Miriam: Very well done.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mustafa,
There are some things about us that you don't understand. One of them is that
all of us believe that we have the right, in America, to free thought and
free discussion. As participating citizens, it is our responsibility to
understand how our government works and to criticize it when it isn't
properly serving all of its citizens. Even the most cynical of us, wants to
make things better for everyone. Also, most of us have worked and therefore,
have participated in a social insurance program which pays pensions when we
become disabled and or when we become elderly. In addition to this program,
some of us receive pensions from our former employers or we have saved and
invested money which gives us additional incomes. But even if we had never
worked and were receiving financial aid from our government because of being
blind, we would still have a right and responsibility to monitor what our
government is doing and to speak out if things were being done incorrectly.
Last: There are 25 people on this email list, but you know only Roger, Carl,
and me. Carl and I are old. Roger is not. You don't know anything about the
ages and occupations of the other list members, nor even that all of them are
blind. To my knowledge, two are not.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mostafa
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:58 PM
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Cc: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Discussions about Religion
I prosperously commemorated my first anniversary of being maried. It was a
tremendously tenacious experience. I am back now to entertain myself a bit
with mated old age pensioners , Carl and Roger. Both aren't rationally
adequate to scrutinise with me in the field of Epistemology. They primarily
base their assertion on presuppositional tenets and so do I. The concept of
circular reasoning is tied with what we mutually affirm. When we attempt to
argue a point, we have many techniques available to do so. One of these is
circular reasoning. It's a major method to reach into proper rational
conclusions. It's commonly used by apologists of many beliefs and notions
despite their ideational orientation. So, is it really fallacious? To put it
in basic terms, circular reasoning is when you attempt to make an argument by
commencing with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is already
true. In your premise, you already accept the truth of the claim you are
attempting to make. It sounds complicated, but it is easily understood with
some real-world examples. SO for instance, God isn't empirically proved, so
he doesn't exist. Or, the Bible is true, so you couldn't doubt the word of
God.
Islam is a religion of peace. Thence, Muslims are not terrorists.
Blind people could be independent, so they shouldn't be discriminated against
because of stereotyped presumptions. Women are intellectually equal to men,
so they shouldn't be labeled as the weaker gender. So obviously, we both
exercise predetermined hypotheses to somewhat justify the proposition we are
relevantly convinced of. The matter is, which one to be based on
satisfactorily logical prefaces? Islam calls its viewers to closely examine
the evidence of its alleged rational propriety. Nonetheless, Roger previously
declined to click on a link that features a video discusses the mention of
black holes in the Koran. Consequently, he sought refuge with what he calls
the fallacy of circular reasoning to justify his prejudicious disposal about
the Koran and the subjects it variously relates. He committed the very same
act as he stereotypically allowed his mind to be dominated with anti religion
prejudicial appeals, as he returned an audio taped copy of the Koran to his
domestic library, without leastwise, attempting to curiously play any of its
audio tracks. Why, because he based his assumption on unpleasant experience
as he has been disappointedly approached by missioners of other religions.
So, he himself relied on what he calls, the fallacy of circular reasoning. He
then sat here and petulantly complained about my religion. How about calling
him mr grumpy? Would that be gratifying to his peer in deceit, mr Carl? As I
plainly stated earlier, our position of worldview substantially dissents on
how would we recognise faith or the lack of in our everyday lives. Faith in
the west is somehow considered a major barier to rational liberty. This
discernment is based on a long history that trails back to medieval era. At
that time, the Catholic Church smothered any attempts of Enlightenment or
scientific development. To the contrary, at nearly the same age, Muslims had
built a remarkable civilisation in Andalusia and beyond. At the dark age of
Europe, Muslim scholars made progress in all fields. So, for Muslims,
religion is in fact a crucial encourager of intellectual brilliance and
creativity. While for many westerns today, faith incredulity is the solely
path toward the phase of intellectual development. For many westerns,
religion is generically a motive of retreating to civil retardation, and
that's merely based on experience, past experience of Church dominance to be
quite precise. I was commemorating my honeymoon anniversary at a perfect red
sea resort. I rated the staff there to be excellent. My faith urges me to be
satisfied with everything I do.
Some people are miserably complaintive. They constantly put the burden on
other's shoulders. My choice of embracing faith has led to my prosperous
state while Roger's choice of disposing faith has led to his perpetually
infelicitous temperament. He insists to keep deluding himself of allegedly
defeating me. Nonetheless, I don't care about that. I also don't care about
someone who chooses to delete my threads because I exposed Roger. Hence, had
him caged, placed him at the lowest of low. My faith has strengthened my
certainty. I would like to ask you a question though. With no purported
offence, how do you sit here critically criticising the United States
government, while all of you are essentially pensioned off by it? Isn't that
leastwise disingenuous? If you adhere your critique of the government, you
should then nullify your pension scheme, unless you attempt to somewhat
neutralise. This is the plainest substantiation that the list of blind
democracy is immensely settled for mere political entertainment. It is
moderated and occupied by mainly American blind seniors. As for faith haters,
I proceed to intellectually quash them.
They are sentimentally unguided. Islam doesn't need anyone. People need Islam
and that's why they convert to it by dozens. Despite the rapid spread of
stereotype and the deliberately vicious misportrayal of its essence, Islam is
incomparably the fastest growing religion in the world. I continue to present
the simple message of Islam to those who are interested. I am not expected to
waste my time uselessly fencing with faith haters. At the same time, I don't
mind codding them. If haters of faith are baited because of this, I
shouldn't be scolded. I'll continue my Dawah despite how Roger would react to
this.
It is pretty equal to me, if he is offended, irrespective or pleased.
On 4/7/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, it still remains that I refuted your major argument for religion
by showing it to be the fallacy of circular logic and you still have
not addressed that point. You are now claiming that you don't have
time to engage in logical debate. Okay, it does take some amount of
time to formulate a good logical argument and if your life is filled
with other things I can well imagine that you might not have the time
for logical debate, but I really doubt that to be the case. You have
lots of time for throwing insults and making yourself look childish.
You have lots of time for continuing to push your religion on people
who do not want it pushed on them. I really have a hard time
understanding how throwing insults has a higher priority than addressing a
logical argument.
And if pushing your religion on the unwilling is so important to you
then I have a hard time understanding how you don't have the time to
defend that religion that you push. By the way, this list is a free
speech zone and anything can be discussed that the subscribers want to
discuss, but the main topic of discussion is politics. So if you are
uninterested in the politics then why are you here? Is it just another
opportunity for you to push religion on people who do not want it?
---
Christopher Hitchens
“ What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence. ”
― Christopher Hitchens,
On 4/6/2019 3:55 PM, Mostafa wrote:
Well, I haven't been thwarted to this conceited mortal named Roger. I
just don't have time to uselessly clash back and forth with him. He
somewhat considers himself to be logical. He attempts to unethically
marginalise faith and that's what satisfies him. Well, he is pathetic
and miserable anyway. He doesn't have much to do. He thence spends
most of his time throwing anti religion tantrums. I am not a
professional debater. My religion urges me not to unwisely waste my
time with ignorant people. I am married and tomorrow bear witnesses
to my first anniversary being married. InshAllah, I am traveling on
Tuesday morning to a romance resort called sunrise hotel on the red
ocean. It's rated to be the perfect spa for honeymooners. I will
spend a beautiful time there with my sweetheart. My religion doesn't
make me an ugly hater. I am blessed with an opulent life. I am
optimistic with my future that lays ahead. Roger isn't more than a
swellheaded lonely sightless old age pensioner residing in the States.
He really doesn't have something valuable to occupy his empty time
with. He thence fills his time reading and desperately responding to
my corrosive criticism. This doesn't make him logical nor it will
change the fact that he is a mere hater. Religion elevates my spirit
to the celestial realm. Islam urges me to divide my time between
spiritual and terrestrial activities. The latter has to be useful to
people. I educate children at school. As they gradually get
progressive, their parents thank me and that makes me happy. At home,
I spend my time with my wife taking part on doing house chores,
chatting, eating, entertaining ourselves etc. Roger likes to spread
his hate of faith across the web and that makes him pleased. He
doesn't respect my choice of lifestyle. As to those who blocked,
reported me to Google or attempted to, I care more or less about any
of that. The virtual world known as the internet doesn't count more
than a form of entertainment for me. Plus, I'm not to be threatened.
Religion resembles a major factor of my life and it represents my
identity. It therefore couldn't be concealed or abnegated. I do not
care about the political stuff you keep posting to the list.
Nonetheless, I do not complain about that. I do not dream of
travelling to the States to ultimately find myself denied boarding or
entry because of my faith or race. I am so contented with my present
state. My faith doesn't make me anxious or straitened. The ones whom
Roger previously referred to, are quite a lot like him, socially
abandoned and unfrequented. Thus, I truly urge you, instead of
uselessly sitting here, complaining about my faith, try to do
something more encouraging, positive and productive. Find real world,
real people and stop complaining about my faith. I consider Roger a
very pitiful senior. He attempts to feel good of himself as he keeps
deluding it of supposedly defeating me. This just makes me laugh, as
if we are situated in a battlefield, holding sowrds and engaging. He
is poor thing. I urge you folks to find a way to visit each other.
Don't waste your time here. This list or any other activity
associated with the online world doesn't weigh more than an act of
entertainment for me. It's quite like a video game. I won't ever
regard the internet as anything higher. To many bedraggled people and
particularly of the blind community, it resembles their actual world.
That's just quite unfortunate, unhealthy and rather dangerous to
someone's proper social order.
On 3/22/19, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> 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
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is
a shoreless ocean.)
