It seems that while you were gone you managed to look up what circular
logic is. Good. I encourage learning. It is too bad that you then defend
a logical fallacy. You also go on to ignore certain explanations I gave
you in the past and substitute made up claims about them. Let me explain
again. The reason I sent the copy of the Qur'an I had back to the
library was that I could no longer read it. It was on cassette tape and
my tape player had stopped working. I was actually planning to read it
and it was queued up at about two books ahead. I may yet read it.
Because it was on tape from the talking book library I think it is
probably on BARD and I just might download it and read it yet. It does
not have a high priority though. As for that link about black holes
being mentioned in the Qur'an, the main reason I did not click through
was that I only have so much time available. Before even listening to
it, though, I can tell you that the Qur'an does not mention black holes.
At the time the Qur'an was written there was no way that anyone could
have known about black holes. There was not even the knowledge of
astrophysics that would have been necessary to develop a theory of black
holes. And even though I don't clearly remember it I did read something
about that claim in a Facebook group. The passage was quoted and it said
nothing about black holes. It said something about smoke, but I don't
remember it all. The error that was being made is the same error that is
made when people make assertions about biblical prophecy or the
prophecies of Nostradamus. That is, they impose interpretations on it.
They decide what they want it to say even if it says no such thing and
then they claim to interpret it to say what they want. It still says
what it says though. If I were to do the same thing I am sure that I
could find some piece of ancient writing and claim that, by my
interpretation, that it predicted that an ass from Egypt would in this
present year harass people on the Internet with his religion. I could
easily say that you were predicted. Anyway, I declined to click through
because I felt like it was a waste of time, but I do have the time now
and then. If you would like to post that link again I just might find
the time for it, but I really expect that it will be just the kind of
thing I just described.
---
Christopher Hitchens
“ What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
”
― Christopher Hitchens,
On 4/11/2019 4:58 PM, Mostafa wrote:
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.)
