You did it again, Mostafa. I offer a refutation of the argument you just
made and you don't address it. You just throw the insults again. Don't
you feel any shame over this behavior of yours? Doesn't it even occur to
you that if you have no answers for the points that I make that your own
positions are likely to be empty falsehoods?
---
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 3/28/2019 6:47 AM, Mostafa wrote:
Hey folks, little baby attempts to evoke another stertorous argument.
Please, help him because he is still deluded with defeating me or I am
in battle with him. I am not so belittled to lower myself to such
level. But it seems that he really has nothing worthful to do in his
life. It's my break at school and it's barely finished. I'd better go
join my kids baking a yummy chocolate cake. All will have a share
except bad boys.
On 3/28/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You just won't give up, will you, Mostafa? No matter how many times I
expose its irrationality you just keep pushing that superstitious
claptrap. Let me explain this again. Of course atheists assume that
there is no god. It is as valid an assumption that can possibly be made.
That is because there is an infinity of things that can be held up as
beliefs. I might add that to each and every one of them there can be
attached the assertion that dire consequences will befall anyone who
does not believe it. When faced with infinity just how do you decide
which one to believe? You decide when there is some evidence to back up
an assertion. If you decide to believe an assertion with absolutely no
evidence to back it up you are believing only one of that infinity of
possible beliefs and so you have exactly one chance in infinity of being
right. The logical assumption in the face of affinity is that the claim
is false. And again, Stephen Hawking was right. Science has no way to
disprove god. There is just no reason to assume that there is a god. And
let me add that you are very, very , very rude and disrespectful. You
take this ridiculous proposition that has not the least bit of evidence
to back it up and violates all the rules of logic and you push it on
other people and demand that they accept it. In that way you insult
everyone's intelligence. You use the watchmaker fallacy as your major
argument and when it is shown to you to be the logical fallacy of
circular logic you do not even attempt to refute that argument. You just
start calling names and hurling insults. That is completely
disrespectful to people who are trying to have a civil discussion with
you. Then the ones who do not try to show you where you go wrong you
call respectful. Are you trying to say that the only respectful people
in the world are the ones who do not engage you in logical discussion?
Are you saying that the only respectful people are those who do not try
to teach you a different way of thinking? If that is the case then you
indict yourself as disrespectful. That is because you will not let up on
other people in trying to convert them. I told you before that I will
not get tired of this. As long as you want to make an obnoxious pest of
yourself I will not get tired of exposing you. You just keep it up and I
will keep it up. On the other hand, though, I invite you to show that
you have some sense. I invite you to stop wasting your life on sterile
theology. I invite you to stop trying to cram it down everyone else's
throats. I invite you to try to make something useful out of your life.
---
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 3/27/2019 5:31 PM, Mostafa wrote:
Throughout my respective conversations with Atheists, I noticed
something plain in their staidly faded argument. They base their major
premiss on the assumption that God doesn't exist. If something isn't
empirically examined, for them, it just doesn't exist. They solely
presume that science is merely experimental. Thence, they basically
devote themselves to empiricist philosophy. It is the doctrine which
preaches the subsequent effrontery. Science is only derived from
physical observance. For certain, this is fairly inaccurate and
intemperately belies with fundamental facts as it disposes crucial
disciplines such as humanitarian fields. And well, theology is indeed
at the top of the list. So, if you study theology, that is wholly
insignificant for them. Because they prejudiciously assume that faith
is essentially based on fairytales. Nonetheless, they would still seek
refuge with the big bang hypothesis to somewhat fathom the commence of
the universe. Leastwise, none of them is able to empirically prove the
initial cosmic detonation that theoretically marked the nascence of
the universe. So, they perfectly contradict their own principles that
are based on essentially empirical tenets. So, the existence of God is
not rationally impossible. It's just not so favourable for many. The
prominent English theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking who died
recently, admitted in a broadcasted interview with CNN, that "God may
exist but science can explain the universe without the need for a
Creator". This is how he answered the question posed to him by his
inquirer. "Do you believe in God?" His answer is what has been quoted
above. The video is on Youtube for people to check it out. So
basically, the existence of God is not rationally impossible nor
scientifically insufferable. So in basic terms, there is nothing in
science that directly prevent the existence of God. This is just a
theory, likewise the big bang one. I could therefore define this
manner as left-wing fanaticism. I wouldn't deny, that in various
instances, hate is the outcome of faith based incorrect zealotry. This
is equally true for Islam, Christendom and Hebraism. Concurrently, it
wouldn't be so fair if we scold faith for what extremism does. The two
are utterly severable. Otherwise, they would have not relegated people
as religious extremists, moderates and even nonbelievers. This
assortment is primarily affiliated with the individual's discernment
of certain text and thus, his practice based on that. We gave an
example before about the second amendment. The jural essence of that
text doesn't incite nor promote gun violence. However, it has been
deliberately misconstrued by certain people to make it suit their
private interest. Could we still blame the wrong practices of some
people on the second amendment? No, it'll be fair if we loosely
implemented this logically ingratiating conclusion. Religion is
broadly practiced. Therefore, the discernment varies, depending on
social scope and other major factors. We need to be absolutely fair as
we address this subject. I personally encountered some Atheists who
are respectful in their views. I'd conversed with them and still
strongly dissent with what they assert. But, it'll fair to denote,
that they worthily have earned my deference despite our major
divergences. Carl and Miriam are among them. Each and everyone of us
has envisioned the concept of faith and God's existence based on his
intellectual nurture and experience. How has faith been introduced to
him?, how has he interacted with religious communities in his
neighborhood? and overall, how is faith generically viewed on the
rather broader scale of his culture? This is why views on this subject
are often static. Consequently, they ought to be respected along with
the situations associated with them. Thank you.
