Roger: You will want to Google the Flying Red Horse advertisement of Magnolia
Petroleum, Dallas,Tx.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 28, 2019, at 6:59 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think that saying that he insults all too often is a bit of an
understatement. Ever since I showed that his major argument for a
supernatural creator was circular logic he has been hurling insults in pretty
much every message. And again I point out that if he actually had a
refutation for the point I made he would have made it. Instead he just
started throwing the insults and has not stopped since and not even once has
he even tried to show how my explanation of how he was using circular logic
was wrong. He does not make it hard for me to feel vindicated. But let me
address another point that he has been going on and on about, but has failed
to refute me. And in this case I was not even trying to make a logical
argument for what I claimed. I was only making an assumption. That is the one
about the authorship of the Qur'an. I am going to have to admit that Islam
has never been a great interest of mine and I know little of the specifics.
If Mostafa is a certified theologist then I am certain that he could run
circles around me if I tried to get into the specifics of theology beyond the
basic premises. I still consider all of that theology to be meaningless,
though, because if the premises are false then any consideration of the
implications of those premises are false too. But the authorship of the
Qur'an came up because I said that Muhammad could not have known certain
things in the historical period that he wrote the Qur'an. That he wrote it
was based on something that I read a very long time ago and for some time
while Mostafa was demanding that I give a reference for my claim I was
hesitating to answer because I was trying to remember what book it was that I
read that in. It was too long ago, though, and the title just does not come
to mind. I do remember some discussion about Muhammad's followers becoming
impatient because he was taking so long to finish writing it. It was that
book that made me assume that it had to have been written by Muhammad. I
thought it was unquestionable. Lately, though, I have been Googling around
about it. Well, the consensus seems to be that it was Muhammad who revealed
it. If he was the one who revealed it then it is just as natural an
assumption as the assumption that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. I
know that the authorship of the Book of Mormon is often attributed to a
supernatural being, but no evidence of such an outlandish claim has ever been
presented and since Joseph Smith revealed it and not one other person has
ever claimed to have written it and given it to him it is a pretty good bet
that Joseph Smith was the author. It is looking like the same thing can be
said about Muhammad. If he did not write it then about the only other choice
is that someone else had to have written it and given it to him. If that is
the case then why is it that Muhammad is called the prophet? I would expect
that whoever did write it and gave it to Muhammad would be the prophet. But,
like I said, I am far from an expert on this matter. I am not an expert on
Islamic theology nor am I an expert on Islamic history. I just read a lot and
in the process I learn about various things. So I would ask Mostafa this. If
Muhammad did not write the Qur'an then who did write the Qur'an? And if I am
expected to offer a citation of my source then it would be just as legitimate
for me to ask Mostafa to supply a citation too. If the claim is going to be
that it was written by a supernatural being then I would like to know just
why I should believe that and not believe that the Book of Mormon was written
by a supernatural being. I might add that I would like to know why I should
believe that either book was written by a supernatural being when we still
have not established that a supernatural being exists and when I show
arguments for the existence of such a supernatural being to be logical
fallacies I get in reply only tantrum throwing.
---
Christopher Hitchens
??? What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence. ???
??? Christopher Hitchens,
On 4/28/2019 11:00 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
My dear Mostafa,
Since you first began posting on Blind Democracy, I have noted, and
commented on your improving use of the English language. But when you
get on your High Horse, as you have been doing of late, your attempt's
to express your emotions in English become Gibberish.
In the past you have shown yourself to be a bright young man in many
areas of discussion. But on the subject of religion you become a
mindless parrot. You quote unsubstantiated sources as evidence of the
Truth you claim to defend.
It is called circular thinking...although the use of the word,
"thinking" is questionable. For example, if I tell you that I read a
sacred book in which a white rabbit dressed in a top hat and a Tuxedo,
and he pulled out a pocket watch and jumped down a hole in the ground
mumbling, "I'm late, I'm late for a very important date", and if you
told me that this was nothing but a make believe Fairy Tale, and I
became indignant and said that I could prove that it was Truth, and I
did this by quoting back to you from the very book you called a Fairy
Tale, then that is circular thinking. Neither of us has proven
anything. Because you quote an invisible Being, and I say that you
must prove that this invisible Being exists, and you quote from the
very Holy Book in question, all you have done is to prove that you
have cement between your ears. In other words, your mind is made up,
therefor you accept your Holy Word as proof that it is the Holy Word.
By the way, you have once again insulted me. I have said over and
over that I am an Agnostic. Roger has said that he is an Atheist, and
has attempted to persuade me that this is actually what I am. But
despite my not really caring, I do insist that there is a
difference...in my mind...and I will hold to being an Agnostic.
Assuming that you know what another person is thinking, is a sign of
contempt on your part. Does your invisible Superior God tell you what
I am thinking? I do not assume to understand your mind, at all. I
accept that you believe what you believe. And in so doing, I do not
assume that you are also a clown, as you suggested Roger to be.
From your first post on this List, you demonstrated that you wished to
enlighten the rest of the list regarding your knowledge of the "True
Truth".
It became evident that any beliefs that contradicted your "learned"
understanding was a sign of a corrupted mind.
If I changed the names, your positions could apply to any of the known
religions, and your defenses could be likened to those of any other
Cult. It's very interesting to me. Why do we become so closed minded
when our deep seated beliefs are challenged? Why is it so important
that we all accept the Truth, as you see it? You are no different
than the man who believes that women should not have the right to kill
a fetus inside their womb, and shoots...murders anyone who disagrees.
Anyway, I continue to support your right to express your beliefs on
this list. And I continue to believe that I have the right to call
you out when you insult others...which you are doing far too often.
And I continue to believe that I am also enabled to express my own
belief that your invisible Super Being is as make believe as are all
imaginary Gods. That should not be a threat to you. You are so
certain of what you believe. And I am not in a position, nor of a
conviction, to force you to turn away from your mistaken beliefs.
So Mostafa, what do you say to all of that?
Cordially,
Carl Jarvis
On 4/28/19, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As for both Carl and Roger, the rate of discourtesy has potently
retorted. I find both of them absolutely hilarious. There are major
signs for their substantial discontentment. They live despondently.
That's what incredulity brought to them. Neither of them is ready to
be factual. Shortly after they give-up the ghost, they will realise
their critical failure. They couldn't criticise me for believing my
stance to be true. What am I suppose to be? I allow them to diss and
assault me up to the maximum of their adequacy. They could do that
until they are satisfied. This is America and it will never change.
Basically, you are expected to behave imperiously. You could not be
humble because you do not want to. What is more humble than fairly
admitting that you have been created and you are occupying this world
for a purpose? But no, Carl, Roger and their fellow Atheists do not
want to admit that. Fine, that's wholly up to them. Death is
ultimately their destiny as it is the last stop for each and every
living creature. Subsequent to this, they are going to see, whether
there is life after death. Roger finds it decent to ridicule something
related to the story of prophet Muhammad, where he peace and blessings
be upon him travelled to the heaven on a night journey. He
sarcastically calls what the prophet mounted to get there miraculously
a flying horse. Well, as described in classical textbooks of the
prophetic biography, it was higher than a donkey and lower than a
mule. It certainly was a heaven-sent animal. I provided this
description because I expect and want Roger to mock the event even
farther. I want him to demonstrate his uttermost capacity of
exercising derision. Do you know why? Because what he thinks, assumes
or whatever, doesn't have the lest of affect on a kindergarten kid.
Mockery doesn't signify more than someone isn't able to name a book he
claims he read nor release a longly waited but never shown alleged
Biology credential. This is exactly the tendency and behaviour of
clowns. Roger would certainly make a good one. I promise you folks,
this list will be discontinued quite soon.
On 4/27/19, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yesterday, Trump delivered a rambled speech at an (NRA) convention.
Therein, in Indianapolis, where his audience were mostly white
supremacists and direly gun pros he said this. "We know that faith and
family, not government and bureaucracy, are the centre of American
life. And above all else, we know this: In America, we don???t worship
government; we worship God."
With these remarks, he obviously continued to flatter those who often
spat for him. He then said: "So, in the last administration, President
Obama signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. And in his waning days in
office, he sent the treaty to the Senate to begin the ratification
process. This treaty threatened your subjugate and you know exactly
what's going on here your rights and your constitutional and
international rules and restrictions and regulations. Under my
administration, we will never surrender American sovereignty to
anyone. We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your
Second Amendment freedom. And that is why my administration will never
ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I hope you're happy. I'm impressed;
I didn't think too many of you would really know what it is. You know
what it is? A big, big factor. But I see a couple of very happy faces
from the NRA over there. I am officially announcing today that the
United States will be revoking the effect of America???s signature from
this badly misguided treatment (agreement). We're taking our signature
back. The United Nations will soon receive a formal notice that
America is rejecting this treaty. As part of this decision, I will
sign right now, in front of a lot of witnesses, a lot, it's a lot of
witnesses, a message asking the Senate to discontinue the treaty
ratification process and to return the now-rejected treaty right back
to me, in the Oval Office, where I will dispose of it. By taking these
actions, we are reaffirming that American liberty is sacred and that
American citizens live by American laws, not the laws of foreign
countries. Thank you. (Cheering croud). (Trump the scoundrel holds up
a document.) "They all want the pen. Can you believe these people?
Should I give it to them?" Audience: (Yeah!). In this speech, he
typically dissed democrats, spoke xenophobically, but this part in
particular has just nailed it to me. As Trump always says, he does
what American people want. What do they want? Well, they basically
want to show no respect to international consignments. Fine, let them
be ultimately alone in the wonderment. The day is shortly coming
forward, where the United States will totally be abandoned and broadly
banished for committing plenty of awful offences. Day after another,
the United States reveals its despicable and mischievous figure to the
rest of the world. Trump is unconsciously driven by the bitter will of
his own people. Hate of immigrants, Islamophobia, racism, bigotry,
derision and insanely irresponsible gun infatuation. The situation
there is absolutely inextricable. I expect them to end up holding guns
and kill each other madly. What we see in American action films will
soon be turned up into actual life. So, what is this treaty that Trump
says he is leaving? The Arms Trade Treaty is an international treaty
that regulates the international trade in conventional arms and seeks
to prevent and eradicate illicit trade and diversion of conventional
arms by establishing international standards governing arms transfers.
The Treaty came into force on 24 December 2014. At this stage the
Treaty has a total of 99 States Parties and 130 Signatory States. I
urge you to google them for more information. Being the primally
global exporter and vendor of various firearms and artilleries,
America couldn't remain in this treaty. Primordially, America keeps
selling its weapons to two infringing entities by relentlessly
inciting tension, sectarian strife and evoking warfare based
situations. They are the ones who sold weapons to Da'ish, Syria, Saudi
and Yemen altogether. They don't care about international security,
eliminating terrorism what so ever. What they merely care about is to
sell more and more firearms to many fighting countries. Thence, they
could keep profiting and at the same time, they would justify their
incessant deploy of troops in the region. Greed is their one and only
objective. I understand if you really care about ending terrorism, you
would encourage such treaties that are aiming to regulate the massive
disperse of firearms around the world. For political and commercial
motives, America revokes to sign such things. Would I be scolded if I
called this inglorious nation the greater daemon? If you look for any
human disaster or tragedy literally anywhere in the world, you will
easily notice America standing behind its eruption. It is awful. Isn't
the unrestricted merchandise of firearms enormously catastrophic?
Well, America simply doesn't think so. It just doesn't care. What is
that called? I pray to the Just and worthy Deity to be worshipped to
hasten their penalty. American culture is gravely insentient. How on
earth could they unwisely allow their gun retailers to roughly sell
these various firearms irrepressibly? I wish to see America deprived
of its power. Allah glory be to Him is providentially capable of
wholly depressing them. This is too much, they're just pressing the
button of troublemaking too much. You may just imagine, if America
didn't sell that staggering amount of weapons, what would have been
the global situation then? I'd reckon, less tension, less wars and
nearly no arrangement of internationally dangerous terrorist
organisations. America is uniquely the topper and perhaps, the nearly
terror producer worldwide. With this selling of wide range of weapons
to the global market, they openly instigate tension and war based
disposal. This is exactly what they do domestically though. As I type
on the keyboard, I feel extremely appalled, I just snide. I need to go
now. I'll go make myself a cup of lemonade to calm down. America and
Trump made me wildly tempestuous. The world would have been better
without them.
On 4/27/19, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa. With all due respect, you are wrong. Blind Democracy exists
as a list on which participants can express their opinions on a wide
range of subjects, including on political issues; as well as a place
to share various publications and articles.
You also place far too much importance on the role of religion in the
American Empire's activities.
This nation grew out of a wide mixture of immigrants, with a wide
range of religions and societal customs, including non religious
beliefs. What built the nation into the dominant world power had
little to do with Faith or lack of Faith. It had everything to do
with an aggressive People who found a People who lacked the level of
military sophistication to resist being overwhelmed. The basic
strength of this new nation was a common thread of aggressiveness.
Some of the People prayed to one God or another, some of the People
did not have a need to create a God to cling to. But all of them had
a desire to conquer everything around them, including the People, the
Animals, the Land and the Environment.
Whether you agree or not, Mostafa, this is exactly the same Force that
drives your People, and All People. We dress it up and call it by
many names, but our climb to the top of the Food Chain is due to our
aggressiveness.
Finally, for this note, you have insulted me greatly. How dare you
suggest that I am "leaning" toward Roger. I respect Roger. I feel he
speaks his positions very well. But I am my own person. I do not
need Roger's confirmation, although at times we do agree. I do not
need some make believe Almighty Being to lean on. You make it very
clear that you need such an imaginary Super Father in order to make
sense out of a Universe that is so vast that it can be frightening.
Fine. That works for you. But you make the same mistake that all
dependent people make. You assume that if you need a God Figure, then
everybody needs one.
Personally, I wish for you a long and joyful life. But when that day
comes when you close your eyes for the last time, you will never know
if there is Life after Death, or not.
Respectfully,
Carl Jarvis
On 4/26/19, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello, the blind democracy list is dedicated to criticise American
politics. Nonetheless, because of its intensely anti religion
sentiment, it deliberately dismisses major factors that are directly
affiliated with their regularly hashed out interest. Roger, the
moderator of this list despises faith in genral. Thence, the subject
is obtrusively finagled. As proved earlier, religion plays a crucial
role in the exercise of American politics. It is primarily motored
with Lutheran based doctrines. You couldn't conveniently dispose the
decisive fact that America bases its firm alliance with Israel on
essentially religious tenets and motives. Roger once told me, and I am
paraphrasing what he said. There are many aspects to criticise Israel
with. Why do you harass people with religion? Because it comprises
with basal human experience, cultural and civil emergence. It isn't my
prob if someone doesn't like this fact, even though he is the list
owner and moderator. Instead of advising me to create my own list
which is absolutely fine, doable and appreciated, but, it would have
been much way better if you fairly disclosed your actual disposal. You
once admitted that you hated faith but haven't said why. You have
constantly evaded the usage of faith by oval office to justify racial
disparity and savagery. Do you have a suffice proof that science makes
religion irrational? When I asked you to cite your reference about
your claims regarding the Koran, you have fetched an anonymous
textbook which you said you read. With this praxis, you have
explicitly breached the minimal requirements of maintaining
objectivity. I wished you brought me something valuable. If you have
done so, we would have kept a fruitful conversation. When you brought
me something anonymous as such, you have done three things with this.
First, I was offended because I felt that you weren't so serious about
the subject. I felt you were attempting to marginalise my faith by not
being so serious and possibly rather sarcastic which is utterly
unbearable. Second, you have lost credibility with me because you have
done the same thing with the alleged Biology certificate which has
never been released. Third, you have repeatedly and concurrently,
unprovably claimed that you won the debate which is just not true and
you knew so. I honour objectiveness and repudiate equivocation.
Democracy is the belief that the numerical majority of an organised
group can make decisions binding on favourable notions. So often,
minor opinions may not necessarily be welcomed in democratically
governed entities. It is not inevitable, that a democratically based
opinion is correct. In this list, I am viewed as the bad religious guy
because the lion's share of this list members is in favour of opting
irreligiousness. The opposite would have been exactly applied. Our
conscience enjoins us to seek for the truth despite what the
consequences are. The strive for truth seeking is odd to some people
though. As they may have been basing their denial of the truth on
private interest, they would never listen to it. This phenomenon is
verified historically. Ancient pagans of Arabia have opposed the
prophet, even they knew their worship of idols is totally false and
vanished. They have committed what is jurally known as anticipatory
breach. Basically, they hated what Monotheism is calling for and
hence, refused to accept it. The same holds true for contemporary anti
religion individuals and groups. They do not refuse religion because
they have the proof of its falsehood, but rather, because they already
hate what it calls for, so they refuse it beforehand. I would ask
Roger and his affiliates here to justly admit this invincible fact. It
is perfectly unconscionable and ethically contemned not to comply with
what you knew is true. I respectfully urge each and everyone here to
stop doing to me what he criticises the government of dooing. Even
Carl, whom I initially thought of him being relatively different and
deferent, has eventually leaned toward standing by Roger's position,
even he knew that Roger committed incredible offences regarding the
rulings of any civil discussion. Carl has done so for plain
considerations that are principally including, faith, race etc. In
conclusion then, each and everyone here has a lengthy journey of
amending certain assumptions. I sincerely wish to longly maintain a
civil discussion. But, when I feel that my orientation is being
disrespected, I obviously refrain. Lastly, I wish each and everyone
here a pleasant weekend with families and loved ones.
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
shoreless ocean.)
