Hi Mostafa,
I have very little use for any religion that claims any human beings to be
unworthy. All humans should be worthy in a civilized society. Perhaps there are
a few truly unworthy and evil people out there, but most folks who act in an
unworthy manner have lived through a tremendous amount of suffering and
injustice which clouds their better angels.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mostafa
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 9:37 PM
To: Roger Loran Bailey
Cc: Carl Jarvis; blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lambofgod2@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Flying Horses and High Horses
I prefer to initially proceed into my exposure of American democracy than
wheeling in a meaningless vicious cycle with some bunch of unworthy mortals.
I'd just roast and sternly inculpate them later.
I'll do this at the last of my series of comments. CNN writes, "After a
barrage of criticism, the New York Times said Sunday it was deeply sorry about
publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu as a dog on a leash held by a blind featuring Trump." Hmm, if I drew
this portrayal, I would have made the sceen perfectly inverted. I still like it
though. Following Trump's speech to NRA gathering in Indiana, a mass shooting
has erupted at a Californian Tabernacle. Trump has roiled the NRA to react
after accusing New York attorney general of illegally investigating them.
With its substantially financial abundance, the pro gun lobby bribes even
gaffers of oval office. This reverberates the greed ascendancy over law
enforcement. This tangible symbol signifies the scurrilous disposal of America.
The San Diego Synagogue shooting plainly designates American's unprecedented
infatuation with firearms.
Reportedly, one of the Synagogue's attendants had his weapon with him.
Why? This means that Americans in general do not feel safe, despite where they
are. If people are allowed to enter anywhere with their firearms, and that's
includes schools, Churches and Temples, that's of completely incomparable
dementia. According to headlines, he chased the shooter to his vehicle and
attempted to shoot him over. It somehow seemes to me, that it had been a gun
battle. This is concurrently odd and insane. How has someone thought of
entering a house of worship armed and what for? American people are mentally
deranged. As for Roger, he ultimately admitted, that he doesn't know the
specifics concerning theological issues. I thought he read a book about the
Koran. Roger said and I quote, "I was only making an assumption. That is the
one about the authorship of the Koran." I changed the spelling of the last term
because it better fits how it's pronounced in Arabic. Now, Roger seemingly lied
about reading an anonymous textbook about the Koran. He confessed, that he
based what he said on mere assumptions. This admission has coercively been
unveiled after I repeatedly, asked Roger the kidder to name the unidentified
textbook which he allegedly said he read. Just as the Biology degree, the book
doesn't exist. I then see Carl recalling his not so favourable experience with
the Christian faith. He thereupon poses irreligious misconceptions based on
that. Furthermore, Roger mentioned a pastor who became Atheist. Nonetheless, he
hid his actual belief and continued preaching. This proves my theory, that
faith in the west is wholly inactive. Someone doesn't have to quit his
preaching. They mostly do this for living therein. Roger is environed by some
bunch of religiously irreverent folks. Their experience may broadly vary but
they are nesciently. They are stereotypically skeptical. Roger bases his
prejudiced notion about faith on assumptions. This is an explicit expenditure
of circular reasoning, a logical method which he insistently considered to be
fallacious in terms of following proper premises. Each and every time Roger
lies about something, Allah exposes him. I knew he will rib about this too and
will again, shamelessly lie about not using circular reasoning, but that's
absolutely fine. If I to artistically depict the situation here, Roger
resembles a dog that has its spittle constantly dribbling, he couldn't stop
unless a massive pair of flip-flops is intemperately thrown into his malodorous
mouth. Carl will continue to endorse Roger for obvious reasons, even he knew
Roger is defeated. The latter will continuingly claim to be victorious, even he
knew he is miserably lying. I' am amply confident with my unassailable
temperament. Each and everyone here knew what's the truth, even if he attempts
to evade its substantiation. These attempts are wholly futile. Lastly, if
someone here one day decided to grow up and be a brave man, and meet me one to
one on Skype, he is warmly welcome. I surely doubt that someone will ever grow
up though. But, just in case, my portal remains open. I will continue to
bombard each and every infidel here until they flawlessly decease. We shall see
then, who would laugh at the end.
On 4/29/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
It is a good question as to how we can teach future generations to
explore the world with an open mind, but it is ultimately hard to see
how it can be done. However, there are some people who do reach that
point. I have mentioned before a news report about southern evangelist
preachers who became atheists and have to keep it a secret and keep
preaching anyway. For the news report their faces and voices had to be
obscured. At least one of them said that he lost his religion because
he started reading the so-called new atheists with the expectation
that the word of god could stand up to any criticism and he ended up
being the one who was converted. So something can be said positive
about a secular education that emphasizes the debunking of
superstition, but I am not so sure that is the entire answer. I have
described religion before to be a complex set of superstitions that
comprise an ideology that functions to justify the prevailing class
economic system and so if that system is overthrown and replaced with
an economic system with no classes then religion would no longer have
anything to justify and so it would fade away. Still, though, that
leaves the superstition. Theoretically the way to do away with
superstition is to ensure a good secular education for all and it really
should contain a good dose of superstition debunking.
As I just pointed out, it does help. I sure can't dismiss it if these
pestiferous preachers have had to shed their religions when even
giving themselves a secular education. However, there is the question
of how superstition can persist anyway. How is it possible for a
person to be confronted with irrefutable evidence that his beliefs are
wrong and still keep right on believing them? I keep going back to the
example of the flying horse because even people who have been
indoctrinated in an irrational ideology other than Islam can see how
ridiculous it is to believe that there was a flying horse. They can
see that even though they might still believe that a dead man a couple
thousand years ago came back to life and then ascended to heaven. But think
about this.
Mostafa is intelligent enough to have learned how to communicate in a
pretty passable English which was not his native language. He set out
to learn it and he did. Yet he still insists that Muhammad rode
through the sky on a flying horse. How is that possible? How can
anyone of normal intelligence possibly be confronted with demonstrable
evidence that there are no such things as flying horses and still
believe in a flying horse? I suspect that the ultimate answer must lie in
neuro-science.
There must be something wrong in the brain that allows that even if it
is not wrong in all brains. I speculated before about religion being
related to schizophrenic delusion and I do think it is very similar,
but I really don't know what causes it. Until it is figured out I
suppose a secular education is about the best we have.
---
Christopher Hitchens
??? What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed
without evidence. ???
??? Christopher Hitchens,
On 4/29/2019 11:40 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Hello Roger and All Explorers of the Unknown.
Speaking for myself, the question we need to attack and solve is, how
do we teach future generations to mentally explore issues with an
open mind?
I suspect that anyone over the age of 2 or 3, has already been
conditioned to accept as unchanging, absolute Truth, whatever their
parents(influential adults) feed them. As far as I know, we humans
use some form of negative, fear laced reinforcement as our method of
"Educating" our young, in order to ensure that they will carry on our
own Beliefs, which were drilled into our heads by our own parents.
When I was a Christian, I believed that I was exploring the world
objectively. But of course, I did so understanding that I worked
from a basic Truth. The Word of God.
Because I was taught that the Word of God was absolute, and God had
handed it down to Man, I was as crippled in my ability to explore
ideas openly, as a man trying to pick a lock with both hands tied
behind his back.
God(All Forms of God) was insulated, and off-limits from being
questioned. He was protected by Fear of Eternal suffering by those
who dared challenge His Word. So, speaking as one who has read the
Holy Bible from cover to cover, but am not a Bible Scholar, we are
taught that we have this Loving Father who will set us free, just so
long as we accept His Word as the absolute Truth. Any challenge will
condemn us to Hell...or cast us into eternal Darkness. So we are
freed through Fear! And the only way we can defend our Belief is by
announcing that the Word is Perfect, and handed to us directly by an
absolute perfect dictator.
A Perfect Dictator who decided to see what would happen if He gave us
a Free Will. Even though He told us that He knows the beginning and
the end. Next, our Loving Father turned His loving back on his
Angels, long enough for Lucifer, His highest ranking Archangel to
challenge Him for control. Do we ask how an infallible loving Father
would do anything to turn one of His own creations against Him? And
if He knows everything, why did He allow this to happen? Because He
Loves Us? We, who according to His Holy Writings, are mere Mortals,
and no match for the wily Devil? But we are taught by this same Holy
Word that God moves in mysterious ways, and we suffer here on Earth
so that we might spend Eternity singing Praises to the Great,
Perfect(so He says)Dictator.
And people believe some form of this Folklore. And we wonder how
Donald Trump became president?
I could go on, babbling by the hour, but I see my own backside as I
am coming around in a big circle. And as I said in the beginning, my
only interest is that each of us work toward independent thought.
Accepting only that which we can prove to our own satisfaction and
encouraging others to do the same. Remember, we are not truly Free
until we are able to think for ourselves.
Cordially,
Carl Jarvis
On 4/28/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> 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.)
