Yes, knowledge is derived from empirical experience. That is because the
only other choice is just making up assertions out of nothing. And,
Mostafa, if you are making up assertions out of nothing or repeating
assertions that were made up out of nothing by someone else you have no
room to call someone else a liar because you are a liar. Claiming that
something is true that is just made up without any evidence at all is
lying. As for something being right to one atheist and wrong to another
atheist, that much is true because, again, atheism is not an ideology.
As long as you persist in assuming that atheism is an ideology you do
not understand atheism and you are lying to yourself.
---
David Hume
??? In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable
degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral
evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. ???
??? David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
On 5/5/2019 2:03 AM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
If people are discussing the same subject, why do you start more than
one post? I will respond concisely as my time is somewhat limited.
Atheism is essentially ensnared within phenomenalism. It is the
doctrine that knowledge derives from solely empirical experience. This
assumption is demonstratively fallacious. Atheism relies on improbity.
It bases its tenets on the work of some charlatan. Atheism is impinged
with philistinism. I am indignant at what Atheism proposes. That's why
Atheists in general are unconsciously undutiful to sacredness.
Atheists seek refuge with incredulity because they attempt to evade
ethical accountability. Nonetheless, these attempts are wholly futile.
Moreover, moral principles are somehow relative to them. So for
instance, something could be right to some Atheist and wrong to
another one. That is why, western culture in general, has based many
of its social concepts and beyond on the notion of relativism. It is
the philosophical doctrine, that all criteria of judgment are relative
to the individuals and the situations involved. So, Roger thought that
lying in some situation was okay. Someone else within his Atheistic
sphere could develop another stance on that regard. That is the
primarily elusive factor of Atheism and what it offers. The assumption
that everything in this life is merely empirical is immensely
illusionary. People express their perceptions without the need for
something tangible. Belief and denial are those of heart deeds per
say, and so love and hatred. Certain acts as of laugh or cry may
indicate love or hate. However, it is not absolutely necessary to
provide something purely material to prove set of specific
perceptions. I wanted Carl to determine to me, the criteria by which
he measures the existence of God or the lack of. Agnostics are not so
sure, whether God exists. At the same time, they somehow accept the
probability, that God may exist. Is the existence of God rationally
possible or impossible? Rational, something is rational,
means,consistent with or based on or using reason. Please, don't
gravel this with empiricism, because the two are substantially
dissimilar. If something is rational, it is generically acceptable to
mass inference. Atheists may argue, that the existence of God is
empirically confuted. Perhaps that's why, Christianity has attempted
to personify the divine. It unfortunately hasn't prospered in
engrafting this oddly excentric conviction into the minds of people.
Thence, people abandoned faith. Even those who still attend Church
service, the matter is quite occasional and not so regular to them, as
they are not firmly devoted to something there. Consequently, many
contemporary Churches have included into their Sunday service
terrestrial activities such as singing, playing musical instruments,
providing soccer or baseball fields for adult members, eating widely
shared meals and so on. They include any activity that urges people to
somehow dedicate themselves to attend Churches. In the Masjid,
however, people do not need this at all. I wonder, why?
On 5/4/19, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From the detracted Word of God, one version after another
Having been a human being most of my life...except for my Junior High
School Days, I feel that I am somewhat of an expert on how we humans
interact.
One example of our Human Interaction can be found in our need to
defend our personal beliefs. Some beliefs can be defended as true,
simply because they are obvious. For example, if I were to hold my
hand on the hot stove burner, I will feel great pain. So I can state
my belief: hot stove burners cause pain, and I can prove that it is
true, by simply placing my hand on the hot burner.
I could go on, stating one provable belief after another, but my point
is that when we have a belief that we can prove, we announce that it
is our belief. On the other hand we have beliefs that are unprovable
with the knowledge at our command, but with new information we can
prove or disprove them. Such a belief was that the world was flat.
Once we learned geometry, and how to make round basketballs, we
disproved our flat world belief, and replaced it with a belief that we
live on a round globe...more or less.
Finally, we come to those beliefs that are unprovable because they
exist only within our heads. Such beliefs we claim to be the words of
some higher power. God exists is such a belief. Brighter people than
I, have tried to prove this popular belief. Rather than do the honest
thing and say, "We believe it, but we can't offer any real proof",we
set about writing piles and piles of words, attributing them to this
God whom we cannot prove exists, and declaring that these piles of
documents are proof enough.
Sort of sounds like a politician running for office.
When I worked for the State of Washington, we called it, "The Fog Factor".
Oh well, I think I wandered from wherever I was headed. But we're off
to Bremerton to visit my mother-in-law.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/3/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
As a matter of fact, that argument that atheists have no morals is
another one I have heard over and over and it just has no rational
basis. That is another thing theists have been falsely taught, that the
only moral people are people who adhere to their religion and that
religion is the only basis for morality. Part of this is the false
assumption that atheism is an ideology. That shows up in a lot of other
areas too. I will get questions like what is the atheist position on
this or that issue as if atheists have gathered in a conclave and
formulated position statements on everything. My answer is that it
depends on the atheist. When the only thing a group of people have in
common is what they do not believe they just don't have much in common
and so there is probably a lot more room for atheists to disagree than
there is for theists to disagree. If atheism was an ideology then I
suppose I would have to embrace the followers of Ayn Rand as comrades.
However, atheism is a component of numerous ideologies and I just
mentioned one, the Ayn Randists. But if we are talking about an ideology
that provides a morality for atheists it would have to be secular
humanism. There are a lot of ideologies that embrace secular humanism
too and communism is one. It is from secular humanism that communist
morality is derived. The secular humanist moral code can be summed up
quite simply. That which is moral is that which benefits humanity and
that which is immoral is that which does harm to humanity. Secular
humanism is a very broad ideology that encompasses a lot of other
ideologies, so there might be considerable ideological disagreement
about what benefits humanity, but it is, nevertheless, completely false
that there is no moral basis for atheists to adhere to. But since
atheism is not an ideology it is also unfortunate that there are still
atheists with no moral compass. That means that the theists would have
no problem coming up with examples for that immoral atheist assertion.
But this is just another point that Mostafa is dead wrong about.
---
David Hume
??? In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable
degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of
moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the
evidence. ???
??? David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
On 5/3/2019 9:32 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Yes Mostafa, my remark about your being the Infallible One was rather
uncalled for. I apologize. And by the way, while it makes no
difference to you, I hold myself to be an Agnostic, not an Atheist.
Suppose I am closer to being right, than you. We die, and we are no
longer anywhere. Why would that cause us to become undisciplined and
uncivilized? What I do, I do in order to assist others. I work at
setting a positive example for my children and grand children. As an
Agnostic, I am opposed to Capitalism because it enslaves the masses of
working class people. I am opposed to discrimination. I believe all
men and all women are equally entitled to respect by all others. And
I believe this in spite of believing that Life ends at Death.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/3/19, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl, calling me the infallible doesn't sound so good. It somewhat
signalises sarcasm which is not appreciated. I am enormously acidulous
to Roger because he has lied down to his teeth. If you quote the Bible
to form an argument, that because there are many religions out there,
all must be false. That isn't a sensible conclusion. It's the one of
those who just want to repose their conscience. It is your primal task
as a fairly sain human to search for the truth. So, as an Atheist, you
trace your life and its essence to no transcendent being. Well, what
does your life stand for then? What does it mean to you? My faith
enjoins me to execute positive motivation and to contribute properly
into daily experience. What does Atheism urge you to do? What hope
Atheism gives you? Why do you decline to believe in afterlife? Well
obviously, you are afraid of what it has for you. Your denial of
afterlife signifies that you are actually frightened to imagine what
it holds. It is intellectually inconceivable that our life is simply
purposeless and we will die in vain. This abnegating notion encourages
people to broadly be irresponsible. The religious worldview is
immensely spectacular. It provides humans with their divinely guiding
statute. I relevantly concur with you, that many of these scriptures
are humanly developed. Thence, have you critically examined each and
every theological perspective held by certain group and proved its
falsehood? Let us say, I once had a back problem. I thus visited the
nearby physician. He turned to be inadequate and quite unreliable.
Could I prejudiciously extrapolate that all physicians in town are as
just as awful? Sure I couldn't unless I want to be negatively
dramatic. Basically, I could exercise this contention if I want to
just make a fuss. That's exactly what Atheists are doing. If you
really care and want to seek for and find the truth, you will be
guided to do so. If your intent is just to fence, you will then be
left to your own adequacy and discernment. That's how it works in a
not shall. I debated assimilators of the most prominent Atheists of
our contemporary age such Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. They wholly
seemed to be indoctrinated. Atheism doesn't have proper answers to the
most substantial questions such as what are we here for? Where did we
come from? What is our destiny post to death? That's why, Atheism in
genral is against any attempt to answer any of these questions. I
wonder, why?
On 5/3/19, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Mostafa. Or should I say, Dear Infallible Mostafa.
Here, from God's lips to Man's ear, is the ultimate order: "Thou
shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven
above,..."
Exodus 20: 3-5: KJV.
This Commandment/Demand is repeated throughout the Holy Bible, both in
the old and in the new testaments.
But the problem with it is that no one can point to the actual origin.
It's a case of, "he says, He says". Any judge worth his/her title
would throw such a claim out of court. Every religious organization
has their own version of God, and they each have His Holy Word, as
given to some ancient Men to write down. So even if you held the
original manuscript, all you can say is that someone said that God
told them to write it down.
I can tell you with great assurance, that God came to me last night
and revealed to me the name of a puffed up fool. And the name was not
Roger.
But of course, as an Agnostic(not an Atheist), I'm making it all up.
But how do we know that those original scribes did not make up
God/Allah's Holy Word in order to exercise power over the People of
their day?
Please Mostafa, believe what you wish to believe, but give others
equal consideration for their Beliefs, even when they do not come
close to agreeing with you. You are just as apt to be wrong as I am.
We are both examples of Nature's Ever Evolving Forces.
I do agree with Miriam, in saying that it seems it is men on this list
who continue this line of prattle. Mostly you, me and Roger.
Speaking for myself, as of now, that number has been reduced by one.
You may continue to pontificate, and to make a Fool of yourself. I
will defend your right to do so, but Respect your Belief? No way!
Carl Jarvis
On 5/2/19, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Atheists, I am still going to mishandle your ungracious choice of
incredulity. Each and everyone defended Roger the no-hoper or
attempted to, shall be justly enchained alongside him at the
impeachment cage. Roger is trammeled here. He is in for incisive
agony. Today features the opening session of Roger's trial. At its
inception, Roger has lied repeatedly. He thence deserves to be called
the unparalleled kidder. He first, lied about an alleged Biology
certificate which he never released. Second, he lied about a book he
said he has read about the Koran and its authorship. When I asked him
about the name of that book, he confessed that he had been immorally
dissembling. His abominable character needs to be descriptively
catalogued. Roger is morbidly impinged. He presents his nescience
diversely. He doesn't like Theology. That's his solely motive of
unsuccessfully attempting to marginalise it. I therefore determined
to
relentlessly strangulate him. He is to be intemperately savaged. His
hate of faith is explicitly affiliated with his appallingly perturbed
state. He is a pathological fibber. In addition to those who
stereotypically endorse him, they emphatically are prompted with
prejudicious notions. Roger has lied and he carelessly continues to
lie about something he wholly isn't aware of. I'm assaulting because
I
have been initially assaulted. So, I am just returning the favour. I
am being attacked by others for the sake of Roger. I don't pay
attention to some bunch of fools. No one has ever scolded Roger for
wittingly lying about reading a barren book. He said that first and
then, he admitted that he had been speculating. You won't ever be
just
folks, do you know why? Because you are not entitled to be. You are
criticising Trump and his oppressive administration be that as it
may,
you are acting much way worse than them. You criticise them for being
unjust, racialists, detestable and so forth. But unfortunately, you
are doing what you criticise them for. My critique of you is
essentially based on decisive facts. I am being attacked because of
my
dissimilar set of characteristics including faith. I naturally am
repaying this unappreciated favour. I wonder, how would I'd been
treated, if I was privileged with being American and ungodless. I was
certainly going to be warmly recognised. So, faith is plainly a
primal
criterion of determining relationships between various factions. It
is
so true, even for irreligious people. So, don't tell me you respect
my
belief because this would sound quite counterfeit and totally absurd.
This list led by Roger the chiseler proves, that the American concept
of democracy is perfectly dampened and vanished. You are criticising
Trump and what he does, but frankly, you are acting quite like him in
many instances. What I really like about Trump, is the fact that he
resembles the precise portrait of American culture. In essence,
Americanism doesn't like to be criticised. It has therefore been
lowered a great deal. It is totally disgraced around the world. I
began even to despise American accent. Each and every American owes
people of other nations a fortune. Back to Roger, he repeatedly
claimed that he won over me. He knew for certain, that he is
wretchedly deceptive about this too. He is miserably evasive though.
Carl says in a recent post, that knowledge comes to him through
immersion. Nonetheless, he barely learns anything. As for Roger, he
is
guilty of committing deceit, logical and scientific fallacies. I
promulgate that he is a mere assumptive individual and he couldn't
cope with significantly debatable issues. Atheism doesn't adhere to
moral preferences. Roger is a distinct proof for this. At its
inception, Roger said things about the Koran which he has been
completely clueless of. He based his notion on essentially the roots
of circular reasoning. It's a method which he repeatedly criticised,
constantly accused me of using it in my argument. Well, he does, and
so do I. So, he considered it not good enough, just a false and
logical fallacy. However, he sought refuge with it when I demanded
him
to view a video that contained information about black holes citation
in the Koran. He refused to see the video. He argued, that other
religions claimed to be scientifically authentic and they all have
been proved to be false. Nonetheless, he didn't tell us how so. He
could not produce any tangible evidence for his self-made
assumptions.
I asked him many times for the alleged certificate of biological
degree, he failed to produce it. Moreover, as he insistently arrayed
his assumptive thoughts about the Koran, he said he read a book on
the
subject. When I asked him to specify the name of that book, he said
he
couldn't recall what it was. Hence, the allegedly reviewed reference
turned to be utterly anonymous. Subsequently, even that unknown book
which he claimed he read, turned out to be nonexistent. Well, if
someone is fair enough to determine the situation here, what is that
called? I confirm again, it's odd for many of you to see the point I
am trying to make. Because you already have the conviction that
religion is not so crucial. Thus far, it is not necessarily to be
respectful to the subject. I insist, even if you believe so, still,
no
one has the right to marginalise a major because he doesn't like it.
I
am not into music. Still, I knew it's an instructive major, taught in
broadly prestigious schools around the world. I never mocked someone
for his belief, interest or specialty. But, when someone insistently
ridicules something I believe to be divinely miraculous, he is to be
despised and reprobated. I knew you won't fathom what I signify and
will carelessly proceed into your untutored track. What you all stand
for proves in the clearest manner, the miserably low rate of
education
amongst you. I insist, that my theological forte has to and will be
enormously respected. I am the one who studied it, so I knew what it
implies. If someone here doesn't want to respect my major, he could
just go away and hit his head into the wall. Many of you have known
me
for years. Therefore, you knew I won't flatter or say something I am
not convinced of. I intensely repudiate those who wouldn't mind
calling their arrogance that is mixed with ignorance something
valuable. I tell you, I just won't be tolerant with this travesty. If
you pose something about the Koran, due to religious adherence and
major based considerations, I will ask you to specify a reference. If
you do, I will look into that and will discuss with you in details
what it says. But, if you dare to follow what Roger has done, I am
going to be so tough on you. I am not joking about this. If you will
sing the freedom of speech foolish song, I will basically say to you,
go show me that freedom of speech in a place, public forum or any
other platform, where Jews or whoever you criticise or speak against
are the majority. But, if you are posting here, talking to
yourselves,
that just sounds quite like a monologue for me. If I want to
criticise the awfully coup based de facto chief of my country, I go
where his pros are gathered and freely voice my opinion. I sternly
reprimanded on social media his recent alteration of certain
constitutional constituents that are primarily pertained to extending
presidential terms from four to six years and getting him a special
treatment on that regard. I also publicly criticised his dominance
and
suppression of the judiciary. I called his recently held referendum a
historically scandalous breach of unbiased ballot. I am not saying
Egypt is a free country. Not at all, I could be detained at anytime.
Even though, I'd opine my political beliefs, despite what the
consequences are. This is the practical definition of free speech.
Whether people concur or dissent with you, whether you feel safe,
persecuted or threatened, your opinion shall not be reserved. As long
as you are convinced, you should not be reticent of expressing your
opinion openly, despite what the reactions are and what others
believe. That's my fate in brief. Now, is that clear folks? Well I
hope so.
On 4/30/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note that it is the males on this list who continue to fight on in<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
an
unwinnable battle. It may be that the male of the species enjoys
combat,
whether by bulet or word, for the sake of combat. That explains a
lot
about
the world we live in.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 1:34 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Bob Hachey <bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Roger's ultimate defeats, one after
another
Hi Bob,
No! That's the short answer. After many months, Mostafa refuses to
address
his own closed mind. He sees it in everyone who does not accept his
RTruth,
but he can't see that he sounds just like those closed minds that
offend
him
so greatly.
This is a very serious short coming in Human Beings. Rather than
exploring
ideas together, we build thick barriers to protect our beliefs.
Just
like
Donald Trump and his Southern Border Wall. Keep everyone out and
that
will
solve our problems. It's never worked in the past, but then there's
always
a first time...
Carl Jarvis
On 4/30/19, Bob Hachey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Carl,
I'm afraid that poor old Mostafa might be every bit as unreasonable
as
those far right-wing so-called Christian racists who spread hate
and
fear among the American people. I wonder if he can see the
shortcomings within his own religion?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 11:56 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Roger's ultimate defeats, one after
another
Well said, Bob. Mostafa seems to focus only on the short comings
of
the United States of America, without understanding...or admitting,
that there is also much good. While I have no understanding of how
the Egyptian government works, I do know that there are good people
trying to make a life for themselves and their families, just as
many
Americans do.
Pointing out our short comings, and ridiculing Donald Trump does
nothing to resolve our American Problems. But it does become
offensive after a while, because Mostafa has no solution other than
for all of us Sinners to embrace his Religion.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/30/19, Bob Hachey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Carl, Excellent message here. Mostafa, as you continually
deride
America, I would urge you to focus a bit upon your own nation,
Egypt,
where a good bit of violence and injustice is occurring as I write
this. I have always argued that America has more than it's share
of
flaws, some of which you focus upon, but one must take a good look
in
the mirror from time to time.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 10:51 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Roger's ultimate defeats, one after
another
Mostafa,
The popular cartoon, Charlie Brown, was made into a number of TV
Shows.
When the children talked, we could understand what they were
saying.
But whenever an adult character spoke, it sounded like, "Blah Blah
Blah".
The fact that English is not your original language, coupled with
the
fact that you feel the need to dazzle your readers with "Big"
words,
makes it almost impossible to follow your thoughts.
But here is an interesting observation, Mostafa, in your vain
attempt
to "prove" your God exists, you rant exactly like those White
Christian Supremacists who spew out their hatred over American TV
and
Radio channels.
Your pontificating brings me to pondering a point. Has the
development of language made it almost impossible for humans to
communicate on the Spiritual level? By Spiritual, I am referring
to
our deep emotional side.
Nonetheless, I remind you that a closed mind is like a closed
book;
within its covers there may be great wisdom, but until the book is
opened the wisdom will remain hidden and ignored.
Mostafa, you do not need to continue insulting my beliefs in order
to
defend yours. Our experiences are so different that we will never
agree on Spiritual matters. I accept that you believe your Allah
exists and tells you what to think. My experiences tell me that
it
is up to me to be in charge of myself. Still, we can explore
other
areas, such as whether Humans can come together and save our
Planet
Earth before we render it unlivable.
I believe that in spite of our many flaws, Humans are worth
saving.
And our Planet Earth, with all its abundance of life, is worth
protecting.
Allah and God appear too busy to do the job. Or perhaps they are
telling you that it doesn't matter, since your life will be an
eternal existence in the Make Believe Next Life.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/29/19, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 scene 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 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.
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it
is
a shoreless ocean.)
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon";
target="_blank"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif";
alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
/></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link";
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"></a></div>
![https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"](https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"){kind=link}