Mister Roger, I decided to respond to you robustly this time. Your
discernment of the matter is essentially based on the superstitious
notion that religion doesn’t have substantially testable evidence. In
evolutionary theory, both humans and chimpanzees are believed to have
originated from the same apelike creature, or last common ancestor.
Nonetheless, there are no evidence for us mutually evolving from the
same descent of Pan troglodytes. I urge you to provide your
independently reliable source that affirms the proposition of us
evolving from common ancestry with monkeys. So, instead of
detrimentally attempting to marginalise my theological scope, be for
once the man of your word and show me sufficiently testable evidence
for what you claim. Calling me foolish et cetera won’t make you but
the one who failed in the discussion. My breath is longer than yours
and so my confidence, it’s certainly solider than yours if you even
have any. My worldview is based on faith and resolutely empirical
evidence that are aimed to prove the concept of creation and
intelligent design. Each and every scientific fact is governed and
maintained with applicable laws. Nevertheless, what are the laws of
evolution? The temperature at which liquid freezes or boils is
empirically examined. Is evolution treated similarly? I believe I am
quite plain in my enquiry. There is intensive emersion within this
obstinate state of unjustified abnegation. Darwinian Evolution is the
merely remaining sanctuary for Atheists to justify and explain their
nesciently state of enormously spurned incredulity. I didn't demand
Roger to speak contumeliously of other beliefs. I just asked him to
cite the proof of humans allegedly evolving from Chimpanzee. I just
couldn't believe that our common ancestor as a species was a gorilla
or chimpanzee. As I anticipated, Roger attempted inauspiciously to
marginalise and disparage my theological perspective. He couldn’t do
something farther to that. Science was never contradictory to faith.
Nonetheless, mythical notions are. Evolutionists have based their
philosophical notion on fallaciously privileged pseudoscience. Neither
the fossil record or the unified base of deoxyribonucleic acid, both
unfortunately couldn’t prove evolution in any manner. Even if we
allegedly speculated their affiliation, we yet don’t have the
necessary facilities to empirically examine this averred hypothesis as
it gradually occurs through millions of years. We therefore have no
way to empirically examine their associated conditions.
Australopithecus afarensis, or Lucy. This is an incomplete skeleton of
female ape found in eastern Ethiopia in 1974. They claim our origin
allegedly belongs to it. Basically, it is a perplexing blend of
science and fiction. It is terribly scandalous to supposedly impartial
western research and scientism. It consistently oppugns their
reliability. Each and every breakthrough that is purportedly proposed
to endorse evolution ultimately turns out to be of mere science
fiction. Hence, it is perfectly treacherous and disreputable.
Prominent English theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking who died in
March of the last year, has unethically trespassed his peculiar
circumstances to gain fame and greed. He has taken advantage of his
own disability to attain sympathy of others. He has used his
handicapped state on a wheelchair and himself speaking through a
cybernated Synthesised speech to promote and satisfy his ego.
Moreover, he has been used by mass media to promote and advocate for
majorly philosophical doctrines which are conclusively leading to
Atheism. Atheists have sought refuge with evolution to maintain their
philosophical theory. They thence have stuck themselves into
charlatanism. Darwinism is quite a doctrine. Hence, it is relentlessly
fended for by major Atheists and their affiliates. Charles Darwin
hasn’t directly called for Atheism. He has rather paved the path for
that conclusion to be reached. If everything bore out of natural
development, mutation and random selection, what is the need for a
creator then? Anti religion dissidents adhere evolution because it’s
their only way to deny God with what somehow appears to be
scientifically ratified. We therefore could fathom their persistence
as they defend it and attempt to fertilise its conception with
fraudulently scientific propositions. I challenge anyone of them to
present an independent scientific research that affirms the validity
of evolution as a factual concept, just like the gravity or the fact
that the earth is absolutely spherical. That’s what we mean when we
say that something is scientifically testified. Thence, it is
incomparably unarguable. I urge Roger not to hasten for just once. I
sternly exhort him to think about what he dazzlingly believes. Could
he possibly assert, that what he holds up to, isn’t massively
influenced with philosophical motives? I met and spoke with many Arab
Atheists. They essentially embrace this destiny due to dominant civil
defeatism. They aren’t necessarily convinced of such thoughts. They’re
just into imitating westerns in nearly everything. Unfortunately,
that’s the fate of many people who permanently settle in developing
nations. I’ve even caught someone on Skype who goes by the name of
Charles Darwin. He perceives he is enormously reputed with that name.
I unlike many people in Middle Eastern countries, do not blindly
approve everything comes from the west. I have adequate cognizance to
critically measure what they’ve brought for us and then determine its
status. If it ordinarily concurs with our tradition, I recognise it.
If it either explicitly or implicitly collides with what we believe,
I basically dispose of it. That’s why I might be despised by those who
wish to forcefully impose western ascendency upon us. That is the
substantial difference between the one who is genuinely educated and
those who are miserably manipulated and trapped into cultural
imperialism. Thank you for reading, Mustafa This text is composed and
edited with NV Access for the first time.
On 7/10/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, Carl was the first to break down and read another of Mostafa's
messages while I held out. Somehow, though, my own name in the subject
line was too much and I broke down and read one too. It turned out to be
the same old ad hominem hateful crap. But let me answer the main
question one more time. What ism my problem with faith? Here it is
again. Faith is the act of believing a proposition or set of
propositions without any regard whatsoever for reason or evidence. I can
think of no recipe that is more of a guarantee of false beliefs than
that. As a lover of truth I have to be a hater of faith. Faith is the
basis of superstition. A superstition is a belief held by faith and
because it is held by faith there is almost no chance at all that it
could be true. A complex set of superstitions can be made to comprise a
religion. Religion is a complex set of superstitions that comprise an
ideology the main function of which is the justification of the
prevailing class structure. Class society is an injustice itself. It
requires some people to be subject to other people and the subject
people are the creators of wealth from which the people who hold those
people subject expropriate from them to enrich themselves and to
consolidate their own power. That is completely unjust and religion
helps prop it up. Religion is a reactionary ideology too. Throughout all
of history every time humanity has advanced, whether it be
scientifically, economically, politically or in any other way, religion
has always, without exception, been there denying, denouncing and
obstructing. Religion is essentially against education. Look at
Mostafa's denial of evolution for example. Religion holds us all back
both individually?? and collectively. Just how far might humanity have
advanced by now? Just what level of freedom might we have attained by
now if we had not had religion holding us back? That means that religion
and its basis, faith, are evil. They are evil and hateful and
anti-humanist. Mostafa is an example of just how hateful it can be. This
is the problem I have with faith. This is why I hate faith. I denounce
it as a great evil that has plagued humanity ever since the
superstitions of primitive peoples transformed into religion.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/10/2019 12:56 AM, Mostafa wrote:
Roger, why are you so baited with the subject of faith? Is it because
it urges fatuity and retardation? Does it actually stimulate something
into your benumbed conscience? You're attempting quite strenuously to
evade confronting your own scruples. Nonetheless, these attempts are
unfortunately futile. Thence, you are so rebellious, malcontented and
psychologically straitened with religion in general. What has
incredulity brought to you so far? What am I going to attain if I'd to
embrace this enormously despondent notion? I stated earlier, despite
what you have stereotypically prejudiced, I am flawlessly felicitous
with being religious. My faith gives me hope and aids me to cope.
Haven't any of you examined the awkward phenomenon, that disbelievers
are more potential to be critically suicidal than others? What am I
suppose to strive for in the rough state of disbelief? I wish to be
presented with plain answers. Not too many people consider the subject
of religion unsolicited harassment. Religious belief has been
emphatically primal to staple human development. I caught you
mentioning that your grandfather was a member of Ku Klux Klan. Well,
if this is your perception or experience of religious apprehension,
then I may possibly sympathise with your state of nescience and
stereotype. You truly need to be presented to psychological
counciling. As we???re canvasing the motives of embracing Atheism, we
learn that religious extremism plays a major role. Initially, people
adopt religion to be serener. Nonetheless, when religion due to
incorrect or radical practice becomes the source of tough oddity and
mental strangulation, it is naturally desolated. So, if someone
fathoms religion the way Al-Qa'ida or Ku Klux Klan do, it should be
his problem, not our. Alright Roger, so, your perception of faith
comes from not so favourable experience I am afraid. Your grandfather
worked with a racially suppressive religious based faction. Thence,
your misinterpretation as well as derision of faith comes from the
fact that you hate faith based on quite unpleasant experience as a
kid. Well, what is my fault then? So, it is neither science nor
philosophy, it is psychological trouble. That???s why, whenever I bring
the subject of the Koran signing to solid scientific facts, you start
to react quite contumaciously. Roger, true faith is generically based
on strong adherence to certain beliefs and theological edification.
The reason why you embrace Evolution against faith based concepts, is
the noncontentious fact that your experience mostly comes from
radicalism and fanaticism. Lest you tell me what to do, nor even
attempt to. I warn you. My faith resembles my identity, it is my way
of life. Thence, I am going to plainly present it to each and everyone
I come through. I stiffly stand on a solid ground. Roger doesn???t, so
that???s why he constantly ridicules religious tenets. He ultimately
brought to us what we could consistently assemble to examine and
discern his psychological case with. I don???t sustain the trait by
which I could compel someone to accept or even consider my faith.
Nonetheless, if I have sufficient confidence that it is incomparably
the finest way of life, I have got jural duty to plainly illustrate it
to people, particularly, as it is relentlessly subjected to purported
defamation by mass media, upon which many Americans rely for general
information about outward entities. In conclusion then, before you
criticise me for explicating my religion to people, you have got to
develop enough courage to outspokenly confront your actual motives for
despising faith as such. I will never tolerate you or anyone telling
me what to do on that regard. That might be interpreted as violation
of my first amendment right according to your honourable
constitution. Your detestable manner won???t ever dissuade me. It???s the
last time I hear you talking like this. If you ever speak like that
again, I am going to have to react as deemed appropriate. You probably
won???t like my reaction though.
