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 does, 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. I
seriously urge you to do something useful in your poorly pathetic
life. You’re my online puppet and you seem to be quite entertaining.
Your life must be tedious and sterile. From now on, I’d like to call
you the infinite monkey. You’re quite addlepated. Your misalliance"
with science is enormously dismantled. I have conversed with Arab
Atheists. Nonetheless, they’re wholly flustered. They unconsciously
mime everything uttered by their masters. Thence, they unethically
take advantage of the situation to seek asylum in the name of
counterfeit persecution. Atheists essentially rely on temporally
unobserved factors, the big bang and evolution theories. They will
endorse any mythical notion to despise creationism which naturally
leads to the necessary belief in divine dominance. Archaeologically,
neither theory is officially ratified. Consequently, Atheism is
nothing but a criminal philosophical doctrine. It is a major threat to
human development. Westerns have inundated in philistinism. Therefore,
it became quite convenient for many of them to interpret everything in
purely material fashion. Each and everyone who embraces Atheism
including Roger of appalling conniptions knew for certain, that
Atheism is merely a mental evasion. They deliberately opted it to
permanently repose their conscience to avoid coping with ineludible
rational and scientific facts. That’s why, they’re constantly
uncomfortable, distressed and infelicitous. Why am I need to follow
this gravely ominous destiny?
On 7/28/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
He seems to be back. Didn't I say that pests do not give up being pests
very easily?
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/28/2019 11:54 AM, Mostafa wrote:
So, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural??world. It's an organised system of accepted knowledge that
applies in a variety of circumstances to allegedly explain a specific
set of phenomena. We've returned to futile attempts to marginalise and
ridicule faith related concepts. I won't ever pay attention to such
petulant manner. I care more or less about this group. Incidentally, I
unsubscribed awhile ago. I insist to fathom, what's evolution's
decisively temporal evidence? Why is it politically motivated? My
education is composed of both theological and terrestrial majors.
Roger jokes about serious subjects. He's quite a nerd. He doesn't
understand that evolution is basically the God which all Atheists
worship. Evolution is their primal source of comfortably exercising
denotative incredulity. They couldn't ever answer this question, how
has the initial molecule of the universe came into being? Could have
this happened spontaneously? Fine, where is the physical proof for
that? You couldn't claim that something has occurred in the physical
world without providing an equal proof for that. Roger wastes much of
his time after his reputation has been utterly depredated. His
credibility has been destroyed. He is no longer competent to be worthy
of any deference. He's to be carelessly tossed in the garbage. I
therefore have marked all his upcoming threads to directly lay in the
trash out folder. They're piled there. I wouldn't mind getting my
keyboard in the trash folder as long as I knew it will be washed
properly afterward. I also told mr. NV to wash his mouth properly
after he speaks Roger's unwanted filth. I know how to roast quite
well. Respect yourself, and don't ever bring the subject of my faith
to this colloquial confabulation. Your anti religious sentiment won't
ever make you but a primally exposed hater who cowardly hides behind
the scientific curtain.
On 7/27/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I should have known. I am now checking my email and, like I said,
Mostafa appears to have unsubscribed, but one of the first messages I
come across is a private message from him. I am copying this to the list
so that anyone can read it who wants to, but it is the usual stuff. I
note that he wants to brag here about how educated he is. Well, if he
really is so educated I suppose that would mean that he doesn't really
believe in a flying horse after all and that he is only pretending to
know absolutely nothing about evolution. If that is the case he mounts a
supreme effort here to show that he knows nothing about evolution and
that he does not even know what a theory is. Well, like I said, a pest
never stops being a pest.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/26/2019 11:57 PM, Mostafa wrote:
Roger, I am enjoying myself because I am squashing you. I am crushing
you beneath my highly standing feet. You, are you educated better than
me? Seriously? Duh?, go go go. You barely speak English and you knew
nothing. If I look foolish, what do you look then, when you couldn???t
even click on a link, bring a certificate or a proof for worshipping
her majesty, mrs myth. You???re no way educated better than me, don???t
make me laugh. It is desideratum for you to constantly lie in order
to survive. You???re hapless, miserable and enormously blackguard.
Evolution has no stiff basis in genuine scientific emersion. I
severally asked you for independently decisive testable evidence and
you couldn???t impart anything. I therefore decided to teach you a
gravely tough lesson. Emphatically, evolution is of facetious
merriment rather than allegedly scientific development. Darwin has
speculated ill-advisedly, that creatures have just came forth
randomly. He is the primal myth maker. To illustrate even farther,
each and every creature has somewhat evolved from another one.
Nonetheless, who has created the initial molecule of the universe,
they would then say, well, random mutation or circumstantialness. It
is immensely embarrassing to think as such in the twenty first
century. The concept of evolution is of intemperately absurd drollery.
It is quite ironic. It is your only way to adhere Atheism. Thence, you
and many Atheists tend to fend for it so strongly. It isn???t even
possible from the rational standpoint. You have confused rational and
material concepts. As a deadly materialist, you couldn???t even
distinguish between what is rational and what is wholly material. You
couldn???t criticise Islam because you simply know nothing about it.
You???re not just blind as of your eye sight, you???re even dimmed
mentally. The nuance of Islam is too much for someone like you,
someone of critically low intelligence quotient to thoroughly fathom.
The fact that you idiotically assume evolution an actual branch of
science is a plain sign of your scandalously low intelligence
quotient. It is quite below average. If you???re intelligence is to be
examined according to commonly recognised benchmark, you???ll turn out
to be truly down to two years old intelligence rate. What a hilarious
quipster mister Roger has turned out to be? Evolution is just a
theory, based on relatively scientific imagery. Thence, it hasn???t
been ratified by one single scientist of any field unless he is
philosophically motivated. It isn???t a scientific major, alright
mister
smart? I am sure everything you know about Islam is of the prejudice
that is relentlessly promoted in disgraceful mass media of the States.
It is only swallowed by those of substantial ignorance though. It is
tremendously preposterous to come up with a slanted conviction of the
Koran based on your experience with a grandfather who used to join the
Ku Klux Klan or even because of what you heard about other scriptures,
that you stereotypically psychoanalyse, well, the Koran must just be
similar to them. The only way to know what???s in a book is to read it
which you wouldn???t because you don???t want to. You???re fastened
into
this materialistic dogma. I therefore decided to particularly bait
you and to counter your hate based material disposal with massive
confidence and edification. I don???t care about the damnable list of
yours. My main battle is with you. I decided to ruthlessly cut you
down into tiny pieces. Your radical imbecility is perfectly
incomparable. Your potpourri is absolutely pathetic. Anti religion pro
activists have strayed away from commonly ceremonious scientific
development. You are massively inadequate to prove the scientific
validity of the mythically based evolution theory. In the States,
academic freedom get challenged if someone oppugns evolution???s
stance.
People who dare to critically examine evolution and compare it to
intelligent design are threatened with getting the sack, having their
reputation raveged etc etc. The controversy gets fuelled, as we hear
about prominent scholars receiving evolutionists wrath as they dare to
independently poke into the taboo of Darwinism. You must always
remember, that it is merely a theory. It is therefore never confirmed
scientifically. I want you to proceed on with your mockery and
derision of faith. This won???t make you more than a plain hater who
cowardly hides behind the scientific curtain. Genuine scientists
aren???t suppose to exercise defamation of alternative perspectives,
even if they???re not convinced of them. How has human species emerged?
Darwinians indecisively assert, that everything has evolved quite
randomly. How has our intellectual ability developed? Well, according
to Darwinism???s primal exponents, haphazardly. I thought we???re
talking
science, not science fiction. Science seeks to improve our temporal
living. It hasn???t been destined to tackle philosophical queries.
Darwinism attempts to destruct the consensus view in order to broadly
promote and call for Atheism in the counterfeit establishment of
science. I met with plenty of Atheists and they all seem to be just
the same regarding their bigoted despise of faith pertained tenets.
The scientific community in the west has somewhat been coerced to
recognise evolutionism, even though it is not officially recognised.
The concept of intelligent design smoothly concurs with common sense
and science concurrently. Everything has been executed must be brought
out of consistent reasoning. When I press a key on that keyboard, it
types. Could you imagine a computer logs in on its own, types and
strangely does everything quite ordinarily? How is this even possible?
Could you defend evolution without assaulting faith? Again, evolution
is not a scientific branch. You???re so stupid to think so. You
haven???t
devoted yourself to study neither science nor theology. You???re just
an
empty, anti religious claimer. I determined to utterly ruin your
status.
On 7/23/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa, you may be enjoying yourself, but it can only be because you
do
not know what you are doing to yourself. When you refuse to engage in
rational discussion and substitute for it insults and name calling you
are only discrediting yourself. When you try to repudiate an entire
branch of science with only false assumptions about it you are
discrediting yourself. Mostafa, you are making yourself look like a
fool
and you just keep doing it over and over. Do yourself a favor. Try
learning from someone who is better educated than you are. If you ask
serious questions I will try to teach you the best I can given the
limitations of email messages. But when I say serious questions I do
not
mean questions based on false assumptions that you think have no
answer
and so will make entire branches of science false. You have to take on
some humility. As long as you continue to arrogantly think you already
know it all you leave no opportunity to learn. Try being like me.
Admit
that there is so much that you don't know. Drop the arrogance. Then
maybe I can teach you something.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/23/2019 1:27 AM, Mostafa wrote:
Roger, it seems you're enjoying this monologue. I confirm again,
you're the most dumb individual I ever encountered. What brought the
subject we were talking about to your damnable Facebook post? I never
said I would disrepute a scientific major, you???re just deluding
yourself. You???re muffing the main theme. You have no evidence to
support evolution theory. It only exists in your atheistic mind.
Therefore, you are somewhat coerced to embrace it, even though it???s
totally unconvincing. I enjoy your denial of this fact and your
insistence to stick to this delusional state of being allegedly
fetching. Nonetheless, I call you the wittingly cozened, because you
knew that you???ve been lying to yourself for quite awhile. I
genuinely
enjoy this though. I could last infinitely with you. I???ve
determined
to expose your ignorance about the leastwise description of proper
scientific development. You???re an opprobrious nonstarter. What you
rely on is generically defined as pseudoscience. Basically, it???s an
activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. So,
if you couldn???t empirically examine what Darwin conjectured,
you???re
following fake unreliable version of science. Scientific research is
the independent exertion of consistently amassed actual data to
examine the validity of the speculated conclusion of a particular
phenomenon. This examination has to be unbiased and impartial. So for
instance, if many of those who believe in evolution theory have been
broadly known of viewing Atheism as the adequate explanation of
everything around us, this stance must be certainly diagonal.
Although
it???s quite unlikely that you may fathom, I???ll repeat to you for
perhaps the twentieth time, Islam doesn???t contradict with proper
scientific development. Islam believes in and sternly enjoins
intellectual growth and wellbeing. Why am I need to apostate then? I
do not wish to seek asylum in the name of fake persecution. I am not
culturally manipulated to become Atheist. The question to you now,
what has Atheism brought to you so far?
7/21/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Now, this is exactly why that question on the Facebook science group
reminded me so much of Mostafa. There are certainly differences and
I
will discuss that, but what I am getting here is crass ignorance
masquerading as education. I have heard so many times that there is
no
such thing as a stupid question and I agree with that to a certain
extent. If you really do not know something and you want to know it
then
you put forth an effort to find it out and a good way to find
something
out is to ask someone who does know. As far as I can tell the guy
who
asked about the sun using oxygen for combustion really did not know
the
answer, that is, if he was being serious. It is a little difficult
to
think that someone who asked such a question was serious though. But
if
he did not know the answer the question was not a stupid question. I
am
a bit surprised that he had subscribed to a science discussion group
because if he really did not understand that the sun is not a fire
like
the kind that Carl builds in his trash burn barrel I would expect
that
he would have no interest in science in the first place. But if he
was
serious he deserved an answer. I did not try to give him one myself
because others were giving him answers that were as good as any that
I
could have given him. If, though, he was really that ignorant I have
my
doubts that he could understand the answers. Given the false
assumptions
that the question implied it really would have required starting
with
an
elementary school science class and progressing to the point that he
knew enough to finally understand. That point would have probably
been
at a high school level at least. I could not help being reminded of
Mostafa, though, for the sheer ignorance, but Mostafa uses his
ignorance
differently. I mentioned the person from Nigeria who asked if the
Earth
was rotating then why was he still in Nigeria. He came a lot closer
to
what Mostafa does. In his case he was not seriously asking a
question
to
educate himself. He was arguing against the legitimacy of science
himself and he was using the question to discredit science itself.
Due
to his ignorance he probably did not understand that he only
discredited
himself. Mostafa does the same thing. When Mostafa asks why are
monkeys
still in existence if we descended from them he is not asking a
question
in order to educate himself. If he was then despite the fact that he
would be exposing himself as incredibly ignorant he would not be
asking
a stupid question. However, the question with all of its false
assumptions shows that he knows nothing about the subject of
evolution
in the first place and in the second place he seems to think that
his
question has no answer and that a failure to answer will discredit a
whole field of science. Again, it would be necessary to start him
out
in
an elementary school science class and work him up from year to year
to
educate him to the point that his false assumptions were dispelled.
But
he would not allow that. He would simply not accept the truth if a
dedicated teacher tried to teach it to him. That makes that question
and
other such questions stupid questions. There is such a thing as a
stupid
question and it is a question that is asked to discredit a whole
field
of science that one is completely ignorant of. I have just spent
some
time going on about that because Miriam questioned why I brought up
the
question about a combusting sun and related it to Mostafa, but I did
it
right now because here is another of Mostafa's emails where he is
not
exactly asking a question, stupid or otherwise, but he is exposing
his
incredible ignorance and thinking that as he does so he is
discrediting
a whole branch of science. If only he could realize just how
completely
stupid he makes himself look.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/21/2019 12:45 AM, Mostafa wrote:
Roger, the problem is plainly visible. You quite assume that
everything has to be absolutely material. Although your proposition
doesn't seem to be so cogent, you insist to push it along the path.
What is the similarity between us and monkeys in terms of
intellectual
adequacy? Your problem with faith is essentially mental. I am not
held
accountable of that. Everything you assume about evolution and the
beginning of the universe is immensely theoretical. You may perhaps
present to me one decisive proof for the theory of evolution.
Remember, I said proof, not assumption. There is difference between
them. You can't base neither the big bang nor evolution on nothing
but
hypotheses. You're bankrupt of testable evidence on that regard.
You've admitted before that you hate faith for essentially
philosophical motives. Well, it's your problem then, go sort it
out.
I
wish to discipline you because you're to be treated like a petulant
child and that's the way we tend to correct improper behaviour
with.
You're nothing but a blind follower of someone like Richard
Dawkins,
a
merely idiotic materialist and bogus scientist. He is a major
defender
of Atheism based on the myth of evolution. Moreover, Dawkins
himself
is nothing but a mere follower of Darwin, historically, the primal
myth maker. Is it my problem, that faith hasn't been sufficiently
satisfying to westerns? My religion doesn't contradict with genuine
science. Why would I need to leave it then? I am not some civilly
defeated Arab who seeks asylum somewhere in Europe or the States in
the name of alleged persecution etcetera etcetera. I am educated,
settled and contented with my state. But someone like a failed
young
man or woman from Arab countries may find it so appealing to appear
with the presumptuously infidel Richard Dawkins, to talk about
their
transitional phases. For them, it is so fascinating to be Atheists,
because, for them, they will be finally recognised. You are someone
who knew nothing about faith but your grandfather's affiliation
with
a
radical religious element. Is this my problem too? I am obviously
way
more educated than you. I knew your language and you don't. I knew
everything about the stupid choice of Atheism and you knew nothing
about Islam. You once had the Koran and weren't even able to check
it
out. You once claimed you read a book on the Koran and its
authorship
and when I asked you about the name of that book, it trurned out to
be
just your own sick assumption, not a book. You're seconded by
mostly
everyone here because they're like you, religion is not so
appealing
to them, for obvious motivation. It's the fact that they're from
the
west and found no felicity within spiritual engagements. Well, my
experience is totally different. I found everything I need in my
religion and I am quite happy with it. It isn't my problem, that
people here belong to material civilisation. The west has
prospered
in this field and miserably failed in otherwise. I therefore tell
my
fellows, take what you need from them and leave what destructs your
identity for them. It is not a problem for me to eat Pizza, drink
Cola
and wear a nice shirt of popular western brand. My problem, is the
attempt to manipulate and dominate the way of thinking regarding
faith
tenets, heritage and identity. For me, this manner is enormously
declined. It's true I live in a poor and developing nation, yet I
am
dignified and have solid background. I therefore am despised by
some.
They may like me, if I defer to them which will not happen. On
7/20/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I see that we have another message full of insults and threats
that
do
not address my point. Okay, Mostafa, let's look at the facts. I am
talking about the facts that you observed and I observed and the
entire
Blind Democracy list observed. The fact is that you used as your
major
argument for theism the watchmaker fallacy. The fact is that I
explained
in meticulous detail why it is a fallacy. I explained how it is
the
logical fallacy of circular logic. If you really did not
understand
what
I said I will explain it to you again. I happen to be of the
opinion
that nothing I say is infallible. You do not have that opinion of
your
own pronouncements and that shows your incredible hypocrisy when
you
call me arrogant. However, if there is something I say that is
wrong
I
have to be shown where I made the mistake or I will have to assume
that
I am correct until I am, indeed, shown my fallacy. The fact is,
Mostafa,
that you did not do that. The fact is that you did not even try to
refute my explanation of why the watchmaker fallacy is a fallacy.
The??
fact is that in reply to my explanation you simply launched into a
tirade of name calling, insults and threats. That convinces me
that
you
do not have a refutation because I am sure that if you do have one
I
would have heard it by now. This is the problem with faith. When
you
believe something based on faith you will not give it up no matter
how
thoroughly it is discredited. That makes faith completely
irrational.
I
also remember that you stated that you wanted to discuss the
matter
in
a
civil manner. But, still, you started throwing the insults and
threats.
That is not civil. Now, are you ever going to show yourself to be
an
honorable man by actually discussing these matters in a civil way
or
are
you only going to continue to discredit yourself with these
tantrums?
I
suspect that you will choose to continue to have tantrums. And by
the
way, you are also being hypocritical by holding yourself up as
some
kind
of superior person for having training in theology while those
poor
ignorant untrained people who have not had theological training
and
so
do not understand their own faith are so inferior to you and at
the
same
time you are completely unable to defend your own faith from a
logical
argument and so you throw tantrums. I am sorry, Mostafa, but if
you
cannot stand up to a logical argument then your theology is
worthless.
You lack education. You lack education because you chose to waste
your
time on a theology that fails all logical tests instead of even
trying
to become educated. It really is completely unethical for those
Christian missionaries to try to dupe uneducated people, but it is
no
less unethical for you to do the same.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you
commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/20/2019 12:44 AM, Mostafa wrote:
Roger insists to shamelessly appear idiotic and rather
kafkaesque.
I'm
here at it again, intemperately lambasting his quite susceptible
outbound. He couldn't compete toe-to-toe. He's gone down to the
sewer
I am afraid. I wasn't addressing your damnable disposal in the
first
place. What has brought you to interpose? I actually don't
fathom,
what has your despicable despise of faith got to do with the
subject
I
proposed? Whenever I talk, he unwelcomely intervenes with quite
negative and detestable salacity. Roger hasn't proved his
allegedly
biological credentials. It theoretically exists in his miserably
bungling mind, just like the evolution's mythical notion. Despite
your
obstinance and abnegation, Islam is incomparably the fastest
growing
faith across the globe. In spite of the fact that you haven't
clicked
on the video that features Koran scientifically pertained
citations
out of fright, it is prominently ratified. I'd like to know
though,
what is Roger's significance in this world? What has this
hellion's
pathetic life brought to the good of human development? He
brought
nothing but derision, left-wing fanaticism and bigotry. What
has
the unpleasant experience of the grandson of Ku Klux Klan pro
activist
got to do with proper theological vocation? Islam brought me
confidence and composure. Roger claims that he attempted to
dispose
me, but it somewhat seems that my messages are just too much for
him.
I was talking to someone else, what has made you interpose your
nose?
Roger truly demands to be disciplined with corporal punishment.
If
you
were presented to me, I would have unhesitatingly suspended you
and
beaten your damnably bare soles with a cudgel, bastinado. I would
have
truly enjoyed you weeping in absolute agony through this
tremendously
unenviable situation. I wish to see you just for once somewhat
respectful of yourself. It seems you enjoy being mortified and
having
your pride maimed. If you don't like religion, you may better
quit
reacting to any of my posts for the sake of your alleged dignity.
I
won't ever stop posting about my beliefs and convictions to
either
this list or any other forum across the web. My condemnation of
Atheism is primarily based on decisive evidence for its
demonstratively fallacious origin. If I became Atheist tomorrow,
would
the world then be a better place? Atheism is just a form of
mental
disaffirmation to the unarguable fact that the divine force
exists.
There are no empirical or philosophical evidence for the denial
of
God. It's just something they sternly resent. As for evolution,
it's
basically pseudoscientific and absolutely mythological. I would
like
to assist Roger to identify some of his relative chimpanzees. One
of
them occupies the White House though. Wait, that was quite a
heavy
joke, my apology to chimps. So Roger, next time, when I address
someone else, keep your imprecated mouth shut for the sake of
your
dishonourable pride. Before I toss the dice back, beware of
crossing
your boundaries once again. Faith is a subject of your obvious
uninterestedness and it's a borderline for me. So, try to be
factual
and don't miss the fact that I won't ever defer to your arrogance
nor
I'll tolerate your ignorance. Deriding theological major is
totally
unacceptable for me. I hope you understood, though I really
doubt.
I
have more to offer you if you're interested. I could always be
tougher
along the way unless someone submissively recedes.
On 7/19/19, Roger Loran Bailey
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I really have been trying to ignore Mostafa, but then he comes
along
with something like this that I can't resist. Mostafa wrote: "In
primal
missionary activism, Muslims who haven't
received proper theological vocation are directly targeted with
misconceptions about their own faith. Ordinarily, they are not
sufficiently adequate to sagely refute them."
Oh yes, this reminds me of the certified theologian who was not
adequate
at
refuting an argument that destroyed his main justification for
religion,
so
he threw a tantrum instead.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you
commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/18/2019 9:19 PM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Hello sir, thank you so much for your response. Well, to answer
your
question concisely, people with mental disability here are
unfortunately pretermitted. As for how legislation is passed,
it's
essentially enforced by governmental authority. Guns here are
only
obtained by officers who work for either the military forces or
the
police service. Blind people here mostly work for call centres
et
cetera. Now, I would like to know something regarding the
nature
of
missionary activism in northern Africa and Muslim nations in
particular. In primal missionary activism, Muslims who haven't
received proper theological vocation are directly targeted with
misconceptions about their own faith. Ordinarily, they are not
sufficiently adequate to sagely refute them. They thence might
be
trapped into fallacious premisses. Moreover, many missionary
activists
may target Muslims who have been ruthlessly displaced in tough
refugee
camps. They may provide them with food, money and shelter in
exchange
for their belief. This is conspicuously notorious. In addition,
Muslims who live in the States aren't so knowledgeable about
theological concerns. Consequently, they aren't of equatable
compeer
to the southern evangelist out there. Why would enthusiastic
gospellers seek refuge with this not so favourable manner of
preaching? I would've much prefered, if the pastor recognised
and
fairly distinguished between theologically certified and
incompetent
Muslims. Islam is strong and able to converse with those who
plainly
dissent with it. Christian missionary and Atheists alike
explicitly
target immigrants from Syrian origin. I have stats brought to
me
by
a
reliable research centre on that regard, based in Toronto. The
missional sentiment focuses on Muslims who are not so educated
theologically. I never attempted to enter into religious debate
with
average Christians, because I knew it isn't quite ethical to do
so.
I'd like you to perhaps pass on this message on my behalf to
majorly
zealous preachers who often travel overseas to purposely
proselytise
to Muslims. I hope you do not hasten to somewhat manipulate and
dominate average and not so edified Muslims. Lebanese,
Jordanian,
Syrian or Egyptian of your neighborhood, neither of them is
theologically qualified. If you are critical about reaching up
to
those who of equal playing field, you need to meet up with
theologians, imams, teachers and so forth. I contacted various
Christian broadcasts and asked them to host me in their shows.
They
basically neglected my message which wasn't so respectful. I
contact
them, because I hear them talk quite noxiously about major
Islamic
tenets and figures, yet, I have full ability to respond
appropriately.
So, I didn't contact them to argue with them about their own
faith.
I
approached them to simply fend for mine which was quite
reasonable
and
consistent. Some of these shows were broadcasted in Arabic and
their
anchors would have spoken so lewdly and presumptuously about
Islam,
mocked its prophet and defamed the Koran. That is not
acceptable
for
me. I'd like to direct the subsequent proposition to all
Americans
who
receive this follow up thread. You must sternly quit scolding
Jihad
for 9-11. You must in fact quit blaming all of us for that.
We're
not
held accountable of the scandalous security breach committed on
that
day. I do not deny the presence of extremism in some religious
elements that belong to Islam, but you have overinflated this
incident
for quite awhile. I'd like to unfeignedly advise mission staff
and
their affiliates to quit seeking Muslims of low financial and
educational status and rather meet up with settled and
theologically
elucidated individuals. I invite those who are keen to present
the
Gospel creed to openly evangelise to me. If you cope with that
demand,
your preaching mission would have been more credible. It isn't
so
ethical in any manner, to intently hunt those of financial
privation
or spiritual vanity. We hope to see this unfavourable portrait
significantly enhance. I never coveted to settle in the States
in
exchange for my identity. I hope this is fathomed thoroughly.
On 7/18/19, Nathaniel Kile <heavens4real@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello dear friend,
Can you explain how this is all carried out in your own land?
Can
you
clarify any misconceptions that we may have about where you
dwell?
Thank
you
for explaining what happens here in the US, in the land where
many
of
us
have lived from birth. What approach has your upstanding
government
taken
to
avoid our pit-falls here in the US? How is life for the blind,
disabled
and
those suffering from mental health concerns. What exactly are
your
gun
laws
and how are laws passed and legislation carried out?
Please, feel free to be as detailed as possible. My only
sources
come
from
our personal conversations and missionaries who I have known
who
have
lived
there.
Nate Kile, Associate Director of Instructional Services,
Technology
Specialist, TechVision
Virtual based technology instruction for blind/low vision
students
and
TVI???s
907-444-3707
Website with hundreds of informational articles & lessons on
using
talking
software/screen reader programs on Windows computers, Office
products,
iPad/iTools and more, all done with keystrokes:
www.yourtechvision.com
ate Kile,Associate Director of Instructional Services,
Technology
Specialist, TechVision
Virtual based technology instruction for blind/low vision
students
and
TVI???s
907-444-3707
Website with hundreds of informational articles & lessons on
using
talking
software/screen reader programs on Windows computers, Office
products,
iPad/iTools and more, all done with keystrokes:
www.yourtechvision.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 7:55 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: The practice of lobbyism and its influence on US
legislation
What makes the United States allegedly so reputable? It is the
averred
claim that legal authority is incomparably the highest entity
in
the
whole
nation. Consequently, justice is assuredly implemented. Well,
today
I
decided to reveal the truth on that regard. How is law
enforcement
applied
in the States? Before we get into that, let us first define
the
work
of
lobbyism in America's political arena.
Lobbyism is the Attempt to influence public officials and
executives
in
favor of specific sentiment or notion. Impounded to that,
there
are
expenses incurred in promoting or scoping legislation. So for
instance,
the
gun lobby is so powerful and immensely influential into
congressional
platform. It's called NRA. It's the most powerful lobby that
advocates
the
right to own and bear arms in the States. It furthermore
promotes
unrestricted firearm possession and rejects any gun regulation
by
the
government. Despite perennial occurrence of mass shootings
because
of
unrestricted firearms possession including repeaters, NRA
importunes
to
boost for unstructured firearms possession. How do they tempt
congressional
authority? Factually, they either bribe or intimidate
legislature
to
deter
its members of proceeding to pass any bill that aims to
regulate
firearms
possession.
They call attempts to regulate firearms possession hyperbole.
Many
people
here in the Middle East incorrectly assume that law
enforcement
in
the
States is unambiguously unswayed. Now, they knew this is
incredibly
counterfeit and gravely delusional. Similarly, the rule is
typically
applied
regarding America's categorical aid to Israel. There are
plenty
of
Jewish
lobbies in the States to advocate, elevate and boost for
Zionist
favouritism
in Capitol Hill. Lobbies in American politics are so crucial
and
mutually
influential. Again, a lobby is basically a bond group of
people
who
try
actively to influence legislative arena. The hate sentiment
against
Islam
in
the States is necessarily impacted with the power of lobbyism.
So,
law
in
the States isn't independent. It's constantly influenced and
manipulated
by
proactive lobbyists. So, American legislation is attributable
to
be
illimitably rectified, regurgitated, modified and inevitably
aligned
with
the highest amount that is to be paid. Republicans are
sponsored
by
certain
lobbies and so Democrats. Thence, neither party is politically
autonomous.
Each one of them is possessed, financed and wholly controlled
by
external
bodies. So, opinion is essentially promoted based on how much
is
paid.
Is
this an honourable system?
Leastwise, it is the worst legislative model that has ever
maneuvered
on
earth. Needless to say, each and every lobby of these as for
the
gun
and
Israel one has its own media to broadly promote its notion.
Muslims in the States are misrepresented because they're often
talked
about
by others who're not impartial. To the contrary, at any rate,
they're
prejudiced about them. If Muslims had enough money to pay
those
lobbyists,
they would have displaced their major rivals. Truly, the
situation
is
inextricable. So, it's nothing about stiff principles or
invariant
convictions. It's all about, how much is someone willing to
pay?
The
higher
you pay, the closer I'm going to be leaned toward your side.
So,
ladies
and
gentlemen, this is how things work. It is indeed, the
filthiest
system
I
ever encountered. In actuality, this is how Trump was brought
to
oval
office
and this is how's he being protected despite his
irreconcilably
punishable
offences. Well, I'm done.
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because
it
is
a
shoreless ocean.)
