Mostafa's response to you is one that is promoted by those whose
positions are indefensible. We Americans are suffering under the most
abusive example of this sort of defense. Donald Trump resorts to name
calling and belittling those who dare to speak out against his
demands. It is primitive behavior and usually ends in violent
conflict.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/17/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Not only is it not going to win me over, but it discredits Mostafa
himself. Really, if his whole argument for his position is belittling
and childish insults then just how credible is he?
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/17/2018 9:25 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Please, Mostafa, stop and listen to yourself. Belittling another
person for offering their opinion is never going to win them over.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/17/18, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roger likes to sound bigger than what he actually is. First off, if
you allegedly have a degree in Biology, you obviously aren't a
practicing Biologist. You're not more than a sedentary blind senior.
Moreover, you're a primal practitioner of subterfuge. Despite his
enormously saccharified rhetoric, he's a decent entertainer. The Big
Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began.
At its simplest, it says the universe as we know started with a small
singularity. It then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the
cosmos that we know today. Thus far, it remains a hypothesised
explanation. It has no impirical evidence. Furthermore, it has no
affiliation with Roger's impious superbia. As for the monkey man
theory, where is the mental resemblance between human infant and
chimp? Darwin's theory of evolution isn't endorsed with any empirical
evidence. Up until today, archaeologists aren't able to unveil any
empirical evidence for the putatively monkey man. If Roger is
satisfied to have relevance with chimp, he's good to go. Because I am
sensible and human, I'd be quite offended if I to be condescended that
low. Science doesn't endorse Atheism. Einstein's agreeably modest
refusal to endorse atheism because it is so banal, proves the total
scientific disaffiliation with Atheism. Atheists coerce science into
their iniquitous sentiment as they attempt to give credence to its
absolutely sacrilegious tenets. At its inception, Atheism is an
unreasoning denial of deity and unjustified inundation of overdose
philistinism. Science doesn't substantiate this unprovably atheistic
theory. Atheism lacks the least of decorum. It's essentially based on
misanthropic disposal. Instead of absurdly telling us about our monkey
or zebra ascendants, why don't you promote the purpose of this life?
Atheists generically like to claim they're more intelligent than you.
Ah by the way, I studied science at school. Nevertheless, I never felt
the necessity to disbelieve because of convincingly scientific
evidence. Roger is an idiotic monologist. He's perennially indicted of
consciously practicing knavery, immense prate and massive sophistry.
He wouldn't believe in the divine because of his plain obstinance. His
opinion is radically based on prejudicious perspective and nescience.
He's incredibly terrified of death. Soon or later, Roger shall truly
be perished. Well indeed, he's eternally destined to hell. Thence,
Roger shall relentlessly weep in regret and agony. He'll plead for the
overwhelmingly torment to decease. Be that as it may, his screams
shall be perfectly neglected. He's to infinitely be excruciated in
approvedly awful doom. He acted so arrogantly in the past life.
Thereof, he's to be ruthlessly bonded to this unpleasantly tortuous
experience. I purposely pasquinade his roughly stuporous temperament.
His absonant attitude proves his grave impuissance and thus, his close
subjection to flawless defeatism. If someone is a genuine winner, he
doesn't say he is because the situation is crystal clear to the
viewers. However, if he's pragmatically thwarted, he might demand to
deceive his audience to eliminate the critical shame he incessantly
aches of. Roger talks to a bunch of folks who're mostly Atheists,
telling them he won the philosophical battle with me. First off, in
professional debates, the rule that you don't usually tell your
protagonists you've defeated your rival. Instead, a moderate
intermediator is to impartially judge between both of you. Yes, but
little Roger likes to think he's the winner. He just does. So let us
declare him the winner then and warmly applaud for his considerable
victory. Hurray hurray! This guy is so funny. Trust me, I laugh as I
type this. He's just the Donald Trump of this list. Please, Roger,
seriously, keep entertaining us, ah and Richard too, just so fool.
On 12/15/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa, you insist on making a complete fool of yourself over and
over.
Right after I explain where you go wrong you just repeat the same
fallacies over and over. Okay, if we assume that something was not
created then, yes, we are obligated to rationally determine how it came
into being. That is exactly what scientists are working on. But we are
not obligated to assume a creator in the meantime. If we haven't
figured
it out then we just haven't figured it out and we just don't know. To
assume a creator or to assume anything else that we have absolutely no
evidence for is circular reasoning again. Again, you assume a creator
and assume that a creator creates and that everything has been created
and so everything must have a creator. That is as circular as you can
get and instead of addressing the circularity of that argument you just
keep making the same circular argument again and again. Why don't you
show us that you have a brain by using it? If you don't know something
you just don't know it and it is a complete logical fallacy to make up
something so that you can claim that you do know. That is one of the
problems with you religious zealots. You not only refuse to admit that
you can possibly be wrong, but you refuse to admit that you can
possibly
not know something. Now, your assertion that atheists conjectured the
big bang theory is false and in my very last message I explained to you
what an atheist is, but you still do not seem to know and you seem to
think that atheism is some kind of ideology. Again, atheism is simply
the lack of a belief in a deity, nothing more or less. The scientists
who discovered the big bang theory may or may not have been atheists.
And it is not a conjecture either. It was a theory based on objective
observations. When Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe it
was clear that if we traced back this expansion the galaxies would be
closer and closer together in the past. It was hypothesized that there
was something like a cosmic egg that exploded in the past and that the
explosion was still going on. The phrase cosmic egg has become obsolete
because everything now points to a singularity. The corroborating
evidence is in the cosmic background radiation, in observations of
quasars, in quantum physics and so forth. They all dovetail to point to
the same conclusion. The math is part of the evidence too. I will say,
though, that the mathematics, which also point to a singularity in the
center of black holes, indicate infinite density and infinite heat in a
singularity. In the past mathematical predictions of infinity have been
shown to be faulty when further evidence was discovered. However, so
far
every evidence that we have that makes up the big bang theory still
indicates a singularity and until we discover new evidence we have to
go
with that. Next, I just got through showing you how you are completely
wrong about your claims about monkeys and evolution and you come right
back and repeat it again. That shows a real effort on your part to make
yourself look foolish and uneducated. Again, atheists as atheists do
not
claim that humans evolved from monkeys. Furthermore, evolutionary
biologists do not claim that whether the evolutionary biologist is
atheist or not. The only people who claim that evolutionary biologists
claim that humans evolved from monkeys are either ignorant creationists
who learned their biology in a church or a mosque as the case may be or
flat out lying creationists. Even if we did evolve from monkeys the
reason that there would still be monkeys is the same reason that so
many
people who are alive today can have conversations with their own
parents. It is not a requirement that one's parents must die when one
is
born. But monkeys are not our parents. Monkeys simply share a common
ancestor with us at about fifty million years ago. Your question is
like
asking why if our cousins share the same grandparents as we do then why
do we still have cousins. Again, we are more closely related to
chimpanzees and our last common ancestor with them lived about six
million years ago, maybe as long as eight million years. That common
ancestor no longer exists, but chimpanzees exist for the same reason
that we can have cousins that exist. Now, let me remind you that I have
a degree in biology and even though my school did not have a course in
evolutionary biology I have studied it independently. You obviously
know
nothing about it. You are trying to pass off lies about evolutionary
biology to someone who actually knows something about it. I would
suggest that before you try to tell anyone, especially me, anything
about evolution that you try to learn something about it first. And you
do not learn biology in a mosque. Learning biology in a mosque causes
you to make yourself look even more ridiculous by claiming that horses
fly. By the way, since you like so-called rational evidence so well let
me give you some. So-called rational evidence, again, is just a legal
term meaning that someone said it. In that case, I hereby tell you that
there is no such thing as a flying horse. There you have it. That is
your so-called rational evidence. It also is a demonstrable fact that
flying horses cannot exist, but you disparage demonstrability in favor
of so-called rational evidence. In that case, go ahead and reject the
demonstrable evidence and accept the rational evidence I just gave you.
There is no such thing as a flying horse.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/15/2018 12:48 AM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Roger, if we assume that something hasn't been created, we have to
rationally determine how it came into being. If we were disenabled to
do so, we then have to abide by the creation theory until otherwise is
substantially proved. While arbitrarily attempting to interpret the
mysterious commencement of the universe, Atheists purportedly
conjectured the big bang theory. Well obviously, none of us witnessed
the cosmic explosion that is hypothesised to have marked the origin of
the universe. Nevertheless, people still view this theory as the most
reliable interpretation of this broadly inscrutable phenomenon.
Furthermore, evolution which Atheists substitute creation with has no
rational or empirical evidence. Darwin hasn't signified to be
impertinently irreverent with his biological theory. What is the true
pathway to know the truth? We have to use the great bounty of
intellect which we have been favoured by. We are superior to other
creatures because of our distinctly rational adequacy. As I concisely
outlined in my previous post, if we have indeed evolved from monkeys,
why are there still monkeys? Atheists do not accept this manner of
interpreting concepts. I wholeheartedly advise them, that if you
unjustifiedly hold up to the merely empirical explanation, you'll end
up pathetically stuck into otiose argument. Things are quite simpler
than this emptily philosophisation approach. Science in itself is not
an independent source to either affirm or negate faith. It is a way of
understanding how we live and how the universe works. Each and every
scientific field attempts to answer questions of specific kind. But
overall, science generically indicates that the universe has been
designed by immensely incredible intelligence, a uniquely great force
that incomparably transcends our limited ability. For many people
around the world, this interpretation makes a lot of sense. Atheism
doesn't believe in rational evidence and that remains its own problem.
It should not be extended to others. Rational thinking is an uncharted
territory for common Atheists. Therefore, we have got to gradually
familiarise them with its consistent tenets. I hope you enjoyed
reading this. You probably did except mr Roger. If someone is more
interested to dive farther onto this, Skype is constantly available
and we certainly could schedule arrangements there. Voice
communication is better and clearer than this virtual environment.
On 12/14/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa, you just keep making the same mistake over and over. First,
we
can agree that everything that is made has a maker and everything
that
is created has a creator. The problem is that you assume that
everything
that exists has been created and so if it has been created then it
has
a
creator and so everything that exists has a creator. In other words,
you
are assuming that there must be a creator of everything and so the
creator proves the existence of the creator. You can't get any more
circular than that and that is a complete logical fallacy. So you
have
painted yourself into a logical corner. Again, we can look at some
things that do have a creator. I refer you again to that car factory.
We
do not know that the car factory exists because of the existence of
cars. Our knowledge of car factories are independent of the cars and
it
is because we can go to a car factory and see cars being made that we
know how a car is created. If we do not have that independent
evidence
the claim of a creator just because something exists is circular
reasoning. Now, if there is something wrong with this explanation of
why
your argument is circular reasoning then let us know what it is. So
far
you have not attempted to do this. The existence of subatomic
particles
is irrelevant to the discussion because if you maintain that they
need
a
creator too then you are still faced with the necessity to provide
independent evidence for it. That is, where is your quark factory? I
would really like to take a tour of that. Now, if you do come up with
independent evidence of a creator let us know what that evidence is.
If
you can find that independent evidence you will be the very first
person
in all of history to do so and you will be world famous. You will go
down in history forevermore. You will be the greatest prophet of all
time supplanting all other prophets. I don't think you can do it, but
go
ahead and have a go at it. Another thing you can do about your
logical
fallacy is to just admit that you have made a mistake and admit that
I
am the one who is right. And then another thing you can do about your
logical fallacy is what you have done about it so far. That is to
just
keep making it over and over and throwing childish insults and
tantrums.
Now, moving on to another part of your message, atheists make no
claims
about human evolution as atheists. An atheist is simply a person who
does not believe in a deity. An atheist could claim that humans
hatched
from a butterfly egg and as long as that atheist did not believe in a
deity then he or she would still be an atheist, a rather deluded
atheist, but still an atheist. But evolutionary biologists do have
something to say about the origin of humans. By the way, I happen to
hold a degree in biology and one of my special interests in that
field
has been evolutionary biology. From that position I can assure you
that
the claim that humans evolved from monkeys is completely false. You
are
repeating creationist lies. Humans do have a common ancestor with
monkeys, but that is probably some fifty million or more years back.
Our
closest relatives now are chimpanzees. But we did not evolve from
chimpanzees and we did not descend from chimpanzees. If you want to
ask
why chimpanzees are still here it is the same reason your cousins are
still here. Chimpanzees and we share a common ancestor that existed
about six million years ago, but they descended from that common
ancestor and we did too. That common ancestor is certainly not around
now. Now, if you want to argue against evolution try to argue against
evolution. Do not make up lies about evolution and argue against that
instead and call it arguing against evolution. If you do not
understand
basic evolutionary biology and if you do not understand basic logic
then
you have a lot of nerve accusing someone else of philistinism.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/13/2018 9:40 PM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
I concede to Roger's competency. He certainly defeated me on
practicing knavery, subversion and casuistry. He has exceeded his
boundaries. Moreover, he went farther to deceivably convince his ill
ego, that when I refute his rather stupefied misconceptions, I
subjugate myself to his allegedly incontrovertible rebuttals. Roger,
the self-proclaimed scientist never told us that molecules make up
everything around us and they are very small. But those molecules
are
made of atoms which are even smaller. And then, those atoms are made
up of protons, neutrons and electrons which are even smaller. And
protons are made up of even smaller particles called quarks. Quarks
are hypothetical truly fundamental particle in mesons and baryons.
There are supposed to be six flavors of quarks and their antiquarks
which come in pairs, each has an electric charge of +2/3 or -1/3.
Quarks have not been observed directly but theoretical predictions
based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally. The
critical question here is, could this incredible accuracy and
complexity be left to mere theories of accidentalness? Atheists are
generically evasive. How could this perfectly designed and
consistently integrated universe be inadvertent? Ah by the way, do
you
folks recall foul-mouthed Joe? I miss his glorious presence. . Now,
back to mr Roger the trickster, why do you flee rational evidence?
Atheists in general are frightened off if you pose rational evidence
to them. Atheism is basically defined as there is no divine force
and
life is merely material. Thence, they are immensely inundated in
philistinism. Everything they talk about has to be staggeringly
materialistic. The world for them is only naturalism. They despise
any
hypothesised notion if it's based on spiritual interpretation.
Science
is a counterfeit resort that they often seek refuge with to justify
their irreligious sentiment. Scientific propositions couldn't be
used
to affirm or negate faith. It essentially depends on the mind of the
one who views scientific references. So for instance, someone could
use the knife to kill an innocent. The knife could also be used to
cut
off beef. Both acts have been executed by the same device. One is
considered good or at least morally satisfactory. Presumably, the
other act is absolute evil. Roger likes to ridicule a miracle of
prophet Muhammad as he ascended to the heaven on the back of a
fast-flying steed. Roger doesn't believe in celestial realms. He is
imprisoned in terrestrial bounds. Thereof, it'll be a grave waste of
time if I attempt to somewhat persuade him because he doesn't
believe
in the unseen. I'll be pleased to sign a victory check and hand it
over to mr Roger if this makes him feel better. I won't ever lower
myself to such level as to who is the winner and that nonsense. I am
firmly settled on a solid ground. Otherwise, I would have not
entered
in a debate on a list full of Atheists. Roger is solaced in his
comfort zone here. That's why my perennial Skype invitations are
dismissed. If he comes to an arena that is located out of his
comfort
zone, he'll be easily exposed. I freely chose to remain here because
I
am interested to learn how Atheists think. Atheism seems to be
fundamentally hypothecated on philistinism. I'd like to concisely
pose
couple of crucial questions to those who embrace Darwin's theory of
evolution. At its inception, we allegedly have evolved from monkies.
First question, if so, why are still monkies? Second, has science
provided any reliable evidence archaeologically that ultimately
unveils this averred monkey man? Currently, there are still monkies
living among us. Many of them are close to human look. Nevertheless,
they share none of our sensible characteristics. Some of them just
look like us. Atheists claim we've evolved from monkies. Be that as
it
may, they couldn't provide any decisive evidence for that. They
believe in phylogeny because it seems to be a fairly proper
alternative to creation which they prejudiciously decline. They
mostly
base their tenets on empirical explanation. And, if they find no
empiric proof to back them up, they turn to theories that are
essentially or somewhat ostensibly opposed to spiritual experience.
Big bang and evolution would be fairly two vivid instances. Neither
theory is backed by actual scientific evidence. Hitherto, Atheists
confidently embrace them. The conversation now becomes clearer than
ever before. Atheists have baseless dependance on science.
Philosophically, they are somehow airheaded. They are emptily in
their
argumentation. I do not drain. I count on deep education and
autonomous rationalism. I've written enough to those Atheists. I do
not expect any positive outcome though. I opt to continue here
because
I determinedly destine to crack Atheism down. Cognitively, it is
enormously incongruous. Wel,, that's what I have for today's thread.
On 12/11/18, R. E. Driscoll Sr <llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
All:
I think that Mostafa is practicing self deceit.
Richard
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, Mostafa, it is you who are attempting to deceive your
audience.
When
you tell someone that a flying horse is real you are both
insulting
their
intelligence and trying to deceive them. Now, you ask who created
the
molecule. Okay, I could go into the chemical reactions that
brought
about
the water molecule that forms into ice crystals, but you would ask
who
created that too and we would be right back where we were. The
answer
as
to who created whatever engendered the molecule is that we do not
know
that it was created by anyone or anything. You are again indulging
in
circular reasoning by pointing to something that exists and
claiming
that
it is evidence of its own creator. That is assuming your
conclusion
to
reach your conclusion and it is a blatant logical fallacy. Not
only
that,
but after it has been pointed out to you over and over that it is
a
logical fallacy and after it has been explained to you over and
over
why
it is a logical fallacy it becomes a blatant lie. Now, as for why
I
am
reluctant to talk about my death, I am not the least bit reluctant
to
talk
about my death. It is coming. Right now it is not immediately
imminent
to
the point that I will be wrapping up my affairs in the next few
days,
but
it still could happen today or tomorrow. I have certain illnesses
that
will probably lead to my death. That is mainly diabetes, but
diabetes
spawns other maladies and one of them will probably bring an end
to
me.
What happens to me next? My personality will return to the state
it
was
in
a thousand years ago, nonexistence. That is because every thought
I
have,
every memory I possess, every desire I have, the whole of my
personality
consists of electro-chemical reactions that occur in my brain.
Upon
my
death those electro-chemical reactions will cease and their
components
will disperse. There are entire libraries of documented results
from
neurological research that back this up. If you disagree with
those
entire
libraries of scientific results then it is your burden to do your
own
research and find demonstrable facts that will refute those
documented
results. Now, let me point out something to you. When I explain
these
things to you over and over and you just keep repeating the same
fallacies
over and over you are validating my position every time. If you
want
to
stop validating my position try refuting me rather than just
repeating
your arguments that have been completely refuted. If you cannot do
that
then it is time for you to admit that I am right and you are
wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis
for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/11/2018 7:41 AM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Roger, you are attempting to deceive your audience. Crystals
often
form in nature when liquids cool and start to harden. Certain
molecules in the liquid gather together as they attempt to become
stable. They do this in a uniform and repeating pattern that
forms
the
crystal. So basically, this is a chemical evolution of some
substance.
Nevertheless, who actually created the molecule? As we knew, it
is
defined in Physics and Chemistry as the simplest structural unit
of
an
element or compound. Who made this tiny element? Could we
possibly
assume that the tiniest element of any structural substance has
just
came into being by chance? Why Atheists attempt so arduously to
run
away from the concept of creation? Initially, we were talking
about
well and excellently designed universe. Roger deceitfully
attempted
to
pervert the subject. Mate, you're awesome at sophistry. Roger
admitted
though, that if something proved to be made, it must have a
maker.
This is a proper confession. Roger, why are you reticent to talk
about
your thoughts of death? What motivates you to be not so
transparent
about this? Is it the mysterious destiny that awaits you? Well
assuredly, it's nothing but eternal perdition, full of
considerable
weep, regret and intensely incessant agony. You're radically
obstinate
disposal will be utterly broken therein. The phenomenon of
Atheism
broadly emerged when Hebraism and Christendom dramatically failed
to
provide to their ostensible embracers the desperately demanded
spiritual satisfaction. Thence, people in the west are
spiritually
unsatisfied. They feel desolated. Some Atheists wish to find
another
path. But, they don't have time or interest to search for an
alternative. Death is indeed a disappointing subject for
Atheists.
They're just so afraid of it. Because they are predominantly
terrified
and unsettled as opposed to believers who're incredibly
attributed
to
positive attitude, certitude and placid temperament, they
unconciously
developed a mental state called protestation for publicity. They
knew
they're intensely despised in their communities. Therefore, they
just
cry outloud. They falsely chase a counterfeit persuasion that we
are
suppressed because we oppose traditional religiousness. They
dishonestly misuse and abuse scientific facts to wrongfully
justify
their Atheistic belief. Atheism is thinkingly so ridiculous. Thus
far,
they fallaciously force science into their irreligious sentiment.
We
shall see folks, who has longer breath as opposed to the one who
will
shortly be vanished. The question now, is the universe
excellently
designed? If yes, who made it so perfect? I wish someone
attempts
not
to be psychotic for just once.
On 12/10/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
If something is well structured and excellently designed then,
indeed,
that is sufficient to prove that it has been made. However, that
does
not give you license to claim that things that are not well
structured
and excellently designed are well structured and excellently
designed.
Again, if you have independent evidence for a maker then you
have
shown
that there is a maker. If you do not have that independent
evidence
you
are claiming that the object is well structured and excellently
designed
because it has a maker and it has a maker because it is well
structured
and excellently designed. That is circular reasoning. There are
many
objects that can be shown to have structure that came about by
natural
forces and with no conscious planning. A crystal is an example.
If
water
gets cold enough it will crystallize and become ice. That means
that
its
molecules align themselves with each other in a regular pattern,
but
there is not the slightest evidence that any consciousness
planned
it
that way and made those molecules align themselves. It happens
because
of how water molecules exist in the form that causes them to be
water
molecules. It remains that if you do not have independent
evidence
of
a
maker or even independent evidence of some process that caused
an
object
to exist then you just do not know why it exists. It is a
mystery
to
be
investigated and if you investigate you just might find out why
it
exists. If you just claim that you already know why it exists
without
doing the investigation, though, you are only making up things
and
insisting that your made up explanations are true. If you claim
that
the
existence of the object proves your made up explanation and that
the
made up explanation is what allows the object to exist you are
engaging
in circular reasoning.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis
for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/9/2018 9:36 PM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Roger, you are extremely petulant. If something is well
structured
and
excellently designed, that is sufficient to recognise that it
has
truly been made. Why? because our mind couldn't rationally
assume
otherwise. I do not base my assertion on circular reasoning.
circular
reasoning is a logical fallacy. It depends on constituting your
premiss with the very conclusion you destine to end with.
That's
not
the case with what I just outlined. I say, if something is
distinctly
designed, we couldn't rationally assume it hasn't been made.
How
did
it come into being then? Did it come into being by chance?
Forceably,
that's what Atheists like to propose. They certainly have no
evidence
for that. Experience with things that are less complicated than
the
universe in their design were proved to be made. So, how could
we
rationally assume that the universe which is consistent and
perfect
in
its unparalleled design has just been circumstantially
unfolded.
Anyone with sound intellect wouldn't believe this. Carl, your
open
letter to God was basically a sarcastic rhetoric and so Miriam
proceeded to this sarcasm. I now will get back to Roger. Why
are
you
offended with my preaching? Because you despise faith. It's for
none
of the reasons you mention, you just hate religion. Let us be
straightforward folks, you all hate religion for what it is. I
understand why, you live in the west and your either Jewish or
Christian background wasn't suffice to answer your spiritual
questions. So, you just decided to get rid of what seems to be
hassle
for you. By doing so, you have disposed spiritual allegiance
and
thence, ethical accountability has chronologically been
extinguished.
That is the tendency of those who are faithless. They are
indispensably despondent. In addition to that, they are
logically
baseless. They often use what I call, emptily argument or,
flimsy
philosophical propositions to just prevaricate. They
deliberately
miss
the essence of the matter. That's what I think of Atheists in a
not
shall. And as for Agnostics, they're not too different to be
quite
fair. An Agnostic is basically someone who is noncommittal
about
the
existence of God. So, he really doesn't care whether God exists
or
not, he just lives his utterly meaningless life. Consequently,
death
is a truly tough subject for these people. Especially, if they
are
seniors. I hope I successfully propelled a deadly striking
missile
at
Atheists of this broadly graveled mail distrubution list. I
have
long
breath with radical imbecility. Atheists aren't ready to
confront
the
stunning truth. They just like to be indoctrinated. They're
morally
convoluted and rationally defeated. Everything else flows from
this
point. If someone on this list has the genuine disposal and the
adequate ability to meet me on Skype for a lively recorded
debate
for
history to keep, please, keep me informed.
On 12/9/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Grow up, Mostafa. You claim to want to engage in a civil
discussion
and
yet you just keep up the childish insults. Now, I have
explained
to
you
over and over that if something is made then it has a maker,
but
there
is no reason to assume that everything is made. If we do not
know
of
the
maker independently of the existence of the object that you
are
claiming
is made we do not know that it is made. To claim that it has a
maker
just because it exists is circular reasoning. There is no way
around
it.
Now, why do you think you are obligated to alienate everyone
you
can
communicate with on the Internet with this never ending
preaching.
You
cause hostility against you everywhere you post a message.
That
is
because you will not engage in normal conversation. You just
want
to
push religion on everyone. You seem to be determined to make
yourself
unlikable.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only
basis
for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/8/2018 9:03 PM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Roger is miserably psychotic. Circular reasoning is a logical
fallacy
in which the reasoner begins with
what they are trying to end with. So for instance, you have
to
invite
John to your party because it wouldn't be nice not to do so.
You
must
have enough money to pay your bills each month because bills
have
to
be paid. I never used such argument though. When I said
everything
has
been made has to have a maker, I based my proposition on
essentially
two basic contentions, experimental and rational proffers.
Empirically, we never witnessed something that has made on
its
own.
Rationally, our sound intellect doesn't ratify that theory.
Roger
isn't able to reach a heightened state of maturity because of
his
mental retardation. Roger only approves philistinism. Thence,
he
merely gives credit to what is empirically examined. As a
chronological consequence, his proposition is emptily
litigious.
He
is
incompetent to cope with genuine logical thinking. I'd like
to
ask
those Atheists then, is the universe intelligently designed?
If
the
answer is yes, then it's logically quite natural to think,
who
made
this? If the answer is no, then you have to prove to me that
it
is
not
intelligently designed. If humans invented sophisticated
gadgets,
we
knew they made them. We could meet with genius artificers,
speak
to
them and so on. That's the stupidly Atheistic presumption.
Nevertheless, if you just entered a room and saw the light
turned
on,
you'll logically assume that someone was here. Arguably, if
we
saw
an
airplane and we didn't know who made it, does that negate the
fact
that it must be necessarily invented by someone? For
stereotypically
materialistic Atheists, yes it does. Their proposition is
mistily
seeded on the assertion that says, empirical research is
unambiguously
sufficient. They do not admit to the logical authority of
rational
evidence. That's fine, it might be a school of thought but it
is
not
the only one. People who embrace the rational theory assert
that
an
intelligent design logically necessitates the existence of an
incredible Designer and a Superintendent. This Being is
Providential,
Transcendent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
Furthermore,
He
is the primal Controller of our provenience, emergence and
the
Divine
Sustainer and the Maintainer of our biologically diverse
habitat.
I'd
like to ask Roger, what if you deceased and unfortunately
discovered
that was actually a God. What would be your expected
reaction?
I
knew
you might receive this question with some apprehension, even
if
you
strenuously attempt to conceal this absolutely stunning fact.
Roger,
you luckily won't be able to screw our intellects. You are
enormously
terrified of this moment because of its inexplicably obscure
nature.
You're rationally unbalanced. Well folks, that's the negative
legacy
of Atheism. It doesn't help its embracer to consistently
reach
up
to
a
reasonably logical conclusion about the three major questions
of
existence. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where
shall
we
be
post to death? Each and everyone asks these vitally critical
questions. Modern Atheism is enormously incompetent to
strategically
grapple with these crucial queries. Thus far, faith is a
fairly
suasive alternative. It at least gives us hope to cope. We
live
while
having a purpose, not just like cattle. Well, I mirthfully
await
to
receive Roger's typical salacity while deliberately
dismissing
my
key
rebutting elements. If someone is really willing to have a
further
discussion on this subject, I have Skype and we could
conveniently
schedule an arrangement. Thank you for reading, Mustafa
On 12/7/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Okay, Mostafa, let's look at who really flees from logical
discussion.
I
am not about to let you off the hook on this. I showed
explicitly
how
your claim that the existence of something shows that it had
a
creator
is a case of circular reasoning because it assumes the
conclusion
to
arrive at the conclusion. That is solid logic. What did you
do?
You
threw a tantrum and declared that I was going to endure
incredible
suffering. For one thing, that was far from engaging in
civil
discussion. For another thing, it was fleeing from logical
discussion.
When the logic showed you to be wrong you fled from the
logical
discussion and threw a tantrum. Then later you showed up and
said
that
you wanted to have a civil discussion about your theology. I
doubted
that you really did want a civil discussion because you sure
did
abandon
civility the last time, but I supposed that it was possible
that
you
had
changed your mind and so I tried to take up right where we
left
off.
Instead of engaging in civil discussion or logical
discussion
you
ignored my point about circular reasoning and started making
your
childish insults. That was both fleeing from logical
discussion
and
refusing to engage in civil discussion. Now, let me teach
you
something
about civility. If you want to be civil here is what you do
when
you
are
confronted by your own logical fallacies. If somehow I have
made
a
mistake you can show me how you did not commit the logical
fallacy
that
I pointed out to you. It would then be my job to either show
you
how
it
is you who is wrong or if I cannot do that, to concede the
point
and
say
that I was wrong and you were right. If you cannot refute my
contention
that you committed a logical fallacy it just might be
possible
that
I
failed to consider something on the way to illustrating that
and
you
might want to point that out to me and if you have a valid
point
I
would
have to concede to your validity. If you have no refutation
to
make
at
all, though, it is then your job to concede to my point and
to
declare
that you have been wrong and I have been right all along.
This
is
how
to
be civil. However, so far you have chosen to be not civil.
You
make
no
attempt to refute me, for one thing. That alone validates my
position
over yours. And instead of trying to refute me you start the
insults.
This leads me to another conclusion. Whenever you call for
civil
discussion you are being a hypocrite. Whenever you say that
someone
else
flees from logical discussion you are being a hypocrite.
Let's
put
it
this way. You are making yourself look like a complete fool
and
no
matter how much I give you the opportunity to redeem
yourself
you
choose
to continue to make yourself look like a fool. I would
suggest
that
you
try for a little self respect. And, by the way, it is not
very
self
respectful to declare in front of people who live in the
real
world
and
have lived in it all their lives and who have some idea of
how
the
real
world works that you believe in flying horses.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only
basis
for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/7/2018 12:18 AM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Hello. Last week, we briefly talked about the major factors
of
Atheism
emergence in the west. Today, I brought you a sternly
intriguing
aspect of the subject. Atheists constantly dissent with
faith
and
tradition. In order to be heard, they act rebelliously. For
many
traditionalists, they are considered apostates. Thence,
they
intemperately despise religious consignment. Nevertheless,
are
they
settled on scientific basis? We proved their infrangible
nescience
of
rational basics. Science to them is merely enveloped in big
bang
and
evolution theories which they gravely misapprehend. So,
what
is
the
psychological state of an Atheist? At its inception, they
generically
manipulate and hector others. They like to influentially
dominate
us.
They consider you to be so stupid and that's why you're
religious.
So
for instance, they generically associate cosmos
provenience
to
the
big bang theory. It is the cosmic explosion that is
hypothesised
to
have marked the origin of the universe. So, they base their
proposition on essentially conjectured conception. Well, is
the
big
bang a decisively scientific fact? Or, it's just the best
explanation
theorised by modern scholars. The Atheists will most likely
respond,
that the universe is perceived as opposed to God. We
couldn't
perceive
God with any of our five senses. Thereof, deception begins.
He
flees
from any logical discussion. For him, God is invisible. He
will
only
believe in Him if he could excuse me, examine Him at the
science
laboratory. For believers, that's a total blasphemy to even
imagine
this happening. Well unfortunately, that's the only way to
convince
an
Atheist about the existence of God, simple as that.
Therefore,
Atheists firmly stick to empirical evidence. Nevertheless,
they
accepted the big bang theory to interpret how this
universe
came
into
being. Well obviously, none of us witnessed the universe's
commencement. Thence, we theorised the big bang. So, they
tell
us
it's
not so intelligent to base concepts on theories but now, we
proved
they established their explanation of how the universe
unfolded
on
theoretical fundament. So now, atheistic fallacious
characteristics
have been revealed. They accepted what they relentlessly
denied.
Now,
when they have got nothing else to explain the mysterious
beginning
of
the universe with, they submissively sought refuge with
theoretical
explanation. Nevertheless, if we tell them that the divine
theory,
let
us just put it like this, the divine theory is the
rationally
proper
explanation of this well designed, well organised and
vastly
sustained
universe, they will obstinately decline. Now, would I be
possibly
scolded if I call them absolute chiselers? They are
psychologically
manipulated with abhorrently megalomanic state. If we are
to
somewhat
psychoanalyse their mental development, we'll find them
robustly
attempting to prevent rational substantiation. It's
tremendously
crucial to fathom this factor about them. Furthermore, they
attempt
to
coerce their debater to remain in what I terminologically
define
as
barren philosophy. It's basically a useless argument which
seeks
nothing but further argumentation. It therefore becomes a
vicious
cycle. It's one trouble leads to another that aggravates
the
first.
I
therefore urge my respected spectators not to unwisely
waste
their
time and intellectual vitality debating them. I would only
proceed
in
a conversation with some of them if they civilly concur to
abide
by
rational discussion's terms and conditions. I pragmatically
proved
to
you that Atheists are mostly eccentric people. Life is
utterly
purposeless for them and moral standards are radically
influenced
with
the theory of relativism. Atheistic perspective is
essentially
based
on materialistic view. If you like to know how an Atheist
thinks,
I
urge you then to read a book called the God delusion
authored
by
the
primarily substantial leader of modernday Atheists, English
ethologist, Richard Dawkins. Up until I concentratively
read
this
book, I didn't know something about atheistic psychological
tenets.
Now I knew they are radically grounded on philistinism.
Disclaimer,
this book is implausibly disgusting but it's definitely
worth
reading
if you wish to discern atheistic psychology. Thank you for
reading,
Mustafa
________________________________________
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
shoreless ocean.)
