Mustafa, you are being hypocritical again. You spout all of this
anti-intellectual supernatural nonsense and then you have the nerve to
accuse me of philistinism. But let's look at your contention that this
vast and complex universe had to have to had a creator. You don't have
much disagreement with Jason except that Jason was at least a bit better
in explicating his fallacies. But I have gone around with you about this
too. Let me do it again. You are repeating the fallacy of Thomas
Aquinas. He was the one who pointed at the complexity of nature and
declared it to be evidence of a creator because it showed such exquisite
design. He can be excused for not understanding such natural processes
as natural selection because that had not been discovered in his time,
but he was still putting the proverbial cart before the horse. I tend to
fall back to an example that another person who was expressing the same
fallacy to me made once. He pointed to a passing automobile and said
that the automobile was evidence of an automobile factory because there
was no other way that such a complex piece of machinery could have come
into existence without a designer and a creator. He was wrong. The
reason we know that cars are created in car factories is because we know
about car factories, not because of cars. We can go to a car factory and
take a tour of it. We can get jobs in car factories. We can watch the
cars take shape as they move along the assembly line. That is how we
know about car factories. If we did not know about car factories we
could not assume their existence from the existence of cars. The reason
for the existence of cars would be a mystery and we would have to find
out where they came from. There might be several ways to do that, but we
would not know where they came from until we had the evidence for their
actual origin. And this complex universe around us is a case in point.
There are scientists working on finding out why there is a universe and
the research has gone beyond the so-called big bang, but every time
something is discovered about where the universe came from new questions
are opened up that need to be investigated too. Ultimately, we just
don't know why the universe is here and not knowing does not mean a
creator. Not knowing means nothing but not knowing. Until we do know any
proclamations of what the answer really is is just making up things out
of nothing and that is exactly what your creator is, an assertion made
up out of nothing. Jason said that he could not believe that something
as complex as the universe could exist without planning and creation and
that he called that evidence. Think about that. He called his personal
incredulity evidence. Well, for that matter, I find his contention that
there was a creator to be really hard to believe too, but my personal
incredulity is evidence of nothing either. But look at what he was
doing. He claimed that something as so grand and complex as the universe
could not exist without something that would be even more grand and
complex and then had nothing to say about where this even more grand and
complex creator came from. When he was asked he simply said that god is
eternal and resides outside of space and time. He offered no evidence
that it was eternal nor did he attempt to explain where this outside of
space and time is. If he was going to do that then why didn't he just
simplify his unwarranted assumptions and just declare that the universe
itself is eternal and has no beginning or end. There are some
respectable cosmological hypotheses that make just that point, but there
is no evidence that it is true. It is another unknown, but at least it
is more credible than adding another layer of vast complexity that has
nothing to back it up. You have the same questions to answer yourself,
Mustafa. What is your evidence for this added layer of vast complexity?
Just having the inability to believe that it is not there is not
evidence. It is just the limitations of a small and philistine mind. I
have nothing that needs to be backed up. I simply say that I don't know
where it all came from. You are the one who is claiming that you do
know. So your contention needs to be backed up. So far you have done
nothing to do that. Well, you have company. Through all of history no
one else who makes the same claims that you do has ever been able to
back up those claims either. When you find yourself in that position the
only intellectually honorable thing to do is to say that you were
mistaken and that you don't know either.
On 7/28/2018 3:12 PM, Mostafa wrote:
I am so sorry, Mr Roger, I won't lower myself to the level of
unnecessarily insulting rivals. You are stuck to empiricism and
philistinism. Illative factors are not mere physicalism. Reason is
quite beyond this primitive proposition. Magic is not miracles.
Magic involves bewitchments, trickery and semblance. Ordinarily, it
perpetrates harm and damage. miracles involve unexpected and unusual
occurrences which are destined to substantiate prophecy. For you,
physical elements are the only accepted path of reasoning. That is
absolutely fine and you are free to think so. However, there are
plenty of universal evidence that are profoundly contradicting with
your irreligious sentiment. I do not have to give in to the grotesque
parody of materialistic experimentalists. Carl, I did not say the
universe is perfect. I said that the universe is vast and perfectly
designed. Thence, it couldn't be taken for granted to the unproven
theory of accidentalness. Universe factors as of numerous galaxies and
yet undiscovered creatures are persistently concomitant. We therefore
couldn't affirm to the claim that this vast and perfectly designed
universe has been found circumstantially. The existence of something
that has been made proves the existence of its maker, even though he
is not present to me. Things are perceived by what they are rather
than their physical shape. I knew Roger exists because he sends me his
own thoughts, even though I never spoke to him. His thoughts prove his
existence. This perfectly designed universe emphatically proves the
existence of its Creator, even though he is not physically present to
us. Carl, I do not resemble pride. You're conceded in this argument
and consequently, you are somewhat coerced to feel I am attempting to
be superior. I am the last one here who would attempt to do that. I
fend for my convictions. These opinions I stiffly hold up to, have
been concluded through a lengthy period of deep research, knowledge
and edification. It is pretty natural for me to think my perspective
is correct. Otherwise, why am I adhereing it? There are no two right
positions and in particular, if they obviously oppose one another. I
am here to continue supporting my point of view. I am not inundated in
philistinism. I hope we could consider coping with evidence that are
rational, and not necessarily physical. I would love to continue this
discussion with Carl. Although the latter and I may fundementally
disagree, I see that the man doesn't resort to using improper terms. I
respect each and everyone here. So please, let us carry on an
invaluable discussion. I look forward to reviewing intriguing threads.
Thank you and best wishes, Mustafa
On 7/28/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa and Others,
You have convinced me that you are totally set in your beliefs. In
fact, you set forth an impossible task when you ask, "Please, bring me
a
professionally written scientific entry that concludes the absolute
inexistence of the divine, based on plainly factual substantiations."
But even as you wrote those words, you knew that you would refute any
evidence that did not agree with you.
What concerns me is not that you are so set in your beliefs that you
cannot allow yourself to examine the beliefs of others, it is that in
holding to your position you deny any possibility that there are other
beliefs as valid as yours. But that is never the end of the matter.
Each group holding different beliefs will argue that they, and they
alone have the Truth Everlasting. In so believing, they always
consider all other beliefs to be in error, and even Evil. Since each
group knows beyond a doubt that they have the Truth that will be the
Salvation of Mankind, it is then upon their heads to convince those
holding wrong beliefs, of their errors. They must prevail over all
others, even if it means doing so by force.
The result will be an end to our Human Experience...and possibly of
all life on Earth.
Just one question, Mostafa. How is it that you are so Blessed as to
be among a group of people who have been given the Truth? In my world
we consider such people as these to be Fanatics. To believe that my
beliefs are the absolutely correct ones is a very conceited position
to take. those who profess to know the real truth also exhibit signs
of Superiority. And finally, for tonight, I disagree with your belief
that this is a perfect universe. This is a vast, ageless Place we
live in. We have existed for such a short time and we are stuck in a
small corner of this Place, that we are a very long way from
understanding what it is all about.
There is an old song that goes: "Fools rush in where Angels fear to
tread". And that is who many of us are. Fools.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/27/18, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl, I do not speak about implausible notions. I rather meliorate
criteria of liability. We haven't been brought to this world
purposelessly. We must pause and ask ourselves, what are we here for?
Are we here to just live as cattle? As a senior of Washington, you and
many are woefully inundated in vicious philistinism. Your intense
confidence that death leads to nothing is of immense illusion. The
radically arrogant rhetoric of irreverence is disgraceful to our human
species. Roger, I urge you not to explicitly assault those who
intellectually disagree with your convictions. What is your expertise
in the fields of Biology, Aerodynamics and Astronomy? Are you
specialised in any of these scientific disciplines? What have these
scientific branches introduced so far in the context of declining the
Divine? Studying these scientific fields deeply may actually prove
what's against your argumentative assertion of denying the Creator.
Science may not be the best resort to Atheists after all and
especially, when many of them nearly knew nothing about it. I think I
defined the word hypocrite before. A hypocrite is a person who
professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold in order to
conceal his actual perceptions and motives. So, how am I doing this?
I do not speak what I don't believe. I do not give support to
something I am not sufficiently convinced of. Please, bring me a
professionally written scientific entry that concludes the absolute
inexistence of the divine, based on plainly factual substantiations.
As a believer, I do not deny science and its significance. At the same
time, I do not believe that science could possibly encompass
everything in this vast and perfectly designed universe. Science has
greatly contributed to human intellectual development. However, it
couldn't comprehend everything in the universe because the latter is
illimitable and our scientific contribution is humbly circumscribed. I
do not care whether you are convinced or not. You are not a scientist
anyway. You are a Virginian senior. Therefore, I urge you to support
your argument with some proving elements. I primarily rely on sound
scientific corroboration. I strongly urge you not to seek refuge with
what doesn't give you validation. It'll be proper if you discussed the
subject more seriously. What does science say about God, and whether
he exists or not. Even Darwin, whom many Atheists seek refuge with,
did not claim the inexistence of the divine. So please, attempt to
respect your rival's intellectual adequacy. Thank you, Mustafa
On 7/27/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mostafa, and All.
Within my head, anything is possible. I can fly simply by pushing off
the ground. I can speak mighty speeches which move the Masses. I can
create amazing inventions that save our planet from its present road
to destruction. Anything I can imagine, I can do. And even outside
my head there are signs that anything is possible. There was the TV
program, Mister Ed, the talking horse. And before him there was
Francis, the talking Mule. My Mother the Car also extends hope that
our Souls will settle down somewhere.
So why not create Allah or God? Why not imagine that they are the
Perfect Beings? Why not believe that these Divine Ones have a Plan
for us. Even though billions of us suffer daily, when we Humans
possess the talent and wealth to bring relief to all who suffer, even
so, God/Allah will care for us in the Hereafter. Why not? Since we
seem unable to deal with the many wrongs in this world, why not invent
one where we live in peace under the rule of the Perfect Dictator?
Carl Jarvis
On 7/26/18, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) travelled to heaven on a
miraculous steed. This has nothing to do with irrationality. If you
take someone from ancient ages and told him about aircrafts, rocket
science or spacefaring, he probably won't believe you. If you do not
able to understand something, it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. If
you didn't see something that occurred in the past or at present in
your absence, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Nevertheless,
there is one problem with you. You do not recognise providential
omnipotence. You're intellectually discombobulated. If something is
not material, you won't believe in it. Apprehension lies quite beyond
mere physicality. Do you know what is really irrational? It's the
bogus presumption that this perfectly designed universe has been found
circumstantially. How long are you still going to live? Five, ten,
fifteen, twenty years or more. You'll eventually die. This decisive
fact is intemperately inarguable. Whether you believe or not believe,
you'll certainly face this infrangible destiny. Whether you believe in
Atheism, iniquity or Necromancy, you'll be send to eternal perdition.
You're offended whenever I bring the subject of death because you are
terrified of its mystical consequences for you. I do not have any prob
with your atheistic nation which is of nescience, cowardice,
satanicalness and mental instability. I am utterly emancipated because
I do not allow the immurement of materialism to manipulate my manner
of thinking. Everything you believe is of the materialistic nature of
where you live. You, Carl, Bob, Miriam and others are the production
of excessiveness of philistinism. Almost everyone in your regional
bases are possessed by philistine prevalence. I love my conception of
liberty. I am felicitous with my standards and fundementals. I am not
to be controlled by someone just because he is materialistically
superior. Carl always says he doesn't like to be influenced with
religion. Well, I quite like not being the opposite. I won't ever
submit my soul to anathemised Lucifer. I want each and everyone of
you to try looking at stats of suicide incidents in his or her region
in the States. We then could examine, has the perfectly materialistic
life of the United States precluded people from committing suicide? If
considering suicidal acts is not common in the United States, why have
they provided the national suicide prevention lifeline then? Is life
with abandoning faith really the proper choice? For me, it isn't.
Suppose I did everything in this temporal life, what's next? Arguably,
I travelled to the States, became an Atheist or whatever they call it,
made big money, slept with remarkably gorgeous missies and so on.
After all this, what am I going to feel? Is life just of material
expenditure? I wish someone answers this question fairly. Mustafa, a
competent writer in plain English. He took from the west beneficial
knowledge and wholly disposed otherwise.
On 7/26/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Your religion is rational? Let me ask this question again that so far
you have ignored. Do you believe that Muhammad visited heaven by means
of riding a flying horse to get there?
On 7/25/2018 2:21 PM, Mostafa wrote:
Hello everyone, thank you so much for these interactive threads. Bob,
why would I wholeheartedly embrace Islam if I doubt it being the
truely straight path to prosperity? Why would I unnecessarily flatter
those who I fundamentally disagree with? If I did so, this will
basically be hypocritical, which is to profess perceptions or virtues
you don't hold. This is a characteristic you previously criticised
and
falsely accused me of bearing. Carl, what Roger wrote has nothing to
do with proper discussion or inference. First, he said that religion
is full of evil. When I asked him to provide a proof, he basically
diverged and resorted to call religion superstitious. What is a
superstition? It is an irrational belief arising from ignorance or
fear. I do not believe in superstitions or mythical notions.
Everything in my religious shrine is explained and has rational
basis.
What is not explained, why would this very organised vast universe be
based on an unheralded theory? There is no experimental procedure
that
corroborates the big bang theory. Again, your experience of religion
is not equal to mine. I live in a region where religion is
significant
and has impact in everyday life. You live in a region where religion
is spiritually emptied. Churches are not enjoining their fellow
congregants to adhere any moral conduct. Thus far, ethical devotion
is
relative and may vary from place to another. This is because, as I
said yesterday, religion has been separated from state governance and
social affairs. It therefore became useless in western arena. I now
want the question which I asked yesterday to be fairly answered. If
religion is full of evil as Roger claimed, did Hitler hold into
religious motives when he engaged in world war two? What is the
religious motive for North Korea, Iran or Israel to develop nuclear
power? Religion may be perverted by some bunch of beguilers for
political gain. But, the lack of genuine spirituality has led to the
rife phenomenon I bear witness now in this list. Faith abandonment is
quite dominant nowadays in the west. Here in Egypt, there are some
atheists and agnostics. They do not embrace thoughts of their
independent ponder. Everything they say is precisely ingeminated from
western Atheism. This is another practical instance of civil
defeatism. I wish everyone here to think, why did any of you become
Atheist or spiritually irreverent? If you look at your private life,
you'll notice the chronological order by which you became where you
now are. But, you do not know something about my religion, where I
come from and my language. I in return, knew about your culture,
language and history. This is why I am sitting here, responding in
plain English to your bold statements about religion and what it
signifies. I hope you recognise the difference between us. And,
please, do not twist my sentiment and tackle my queries thoroughly.
Thank you for reading, Mustafa
_________
On 7/25/18, Bob Hachey <bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mostafa,
You really do seem to believe that Islam is the only proper
religion.
IT
is
that kind of thinking that will be the death of us all. Similarly,
some
fundamentalist Christians and orthodox Jews feel the same about
their
religions. IT is that kind of zealotry that has throughout history
lead
to
war.
It is very strange how these religions that claim to offer good to
the
world
offer bigotry and disdain for those they see as non-believers.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mostafa
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 2:16 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: ICE Officers to Asylum Seekers:
'Don't
You
Know That We Hate You People?'
Bob, religion is not crucial in western societies. Subsequent to
French
revolution, European nations embraced total separation between faith
and
state governance. As the United States is the production of European
immigration to North America, it precisely imitated the European
disintegration of faith in action. So it rather became, faith
inaction.
Islam has rules and regulations for everything including territorial
jurisdiction. This is the reason for which the west attempts to
relentlessly
defame its jural principles. According to Austrian foreign minister,
Islam
is declined because of its governmental ordination. So, it has
nothing
to
do
with promoting terror and that nonsense. Mass Christendom and
Hebraism
concurred to utterly disintegrate between faith and state governing.
We
have
the right to persistently fend for liberty of religious practice. We
have
the right to prosecute for religious sacrilege. The United States
doesn't
have to abide by our legal authority. As for Atheism and what Mr
Roger
blankly claimed about religion, he seems to have failed to implement
proper
intellectual inductance. As for world wars one and two, what was the
motive
for them? Had Hitler been waving a religious banner, we would have
portrayed
religion as full of evil. Korea and its atomic dementia, what has
this
to
do
with religion? What about Israel and its relentlessly enormous
savagery
on
Palestinians, what has this to do with religion? What about this
cannibalic
war in Syria, what has this to do with religion? Religion in itself,
doesn't
call for evil. Its follwers may misuse some of its tenets to
suppress
and
reach up to certain political ambitions. I confirm what I stated
below,
there is significant difference between faith in the west versus
here.
In
the west, everything seems to be tolerated. People may go to Church
while
engaging in illicit wedlock. Regular Churchgoers may not necessarily
marry
their patooties if authorised marriage is costly to them. So, I hope
list
viewers recognise the substantial difference between your conception
of
religion versus our.
Thus, I hope Mr Roger clarifies his uncorroborated statement about
religion.
I do not agree with Atheism nevertheless, I do not say it's full of
evil
without proof. To claim that Zionism, for instance, is established
on
iniquity and injustice is pragmatic and decisively substantiated. I
hope
we
are able to proceed on a productive discussion. I hope to see Mr
Roger
finally able to engage in more serious discussion. What has world
war
two
erupted for?
On 7/22/18, Bob Hachey <bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mostafa,
Your message here is dripping with hypocrisy. You seem to claim
that
Islam is far superior to Christianity. By making the kind of
blanket
statements you made here, you are acting much like the hypocritical
Evangelical Christians. You accuse all Christians of being greedy
hypocrites. That would be like me accusing all Muslims of being
terrorists which I know is not true.
The more I read and the more of life that I experience, the more I
wonder if we humans would be better off without all religions. The
bottom line here is that there is good and bad in all religions.
Bob Hachey
An agnostic bordering on atheism
