Hi Mostafa,
It seems to me that you have exactly the same amount of proof of the existence
of God as folks like carl and Roger have that God does not exist. That would be
zero.
An old RMB classic from Billy Preston tells us that "nothin from nothin leaves
nothin."
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mostafa Almahdy
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 9:36 PM
To: Roger Loran Bailey
Cc: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The west and growing disbelief, the
psychological state of Atheists
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
________________________________________