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
________________________________________