[blind-democracy] Re: Original Sin

  • From: "Roger Loran Bailey" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
  • To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jason Meyerson <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:28:51 -0400

Indeed, truth is that which corresponds to reality, but you sure don't find truth through metaphysics. The only method of finding truth is through scientific method. Even people who have never heard of science find any truth that they do know about through scientific method. The first person who saw a hornet's nest and thought, I wonder what would happen if I put a stick in that and swished it around and then did just that was performing a scientific experiment. Provided that he survived the experiment and reported it back to the rest of his community he had added to human knowledge. If he had asked what would happen if he put that stick into that hornet's nest and decided that he would pray on it to get the answer he might have gotten an answer, but it would amount to an answer that he had just made up. And like I said, the number of things that you can just make up is infinite and so the probability of just happening to get the right answer that way is one in infinity. That is to say, he would have gotten the wrong answer. The way we know that the scientific method is the only way to get correct answers is by the results. The computer you or whatever device you are typing on came about through science. The Internet is brought to you by science. When you find yourself in a hospital receiving medical treatment you are benefiting from science. It is so obvious that science brings us truth more efficiently than metaphysics that I really do wonder why it was not worked out earlier rather than over the centuries that it took. Whoever that might have been who experimented with hornets so many thousands of years ago and likely hundreds of thousands of years ago is likely to have believed in spirits too. However, he got no knowledge from his spirits. He got knowledge from his forays into science even if he did not know what science even was. Science was not an invention either. Science and its ingredients like logic or reproducibility are really examples of characteristics of the universe and they had to be discovered. No one ever just proclaimed that science works. People had to try it and find out that when they did they found things out and when they prayed they did not find things out. The metaphysical method of just making things up or else considering the implications of other things that have been made up gets you nowhere and people who urge others to use that method are doing a disservice to humanity. And, yes, that means that religion is one really big disservice to humanity. How much further might we have gone if we had not been saddled with religion? As I have pointed out, throughout all of history every time humanity has advanced, whether it be scientifically, socially, economically, educationally or otherwise, religion has always been there, without exception, decrying, denouncing, obstructing, and sabotaging. This makes religion a great evil. It needs to be abolished. But how should it be abolished? Actually, my political movement does look to the abolition of religion, but it cannot be done by suppression or decree. For one thing, we stand for freedom and that includes freedom of religion. Everyone has the right to believe whatever he or she wants to believe no matter how wacky it is. The way to abolish it is by first recognizing what it is. Religion is a complex set of superstitions that comprise an ideology the main function of which is to justify the prevailing class society. That makes it an oppressive institution right there. But that would mean that the way to abolish religion is by abolishing class society and then the religion would have nothing to justify and so it would wither away. However, we would still have a problem with it. If that's all we did the ideology would be gone, but the superstition would remain. Superstition has been around for a long time before religion or class society was ever invented and superstition can be very harmful by itself. Theoretically the next step, or more accurately, the concurrent step, would be to ensure that everyone got a good secular education that emphasized how harmful superstition is. Personally, though, I don't think that would completely eradicate superstition. It would go far and I fully support providing that kind of education, but I don't think it would finish the job. What would finish the job? I am not sure, but I think I know where to look for the answer. The big question is how can anyone hold a superstitious belief at all? How can anyone continue to believe something when it is demonstrably false? I think that if we are ever to find an answer to that we have to do so through neuroscience. But until we do find out the answer to that we should move forward to do our best to free humanity by the means we have.


On 6/2/2018 5:11 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:

Roger,

Truth is that which corresponds to reality.  Reality or the study of reality is metaphysics, what is real or nature of reality.  In part it will be based on assumptions, presuppositions.  They are underlying beliefs.  You have them and they are not scientific. With these underlying premises you develop a metaphysic.
And by using merely observation (which can be flawed in the sense of there is a reliability factor) and declaring the scientific method as the method of discovering truth is another problem.  If the scientific method is how you discover truth (I would say it helps us find facts) then how is the scientific method declared to be true or a true way?  Does it get a pass? Because if it is true then it violates the concept that it is the  method for finding truth.  The scientific method didn't find itself.  In fact you have made philosophical assumptions and have presuppositions that can get you to using the scientific method, but you can't start there.  And if you try starting there (with the scientific method) you have to back up and examine your presuppositions and worldview to see if using the scientific method even makes sense.  I do not think your worldview supports the necessities for even bothering with the scientific method.
Is it true that you find truth from observing and accepting and manipulating and seeing what happens?  How ?
You do not even believe in absolute truth and you claim you could be wrong about everything, on top of how emotionally upset you are, why would I want to follow you into a place of no truth and contradiction.
You don't like God, religion etc... That is about all that is clear to me.

On 2018-06-02 15:27, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
If your goal is to seek truth there is one thing that you must give
up. That is religion. Truth is another word for how reality really is.
You find out how reality really is by observing it and accepting what
you observe and by manipulating it to see what happens and accepting
the results. About the only truth you can pick up from the ancient
writings of primitive people are the truths about how ancient and
primitive people thought. One of those truths is that they were very
superstitious. By accepting their primitive superstitions as truth you
are making yourself look like an ignorant fool yourself. Here are some
facts for you. You do not get the word of god from ancient texts. You
do not get the word of god from modern preachers You do not get the
word of god at all. There is a very good reason that you do not get
the word of god. That is because there is no god. We live in a real
universe. We do not live in some fantasy land where magic gets us what
we want. Magic is another one of those superstitions. An invisible
being with magical powers does not exist. If you will just pay
attention to the real world you would realize that. If you really
believe in magic then send that magical flying horse to me that
Muhammad rode to visit heaven and have him take me on the tour too.
There is a question that I have neglected to ask Moustafa, but I would
suppose he believes that Muhammad rode a flying horse to heaven. But
that is just as bat-shit crazy as saying that an invisible magical
being speaks to you through some uneducated guy who got himself
nailed up some two thousand years ago. Honestly, ever since I first
heard about this stuff back when I entered the first grade I have been
astounded that anyone could possibly be so naive and gullible as to
believe this stuff. It really gets to me,, though, when they expect me
to believe it.
On 6/2/2018 2:58 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:

Thanks for the display of love.  I gave you the definition and words for love in another language.
I do not understand your question, I answered you briefly about how to determine the will of God.  Ultimately He wants us to trust Him.  I told you what He wants is revealed in His word and in His Son.  The premise is that if there is an omniscient, omnipresent omnipotent God would He not be able to communicate through man? Obviously that would be easily possible.  You reject His Word, so I mentioned you could try talking to God and see how He communicates to you, that is prayer.

I hope the insults and name calling at least make you feel better, not sure how you think they help or prove anything.
My goal and search has been for truth, we have evaluated your stated premises beliefs and presuppositions and I think even you see how hopeless and problematic they are.
 Jason
On 2018-06-01 20:38, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Okay, I asked you how do you know what this god thing wants for us and
you give me this stuff about love being wanting the best for someone
else. I can accept that as one view of love. Like I said, it is a
nebulous word that means a lot of things. But what does that have to
do with the question? And yes, I do want to follow up on things and
get to what is true, but I am not going to do that by following an
anti-education pro-ignorance bunch of religious claptrap. I have said
before that I consider religion to be a great evil and you are doing a
good job of validating my point. You do that when you present blatant
falsehoods and call it evidence. You do that when you repeat
creationist lies. But, guess what? I want the best for you. Does that
mean that I love you? Maybe if you want to include that as one of the
various senses of a nebulous and vague word. But because I want the
best for you I implore you to drop the superstitious celebration of
ignorance and go out and learn something.


On 6/1/2018 5:36 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,

Where exactly do insults and seeming fits of rage fit onto the Secular Humanist scale of morality?
I think it is great you have some kind of moral code (even though it is arbitrary and man made) but even with a human code I am guessing you still break it.

I gave you a definition of love I wrote:'And love in the New Testament, agape is wanting what is best for someone else regardless of their actions, it is unconditional love. "
in Biblical or Koine Greek there are 3 or 4 words for love. Phileo, Eros, Storge and Agape.  Maybe that will help you out. And love in the agape sense is unconditional, modeled as sacrificial and is an action not a feeling, meaning you may not like someone but you can still love them, because you want what is best for them.

I am not deflecting questions, again you do not like the answers, you reject them and then accuse me of something which is not a flattering pattern.  You want me to defend a false god that is bound by time and space, I am not interested.
And your understanding of Jesus and the Bible are incorrect. I understand where you are coming from, from your perspective.  But if you want to follow things out to what is True and get to absolutes etc... that is where it leads.

Jason
On 2018-06-01 15:27, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Oh, I see. First you make up an invisible being that resides outside
of space and time so that you can deflect all requests to show it and
then you say that you know what this invisible being wants by
following the word of some guy who got into trouble with the local
religious leaders some two thousand years ago and got himself executed
by torture and who did not leave any known writings of his own, but
you know only what he is reputed to have said because you have been
told by people who were writing after all the witnesses had died. How
can you spout such fucking bat-shit craziness and not even flinch from
embarrassment? And then you have to bring love into it. Okay, what is
love? That is something I have put some time into figuring out because
I am the type who says what he means and means what he says and so
nebulous and vague words vex me. Love is a word that expresses a
subjective emotional state. Let me assure you that I realize that the
existence of subjective states is a part of objective reality, but a
subjective state is still not a state that can be objectively shared
with others, so explanations of them in subjective terminology tend to
be vague by necessity. So I wanted an objective definition of that
subjective state which gets so much commentary. I note that the word
love is used in a good many disparate situations. People speak of love
of country, love for a pet, love for close and distant relatives, love
of a favorite food, love of certain kinds or of all books, romantic
love and on and on. That is something else that contributes to the
vagueness of the word. The more meanings a word has the vaguer it
becomes until when a word means everything it means nothing. The word
love does not mean everything, but it means so many different things
that it is very vague. It is apparent that in this case the word is
being used to describe various different emotional states that have
little to do with each other. I would prefer it if there was a
different word for each of those emotional states, but I don't have
the power to change the language. There are just too many speakers of
the language who would not cooperate with me. So I looked for an
objective definition of the word love that would not leave out any of
the various uses of it, or at least not the very most frequent uses of
it, and would bind them all together. With a clear objective
definition it is easier to put my vexation aside. Here is what I came
up with that covers what most people seem to mean even if they don't
know it. First, let us recognize that love is a transitive verb and if
it is expressed only as a state it is as the state of transitively
acting upon it. As a transitive verb love must have an object or it
becomes meaningless again. So, love is the manifest desire to be as
near to the object of the love as possible up to and including
touching the object, or if the object is an intangible or an
abstraction then love is the manifest desire to interact with the
object of love as intimately as possible. By the way, this objective
definition allows for different degrees of love. The desire may be
weaker or stronger depending on the degree of the manifestation of the
desire. Now, you used the word love in an extremely vague way, so it
would be good of you to tell me either how the word love that you used
fits in either with the objective definition that I came up with or
else give me an objective definition of your own that can be used to
figure out what the fuck you said.

On 5/31/2018 10:34 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:

Roger,

thanks
As to knowing God's will.  First we would need to know about God, there are things we can ascertain by natural law, looking around and observing.  And there is His Word and then His incarnation(When I speak about God I am talking about the Creator God of the Bible).  so for example we have Jesus teaching what are the 2 great commandments (in the torah 1st 5 books there are 613 commandments) He says Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and strength, and the 2nd is like it, Love thy neighbor as the self. We find that love is the interpretive lens to read the law. And love in the New Testament, agape is wanting what is best for someone else regardless of their actions, it is unconditional love. Later on Jesus will say Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, an interesting teaching because it is the positive version of a teaching that already existed in several cultures- do not do to others what you do not want done to you. These are vastly different.   He would also say and I assume you would like this one regarding what it means to be great from Matthew 20
26 "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave-- 28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
So there are things we know are His will and things we know are against His will, like murder or theft and then times when we are not sure and this gets to prayer and things like that. We do talk to God and even for you as an experiment if you wish to extend this hypothetical, can talk to Him.  You can even ask Him if He is real and to show you.   I do not expect the concept of prayer to make sense at this point, but you did ask.
If someone has harmed me and I want to personally kill them or hurt them the Bible does not teach for me to do that, so my will needs to be changed.

Sorry to disappoint you, it is not because you did not explain your position, I just did not assume that would be what you would say regarding complexity in this situation. Because there is a distinction the ability of a brain you may describe as complex, but the basic ethics and logic exist and are not necessarily complex even though non material. But still the mind which is material has developed non material functions and recognizes non material things?  I do not think you have as of yet really explained that as a function of algorithms and energy and matter. Where do non material things come from? They cannot only be a product of the mind, that would be some trick for matter to be able to pull off.  And if ethics and logic were just products of the mind they again would be arbitrary.  There would be no reason to hold them as laws or standards.  They must be existing outside of the mind as nonmaterial 'entities' that we could say we discover or become aware of.
I would like to hear from you how you get around all the contradiction and the arbitrariness that your worldview forces onto you.

Thanks
Jason

On 2018-05-31 20:20, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Putting aside all the distortions about things I have said in this
message you state that it is not about man's will, but about god's
will. Okay, just supposing that there really is such a magical being
as god then just how do you determine what god's will is? I see no way
that it can be done other than that it is your own will that is
ascribed to god. Just how can you tell. Now, still putting aside most
of this distortion of what I have said because I really do only have
limited time to respond to emails, let me skip to something that you
said toward the end. You said that I still have not explained how
nomaterial things like ethics can come from material things. I have
so! I explained how complexity has and does come from the less complex
and that includes extremely complex things like the human mind that
has its concerns and works out how to relate to other human minds and
people. How could you have missed something like that that I spent so
much time explaining to you?
On 5/31/2018 6:55 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,

Thanks
I mentioned the Bible in saying God's will be done, in response to what you wrote about 'religious' people using God or religion to get what they want.  My point was that is not a Biblical teaching, it contradicts the teaching of the Bible. It is not about a person's will but God's. Further while you do not accept it the Bible it is the word of God and quite different than Harry Potter books.
I am not sure how to restate the issue here regarding Human Progress.  I have mentioned the concept of being arbitrary of just being opinion, about how you could be wrong about everything you know.  And yet you still propose to not only know what is best for humanity but how to move forward against the will of others, sounds like arrogance to me.  On top of that I tried to explain how that seems a bit hypocritical of you since you claim to be so bothered when others do the same. Which part is missing here?
Further you talk of morality (or whatever you want to term it) rights and meaning and ethics.  I am asking here again very specifically how do you have an authoritative ethic? Additionally, Where do the rights come from?  And how is there meaning?  As an atheist I have pointed out that your stated beliefs contradict these very concepts, to be clear not that they do not exist in atheism but that they are arbitrary and merely opinions and preferences.  Further how would voting be the best way to determine the course of action?  Voting or majority or mob rule are certainly flawed and not a reliable way to determine truth.  Why not let the minority have their way instead of the majority, they are just as likely to be correct if there is even a correct answer.
I have not claimed religious people are more ethical. However I have showed you that your stated positions could only give you an 'ethic' that was merely opinion and is arbitrary.  I do not see how you have a way around that, you just state you have or follow an ethical system, I understand.  You have ethical beliefs that you believe to be right and you are willing to try and force them on others, yet all you have are opinions.  You cannot have an authoritative or absolute ethical standard because your ethical system comes only from men (who are flawed and limited).  Only from God could we have an ethic that is absolute that is prescriptive that is an absolute standard for right and wrong. Any other system will just be a competing opinion and is arbitrary, and then you are left with how to resolve the differences of opinion, all being equal, not one being better than another.

Your example regarding sexuality, I would say who invented sex? If indeed it is God's invention then He has some say as to its use and purpose etc... That seems reasonable.
Sexual behavior as long as it is consenting.... Is that true?  Is it absolutely true?  You are making a truth and knowledge claim here, again, and yet you claim not to know and that there is nothing you are certain about.
Additionally you have yet to explain how non physical things could arise from the physical, immaterial things from the material. Where does meaning, truth, logic, ethic come from in atheism?
Jason
On 2018-05-31 15:27, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Okay, the bible says god's will be done. So what? What does that have
to do with determining reality? Like I said, the Harry Potter books
say that wizards ride around on broomsticks. So what? They still don't
no matter what the Harry Potter books say. Now there is an issue that
you did not address. Why is it that various people claim to know what
god's will is and say things like god wants this or that without the
slightest evidence that is what god really wants and it just so
happens to agree with what the person who is making the assertion
wants? Doesn't that sound like a scam to you? Now, as for determining
what is best for humanity, that is a whole different subject. Society
would have to be drastically changed to achieve it in any meaningful
way. Since the advent of class society people have taken privileges
for themselves have used their power to dictate to the rest of us. But
there are certain ethical considerations. One is that when an action
effects only one person he or she has the right to decide for him or
herself whether to take the action. Alas, there are not very many
decisions that effect only one person. When the decision effects two
people neither has the right to impose it on both of them without
consulting with the other and coming to a mutually satisfactory
decision. If it effects three people ... well I hope you see where
this is going. Would votes have to be taken if we could reach a
situation in which all of humanity participates in their own decision
making. I would hope that a consensus could be arrived at in most
cases, but when the opinion is divided closely then it just might have
to be done. What about the losers of such a vote. Well, if they could
go off and make a different decision without causing a problem for the
majority I suppose they would have the right to do that. If they could
not do that then the decision of the majority would have to be imposed
on them. But there is a big difference between that and what we have
now. Now we have a minority imposing its decisions for itself on the
majority whose interests do not match that minority. That is
unethical. Putting aside the speculation about the specific mechanics
of an ethical world, though, that was not really the issue. The issue
was that you were making a very arrogant and bigoted religious claim
that religion has the market on morality cornered, that religious
people are the only moral people. That kind of claim is so arrogant
that it is really astonishing. Or, at least, I would be astonished if
I was not already used to encountering religious arrogance. But such a
claim is entirely false. There are ethical and moral systems other
than religious ones. That is another objective fact that religion
denies just like it denies other objective facts. Now, having said
that, I will add that I, personally, do tend to avoid the word moral
or its other forms like morality in reference to myself or causes I
support. That is because religion has given morality a bad name. The
way religious people tend to use the word it seems to mean that it is
a way to denounce other people for minding their own business. This is
especially true in the case of sexual behavior. Sexual behavior, as
long as it is consenting, is simply the business of whomever is doing
it. Religion has a strong tendency to interfere with other people's
sexual practices denouncing it as immoral. The way I see it, if they
think it is so immoral they are perfectly free to just not do it
themselves and stay out of other people's business.


On 5/30/2018 11:43 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,

I do not support using God as a way to impose my or anyone else's personal opinion onto everyone else. The Bible says God's will be done, and we are to try and ascertain that, and yes sometimes sincere people may even disagree on some of what that means, but that is not a problem with God, but with man.

Interestingly you are proposing the same thing you complain of, to impose what you and the majority think is best on society.
Is majority rule really the way to determine the best course for humanity?  Certainly did not work in Nazi Germany.  Can the collective majority not be wrong? Is every election where the majority picks a winner the right choice for humanity. Did scientific breakthroughs become true only when the majority agreed with them?  I will stop with examples now but majority rule is a terrible way to determine what is best.  In fact the majority believe in God, so there would be a big problem for you there.

The idea that you know what is best for humanity is a serious problem.  You have said already you do not know anything for certain and could be wrong about everything you know. You have an opinion about what is best, and it may even be informed and may sound reasonable, but it is merely your opinion and maybe the opinion of some or many others.  There will be contradictory opinions held by many other humans as to what is best.  How do you resolve the discrepancies? Just vote?  If you have your opinion and someone has a different opinion regarding what is best, how is it you feel that forcing your beliefs about what is best for humanity is ok? You clearly do not like people trying to force what you believe to be opinions or ideas you disagree with onto you, but you have no problem doing the very same thing?
And since it is unlikely we would get anything close to a universal agreement on what is best for humanity, couldn't we say the same thing you are saying, that people would try and use this what is best for humanity idea to get what they want and impose their opinions?
Without God (a source for a standard of good greater than humans and without error) I do not see how you can force your ideas and beliefs, which are merely human opinions, onto others.

Jason

On 2018-05-30 22:16, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
I think that ideally the way to determine what is best for humanity is
by collective decision. The problem is to change society so that such
a situation can be realized. But it still remains that even if you
want to leave it up to some all powerful and all knowing being, what
does that have to do with whether that being exists? You still haven't
proven that any such being exists to leave it up to. And then, if we
assume without evidence that it does exist right now then how do we
determine what decisions it makes in regard to what is best for
humanity? So far as I have ever seen those who claim that it does
exist also claim to know exactly this oh so powerful being wants and
for one thing it always wants what the proclaimer of its existence
wants and, second, each person who claims to know just what this all
powerful being wants disagree about what it wants. That sounds
suspiciously like using the claim of its existence to impose one's
personal opinion on everyone else to me.
On 5/30/2018 5:46 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
The dilemma is real that without God you have no way to any certainty or truth and without a doubt would have no idea what is best for humanity.  The only solution is if there is someone greater than humans. If there is an all knowing all powerful all present being, then we would have a path, a way to knowing what is absolutely good or true etc... Without God or a source greater than humans, for a standard for good we just have arbitrary opinions. Your opinion, mine, someone else's if we are all human than whose do we choose? Do we vote on it? does the majority decide? No.  We won't agree on what is best so do the strong pick?  Is it by war?  If it is just your opinion and ideas versus mine or others and we cannot determine which one is really the best or what is best, how do you justify forcing your moralistic view of what is right on me?
BTW the God of the Bible and His plans are often not the plans and ideas I would choose.


Jason


On 2018-05-30 17:11, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Well, with god how do you know what is best for humanity? So you make
up an invisible man with magical powers who lives in the sky and you
claim that you know what that invisible man's opinions are and they
just happen to match your own opinions. Wouldn't it be better just to
say that you know what is good for humanity instead of making up some
fairy tale character to blame?


On 5/30/2018 4:03 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Carl,

Thanks for the reply.
I think your premise is interesting but problematic. Of course who could argue with Human Progress?
But here is the thing about that being done without God. How do you know what real progress is?  What is the right direction for humanity? I am sure you have your thoughts and opinions regarding that and others will have different or even opposite thoughts and opinions regarding what is best for humanity. There is no universal consensus, except maybe in a very broad unspecific and general way. When you begin to state your personal preferences and opinions about what is best for all of humanity you are working from an ethical/moral perspective.  Why is your morality any better than someone else's? and why would you want to influence and to what degree do you want to influence other's moral choices and outcomes? I am trying to keep this short, but I hope you see the dilemma.  It gets to the issue of how do you have a real morality without God and just something arbitrary.

Thanks
Jason

On 2018-05-30 10:56, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Radio waves...interesting.  Of course since we know that a radio in
good working condition is built to receive an invisible(to us)signal,
and we have turned on that radio hundreds of times, then it is no
longer Faith anymore than saying you have Faith that the sun will rise
in the East.  But maybe if you found a person who never knew radios
existed, and you handed them a radio, and told them to "turn it on",
and they would hear Heavenly music...
Anyway, as I said before, it's an effort in futility. Those who are
convinced that God exists, will either attempt to convince you, or
simply ignore your best arguments. And those who do not believe in
God, will try to convince those who do, that they are wrong.
As an Agnostic, I simply dismiss the question regarding God's
existence, and get down to discussing whether the forms of religion
that exist today are interfering with Human Progress. But that's a
discussion for another day, and I have clients needing our attention
today.

Carl Jarvis

On 5/29/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly. If you have evidence then it is not faith. He said that he got
that stuff about trust from the bible and maybe he did. I haven't
memorized the entire bible to verify it, but I do know that this
definition of faith comes from the bible: The evidence of things unseen.
Now what does that mean? Does that mean that when you turn on a radio
and hear sound that sound is the evidence of the unseen radio waves? In
that case I just listened to some faith this afternoon in the form of a
news broadcast.


On 5/29/2018 12:37 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Roger, you have embarked upon an Impossible Mission.  While I
appreciate your discussions, and learn from them, any belief that your
reasoning is being received is simply a flight into Never Never Land.
Jason wrote: "I do not have the same definition of faith you propose.
Faith is trusting, and is based on evidence.  It
is not a check your brain at the door, blind leap, quite the contrary."
But he does not explain what he means by "evidence".  In my mind,
evidence would negate Faith.

Carl Jarvis




On 5/28/18, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In response to what I said you seem to largely ignore what I just said
and then distort the rest. First, how is it scientific to ignore the
supernatural? I just got through telling you that the supernatural
excludes itself because if ever anyone found out that a supernatural
proposition was actually true that would mean that it was not actually
supernatural at all and had not been supernatural all along. The
supernatural is that which is not real, that which is made up, that
which has no evidence to back it up. To accept such claims as true
cannot be scientific because science is the study of reality and
requires testable reproducible evidence. Next, you do not seem to
understand that asking someone to prove a negative is not even a
legitimate question. Think about this. Suppose a murder was committed
and the police, instead of looking at the available evidence and
following up on it, instead just opened a phone book and randomly picked
out a name and it happened to be yours. Then you were hauled into court
and charged with murder and without a shred of evidence against you
convicted you. I am sure you would be pointing out that they did not
prove that you did it. But what would you say when told that you didn't
prove that you didn't do it? Actually, the only way to prove a negative
is to prove a  positive that contradicts the positive form of the
negative proposition. For example, how do we prove that there are no
square triangles? If every triangle we have ever examined is not square
isn't it possible that we just have not examined enough triangles and
that there might be a square one out there somewhere? The way you prove
that there are no square triangles is to show that a square, by
definition does not have the requisite characteristics that define
triangles. That is, the condition of the square contradicts the
condition of the triangle and so excludes the possibility of square
triangles. Without the positive concept of the square the proof that
there are no square triangles is meaningless. That leaves even asking
for proof of a negative meaningless. Suppose I claimed that ameboid
aliens from the Andromeda galaxy were burrowing into the brains of
epileptics making them have seizures. Would you believe me? If you said
no then what would you say if I then said that you can't prove that they
are not so it must be true? Again, there is an infinity of propositions
that can be made up with absolutely no evidence that they are true and
the probability that any one of them actually is true is only one out of
the whole set of propositions, that is, one in infinity. One chance in
infinity is pretty much the same thing as saying no chance at all. So
rejection of supernatural propositions is not an expression of faith. It
is simply rejecting the utterly absurd. Now, as for dialectical
materialism, I don't know where you got it that I am saying that
everything is matter and energy in motion that over time develop other
properties. I do not necessarily believe that all of reality consists of
just matter and energy. For the most part the part of reality that we
deal with is, but the cutting edge of physics is finding some evidence
that point to multiple dimensions and the existence of any dimensions is
apart from matter and energy in the first place. It also appears that
space itself has a fabric of its own that is not matter and energy.
There are also some other possibilities that are much more highly
speculative. Among these speculations, though, is not one that is an
invisible man with magical powers in the sky. Dialectics, though, is an
inherent characteristic of the universe that is not developed over time
or other wise. Apparently you do not understand what the word even
refers to. Let me use a classic example of a dialectical relationship to
illustrate it, master and slave. A slave cannot be a slave without a
master. If you take away the master the whole concept of being a slave
ceases to have any meaning. Also, the slave master cannot be a master
without a slave. Without someone to force to be a slave the concept of
master also becomes meaningless. Yet master and slave are contradictions
of each other. The slave's interests are completely opposed to any
interests that the master may have and the master's interests are
completely opposed to the slave's interests. So there is a constant
struggle between them. In order for their relationship to continue to
have any meaning they must interact with one another and the interaction
can never be any other than opposition and struggle against one another,
This results in changing both of them. Now, if you look around you
should be able to see many other dialectical relationships in not only
human society, but in nature. Dialectics gives the universe a dynamic
other than the dynamic of entropy alone. Let me point out that these
things are observable. To believe in the clearly observable is not
faith. If you want to distort the word faith and call it trust then it
is not trust either. It is observable. Other things can be inferred from
the observable too, but even if it is not directly observable it is
still not faith to believe that they exist. Faith is simply the act of
believing in a superstition.


On 5/28/2018 9:31 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the reply.
How is it scientific to exclude out of hand the supernatural? Are you
interested in truth? If so then how can you exclude some
possibilities?  IMO you would be better to just say you do not believe
in the Supernatural, that is your expression of faith, because it is
not an expression of truth or evidence. You presuppose that the
universe and material are all that there is, without knowing
everything you would not be able to say definitively that the
supernatural does not exist, or preclude it from the discussion.
I also disagree, that people who claim the supernatural, all do so
without any evidence.  The question becomes what is evidence? What
would someone accept as evidence? Complexity and design in and of
themselves are evidence in every aspect of our physical world. Does
not mean someone cannot reject it, but it is still evidence.

One line of evidence is the problem with materialism. You try and
escape this problem by (in my understanding of what you are saying
regarding dialectic ) saying everything is matter in motion, chemistry
and physics but over time they develop additional properties. You are
proposing, I think, that material only, develops non material
functions?  So matter that only has physical properties in a physical
universe over time develops non physical properties. Disorder to
order, no information to information, predeterminism to free will, no
mind to mind, no morals to morals, no life to life. These kind of
things are quite the leap and random interactions and time in and of
themselves do not explain these things in the slightest.

Your point about probabilities is interesting but I believe flawed.

I am not talking about disregarding evidence, I do not have the same
definition of faith you propose. Faith is trusting, and is based on
evidence.  It is not a check your brain at the door, blind leap, quite
the contrary.  In fact I think you display the kind of faith I am
describing in a sense.

You seem to assert a line of truth exists and inherit in that is also
a morality.  How will your subjective morality be anything but
arbitrary in a world without God. Whatever you think is right can
only be your opinion and maybe the opinion of some others, and yet you
seem to express your morals as if others should be subject to them or
share them.  Without out a supernatural personal God, you will not be
able to defend or proscribe morals/ethics, know what is truly real and
be able to defend logic, or really even do science. I know that is a
large chunk of a sentence, but wanted to lay that out for you.

Thanks
Jason

On 2018-05-27 22:20, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
The supernatural is precluded from being real simply by being
supernatural. If a supernatural claim should be shown to be real then
at that point it is determined to be a part of the real world and it
is determined that it always was a part of the real world. However,
that is irrelevant to those who tout the existence of the
supernatural. They just claim that it is real without worrying the
slightest bit about evidence and that strikes me as indistinguishable
from insanity. It is a matter of believing on the basis of faith.
Faith is the act of believing without any regard at all to either
reason or evidence. If a belief by faith just happens to be correct
then it is correct only by the wildest of coincidences. That is
because there are a lot more ways to be wrong than there are to be
right, infinitely more ways. If we disregard evidence or reason we can
pick out anything to believe and there are an infinity of choices.
That means that the chances of being correct are exactly one in
infinity. Infinity, that is a decimal point followed by an infinite
number of zeros before you get to a digit that is not a zero. And that
means that you will never reach a digit that is not a zero. Basing
one's beliefs on the observed reality around us does not guarantee
correct beliefs, but you do increase your chances to at least
somewhere in the finite. Second, yes, I am a strict materialist. Now,
after having said that I will go on to say that a lot of people have
some pretty strange and false ideas about what a materialist is, but
if you are one of them I cannot predict with misconceptions you have
in order to refute them right now. But I am a strict materialist in
that philosophical idealist explanations strike me as complete
nonsense. As for free will, I don't know. I will go so far as to say
that I am not a mechanical materialist and I gravitate toward
dialectical materialism. So I do not hold to the concept of a
clockwork universe in which all of our wills are predetermined by
atoms bumping against one another. At the same time I will say that
there might be some hope to salvage something like mechanical
materialism. A lot of people say that mechanical materialism has been
overthrown by the advent of quantum physics and its quantum
weirdness.  I have my suspicions that quantum behavior could be
explained by events going on in subPlanc space. However, at this time
there is no way of seeing into subPlanc space, not even theoretically.
So the question will have to be open for quite some time to come. Even
if mechanical materialism is shown to be true at a subPlanc level,
though, that would not preclude dialectics. There would still be
contradictions in the universe that would depend on one another for
their mutual existence and by interacting they would still change each
other. But I do thoroughly reject claims that there is an invisible
man with magical powers in the sky. It is really so insulting for
anyone to approach me with the expectation that I will believe any
such thing. It is insulting and offensive.
On 5/27/2018 9:38 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,

Thanks for the reply. Regarding this reply and the other one you
sent regarding theology.
I guess the questions would be:
How do you know there is nothing supernatural? Wouldn't you have to
know 'everything' to definitively say there is nothing supernatural
or non physical?  I am assuming you do not know everything, so the
other question would be: could you be wrong?

Are you a strict materialist, meaning do you believe there is
nothing that is non physical or supernatural? How about free will
or determinist?
Is science then the method for determining truth, for you?
What is real (reality) is in fact objective, I agree, metaphysics.
But many people have presuppositions regarding what is real.

thanks
Jason

On 2018-05-27 14:24, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Of course I believe in truth. And one big truth is that truth is
objective reality. It is not made up superstitious blathering found
in
so-called scripture or holy books.


On 5/26/2018 9:58 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Do you believe in truth?
Thanks
Jason

On 2018-05-26 19:53, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
According to the scriptures? Okay, according to the Harry Potter
books
wizards ride around on broomsticks. What does any of this have to
do
with it being true?

On 5/26/2018 3:53 PM, Dan Boone wrote:

Bob,

�

You write much more eloquently than I do. However, Jesus used
simple
words to communicate significant meanings, so will I. I have not
read most of your posts, but somehow thought I would interject
some
quick points concerning this one:

�

1.) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has been historically proven to have
been
written 15-20 years after the resurrection. This has been
confirmed
by many notable skeptics to be the oldest actual piece of New
Testament scripture that has been found. It was also an early
Church
Creed:

�

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4
that he
was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the
Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the
brothers
at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have
fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one
abnormally born. NIV

�

We should stop and think about all of the ramifications that
would
have happened if the above Scripture was not true considering the
time it was written and all of the people involved in the
statement.


�

2.) Once a person realizes the perfection of a Holy God, and just
how significant that understanding is to the opportunity of
eternal
life, then the same person will realize why sin had to be
extinguished by the propitiation of the One who was both Holy and
capable of sinning (the God-Man, Jesus)!!

�

Dan Boone

�

�

This message has been sent as a part of discussion between
Church of
the Harvest of America, Inc., or one of its associated ministries
and the addressee whose name is specified above. Should you
receive
this message by mistake, we would be most grateful if you
informed
us that the message has been sent to you. In this case, we also
ask
that you delete this message from your mailbox, and do not
forward
it or any part of it to anyone else. Thank you for your
cooperation
and understanding.

�

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob [mailto:ebob824@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:46 PM
To: Scotty; Scott; Sam; Russell; Rick Harmon; Rev Mark; Pia;
Peter
the hater; Paul California; Pastor Al; Ohio 3; Ohio 2; Ohio;
North
Carolinian; Natallie; Nancy; Mssionary work outreach; Monica;
Missionary work associate; Miller, Clay; Mike Johnson; Matthew;
Kids
Pastor; kchurchlady@xxxxxxxxxxx; Kane; Joe; Jews; Jessica; Jenn
Hanna; Jenifer; Jason of Fruit Cove; Jason Meyerson; James F.
Holwell; Jakob Jackson; Heather of Minnesota; Heather Kentucky;
Heather Judson; Hannah; Erin Mehl; Erin Conway; Dr. Bill Coates;
Donald Moore; Deborah Kerwood; David the Pastor; David; Dan
Boone;
Church staff member; Charlie Isbell; Chandler; Carrey Cannon;
Cara;
Canadian; British Council; Brian Hartgen; Brett Mehl; Brad;
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; American; Allen Dicey; Alabama; A.
Fadden
Subject: Original Sin

�

��� Dear all, peace be with you. Today, we inshAllah
are going to critically

readdress the concept of Redemption and Original Sin in
Christianity.

Original Sin is basically the backbone, it is the bedrock on
which
the

doctrines of Redemption and Crucifixion are based. Original sin
is
the

doctrine that Adam and Eve had offended the divine presence. It
is a
sin

said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam and Eve as They
sinfully ate

from the forbidden tree. That led them to be taken out of� Eden
and thence,

had earned their descendance eternal damnation. As Christian
Apologists say,

someone had to pay the bill of this mass blasphemy and thus, God
sent his

only begotten son to sacrifice himself for the sake of humanity.
Whilst this

concept is� apparently�� consistent and
chronological,� it is not accepted

as it fallaciously seams to be. To this distorted concept, there
are


theological and juristic objections. Theologically, this concept
is
refuted

with the repudiation of condescending the divine to the temporal
pursuance.

Those who insist to disgraciously desecrate the divine by falsely

proclaiming that he had to die on the cross for their sins, or
that
he had

to send his merely begotten son to die for� mass resentment,
they desecrate

the divine Omnipotence with imperfection. It essentially depends
on
whether

you belong to those who consider Jesus as God without internal
distinctions,

a Unitarian, or you�re an adherent of Trinitarianism. No one is
absolutely

sure of who died� on the Cross or, if there was even a
Crucifixion in the

first place. The Christian Epiphany� is reprobated with the
Transcendent

Omnipotence of Allah glory be to Him to either atone or penalise
without any

discretion. Juristically, this concept is morally inadequate, for
what it

incorrectly consents of sanctioning the innocent for the sake of
the
guilty.

On a judicial� level, justice is conducted with decisive
evidence and

incisiveness.� Christian Ministers constantly emphasise on the
emotional

aspect of their Redemption chronicle, without paying much
attention
whether

it matches up to the principles of divine justice. I don�t care
how

affectionate the story might sound to be. What matters to me is,
how
just

this concept is? I want Christian missionary activists to ask a
competent

jurist of their domestic residence, is it licitly excusable for
you
to

punish the innocent on behalf of the guilty who justly deserves
retribution?

The conversation is temporarily suspended at this point. The
problem lies

over beyond a particular tree that has erroneously been eaten. It
worsens

when a particular race is intrinsically� depicted as cr�me
de la cr�me for

just its texture or complexion. This is what they modernly
define as
racism.

The United States ranks as the topping racist nation worldwide.
Its
racial

history is filled with disparity and ethnic secernment. It bases
its


purportedly patriotic sentiment on often racial inequality and
topical

divergence. That is what we should rather call, Original Sin.
Racial
acts

are enormously minacious to social stability and coexistence.
There
shall

not be any tolerance of exerting discriminative practices,
either on
gender,

ethnic, social or religious basis. That is our everlasting
combat as
humans,

resembling the unity, peace and safety of our precious species.
Islam

doesn't bear our initial parents accountable for Original Sin. It
rather

recognises Lucifer to be the first sinner. His trespassing act
has
involved

committing pride. Consequently, he has been expelled, depressed
and

anathemised. As Muslims, we have a totally different concept
of� Original

Sin. I wrote about the subject because I believe it is of worth
noting.

Thank you for reading, Bob Evans

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.


https://www.avast.com/antivirus











Other related posts: