As an Agnostic, I don't get hung up as to whether Jesus was Divine, or
whether He was Real, or whether He was a Composite of all that we
Humans hoped to become.
To me, Jesus was the latter, and His spoken Word symbolizes the
Positive Side of Human Nature.
After so many years, how can we honestly know who Jesus the Man really
was? When I think of how many stories are woven into the lives of our
Forefathers, like those of George Washington, stories that raise them
above the Rabble, and place them onto an Ivory Pedestal. And those
folks lived less than 250 years ago! Imagine what they will sound
like after another 1,000 years.
So it's the message that lives on. Jesus was probably as real as
Homer or Alexander the Great, but it was the meaning of His words that
were the important thing, like the meaning of the fight between
Goliath and David, or the battles of King Arthur and his knights of
the round table. All of it tells me that Mankind has had a very long
struggle in attempting to overcome his Base Nature, to rise above our
base human grub, and emerge as the beautiful Butterfly that flutters
within the breast of every Man, Woman and Child.
Carl Jarvis
And frankly, that is the battle we all should be involved in, if we
have any hope of being around in another 1,000 years.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/29/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> OK.
>
> I have a question about Jesus, however. If he actually existed, how do we
> know anything about what he was really like and what he said? Could he be
> just a symbol of human aspiration?
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:38 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: News of the day
>
> Without going back and reading what I wrote, I thought I said that the two
> Bushes, Kennedy and FDR were members of the Ruling Class.
> And when I condemn "The Ruling Class", it is always with the understanding
> that it is not each individual, but rather, it is the collective abuse of
> the current Ruling Class. Here in America, the Ruling Class is and has been
> from the day the ink was put on the Constitution, White Male Landholders.
> When I talk about, "The Working Class", I do not intend to suggest that
> everyone who is within that category is hard working, honest, caring and
> disadvantaged. What I see as the Working Class are those people who are
> underwriting the goals of the Ruling Class, and supporting their life style
> as well as defending their Right to be the Ruling Class. But within the
> Working Class are a growing number of people who no longer wish to do the
> bidding of the Ruling Class. When that number grows it could well bring
> about the overthrow of the long established Ruling Class. And so, the
> Ruling Class has gone about protecting its position. The development of the
> Military/Industrial Complex is the brain child of the Ruling Class, not that
> of the Working Class. Control of the public media and of the Press is
> another defense of the Ruling Class. Our Public Education is also a control
> by the Ruling Class, even as the efforts are going forward toward
> privatizing education.
> Of course, human beings being such diverse creatures, there are many good
> people scattered up and down our Class Structure. And by the way, most of
> the "good" people are mixed bags. For example, I consider myself to be a
> good person, a member of the Working Class, critical of the government,
> critical of the long established Ruling Class and its Colonialism, concerned
> that nations are becoming subjugated to powerful international corporations,
> a strong believer and supporter of Human Rights and human dignity, and yet I
> spent my life working to "protect" the position of the Ruling Class. As I
> said, I pay my taxes which go toward murdering innocent people around the
> world, I worked for most of my life as a government employee, supporting the
> Establishment that I criticized, and doing my best to care for myself and my
> wife and our families above and beyond those of others.
> Finally, I am well aware that it is Human Nature that turns a dominant Group
> of People into an Oppressive, controlling Greedy, self serving Master
> Race...like the American Empire.
> Even those among us who understood that we need to find a way to control our
> own Human Nature, people like Jesus, even Jesus became entangled in the
> Human Web, mixing His philosophies into the religion and the government of
> the day. And both religion and government seized upon His teachings and
> corrupted them for their own use as a controlling tool.
> Even Jesus was a product of His world. Taken alone, His teachings are
> powerful. But they must be modified and carefully controlled in order to be
> of use to those wishing to continue in power.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
> On 6/28/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Well first of all, FDR, Kennedy, and the 2 Bush's were members of the
>> ruling class, not wannabees.
>> Second: I don't want to shock you or anything. However, it is
>> conceivable that an individual who was born into a family that is part
>> of the ruling class, might be a really good, kind, moral human being.
>> I'm not saying that the people whom you mentioned were, but really, to
>> condemn every person who is born into a wealthy family is as
>> prejudiced and discriminatory as condemning all poor people by assuming
>> that they're all lazy or stupid.
>>
>> Miriam
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:52 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: News of the day
>>
>> In my lifetime I have not seen a single president who would serve as
>> an example to me. Even my great hero, when I was young, FDR.
>> All of these men served, to one degree or another, the Ruling Class.
>> Most of these men were not even of the Ruling Class. But oh how they
>> longed to belong. FDR, Kennedy and the Bushes would probably be
>> allowed in. But the rest? Pretenders. Lackeys. Shills!
>> My three heroes are unknown to most Americans. First, my dad, Clyde
>> Fletcher Jarvis; next, Al Fisher; and lastly, Paul Robeson. Men of
>> principle. Men who knew how to stand tall for the causes they believed
>> in.
>> If our species survives, it will be due to Jarvis, Fisher and Robeson
>> and many, many other unsung heroes, not the Trumps and Bushes or the
>> Clinton's and Obama's, who took their pieces of gold and bent to kiss
>> the hem of the Koch Brothers royal robes.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> I read a really long article about Obama last night, about what he's
>>> doing.
>>> What he's doing is what he's always done, taking care of himself. I
>>> may have already mentioned it on this list. So there are members of
>>> his party who are very distressed with him because they feel that he
>>> should be leading the "Resistance", doing more to fight what Trump is
>>> doing. I find it interesting that the well known political figure who
>>> is doing all he can to fight back, Is Bernie Sanders. He is making
>>> speeches and introducing legislation. He visited Puerto Rico after
>>> the hurricane. He made a statement about the Israelis shooting the
>>> demonstrating Gazans. Obama played Golf with other rich people,
>>> traveled to foreign countries, and has been making speeches for high
>>> fees like $300,000. There's a podcast called, Reveal from The Center
>>> For Investigative Reporting and PRX which I resubscribed to yesterday.
>>> They did a report on immigration and I learned that under Obama,
>>> families were also separated, nothing as drastic as what is happening
>>> now, but it was happening. I was releaved that in the report, they
>>> managed to make a gentle statement about how the problems in South
>>> and Central America from which people are fleeing to the US, are a
>>> result of US policy. It was comforting to know that this is being
>>> said on podcasts other than those on the far left.
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> <blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:32 PM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: News of the day
>>>
>>> They say that it's always darkest before the dawn. But that bright
>>> light is probably the end of civilization.
>>>
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/27/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> Justice Kennedy is retiring. Sometimes, he voted with the liberal
>>>> justices.
>>>> Now that he's retiring, Trump can appoint another right wing judge.
>>>> We already had 3 terrible supreme court rulings today, upholding the
>>>> Muslim ban, destroying union funding, and ruling against a
>>>> California law that required crisis pregnancy centers to tell
>>>> patients that abortion is available in California. The supreme court
>>>> will now have a
>>>> 6 to 3 right wing majority.
>>>>
>>>> If you can find a way to hear today's episode of Intercepted, you
>>>> should do so. It is the recording of the live show they did on June
>>>> 21 with Sy Hersh and it's excellent.
>>>>
>>>> However, Seymour Hersh confirmed my belief that we are now a Fascist
>>>> state, that it's impossible to impeach Trump, and that Trump may
>>>> very well win a second term.
>>>>
>>>> Miraculously a very young, Puerta Rican social democratic female
>>>> with out big money, won the democratic primary in NYC against a ten
>>>> term well funded machine Democratic congressman.
>>>>
>>>> Each day, I encounter evidence that my aging brain is becoming more
>>>> scrambled.
>>>>
>>>> Miriam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Friday, June 29, 2018
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Re: [blind-democracy] There Is No Plan: Can the 2300 Children Find Their Parents?
The United States has crossed the line...again. It definitely meets
the definition of a Rogue Nation. The USA has become so uncaring
toward those seeking asylum that now even the well being of little
children is disregarded. Think of it, babies and small children are
torn from the arms of helpless parents and sent away without any
ability to return them later. Those small children who possess the
ability to speak, mostly do not speak English. Many are so young that
they do not even know their own last names. Think of those American
adults who are charged with seizing these poor children. These
Americans were raised in a nation that prides itself on being the
Center of Compassion, the promoter of democracy, built on the
traditional family unit, believing that, through our being raised in
the Village, we are compassionate people.
So how do we justify the behavior of those whom we raised in such a
caring environment? Or is that loving environment just another
myth...a lie meant to placate Americans.
Personally, I am filled with sorrow, grieving for those children and
their families, because I know full well that this unfeeling
government has no way of reuniting families. This rogue government
sent its goons with orders to seize children, not to register them.
The families are being treated as herd animals, not as suffering
humans.
Shame on those who claim to be American Citizens, raised on our
democratic values, shame on them for their unfeeling treatment of
those people crying out for protection from the oppressive Lands they
have fled.
But before we say that America has "lost its way", we need to review
our own violent history. From the time the American Flag first was
raised, we have been ruled by an Oligarchy of White, Male, Land
Owners. Corporate Capitalism is the tool that keeps most Americans
in line. Capitalism, and its expanded Corporate nature, is structured
in such a way that those in the Ruling Class will always maintain
control over the Land and the natural resources, and they will use
those resources to control the living standards of those who labor for
them.
Ripping apart families seeking our help does not make sense to most of
us Americans. But the Ruling Class has a purpose for this behavior,
or they would not allow it to happen.
We need to think about just what the reasons are. This exercise is
important if we want to understand our own place in the American
Empire's Class Structure.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/22/18: > There Is No Plan: Can the 2300 Children Find Their Parents?
> By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News
> 22 June 18
>
> On May 5, the US government began separating children from their migrant
> parents.
>
> 2,300 youths remain in shelters and foster homes across the country.
>
> There is no system to reunite them.
>
> HHS is responsible for the children. ICE has jurisdiction for the adults.
> There is no plan for these two agencies to work together.
>
> Parents who are no longer detained "are entitled to get their kids back
> through a documented process," U.S. Department of Homeland Security
> Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said.
>
> What process? The Trump's zero-tolerance strategy is brand new. He has
> ordered that all immigrants illegally crossing the border will face
> criminal
> proceedings rather than civil proceedings. On its face, it makes no sense
> to
> charge refugees with misdemeanors. The devil is in the details.
>
> Traditionally, criminal defendants are separated from their children.
>
> Trump knew he could use this tradition as a fig leaf to hide his goal. He
> and his buddies figured he could use this family separation as leverage to
> get his policies through a divided Congress.
>
> These families speak many languages. A number of them are Native American
> languages, known to few outsiders. Who will do the translation between
> these
> refugees and these HHS and ICE officials? After 9/11, only a handful of
> government officials even knew Arabic.
>
> These 2300 children are now located at 100 sites scattered across 17
> states.
> Their parents can literally be on the other side of the country - if they
> are still in the country.
>
> President Trump's executive order says nothing about reuniting the
> families.
> It does these families no good. The damage is done.
>
> Many of this young people will be scarred for life. Think of the anguish
> their parents are suffering.
>
> What Trump, his aide Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions
> committed is far more than a mass human rights violation. It is one of the
> most terrible crimes anyone can imagine.
>
> Furthermore, these men have endangered the security of American citizens
> around the world. Civilized nations are convinced that our country has lost
> its collective mind.
>
> But punishment for Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and others cannot
> be the first priority.
>
> The first priority is to reunify the children with their parents. How can
> it
> be done?
>
> The Washington Post reported that the Texas Civil Rights Project is
> representing more than 300 parents and has only tracked down two children.
>
> Natalia Cornelio, the project representative, stated many children arrive
> at
> shelters without the facility knowing that they have been separated from
> their parents. It is easy to mistake them as unaccompanied minors - not
> children seeking reunification.
>
> Detained parents are supposed to get a flier providing a toll-free number
> for the HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement to help them find their
> children. Even this simple act is fraught with problems.
>
> One is that many of the parents are not going to be able to read the flier.
>
> The second is that many of the parents are not receiving the flier.
>
> The third is that the rules are not being followed by the feds.
>
> Families following "the rules" and going to designated checkpoints seeking
> asylum were treated as criminals and had their children separated from them
> in these last few weeks. The ACLU is seeking a national preliminary
> injunction to reunite the families of these asylum-seekers. Why should
> anyone assume that the feds will follow the rules for the rest of the 2300
> children?
>
> Additional lawsuits have been filed to reunite all of the children with
> their families. That is good. Every day matters. This may be the moment
> that
> immigration policy finally gets the attention it deserves. But what we need
> right now is a second win.
>
> Because - right now - in the real world, not the legal world - it looks
> like
> hundreds of families will never be reunited. Parents have already been
> deported to countries such as Guatemala and Honduras. What will happen?
> Toddlers can't tell you their name, or where their parents come from.
>
> People of goodwill are gathering at the airports again - this time, to try
> to track any children being shipped around the country.
>
> When interviewed by PBS (beginning at 2:55), Texas public defender Sergio
> Garcia was despondent about the prospects of effective reunification. "I
> would say zero."
>
> NBC's approach was mordantly upbeat. "23andMe is donating kits for genetic
> testing to reunite kids with their parents."
>
> There is no plan.
>
> There is a simple solution.
>
> Bring all the children into one hall.
>
> Bring all the parents inside.
>
> Let them find each other.
>
> - Bill Simpich
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Simpich is an Oakland attorney who knows that it doesn't have to be
> like this. He was part of the legal team chosen by Public Justice as Trial
> Lawyer of the Year in 2003 for winning a jury verdict of 4.4 million in
> Judi
> Bari's lawsuit against the FBI and the Oakland police.
>
> e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
>
>
>
>
the definition of a Rogue Nation. The USA has become so uncaring
toward those seeking asylum that now even the well being of little
children is disregarded. Think of it, babies and small children are
torn from the arms of helpless parents and sent away without any
ability to return them later. Those small children who possess the
ability to speak, mostly do not speak English. Many are so young that
they do not even know their own last names. Think of those American
adults who are charged with seizing these poor children. These
Americans were raised in a nation that prides itself on being the
Center of Compassion, the promoter of democracy, built on the
traditional family unit, believing that, through our being raised in
the Village, we are compassionate people.
So how do we justify the behavior of those whom we raised in such a
caring environment? Or is that loving environment just another
myth...a lie meant to placate Americans.
Personally, I am filled with sorrow, grieving for those children and
their families, because I know full well that this unfeeling
government has no way of reuniting families. This rogue government
sent its goons with orders to seize children, not to register them.
The families are being treated as herd animals, not as suffering
humans.
Shame on those who claim to be American Citizens, raised on our
democratic values, shame on them for their unfeeling treatment of
those people crying out for protection from the oppressive Lands they
have fled.
But before we say that America has "lost its way", we need to review
our own violent history. From the time the American Flag first was
raised, we have been ruled by an Oligarchy of White, Male, Land
Owners. Corporate Capitalism is the tool that keeps most Americans
in line. Capitalism, and its expanded Corporate nature, is structured
in such a way that those in the Ruling Class will always maintain
control over the Land and the natural resources, and they will use
those resources to control the living standards of those who labor for
them.
Ripping apart families seeking our help does not make sense to most of
us Americans. But the Ruling Class has a purpose for this behavior,
or they would not allow it to happen.
We need to think about just what the reasons are. This exercise is
important if we want to understand our own place in the American
Empire's Class Structure.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/22/18: > There Is No Plan: Can the 2300 Children Find Their Parents?
> By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News
> 22 June 18
>
> On May 5, the US government began separating children from their migrant
> parents.
>
> 2,300 youths remain in shelters and foster homes across the country.
>
> There is no system to reunite them.
>
> HHS is responsible for the children. ICE has jurisdiction for the adults.
> There is no plan for these two agencies to work together.
>
> Parents who are no longer detained "are entitled to get their kids back
> through a documented process," U.S. Department of Homeland Security
> Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said.
>
> What process? The Trump's zero-tolerance strategy is brand new. He has
> ordered that all immigrants illegally crossing the border will face
> criminal
> proceedings rather than civil proceedings. On its face, it makes no sense
> to
> charge refugees with misdemeanors. The devil is in the details.
>
> Traditionally, criminal defendants are separated from their children.
>
> Trump knew he could use this tradition as a fig leaf to hide his goal. He
> and his buddies figured he could use this family separation as leverage to
> get his policies through a divided Congress.
>
> These families speak many languages. A number of them are Native American
> languages, known to few outsiders. Who will do the translation between
> these
> refugees and these HHS and ICE officials? After 9/11, only a handful of
> government officials even knew Arabic.
>
> These 2300 children are now located at 100 sites scattered across 17
> states.
> Their parents can literally be on the other side of the country - if they
> are still in the country.
>
> President Trump's executive order says nothing about reuniting the
> families.
> It does these families no good. The damage is done.
>
> Many of this young people will be scarred for life. Think of the anguish
> their parents are suffering.
>
> What Trump, his aide Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions
> committed is far more than a mass human rights violation. It is one of the
> most terrible crimes anyone can imagine.
>
> Furthermore, these men have endangered the security of American citizens
> around the world. Civilized nations are convinced that our country has lost
> its collective mind.
>
> But punishment for Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and others cannot
> be the first priority.
>
> The first priority is to reunify the children with their parents. How can
> it
> be done?
>
> The Washington Post reported that the Texas Civil Rights Project is
> representing more than 300 parents and has only tracked down two children.
>
> Natalia Cornelio, the project representative, stated many children arrive
> at
> shelters without the facility knowing that they have been separated from
> their parents. It is easy to mistake them as unaccompanied minors - not
> children seeking reunification.
>
> Detained parents are supposed to get a flier providing a toll-free number
> for the HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement to help them find their
> children. Even this simple act is fraught with problems.
>
> One is that many of the parents are not going to be able to read the flier.
>
> The second is that many of the parents are not receiving the flier.
>
> The third is that the rules are not being followed by the feds.
>
> Families following "the rules" and going to designated checkpoints seeking
> asylum were treated as criminals and had their children separated from them
> in these last few weeks. The ACLU is seeking a national preliminary
> injunction to reunite the families of these asylum-seekers. Why should
> anyone assume that the feds will follow the rules for the rest of the 2300
> children?
>
> Additional lawsuits have been filed to reunite all of the children with
> their families. That is good. Every day matters. This may be the moment
> that
> immigration policy finally gets the attention it deserves. But what we need
> right now is a second win.
>
> Because - right now - in the real world, not the legal world - it looks
> like
> hundreds of families will never be reunited. Parents have already been
> deported to countries such as Guatemala and Honduras. What will happen?
> Toddlers can't tell you their name, or where their parents come from.
>
> People of goodwill are gathering at the airports again - this time, to try
> to track any children being shipped around the country.
>
> When interviewed by PBS (beginning at 2:55), Texas public defender Sergio
> Garcia was despondent about the prospects of effective reunification. "I
> would say zero."
>
> NBC's approach was mordantly upbeat. "23andMe is donating kits for genetic
> testing to reunite kids with their parents."
>
> There is no plan.
>
> There is a simple solution.
>
> Bring all the children into one hall.
>
> Bring all the parents inside.
>
> Let them find each other.
>
> - Bill Simpich
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Simpich is an Oakland attorney who knows that it doesn't have to be
> like this. He was part of the legal team chosen by Public Justice as Trial
> Lawyer of the Year in 2003 for winning a jury verdict of 4.4 million in
> Judi
> Bari's lawsuit against the FBI and the Oakland police.
>
> e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
>
>
>
>
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Fwd: [blind-democracy] Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One Is Talking About It
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:38:56 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12
Minutes, and No One Is Talking About It
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
While we still talk about War Hawks, the truth is that it is the
Greedy, Fat, War Hogs that are sucking up our tax dollars. Each of
our hard earned dollars that go into the Pentagon Budget represents a
body part of an innocent Human Being.
America has been slipping in many catagories, but we are well out in
First Place when it comes to Murder by Bombs.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/20/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One Is Talking About
> It
>
> Pixabay
>
>
> We live in a state of perpetual war, and we never feel it. While you get
> your gelato at the hip place where they put those cute little mint leaves
> on
> the side, someone is being bombed in your name. While you argue with the
> 17-year-old at the movie theater who gave you a small popcorn when you paid
> for a large, someone is being obliterated in your name. While we sleep and
> eat and make love and shield our eyes on a sunny day, someone's home,
> family, life and body are being blown into a thousand pieces in our names.
>
> Once every 12 minutes.
>
> The United States military drops an explosive with a strength you can
> hardly
> comprehend once every 12 minutes. And that's odd, because we're technically
> at war with-let me think-zero countries. So that should mean zero bombs are
> being dropped, right?
>
> Hell no! You've made the common mistake of confusing our world with some
> sort of rational, cogent world in which our military-industrial complex is
> under control, the music industry is based on merit and talent, Legos have
> gently rounded edges (so when you step on them barefoot, it doesn't feel
> like an armor-piercing bullet just shot straight up your sphincter), and
> humans are dealing with climate change like adults rather than burying our
> heads in the sand while trying to convince ourselves that the sand around
> our heads isn't getting really, really hot.
>
> You're thinking of a rational world. We do not live there.
>
> Instead, we live in a world where the Pentagon is completely and utterly
> out
> of control. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the $21 trillion (that's not a
> typo) that has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon. But I didn't get into
> the number of bombs that ridiculous amount of money buys us. President
> George W. Bush's military dropped 70,000 bombs on five countries. But of
> that outrageous number, only 57 of those bombs really upset the
> international community.
>
> Because there were 57 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen-countries the
> U.S. was not at war with and places that didn't have ongoing internal
> conflicts. And the world was kind of horrified. There was a lot of talk
> that
> went something like, "Wait a second. We're bombing in countries outside of
> war zones? Is it possible that's a slippery slope ending in us just bombing
> all the goddamn time? (Awkward pause.) . Nah. Whichever president follows
> Bush will be a normal adult person (with a functional brain stem of some
> sort) and will therefore stop this madness."
>
> We were so cute and naive back then, like a kitten when it's first waking
> up
> in the morning.
>
> The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that under President Barack
> Obama there were "563 strikes, largely by drones, that targeted Pakistan,
> Somalia and Yemen. ."
>
> It's not just the fact that bombing outside of a war zone is a horrific
> violation of international law and global norms. It's also the morally
> reprehensible targeting of people for pre-crime, which is what we're doing
> and what the Tom Cruise movie "Minority Report" warned us about. (Humans
> are
> very bad at taking the advice of sci-fi dystopias. If we'd listened to
> "1984," we wouldn't have allowed the existence of the National Security
> Agency. If we listened to "The Terminator," we wouldn't have allowed the
> existence of drone warfare. And if we'd listened to "The Matrix," we
> wouldn't have allowed the vast majority of humans to get lost in a virtual
> reality of spectacle and vapid nonsense while the oceans die in a swamp of
> plastic waste. . But you know, who's counting?)
>
> There was basically a media blackout while Obama was president. You could
> count on one hand the number of mainstream media reports on the Pentagon's
> daily bombing campaigns under Obama. And even when the media did mention
> it,
> the underlying sentiment was, "Yeah, but look at how suave Obama is while
> he's OK'ing endless destruction. He's like the Steve McQueen of aerial
> death."
>
> And let's take a moment to wipe away the idea that our "advanced weaponry"
> hits only the bad guys. As David DeGraw put it, "According to the C.I.A.'s
> own documents, the people on the 'kill list,' who were targeted for
> 'death-by-drone,' accounted for only 2% of the deaths caused by the drone
> strikes."
>
> Two percent. Really, Pentagon? You got a two on the test? You get five
> points just for spelling your name right.
>
> But those 70,000 bombs dropped by Bush-it was child's play. DeGraw again: "
> Obama] dropped 100,000 bombs in seven countries. He out-bombed Bush by
> 30,000 bombs and 2 countries."
>
> You have to admit that's impressively horrific. That puts Obama in a very
> elite group of Nobel Peace Prize winners who have killed that many innocent
> civilians. The reunions are mainly just him and Henry Kissinger wearing
> little hand-drawn name tags and munching on deviled eggs.
>
> However, we now know that Donald Trump's administration puts all previous
> presidents to shame. The Pentagon's numbers show that during George W.
> Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per
> year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his military dropped 34
> bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump's first year in office, he
> averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.
>
> Trump's military dropped 44,000 bombs in his first year in office.
>
> He has basically taken the gloves off the Pentagon, taken the leash off an
> already rabid dog. So the end result is a military that's behaving like Lil
> Wayne crossed with Conor McGregor. You look away for one minute, look back,
> and are like, "What the fuck did you just do? I was gone for like, a
> second!"
>
> Under Trump, five bombs are dropped per hour-every hour of every day. That
> averages out to a bomb every 12 minutes.
>
> And which is more outrageous-the crazy amount of death and destruction we
> are creating around the world, or the fact that your mainstream corporate
> media basically NEVER investigates it? They talk about Trump's flaws. They
> say he's a racist, bulbous-headed, self-centered idiot (which is totally
> accurate)-but they don't criticize the perpetual Amityville massacre our
> military perpetrates by dropping a bomb every 12 minutes, most of them
> killing 98 percent non-targets.
>
> When you have a Department of War with a completely unaccountable budget-as
> we saw with the $21 trillion-and you have a president with no interest in
> overseeing how much death the Department of War is responsible for, then
> you
> end up dropping so many bombs that the Pentagon has reported we are running
> out of bombs.
>
> Oh, dear God. If we run out of our bombs, then how will we stop all those
> innocent civilians from . farming? Think of all the goats that will be
> allowed to go about their days.
>
> And, as with the $21 trillion, the theme seems to be "unaccountable."
>
> Journalist Witney Webb wrote in February, "Shockingly, more than 80 percent
> of those killed have never even been identified and the C.I.A.'s own
> documents have shown that they are not even aware of who they are
> killing-avoiding the issue of reporting civilian deaths simply by naming
> all
> those in the strike zone as enemy combatants."
>
> That's right. We kill only enemy combatants. How do we know they're enemy
> combatants? Because they were in our strike zone. How did we know it was a
> strike zone? Because there were enemy combatants there. How did we find out
> they were enemy combatants? Because they were in the strike zone. . Want me
> to keep going, or do you get the point? I have all day.
>
> This is not about Trump, even though he's a maniac. It's not about Obama,
> even though he's a war criminal. It's not about Bush, even though he has
> the
> intelligence of boiled cabbage. (I haven't told a Bush joke in about eight
> years. Felt kind of good. Maybe I'll get back into that.)
>
> This is about a runaway military-industrial complex that our ruling elite
> are more than happy to let loose. Almost no one in Congress or the
> presidency tries to restrain our 121 bombs a day. Almost no one in a
> mainstream outlet tries to get people to care about this.
>
> Recently, the hashtag #21Trillion for the unaccounted Pentagon money has
> gained some traction. Let's get another one started: #121BombsADay.
>
> One every 12 minutes.
>
> Do you know where they're hitting? Who they're murdering? Why? One hundred
> and twenty-one bombs a day rip apart the lives of families a world away-in
> your name and my name and the name of the kid doling out the wrong size
> popcorn at the movie theater.
>
> We are a rogue nation with a rogue military and a completely unaccountable
> ruling elite. The government and military you and I support by being a part
> of this society are murdering people every 12 minutes, and in response,
> there's nothing but a ghostly silence. It is beneath us as a people and a
> species to give this topic nothing but silence. It is a crime against
> humanity.
>
> Lee Camp
>
>
>
>
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:38:56 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12
Minutes, and No One Is Talking About It
To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
While we still talk about War Hawks, the truth is that it is the
Greedy, Fat, War Hogs that are sucking up our tax dollars. Each of
our hard earned dollars that go into the Pentagon Budget represents a
body part of an innocent Human Being.
America has been slipping in many catagories, but we are well out in
First Place when it comes to Murder by Bombs.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/20/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One Is Talking About
> It
>
> Pixabay
>
>
> We live in a state of perpetual war, and we never feel it. While you get
> your gelato at the hip place where they put those cute little mint leaves
> on
> the side, someone is being bombed in your name. While you argue with the
> 17-year-old at the movie theater who gave you a small popcorn when you paid
> for a large, someone is being obliterated in your name. While we sleep and
> eat and make love and shield our eyes on a sunny day, someone's home,
> family, life and body are being blown into a thousand pieces in our names.
>
> Once every 12 minutes.
>
> The United States military drops an explosive with a strength you can
> hardly
> comprehend once every 12 minutes. And that's odd, because we're technically
> at war with-let me think-zero countries. So that should mean zero bombs are
> being dropped, right?
>
> Hell no! You've made the common mistake of confusing our world with some
> sort of rational, cogent world in which our military-industrial complex is
> under control, the music industry is based on merit and talent, Legos have
> gently rounded edges (so when you step on them barefoot, it doesn't feel
> like an armor-piercing bullet just shot straight up your sphincter), and
> humans are dealing with climate change like adults rather than burying our
> heads in the sand while trying to convince ourselves that the sand around
> our heads isn't getting really, really hot.
>
> You're thinking of a rational world. We do not live there.
>
> Instead, we live in a world where the Pentagon is completely and utterly
> out
> of control. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the $21 trillion (that's not a
> typo) that has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon. But I didn't get into
> the number of bombs that ridiculous amount of money buys us. President
> George W. Bush's military dropped 70,000 bombs on five countries. But of
> that outrageous number, only 57 of those bombs really upset the
> international community.
>
> Because there were 57 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen-countries the
> U.S. was not at war with and places that didn't have ongoing internal
> conflicts. And the world was kind of horrified. There was a lot of talk
> that
> went something like, "Wait a second. We're bombing in countries outside of
> war zones? Is it possible that's a slippery slope ending in us just bombing
> all the goddamn time? (Awkward pause.) . Nah. Whichever president follows
> Bush will be a normal adult person (with a functional brain stem of some
> sort) and will therefore stop this madness."
>
> We were so cute and naive back then, like a kitten when it's first waking
> up
> in the morning.
>
> The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that under President Barack
> Obama there were "563 strikes, largely by drones, that targeted Pakistan,
> Somalia and Yemen. ."
>
> It's not just the fact that bombing outside of a war zone is a horrific
> violation of international law and global norms. It's also the morally
> reprehensible targeting of people for pre-crime, which is what we're doing
> and what the Tom Cruise movie "Minority Report" warned us about. (Humans
> are
> very bad at taking the advice of sci-fi dystopias. If we'd listened to
> "1984," we wouldn't have allowed the existence of the National Security
> Agency. If we listened to "The Terminator," we wouldn't have allowed the
> existence of drone warfare. And if we'd listened to "The Matrix," we
> wouldn't have allowed the vast majority of humans to get lost in a virtual
> reality of spectacle and vapid nonsense while the oceans die in a swamp of
> plastic waste. . But you know, who's counting?)
>
> There was basically a media blackout while Obama was president. You could
> count on one hand the number of mainstream media reports on the Pentagon's
> daily bombing campaigns under Obama. And even when the media did mention
> it,
> the underlying sentiment was, "Yeah, but look at how suave Obama is while
> he's OK'ing endless destruction. He's like the Steve McQueen of aerial
> death."
>
> And let's take a moment to wipe away the idea that our "advanced weaponry"
> hits only the bad guys. As David DeGraw put it, "According to the C.I.A.'s
> own documents, the people on the 'kill list,' who were targeted for
> 'death-by-drone,' accounted for only 2% of the deaths caused by the drone
> strikes."
>
> Two percent. Really, Pentagon? You got a two on the test? You get five
> points just for spelling your name right.
>
> But those 70,000 bombs dropped by Bush-it was child's play. DeGraw again: "
> Obama] dropped 100,000 bombs in seven countries. He out-bombed Bush by
> 30,000 bombs and 2 countries."
>
> You have to admit that's impressively horrific. That puts Obama in a very
> elite group of Nobel Peace Prize winners who have killed that many innocent
> civilians. The reunions are mainly just him and Henry Kissinger wearing
> little hand-drawn name tags and munching on deviled eggs.
>
> However, we now know that Donald Trump's administration puts all previous
> presidents to shame. The Pentagon's numbers show that during George W.
> Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per
> year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his military dropped 34
> bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump's first year in office, he
> averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.
>
> Trump's military dropped 44,000 bombs in his first year in office.
>
> He has basically taken the gloves off the Pentagon, taken the leash off an
> already rabid dog. So the end result is a military that's behaving like Lil
> Wayne crossed with Conor McGregor. You look away for one minute, look back,
> and are like, "What the fuck did you just do? I was gone for like, a
> second!"
>
> Under Trump, five bombs are dropped per hour-every hour of every day. That
> averages out to a bomb every 12 minutes.
>
> And which is more outrageous-the crazy amount of death and destruction we
> are creating around the world, or the fact that your mainstream corporate
> media basically NEVER investigates it? They talk about Trump's flaws. They
> say he's a racist, bulbous-headed, self-centered idiot (which is totally
> accurate)-but they don't criticize the perpetual Amityville massacre our
> military perpetrates by dropping a bomb every 12 minutes, most of them
> killing 98 percent non-targets.
>
> When you have a Department of War with a completely unaccountable budget-as
> we saw with the $21 trillion-and you have a president with no interest in
> overseeing how much death the Department of War is responsible for, then
> you
> end up dropping so many bombs that the Pentagon has reported we are running
> out of bombs.
>
> Oh, dear God. If we run out of our bombs, then how will we stop all those
> innocent civilians from . farming? Think of all the goats that will be
> allowed to go about their days.
>
> And, as with the $21 trillion, the theme seems to be "unaccountable."
>
> Journalist Witney Webb wrote in February, "Shockingly, more than 80 percent
> of those killed have never even been identified and the C.I.A.'s own
> documents have shown that they are not even aware of who they are
> killing-avoiding the issue of reporting civilian deaths simply by naming
> all
> those in the strike zone as enemy combatants."
>
> That's right. We kill only enemy combatants. How do we know they're enemy
> combatants? Because they were in our strike zone. How did we know it was a
> strike zone? Because there were enemy combatants there. How did we find out
> they were enemy combatants? Because they were in the strike zone. . Want me
> to keep going, or do you get the point? I have all day.
>
> This is not about Trump, even though he's a maniac. It's not about Obama,
> even though he's a war criminal. It's not about Bush, even though he has
> the
> intelligence of boiled cabbage. (I haven't told a Bush joke in about eight
> years. Felt kind of good. Maybe I'll get back into that.)
>
> This is about a runaway military-industrial complex that our ruling elite
> are more than happy to let loose. Almost no one in Congress or the
> presidency tries to restrain our 121 bombs a day. Almost no one in a
> mainstream outlet tries to get people to care about this.
>
> Recently, the hashtag #21Trillion for the unaccounted Pentagon money has
> gained some traction. Let's get another one started: #121BombsADay.
>
> One every 12 minutes.
>
> Do you know where they're hitting? Who they're murdering? Why? One hundred
> and twenty-one bombs a day rip apart the lives of families a world away-in
> your name and my name and the name of the kid doling out the wrong size
> popcorn at the movie theater.
>
> We are a rogue nation with a rogue military and a completely unaccountable
> ruling elite. The government and military you and I support by being a part
> of this society are murdering people every 12 minutes, and in response,
> there's nothing but a ghostly silence. It is beneath us as a people and a
> species to give this topic nothing but silence. It is a crime against
> humanity.
>
> Lee Camp
>
>
>
>
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Re: Schizophrenia and Religion
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 07:36:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Schizophrenia and Religion, was Re:
Re: Original Sin
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com>
Cc: blind-democracy@freelists.org, blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
Roger,
You wrote: "no one has ever demonstrated whether there is a purple unicorn in
a paisley teacup orbiting Jupiter or not either."
True, and I've never seen a Purple Cow. But I am indifferent to both.
I'm indifferent to the Unicorn in its cup and to the Purple Cow
because neither is presenting a threat to me and my life style. Nor
to that of my loved ones. Where I become concerned is when the
Unicorn in a Cup and the Purple Cow Believers begin to gain enough
power that they demand changes in the Law, giving their belief a power
position and the ability to twist our social standards to comply with
their view of how we came to be.
It doesn't matter to me if God exists, or not. What bothers me are
the Believers who, anytime they gain enough power, demand that I must
live by their rules.
While I find your detailed explanations interesting and informative, I
do not believe they will change a single mind. Besides, as I say,
proving or disproving God's existence will not solve the problems
facing us. Our major problem, as I see it, is based upon our Human
Nature. In a way, religion has attempted to address our Human Nature,
calling for our need to be "born again". But religion is unwilling to
believe that we Humans can do this without some sort of divine
Guidance. And so religion falls back on its own Creation. It dusts
off and updates the notion that there is some all mighty dictator who
has absolute power, and only speaks to His devout Subjects.
It is at this point that I am caught on the horns of a dilemma. How
do I continue to fight for our individual freedom to believe and do as
we choose, but enforce limits on the right of others to promote their
beliefs?
Of course the simple answer is, to set our societal rules to allow
freedom of thought and action up to the point where they threaten or
interfere with those of the people around us.
Of course history shows us that this has never worked. When some
folks believe that they have a perfect dictator who knows absolutely
what is right and what is wrong, there can never be a "live and let
live" existence. Same sex relations are wrong and Evil, because our
Great Dictator said so. If those who believe it to be wrong could
simply live and let live, the problem might be solved. But no! The
Perfect One has spoken. And since He cannot tolerate such behavior,
we must do something about it. Make it illegal...castigate
them...jail them...extinguish them. All in the name of the Great
Dictator.
I know I'm wandering off the topic, but I often wonder how we can
avoid blaming the Great Dictator who knows all, and created Man in His
own Image, how we avoid holding Him responsible for producing a
creature that is not Perfect in His Sight?
Of course the solution is easy for those who Create the Perfect
Dictator. Invent the Perfect Evil One. A lesser dictator who we can
blame all our troubles and short comings on.
Notice that we Humans become the Great Victims? No, we don't really
say that we are victims, but all of our actions point to that fact.
And so, it is not the Unicorns in Cups, or the Purple Cows that
concern me. What concerns me is whether we Humans can overcome our
insanity long enough to save ourselves. No great god will do it. No
purple cow or unicorn in a tea cup. We Humans have created the world
as it now exists. Only we can save it.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/9/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
>> Carl, no one has ever demonstrated whether there is a purple unicorn in
>> a paisley teacup orbiting Jupiter or not either. Do you really think
>> that there may as well be one there as not?
>>
>>
>> On 6/9/2018 8:37 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>> Give it up, guys!
>>> After all the dust settles, I'm still an Agnostic. My reason is
>>> straightforward. After your best shots, no one has demonstrated
>>> whether there is a Creator or not.
>>> And in the human scheme of things, it makes no difference. We humans
>>> do not need some all wise Being to tell us what is good for us and
>>> what will do us great harm. In fact, with all of the great religions
>>> on this planet, we still manage to do some very harmful things, to us
>>> as well as to the planet, itself.
>>> Perhaps religion, or more to the point, Faith, is good for
>>> individuals. But the flawed religions we practice do much more harm
>>> than good.
>>> We have much more pressing, and life threatening issues to deal with
>>> than whether we came into existence through the wave of God's hand, or
>>> by a fluke. What we do know is that we are here. And if we don't get
>>> control over our behavior, we'll soon not need worry about the how of
>>> it all.
>>>
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/9/18, Jason Meyerson <jason@calvarymorninglight.org> wrote:
>>>> Roger,
>>>>
>>>> I can appreciate that we may have misunderstandings and disagreements,
>>>> maybe irreconcilable. To me though you have greatly mistaken my direct
>>>> attacks on your stated worldview. You do not seem to get that I just
>>>> don't agree with you, no matter how you have described and explained, I
>>>> have found your points lacking and unconvincing. I read what you wrote
>>>> and have thought about these things. And I do question your very words
>>>> and I do try and use your very words to show you problems with them, if
>>>> you want to call that twisting I do not agree. But I am asking you
>>>> when
>>>> I bring them right back to you, I did not go somewhere else and
>>>> misquote
>>>> you and slander you, I directly confronted you with your words and
>>>> idea,
>>>> sometimes I may have misunderstood you and I apologized. You want to
>>>> interpret all that as me lying, that is your freedom. And saying it
>>>> directly to me, is fine if that makes you happy, but going around and
>>>> trying to smear a person's reputation and character certainly doesn't
>>>> seem right.
>>>> It seems to me, that when you cannot convince someone of your position
>>>> regarding this issue, you get very frustrated and begin calling names,
>>>> and names apparently you already have decided about someone who you
>>>> disagree with. Meaning you already decided you think people who
>>>> disagree with you on this topic are all the nasty vicious demeaning
>>>> things you declare. and yet you say I am closed minded and unwilling
>>>> to
>>>> change. Because a person strongly believes something and you cannot
>>>> understand it or they disagree with you, does not make them equivalent
>>>> to having a mental defect. It doesn't mean they do not have one, but
>>>> just being in a situation with you, where there is no agreement and
>>>> understanding is not the criteria for a mental issue. You and your
>>>> belief set are not the standard and benchmark for mental health, but I
>>>> am sure it makes you feel vindicated to think so, and understand this
>>>> is
>>>> my interpretation of what I read. And this is why we need things like
>>>> freedom of speech and belief, otherwise whichever side could gain
>>>> enough
>>>> power could seriously damage the lives of the other side and I am sure
>>>> there are already examples from both sides we could quote.
>>>>
>>>> Let me ask you this, since you are making such a big deal about it, is
>>>> this issue of lying. What is wrong with lies? Meaning for one, I do
>>>> not lie, two as an atheist I would ask you: is lying wrong? And Why?
>>>> You certainly seem to imply it is wrong, and yet how could you declare
>>>> in a non arbitrary way or in an absolute way that it is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-06-08 21:03, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>> Let me address this to the list as a whole, because it has become very
>>>>> apparent that no matter what I say Jason is going to completely
>>>>> misrepresent it right back at me right after I say it. That makes it
>>>>> impossible to discuss anything with him. A long time ago I offered up
>>>>> an hypothesis of my own on this list concerning religion and the
>>>>> discussion didn't go very far, but I was thinking that Jason just
>>>>> might be an example of some of the kinds of people I was thinking of
>>>>> and so I want to revisit it. About ten to fifteen years ago I found
>>>>> myself hanging around frequently on the streets of downtown
>>>>> Charleston, West Virginia. At least it had once been the downtown.
>>>>> There were still stores around, but at a certain point in time an
>>>>> inner city mall had been built a few blocks to the west of that area
>>>>> and the main shopping area had shifted with it. That means that some
>>>>> of the stores in the downtown had closed and some remained empty while
>>>>> others had been converted into other things. There were two abandoned
>>>>> department stores that sat side by side that had been converted into
>>>>> group homes for the mentally ill. Those group homes have been moved
>>>>> elsewhere now, but when I was hanging around the area they were a
>>>>> going concern. They housed mental patients who were functional enough
>>>>> that they did not need to be in a state hospital, but they were still
>>>>> not functional enough that they still did not need some kind of
>>>>> supervision. They were allowed to run around on the streets during the
>>>>> day time unless they violated certain times of the day that they had
>>>>> to check in and, of course, they had a curfew. There was also a small
>>>>> apartment building nearby that was zoned for senior and handicapped
>>>>> residency. The only handicap that it housed, though, was mental
>>>>> handicaps. Those were the ones who had been deemed functional enough
>>>>> that they did not need the group home environment and so the mental
>>>>> health agency had secured apartments for them, but still kept them
>>>>> close enough that they could be kept tabs on. Well, even though there
>>>>> is nothing wrong with it and even though no one would necessarily be
>>>>> sure that you were nuts if you did it there is an unspoken social
>>>>> convention that you do not just walk up to a stranger on the street
>>>>> and strike up a conversation. Mental health patients seem to not be
>>>>> aware of the social convention, though, and quite a few of them did
>>>>> strike up conversations with me and I actually got to know a number of
>>>>> them fairly well. As a result I got to hear quite a few of their
>>>>> schizophrenic delusions. I remember one guy who was convinced that he
>>>>> had been abducted by space aliens and he had met a Russian woman on
>>>>> their spaceship and that he had the inside scoop on their coming
>>>>> invasion of Earth. The interesting thing about him was that when he
>>>>> was talking about other topics he seemed to be perfectly sane and if I
>>>>> had not known that he was a mental patient I would have thought that
>>>>> he was just joking about the space aliens. That was just one example
>>>>> and I could go on with some others, but that would use up a lot of
>>>>> time. I will say that not all of them seemed perfectly sane except for
>>>>> their schizophrenic delusions though. Sometimes I would just listen
>>>>> politely, but as time went on I tried arguing with them and telling
>>>>> them how absurd the things they were telling me were. It was exactly
>>>>> like arguing religion with a religious person. No amount of reason
>>>>> could dissuade them. No amount of demonstrable facts could dissuade
>>>>> them. This got me to start considering what schizophrenic delusion and
>>>>> religious delusion had in common and what the differences were. Well,
>>>>> when someone starts talking to you about how he has a direct line of
>>>>> communication to space aliens the absurdity of his claims really
>>>>> stands out. That is because you don't ordinarily hear someone saying
>>>>> things like that. But, really, it is no more absurd than the claim
>>>>> that one has a personal relationship with a disembodied consciousness
>>>>> that created the universe and both delusions are impervious to both
>>>>> reason and evidence. But there are differences too. Schizophrenic
>>>>> delusion is usually unique to the individual. You only find one person
>>>>> who has that particular set of delusions. Yet that unique set of
>>>>> delusions can be just as complex or at least near as complex as a set
>>>>> of religious delusions. Religious delusions, on the other hand, tend
>>>>> to be shared with a lot of other people who have the same set of
>>>>> delusions. Their may be minor variations from person to person and
>>>>> when you look at the holders of these delusions you can see variations
>>>>> from one group to another and these variations are called
>>>>> denominations. ON a global perspective the variations are enough that
>>>>> they are called different religions. But still, the set of delusions
>>>>> are shared with a lot of other people and these delusions are called
>>>>> religious doctrine. Another difference is that merely religious people
>>>>> tend to be a lot more functional in their daily lives. But, like I
>>>>> said, schizophrenics can be pretty functional too even if most of them
>>>>> are not. Now, one more thing about differences. I tried to talk to a
>>>>> professional psychologist about this once and I don't think he fully
>>>>> understood what I was getting at and our time, both of us, was short,
>>>>> so I didn't get to fully explain myself to him. But he started going
>>>>> on about how religion is cultural and schizophrenia is only influenced
>>>>> by culture. He did say something, though, that indicated that he might
>>>>> have been getting close to what I was getting at. On the subject of
>>>>> cultural influence on schizophrenic delusion he said that an American
>>>>> schizophrenic is likely to say that god is talking to him while a
>>>>> Chinese schizophrenic would be more likely to say that Chairman Mao is
>>>>> talking to him. What I did not get to explain was that I meant that
>>>>> culture may influence the particulars - that is, the particular
>>>>> theology that people will believe, but the fact of religious delusion
>>>>> and the capability of holding religious delusion is not cultural. So,
>>>>> about my hypothesis, unfortunately I do not have the means to test
>>>>> this and if I did then without the credentials and the status of being
>>>>> a working professional research psychologist I would not be able to
>>>>> have my results published in a professional journal. But my hypothesis
>>>>> is this. I think that schizophrenia is a spectrum disorder. On one end
>>>>> of the spectrum is the uncommunicative schizophrenic who has no chance
>>>>> of getting out of the state hospital and then along the spectrum would
>>>>> be the more functional ones who can communicate, but are still so
>>>>> nonfunctional that they can't be released either because they would
>>>>> undoubtedly cause harm to themselves. Going further along the spectrum
>>>>> you have a lot of homeless people who would really be doing better if
>>>>> they had some supervision and then you have the people who I met who
>>>>> can actually run the streets, but still have to check into their group
>>>>> home. By the way, I suspect that a lot of homeless people are on about
>>>>> the same level as those. But then if you move further along the
>>>>> spectrum you will find people who seem to be sane enough, but just
>>>>> seem to have some crazy ideas or behave oddly. It seems to me that
>>>>> religious people may be even further to the functional end of the
>>>>> spectrum. That is, they can conduct their daily lives just fine and
>>>>> relate to other people just fine, but they still hold totally absurd
>>>>> delusions. The fact that the delusions are shared may be symptomatic
>>>>> of being on that highly functional end of the spectrum. At the same
>>>>> time I will say that I have seen religious people who are only barely
>>>>> functional. Those are the super fanatics, the real bible thumpers who
>>>>> are such pests. I actually think that if some of those people's
>>>>> delusions were anything other than religious they would probably be
>>>>> housed in a group home for the mentally ill themselves. Now, as an
>>>>> addendum I wanted to mention one particular schizophrenic. He was an
>>>>> atheist. He had no use for religion at all and if someone started
>>>>> preaching to him he would become hostile. He also was convinced that
>>>>> some secret organization was following him around in a helicopter,
>>>>> tapping all of his phone calls and beaming threatening messages into
>>>>> his head. I mention him because I wanted to point out that atheists
>>>>> are not necessarily immune to this spectrum disorder. One would think
>>>>> that an atheist would be completely free of schizophrenia and be the
>>>>> most rational of all people, but I have met some atheists who are
>>>>> convinced of some pretty wacky ideas and less wacky than the example I
>>>>> just gave. But at least they are not infected with religious
>>>>> delusions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/8/2018 9:26 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the email.
>>>>>> You can call me names and express all the anger you want, frankly to
>>>>>> me as a follower of Jesus, it is just a small taste of what He
>>>>>> experienced.
>>>>>> I could understand if you concluded maybe we are just not
>>>>>> communicating well or having some misunderstandings, that is how I
>>>>>> try
>>>>>> and think about it.
>>>>>> Clearly we disagree, and have our reasons and clearly I have touched
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> nerve with you, I think it is because of some things going on in your
>>>>>> heart, some internal issues but that is my theory, and not really
>>>>>> about me, even though you seem obsessed with making it personal and
>>>>>> attacking me.
>>>>>> But I forgive you.
>>>>>> If you want to go back to the previous email and deal with some of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> issues that sounds good to me, but if not no problem. Like I said I
>>>>>> am satisfied with the display of your worldview, but would prefer to
>>>>>> get to the deeper issues, but that is not always possible, or maybe
>>>>>> not right now.
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-06-07 23:47, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>> Listen here, liar. And, yes, I called you a name because you have
>>>>>>> earned it. You just keep accusing me of things that you do every
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>> You tell me that I engage in contradictions while you do it. You are
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> bully. When you will not engage the points I make, but distort those
>>>>>>> points in order to provoke anger you are being a bully. And this
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> you end with telling me again that I have no path to absolute truth
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> if I hadn't told you the same thing. If you believe that you have
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> path to absolute truth then you have no path to truth at all. By
>>>>>>> making that claim you cut yourself off from seeking truth. You stick
>>>>>>> yourself into a glue that will hold you back from the truth if you
>>>>>>> ever come across it. It is likely that is the reason that instead of
>>>>>>> engaging in civil discussion you resort to bullying. Your absolute
>>>>>>> truth won't let you admit that someone else may know something you
>>>>>>> don't and so you condescendingly try to tell me about things that it
>>>>>>> is very clear that I know more about than you. You have proven
>>>>>>> yourself to be an intellectual scoundrel. Now, if you are so anxious
>>>>>>> to get an angry reaction out of me you have gotten it. You can take
>>>>>>> your god or any other fairy tale characters you cling to and stuff
>>>>>>> them up your ass. These are not ad homenum arguments. These are
>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>> telling you off for your strong attempts to be a complete jerk. I
>>>>>>> tried to show you where you were going wrong, but you purposely
>>>>>>> distort everything I tell you. That is simply the behavior of a
>>>>>>> complete jerk and a bully and an intellectually dishonest person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2018 11:21 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to pretend you are in high school math, that if fine. I
>>>>>>>> am talking about the real world and probability math is a tool.
>>>>>>>> Again I point to the weather. And I also say you are just like
>>>>>>>> someone who stacks the deck. You want to play a math game, fine,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> your example regarding infinity does not hold water. Who said
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> are in infinite number of events? You, not me. I do not agree with
>>>>>>>> your premise or your math or your calculations or your conclusion.
>>>>>>>> It is not representative of reality, even if you can argue that it
>>>>>>>> works in math class, in some technical sense. Your scenario of
>>>>>>>> evolution is so outlandish you need an infinite number of chances
>>>>>>>> for it to occur. I only need one in my worldview.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to evidence, of course it would have to be regarding what is
>>>>>>>> true. That is a given and redundant.
>>>>>>>> You stated the evidence would have to be above the ordinary,
>>>>>>>> "extraordinary" is the word you used. Now to me I understood you
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be describing something supernatural, maybe I have misunderstood
>>>>>>>> you, my apologies. That is what I thought you were saying. So what
>>>>>>>> is extraordinary evidence? We are proposing a supernatural being,
>>>>>>>> that is my claim to you. How can evidence that is not supernatural
>>>>>>>> be presented as proof of supernatural? I have given you plenty of
>>>>>>>> evidence including to show you the impossibility of the contrary.
>>>>>>>> Meaning without God you cannot have truth or even evidence. The
>>>>>>>> arbitrariness and bankruptcy of your worldview and the
>>>>>>>> contradictions you are left with, that is a proof that is evidence,
>>>>>>>> something is wrong with your premise if it leaves you in all kinds
>>>>>>>> of contradictions and arbitrary situation. Now if you wish to just
>>>>>>>> say: fine my worldview and stated beliefs are at odds, my ethics
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> arbitrary, you have no path to knowledge or absolute truth, you
>>>>>>>> cannot account for logic or reality itself, that is fine (you have
>>>>>>>> already agreed you cannot know anything for certain or absoluletly)
>>>>>>>> I am satisfied then if you wish to leave it there, so you have
>>>>>>>> admitted these things. You do not wish to resolve them. It makes
>>>>>>>> little sense to talk about truth with someone who cannot arrive at
>>>>>>>> it. If we can begin with our presuppositions and move forward in a
>>>>>>>> consistent manner then maybe we could continue discussing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for your character, I think it would be appropriate to take
>>>>>>>> responsibility for your actions and reactions, and not blame
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> else. I believe you are responsible for yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-07 21:15, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The actual probability of something happening, indeed, does have
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> factors and they are more than can be counted or determined. If I
>>>>>>>>> flipped a coin and knew the exact movements of the air particles
>>>>>>>>> around it and knew the exact weight of the coin and its surface
>>>>>>>>> structure down to a microscopic level and If I knew a lot of other
>>>>>>>>> factors that I don't even think of to enter the figuring then I
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> make a fairly accurate prediction of which side of that coin would
>>>>>>>>> land facing up. I cannot know all of that though. That is what
>>>>>>>>> probability theory is for. Now, I don't know how you missed it. I
>>>>>>>>> don't know if you never had a math class or if you flunked the
>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>> you had, but it still remains that the most basic equation in
>>>>>>>>> probability theory is how to calculate a probability. If you had a
>>>>>>>>> probability unit in high school math you would have had to come
>>>>>>>>> across
>>>>>>>>> it. It is, again, to calculate the probability of an event you
>>>>>>>>> divide
>>>>>>>>> the number of times the event happens by the total number of
>>>>>>>>> events
>>>>>>>>> considered. And by denying this and by telling me about other
>>>>>>>>> factors
>>>>>>>>> involved in probability you are again trying to lecture someone on
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> topic that he clearly knows more about than you do. As for
>>>>>>>>> Pascal's
>>>>>>>>> wager, you should have already seen how I would demolish that one.
>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>> I have already pointed out, there are an infinity of things that
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be made up out of nothing and without the the slightest bit of
>>>>>>>>> evidence that it is true - and remember that evidence means that
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> has to have something to do with it being true - and to each of
>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>> made up claims can be attached very dire consequences for not
>>>>>>>>> believing them. Now, just how am I supposed to pick out one of
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> infinity of claims to believe in just in case when none of them
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> anything at all to back them up? Next, you say that I said that
>>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>>> of god would have to be supernatural. I said no such thing. You
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the nerve to attack my character when I tell you something and you
>>>>>>>>> turn around right after I say it and then lie about what I have
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> said. I told you that evidence of a god would have to have certain
>>>>>>>>> qualities. It would have to have something to do with it being
>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>> Your personal incredulity has nothing to do with it being true. I
>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>> that the more fantastic the claim the more fantastic the evidence
>>>>>>>>> would have to be and that the hypothesis that there is some kind
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> invisible magical being that resides outside of space and time and
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> so outlandish that if proven to be true would falsify all of the
>>>>>>>>> science our civilization is built upon, would have to have some
>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>> fantastic evidence. I said that in order to sormulate the
>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>>>> to be tested you would also have to make a statement of how it
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> be falsified itself. Nowhere in that was a claim on my part that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> evidence would have to be supernatural. Now, as for your attacks
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> character, it is becoming more and more obvious that you are
>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>> your best to goad me into angry reactions. I hate to admit it, but
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> are succeeding in that. You succeed when you misrepresent what I
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> said right back at me right after I have said it. You succeed when
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> accuse me of the kind of behavior you engage in yourself.
>>>>>>>>> Obviously
>>>>>>>>> you have no leg to stand on when arguing for the existence of
>>>>>>>>> fairy
>>>>>>>>> tale characters, so you just try to goad and provoke instead of
>>>>>>>>> engaging in civil discussion. But, honestly, you have no room to
>>>>>>>>> attack my character when I tell you something and then you come
>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>> back at me right after I have told it to you and lie about what I
>>>>>>>>> said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2018 11:40 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The actual probability of an event can have more factors in it
>>>>>>>>>> than just dividing by the number of events.
>>>>>>>>>> It rains a lot in Seattle. we could say it will either rain or
>>>>>>>>>> not rain, so 50/50? Ridiculous, that is not how we predict the
>>>>>>>>>> weather or the probability of rain. So if you want to just
>>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>>> all other influences in a situation and you are just going to
>>>>>>>>>> flip
>>>>>>>>>> a coin for example, then 50/50. Not all scenarios can be
>>>>>>>>>> accurately stripped down to your formula. This is fairly
>>>>>>>>>> straightforward and I think I tried explaining this before. I do
>>>>>>>>>> not think it is that convincing or the best argument, but maybe
>>>>>>>>>> you should consider Pascal's Wager if you have not before, he
>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> math kind of like you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I understand the bulk of the rest of your email, you propose
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> evidence that would suffice for you, specifically you say you do
>>>>>>>>>> not know what would actually be evidence for the existence of
>>>>>>>>>> God. But then you go on and say that if there was any evidence,
>>>>>>>>>> it would have to be supernatural. But you clearly do not believe
>>>>>>>>>> in the supernatural. So if a miracle (something supernatural)
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> instance was to happen (like the Resurrection of Jesus an
>>>>>>>>>> historical fact, creation etc..) I think you would deny it. You
>>>>>>>>>> would deny any miracle (to me you already do by denying creation
>>>>>>>>>> and life etc... being created) You would rationalize any thing
>>>>>>>>>> supernatural and say that science could explain it, or would
>>>>>>>>>> eventually be able to explain it. So again we find you in
>>>>>>>>>> contradiction. You say there is no God because there is no
>>>>>>>>>> evidence. I give you evidence, you reject it. I ask you what
>>>>>>>>>> evidence you would like and you say give you evidence that you do
>>>>>>>>>> not even believe is possible or exists. How does this make any
>>>>>>>>>> sense? Your mind is closed and you have tried to insulate
>>>>>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>>>>>> inside of some circle of reasoning that is all closed up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Evidence of the supernatural by the way would not fly in the face
>>>>>>>>>> of anything you mention, and one of my points to you is that God
>>>>>>>>>> is a necessary foundation for science. And for many theistic
>>>>>>>>>> scientists there is not any conflict. God not existing and the
>>>>>>>>>> supernatural not existing are not foundations to science
>>>>>>>>>> technology and society.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You self admittedly do not know anything and of all things
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> we have learned in history is just a fraction of all the total
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that is out there. When will humans know everything?
>>>>>>>>>> never. They will never be omniscient, so in your worldview you
>>>>>>>>>> will always be left in uncertainty and on an impossible task of
>>>>>>>>>> trying to discover truth, but it is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your statements besides being repetitive are still not true, I
>>>>>>>>>> never claimed to know everything, I doubt any 'religious types"
>>>>>>>>>> do. And we do not 'just' insert the god of the gaps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are a few questions. Why is it wrong to be arrogant? Is it
>>>>>>>>>> that you just do not like it and it is just your chemistry or do
>>>>>>>>>> you propose there is something actually wrong and bad about
>>>>>>>>>> arrogance. I mean wrong and bad in an absolute sense, otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> your opinion about arrogance is arbitrary and without any real
>>>>>>>>>> meaning. You are expressing an ethic/morals but you have not
>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>> any support for their existence or truth. In fact you can't have
>>>>>>>>>> anything more than arbitrary opinion as an atheist, like
>>>>>>>>>> chocolate
>>>>>>>>>> or vanilla. You don't like arrogance so what, just like you
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>> not like vanilla, what does it matter?
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be implying that there is no absolute truth, but if
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> assert absolute truth, you say that is foolish and arrogant.
>>>>>>>>>> Here
>>>>>>>>>> is my question, are you absolutely certain it is arrogant and
>>>>>>>>>> foolish of me to assert absolute truth? I hope you see the
>>>>>>>>>> problem here.
>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I try to imagine you are a nice person, but for
>>>>>>>>>> various reasons you think insulting and trying to berate people
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> acceptable. I do not know what the details of the standard of
>>>>>>>>>> ethical behavior you claim to follow are, but I find it hard to
>>>>>>>>>> believe that insults accusations and trying to berate people are
>>>>>>>>>> on the list. Does your ethical standard include treating people
>>>>>>>>>> who disagree with you poorly, viciously? Maybe you should switch
>>>>>>>>>> ethical standards to something else that suits you. I wonder why
>>>>>>>>>> though you use this tactic? I wonder why anyone would choose to
>>>>>>>>>> attack someone personally when in a discussion of issues, ad
>>>>>>>>>> hominem. I can think of a few reasons. Frankly it is arrogant
>>>>>>>>>> and maybe yelling and screaming at people works for you in life
>>>>>>>>>> but I doubt it. all your attacks and insults do not affect the
>>>>>>>>>> issues, imo. You think, I suppose, you are so much better than
>>>>>>>>>> other people you can treat people like this (I am assuming it is
>>>>>>>>>> not just me). If you are not able to civilly disagree with
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> on issues that are important, maybe you shouldn't, just a
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-05 21:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not bad math! Have you ever attended a class on
>>>>>>>>>>> probability
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> your life? When calculating the probability of an event you
>>>>>>>>>>> divide the
>>>>>>>>>>> number of the events in question by the whole number of events
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> set of events. The result is a probability ranging from 0.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0,
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.0 meaning that it never happens and 1.0 meaning that it
>>>>>>>>>>> happens
>>>>>>>>>>> every time. Are you going to deny that and call it bad math? If
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> do then you may as well deny that 1+1=2 and call that bad math
>>>>>>>>>>> too. If
>>>>>>>>>>> you are going to call these simple equations bad math then I
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> hard time understanding how you ever got enough education to
>>>>>>>>>>> spell the
>>>>>>>>>>> word math. Now, what kind of evidence would I accept for god? I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> know and it is not my job to find out. If you want to make the
>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis then it is your job. Remember, I am the one who is
>>>>>>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>>>>>>> the negative of the proposition. I can tell you some of the
>>>>>>>>>>> qualities
>>>>>>>>>>> it would have to have though. Carl Sagan told us that
>>>>>>>>>>> extraordinary
>>>>>>>>>>> claims require extraordinary evidence. If you made an ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>> mundane
>>>>>>>>>>> claim I would not have a problem believing it even without your
>>>>>>>>>>> providing evidence. Supposed you claimed that you went to the
>>>>>>>>>>> bathroom
>>>>>>>>>>> in the past hour. Well, you might be lying. Maybe it was two
>>>>>>>>>>> hours
>>>>>>>>>>> ago. But that is a common activity that everyone does all the
>>>>>>>>>>> time and
>>>>>>>>>>> so I would not even think of demanding evidence before accepting
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, if you claimed to have a degree in math or
>>>>>>>>>>> science
>>>>>>>>>>> I would have my extreme doubts because you show an abysmal
>>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance about such subjects. But I suppose it is possible.
>>>>>>>>>>> Look
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe, for example. The evidence would have to have
>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>> to do with it being true. I suppose that if you produced a not
>>>>>>>>>>> forged
>>>>>>>>>>> degree from a reputable institution that would do. I would be
>>>>>>>>>>> surprised in the extreme, but it would do. However, you are
>>>>>>>>>>> making a
>>>>>>>>>>> claim of the most extraordinary kind. You are claiming the
>>>>>>>>>>> existence
>>>>>>>>>>> of some invisible magical being that resides out of space and
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> that still influences the real world. That flies in the face of
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>> scientific discovery ever made in the history of science, in the
>>>>>>>>>>> history of humanity. The evidence would have to be something so
>>>>>>>>>>> extraordinary that it would falsify every principle that our
>>>>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>>>>> society and its technology is built upon. And it would have to
>>>>>>>>>>> actually have something to do with it being true. Saying that
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> a hard time believing that the universe could exist without that
>>>>>>>>>>> magical being just is not enough. As for my having no path to
>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>> truth, that is correct. This is something else that science has
>>>>>>>>>>> shown
>>>>>>>>>>> us. As I said, not only has the answer to unknown questions not
>>>>>>>>>>> once,
>>>>>>>>>>> ever, been supernatural when they were finally answered, but
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> every time one of those questions was answered new questions
>>>>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> that were not even thought of before they were answered. That is
>>>>>>>>>>> without exception too. There is so much that is unknown, likely
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> infinity, that we don't even know what we need to know. We do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> know that so many of those unknowns are even there. So we cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>> everything. That is one of the things that frustrate me about
>>>>>>>>>>> religious thought. You religious types claim to know it all. If
>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>> an unknown you refuse to admit that and just insert the god of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> gaps. That is extreme arrogance. and I hate arrogance. The
>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to
>>>>>>>>>>> admit to the possibility of being wrong is obnoxious. And that
>>>>>>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>>>>>>> me of something. There is another characteristic to the evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> god that needs to be included. It must be falsifiable. That is,
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> you formulate your hypothesis for testing a part of that
>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>>>>>> has to have a statement of what, if found in the testing, would
>>>>>>>>>>> prove
>>>>>>>>>>> a positive that would show that the hypothesis that is being
>>>>>>>>>>> tested is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Religious would reject that. Could ever formulate a
>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>>>>>> that would include the possibility of your being wrong? That is
>>>>>>>>>>> against the religious insistence on being right no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>> But as
>>>>>>>>>>> long as you are claiming that you have a path to absolute truth
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> that you already have absolute truth you are not making yourself
>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>> very good. You are making yourself look like an arrogant fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2018 4:18 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote:"But by claiming a neutral position one is
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually giving equal odds for both the positive and negative
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist? "
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fifty fifty situation is one you seemed to assume Carl,
>>>>>>>>>>>> (agnostics) was stuck with. And then you go on to explain why
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not the situation. So the fifty fifty assumption is bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> math and your solution of dividing by the whole set and coming
>>>>>>>>>>>> to one in infinity is bad math. I am trying to understand you
>>>>>>>>>>>> and point out some of the things I think are wrong. For the
>>>>>>>>>>>> sake
>>>>>>>>>>>> of brevity, you can just say I think you misunderstood me, that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is just a suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not make up a definition. I quoted you one.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think you are the arbiter of evidence, and while you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can reject my evidence, the connection of the evidence to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition seems to be interpretive. And you have not told me
>>>>>>>>>>>> what would suffice for evidence. We have a proposition, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> even you admit that it could be possible(however infinitely
>>>>>>>>>>>> small in your idea), that God exists. What evidence would you
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would think the idea that your worldview is bankrupt,
>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary and contradictory to your beliefs would be an eye
>>>>>>>>>>>> opener and some evidence. And remember the facts that we can
>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss as evidence for something will be interpreted based on
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> person's presuppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am glad you are not worried, but the fact remains, you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute truth and no path to ever knowing anything for
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even though you go right ahead and claim truth and certainty.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-05 15:54, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is incredible how daft you can be. It is you who twists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say around so that you can cling onto your irrational claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is very probable that you are doing it just to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into an angry reaction. The very first thing you say this time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am terrible at math and that just because there are two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions it does not mean that there is a fifty/fifty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either being true and I had just gotten through explaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing to you. Of course it does not mean that there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fifty/fifty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of either being true. I also did not word it in any way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could have been mistakenly misinterpreted to have said that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sounds very much like deliberate misrepresentation of what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me. What I said was that the agnostic makes the mistake of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both the positive and negative form of a proposition are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely when there is no evidence for either of them one way or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. In that case, the probability of the positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being true is one chance in infinity. Now if you can get out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I said that there is a fifty/fifty probability of either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions being true then You have some kind of mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next, it does no good for you to make up definitions just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will contradict what I say. Now you say that evidence is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is presented in support of an assertion. That is just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say that an ostrich just walked by and then I say that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that there are a lot of penguins in the Antarctic I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for the claim that an ostrich just walked by no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much I insist that it was evidence. Similarly, if you make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion that there is a god and try to claim that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is either blatant lies about how the world around us works
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just have a hard time believing that there might not be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> god you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have presented absolutely no evidence, strong or weak. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of penguins in the Antarctic has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether an ostrich just walked by me and lies and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feelings have nothing to do with whether there is a god. Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be weak or strong. That is why I said that if you come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some evidence for this god I would have to revise the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it being true from one in infinity to something greater than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity. The stronger the evidence the higher the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> become. As for my being certain of nothing, well, I suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life could be a dream and that I am really an ameboid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another galaxy dreaming it, but I don't plan to spend any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worrying about it. That is a proposition that I just made up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as likely as any made up proposition like god, one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't get much more certain than that. As for other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence just keeps piling up for biological evolution. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire libraries of documentation of the research that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this evidence. It is true that all scientific theory is are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tentative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending incoming data, but to overthrow this theory there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a lot of evidence and incredibly profound evidence that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refute it. I am not going to spend any time worrying about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. Evolution is just about as much of a scientific fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact can be. I am convinced of it. Now, honestly, if you want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> retain any kind of credibility at all you will have to stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that what someone just got through telling you was something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than what it was. I would say that it makes you look stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't quite do that. If you failed to understand what I said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how clearly I said it you would look stupid. But what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing is making yourself look utterly dishonest. You are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself look like a schemer who just wants to goad someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they disagree with you. And that makes you look
>>>>>>>>>>>>> downright
>>>>>>>>>>>>> childish. You are likely to say that I just threw insults
>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> am telling you exactly how you come off. As long as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything I say to suit your superstitious self you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> across
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 11:51 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are terrible at math, imo. Because there could be two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, it does not necessarily mean there is a 50/50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of then answer being one or the other, it could be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be based on other factors, this is not just flipping a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coin. And I dismantled your one in infinity proposition in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prior email. You are just applying the percentages and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential outcomes based on what supports your cause. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the odds, not some neutral person. It is like leading the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witness, no thanks. False proposition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While the definitions can vary, an agnostic can mean someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who does not know- a gnosis- not knowing. an Athiest can mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - no God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was not around for you and Carl going round about this, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to guess Carl was not convinced, when you tried to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain to him that he really believes what you believe even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though he doesn't. At least I can imagine a conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a definition of evidence "Evidence, broadly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is anything presented in support of an assertion. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so at least according to that definition I did indeed give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. And I explained this before, you reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it not evidence. So I think you could say you did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the evidence, you reject the evidence you think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence is weak etc... But seems silly to say I did not give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim that science has worked it out is interesting. On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one hand you could be wrong and so could the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science changes over time as facts and info are gathered. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current theory could be found to be incorrect. Or are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now going to state it as an absolute?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your other claim about everything that has been known and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we find out does not hold up as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are standing on sinking sand. Your foundation does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> match your words and beliefs. You have major contradictions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I do keep trying to tell you and you pass over it and try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and go on as if it is not problem. If I said I do not believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the supernatural and then went on to describe the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural as if it didn't matter, that contradiction would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a problem. If I said I did not think that I could know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything for certain and then went on to tell you of things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with absolute certainty that would be a problem. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you keep doing. doesn't it bother you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The funny thing to me with you not being able to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for certain, that you could be wrong about everything you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know, is that you continue to compile evidence so you can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more certain but in your worldview you can never have 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty, meaning you can never really know anything, no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute truths. There is no path to certainty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazing how you evolved in a way where you have a thirst and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire for truth, but can't ever have it. You have a strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal sense of right and wrong and good and bad, but they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't ever really exist in a way that is not just arbitrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a desire to use logic and demand it of others, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot account for logic or why we should use it in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly you need God to resolve this. But after all this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back and forth, I do not think you want to do the hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into these foundational issues, and it is hard and will be or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be difficult. We can try and go through that if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want, but if you are just going to repeat the same things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict your foundational premises I do not see the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you keep talking to me if I constantly contradicted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself? I told you before we are both looking at the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts but draw different conclusions, not from the facts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground but because of our presuppositions, that is where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the disagreement lies and further I assume we will find if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go there, that connected to all this and rejection of God,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we usually find is a person is mad at God, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointed with God or something like that, or they just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> love the things that God says are not ok, and they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to give up control.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-04 22:49, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You spend a lot of time here telling me what my world view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting it all wrong. But let me concentrate on whether I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the god fairy tale character could be and whether I am an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carl here is the agnostic and I have already spent a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explaining why his agnosticism is wrong, but I will go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. I was once an agnostic, from about age twelve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sixteen when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong with it, but for whatever reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't remember well I kept calling myself an agnostic until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eighteen. But if I go on about how my philosophy developed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up a lot of time, so let me start with where I am now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic is an atheist who just has not figured it out yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, an agnostic professes a lack of belief in super spook.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifies one as an atheist right there. The trouble is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic asks himself the question of whether he can prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invisible magical being being exists and comes up with a no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considers the question of whether it can be proved to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still comes up with a no and so says that he doesn't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. That is, he gives equal weight to both questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of whether you can prove that a god does not exist,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not even a legitimate question. As I have said before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can prove a negative is to prove a contradicting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that contradicts the positive form of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is proving a positive. But by claiming a neutral position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually giving equal odds for both the positive and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist? But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, as I said before, there are a lot more ways for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be wrong than there are for it to be right. Let's look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of a mathematical formula. Let's make the proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equals B and there is no supporting evidence for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without evidence you can make only two assumptions about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that the proposition is true or you can say that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false. If you claim that it is true you really cannot go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. You have it that A equals B and you can't say much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except, perhaps that B equals A, but that is just another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposition. If, however, you say that the proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you have a lot of alternatives. A could equal C. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XYZ. A could equal three divided by the square root of two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on and on and the reason I could go on and on is that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity of things that A could equal if it did not equal B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate the probability of the proposition being true you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divide it by the whole set. The whole set is infinity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divided by infinity is infinity. As I said before, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposition being true is a decimal point followed by an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of zeros until you reach a digit that is not a zero and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you will never reach a digit that is not a zero. So I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is a possibility of there being a god and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of it is one in infinity. However, if some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up with then the probability will change. Despite your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insistence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have offered evidence you have not. First you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist lies. That is not evidence of anything other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lowly worms the creationist liars are. Then you seemed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back off of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a little and start expressing your personal incredulity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe could have come into existence without some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guiding consciousness. I am sorry, but not matter how hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that is not evidence of a guiding intelligence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do find evidence I will continue to make the negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another purveyor of superstition said to me once after I had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not have proof that there is a god that I make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is not, Well, I assume that there is." I then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my assumption is a valid assumption and as valid as any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be while his assumption is as invalid as any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be and the mathematical example I gave above is the reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable complexity that we see in the universe does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of a guiding intelligence simply because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovery has shown that it does not and has worked out just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes about. So that claim is not evidence. Furthermore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has ever been unknown in the past and that may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be of a supernatural nature has when it was discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer was, has always, without exception, turned out to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural. Well, there are a lot of unknowns right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknown becomes a known it always opens up more questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not even thought of before the answer was arrived at. Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are still unknowns though. As long as they are unknowns I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculate on what the answers might be and maybe I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formulate some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments that might lead toward answers, but I will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute claim that I have the answer and insist on it being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have nothing to back up that claim. I will not say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists because some super cow in a bigger universe farted it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence and I will not say that god created it. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have only one chance in infinity of being true. By the way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance in infinity is an equal chance. That is, you may as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the universe is the fart of a giant cow as that a god
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both are equally likely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 9:14 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the email and agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a theory as to how things have worked without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance, you assume it is true or believe it to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say there is a God who created things, because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Truth, not to make my life more mentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comfortable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can indeed admit to not knowing things. so most of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you wrote again is a lot of straw man fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear about what you wrote, are you saying it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible in your opinion that God exists? Are you saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a skeptic in the sense of being an agnostic? I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the impression you were the type of atheist that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying there is no God. You mention it is hard for you to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe it, but you do not claim it can't be true (God's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence). Would like some clarification before I read too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far into all of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are back to you want proof, evidence, truth, reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc... For one we have had the discussion were you admitted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do not know anything for certain, that is called giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up knowledge (justified true belief). And two I have asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in the past what kind of evidence would suffice for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? I do not believe you answered that, or I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember you answering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three I have given you so many forms of evidence. Including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primarily showing you how your worldview of atheism does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a foundation for truth, for continuity in nature,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose, meaning, ethics (that are not arbitrary), logic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human dignity. As well I have tried repeatedly to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how your unguided theory cannot account for information,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws, non physical things (logic) existence itself. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want me to rewrite the arguments? You can go back and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are banking on science. But science is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation. You have a metaphysic, ethic and epistemology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone does whether they know it or not. These are your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real foundation because science can only exist or function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under philosophical underpinnings that provide for it. Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of science and facts and truth are unaccounted for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never explain how your worldview provides for these things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in fact I have shown you what a contradiction you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because your stated worldview actually does not allow for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very things you are trying to use and demand. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldview does provide for these things. So it seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use something I can account for and you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is like you are trespassing or working with stolen goods.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your worldview you cannot know anything for certain but you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to tell me about facts and truth etc... in your world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view there can be no absolute good and bad right and wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you go on and on about what is good and what is bad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your worldview there is no meaning or purpose or point, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet you act as if these things do exist. In your worldview
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot account for logic and yet you demand we use it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want to have it both ways it seems. That is the proof,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know facts and truths matter, and there are things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are right and wrong and that logic is a universal law, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature is uniform, that there is a purpose and meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these very things you know internally you deny with your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-03 23:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, it is unguided. Furthermore, we have figured out how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works without guidance. Now, you want to push things back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further to the point that I have to say that I don't know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe how life on Earth came about and I can describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved. I can describe how abiogenesis came about. Before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe how the Earth coalesced out of the solar nebula.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe how the solar nebula came into existence by an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier star
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going supernova and thus causing all of the heavier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements to form,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the elements that were necessary for life. But as I go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further back there has to be a point that I am going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know. You claim to know. And you have nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim to know. You seem to be saying that there has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and continue to be an intelligent guiding force because of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal incredulity. I am sorry, but personal incredulity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to determine what reality is. And that speaks to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been saying about religious arrogance. If you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something you just don't know it. The purveyor of religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit to not knowing. You have to insist that you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been some supernatural being just because you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing something. When you come up with some reason to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion you are making you still don't know, whether you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it or not. As for me, I am personally incredulous at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion that some invisible magical being made or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe into existence, but I do not claim that it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is so hard for me to believe. I reject it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no reason to believe it. When you claim to believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something without a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason to believe it then whether you personally made it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own imaginings or not it is still something that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of someone's imaginings. And by reason I mean something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has something to do with it being true. That you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incredulous that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it could be not true has nothing to do with whether it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it makes you feel really good to believe that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has nothing to do with it being true. Now, if you can come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some real reason, that is, something that has something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being true, for a supernatural being then I will have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skepticism aside, but the track record for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good. Humanity has arisen from unthinking cells in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primordial ocean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and those cells were ultimately ignorant. They knew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they had no brain to know anything with. But we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arisen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which we know quite a lot even if there is a lot more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Along the way very many supernatural explanations were put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain things that we did not know. But we learned. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of those unknowns became answered questions. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without exception, that something that was unknown before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and had only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural explanations became known the supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were found to be untrue. This is without exception and so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural really fails every time. Also, every time the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously unanswered question was found there were people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisted that the demonstrated answer that had disposed of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural explanation was wrong. They insisted on it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they died. And every time it was they who were wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2018 7:43 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try and be as clear as I can here. There are 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, at least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1 I agree and have agreed and continue to agree and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand I am agreeing with you and the point you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made over and over that I have agreed with that the less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex(matter) can become more complex with energy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tendency as you described it is reflective of laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms that exist. OK? We agree in fact I never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denied that. I never said or claimed complexity just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared, and I never claimed you claim or believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity just appears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 The other part and the part that is important is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process you are talking about is unguided, it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposeful it happens by accident and I am going to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forced to use this word again but try not to miss or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget point 1, it is random. I am talking about here for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarification how the whole things starts off for one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your process has to begin somewhere, and it will end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere. No one, in your scenario, starts this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process. so how does it happen? Can you see my point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here? It is unguided, there just happens to be matter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy and time and laws, they just happen to be there in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your scenario and the process is just begins and goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it goes. Now you can repeat you do not know how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begins or where matter comes from etc.... You are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left with choices like matter is eternal or it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 the major problem with your soup scenario is it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guided. You picked the ingredients, the 'right mix' and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'you add energy'. Now for the most part energy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemicals will most likely follow entropy and probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast majority of reactions won't lead anywhere. And the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical industry example is the same problem, totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guided R&D by smart educated people, with money, access
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a sterile lab, meticulously experimenting, theorizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.... This is an issue of what can happen unguided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus guided, designed versus not designed, it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serves my point I think. Your explanation that less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex becomes more complex, is a way to explain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and life in our world and universe, is faulty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you have a card you like to play when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient, time and infinite possibilities. So your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario is so implausible the only way you can even buy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is to have an infinite number of tries and then it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to happen. Well it doesn't have to happen, wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen and the only reason imo you think it is because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with the end in mind. You a priori reject Design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Creator and God and so you are left with an even less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible theory. I understand you have literature and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science and theories and speculations and your examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less complex to more. And that may be fine for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or crystals forming structures repeating. But when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want that process to explain information and life it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't carry the same weight, besides that your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldview assumptions of atheism do not provide for even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-03 15:28, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is something that is not just a difference in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have a chemical soup of the right mix and you add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy to it you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause chemical reactions to occur. The more energy you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add the more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex those reactions and resulting compounds become.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four and a half billion years of constant input of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex of organic chemicals the complexity becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tremendous. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tendency for the less complex to become more complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions has been experimentally confirmed over and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over. We would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no chemical industry without it. It is an objective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there can't be much in the way of facts that are more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factual than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. To claim that such a process does not happen is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What can I even say about a person who would make such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim? Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say liar? Should I say cognitively impaired? Should I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say abysmally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant? And then that person claims that the false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems of low complexity do not become more complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant energy is somehow evidence for an invisible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magical powers. Honestly, the only thing I can see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence of is that there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making the claim. That is on par for nuttiness with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heaven's gate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crowd who committed suicide claiming that what they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was hitching a ride on a spaceship that was hiding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a comet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 10:42 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How am I lecturing you? you have misrepresented the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a straw man argument, and I even said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "you SEEM to have misrepresented" maybe I was mistaken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think so though. Now if I had done that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have insulted me. But I gave you a link to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Seemed helpful to me. Either you have straw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man right or wrong, seems simple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure how I am distorting you, I quoted you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I misunderstood your intent behind your quote? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we have some definitional issues in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, regarding what just happened random
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc... mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I love your newest insult, I am just here to provoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, right I have nothing else to do. Don't be so full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of yourself, I have taken the time to try and get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through to you and understand some of what you say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe I should have cut my time losses a long time ago,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I keep thinking we will get to some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational premise issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not come to you to learn and I have no desire to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent you or anyone else from learning. You made, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I stated much earlier, some brash and arrogant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements on an email I happened to receive. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responded. I even laid out for you my 2 goals prior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amusing too that you think religion is opposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning. It seems to me many of science's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists have been religious or at least believed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God. And yet they were not anti science. Amazing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-02 22:21, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You see? You have the nerve to lecture me on straw man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right then you go ahead and distort what I have said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. Yes, I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that if there are an infinity of universes then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would of course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be in the one that allowed for our existence. But if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe then we would of course, be in it only if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was one that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed for our existence. To say otherwise is like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so remarkable that the shape of the depression just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to match
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shape of the water in it in the form of a puddle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that the universe just happened. Maybe it did,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. Now, I think I am beginning to see a pattern
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. You just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep on making these distortions with the intent to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provoke and goad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me into anger and then you can say that because I lost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my temper you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the rational one. Sorry, the distortions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not rational. The purposeful distortion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone's words is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely dishonest. You show no interest in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You show only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in disrupting and in preventing others from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, that is something religion is all about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposition to learning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that is one reason that I utterly detest religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you removed your name calling you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write shorter emails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have misrepresented the straw man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what you said/wrote in the previous email:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As for why we seem to live in an anthropic universe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that just happened to have the structure and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws that allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for our existence would, of course, be in the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are in."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is funny to me that you harp on this, besides your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote, I have explained my position several times in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light of your explanations, that if ultimately there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no planning to have laws, and algorithms and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and energy, then they are just there and whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result is of their combo ultimately is random an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accident and just happened. Because there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose behind them, no plan no Maker or Creator. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean complexity popped into existence, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never accused you of saying that and you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me of accusing you of that, hysterical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other funny part is of all the things I wrote to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you that this is the thing you want to go over again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you could go back to that email and pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something more interesting to respond to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I do not think there are too many people reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along at this point, imo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to trade websites check out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.creation.com a lot of PhD's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also I bought this book but have not read it yet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harvard PhD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Nathaniel T Jeanson PhD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link: http://a.co/0oY8gr6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-02 20:25, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me tell you something about straw man arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickery. You claim that someone said something that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that person did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not say and you make that claim to another person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not hear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the original person said and then you refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never made in the first place. So you trick the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that another person said something he did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not say. So, what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the point of making this straw man argument right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to the very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person who said the things that you are saying false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things about in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first place? I know what I said and you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trick me into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that I said something else. Or is it that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are just trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your best to live up to that tradition among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious preachers of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the best jerk you can be? I did not say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone on this list knows that I did not say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it just happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I made some references to some speculative current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypotheses and said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were speculative and that I don't know. I.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't. Know. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not saying that it just happened. Now instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lecturing someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who knows more about the topic than you do try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning about that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic and then say something about it when you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Again, you can start here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://talkorigins.org/ That site has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some really fascinating articles. But please don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie about what they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to say. Please don't distort them for straw man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 3:24 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for saying you do not know. Amazingly though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know you do not know and, you know no one else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can know either?, that is another fallacy. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth is you do not know and you do not think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else can know but how would you know what everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else knows? You can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your description of the Big Bang Singularity is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lovely story you have faith in. It is so far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fetched and forensic science like that is more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculative. Either matter would be eternal, or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came into existence out of nothing or nowhere,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one of these is a major problem for you. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of matter coming from nowhere compressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely small and exploding is a series of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that result in laws and algorithms, and matter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and life. Where were the natural laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that came into existence prior to the singularity?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were they not there before? It is amazing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything happens for no reason, and yet it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random not an accident. There just happen to be non
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical laws that exist that matter obeys. Truly a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feat of random magic. It is fine if you want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe this stuff, and in 50-100 years there will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be scientific theories that make this one look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous, I am sure. Just like many of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific theories of the past seem silly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again is your hypocrisy, you ask me about God and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell you answers, and here you say it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just happened that..... and what you are telling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me is highly speculative and you want me to look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phrases like this and say of course that is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random? You think this explains a material world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with immaterial things? How about logic? Ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts? your matter and algorithms sure can do a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your theory of how ethics came about is also pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculative. Much of Ethics is something in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hearts. Stabbing your best friend in the back is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, it is wrong in every culture and time, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone knows it. Evolution does not provide an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for a universal ethic existing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans. And your social theory is lacking as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And chalking it up to natural selection and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemistry makes it even less meaningful, besides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being implausible. And the main point is that any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethic without God is arbitrary. Just opinions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no absolute truth in your worldview regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethics, and yet you know there are things that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely wrong. And if you are willing to admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, then you have to see your worldview does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really provide for that and in fact contradicts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is love good? Can't be in your world, it is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemistry and chemistry is neither good or bad. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> love is not good or bad and no love would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good or bad either (that is hate) just chemistry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet you judge people on an ethical basis all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Major contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-01 16:23, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, because you have a tendency to ask short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions or make short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points that require long answers and because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have all the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world I have been addressing only one or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few of your points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any one message and waiting for you to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again later. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time you repeat one that I have, indeed, neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. That is where do nonmaterial things come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from in a material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe? Okay, I have mentioned abstract but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective aspects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe like dimensions, directions or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just space. These
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are characteristics of the universe and just like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> origin of matter there are some very speculative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypotheses extant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have not been tested because we do not yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a way to test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. One is that in the singularity that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popularly called the big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bang cause and effect did not exist and most any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic could have come into existence and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of them did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you are so fond of throwing accusations of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explaining everything as randomness I am sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see randomness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in what I have just said. That is not the case if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all possibilities,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which in a case like that would be infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibilities, were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spawned all at once. This is one of the hypotheses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that advocate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiverse. As for why we seem to live in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropic universe, well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that just happened to have the structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and laws that allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for our existence would, of course, be in the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we are in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There would be other things that could only exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in their respective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universes. Again, though, all of this is of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most highly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculative concepts. The real answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is simply that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know and no one else knows either. And let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that not knowing does not mean supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. Not knowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only means not knowing. The things we don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are things that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to figure out, not just proclaim an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation out of nowhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insist that it is true. As for ethics,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morality and that kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstractions, that is easier to explain. Each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who are even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capable of communicating abstractions to each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are human beings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all evolved together and have to relate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world around us and with each other too. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be two directions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which concepts of ethics and morality came to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us. First, there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the genetic aspect. There was certainly a survival
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thusly a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive advantage to people who could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooperate with each other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for mutual advantage. That would cause the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurochemicals that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate cooperation to be produced more over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had it and so survived to produce more offspring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These neuro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemicals are likely to have been adapted for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were already there to perform other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxytocin is a muscle relaxant and facilitates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parturition. Since it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important for a mother to take care of her newborn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it also became a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurotransmitter that cause feelings of goodwill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and affection. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is why it is called the love chemical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vasoptressin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is also involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this behavior. So there is another way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the word love
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you used. Love is caused by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurotransmitters in the brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second, aside from emotions caused by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurotransmitters the brain has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become complex enough that it can figure out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around it and how to best react in a considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment. So as humans came to live in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communities and to interact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with each other on a daily basis they had to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up rules that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate such interactions and to make deals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to maximize advantages for individuals and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole and to minimize harm that might otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result. Out of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came codified rules of ethics and morality. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there you have your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer and it has nothing to do with any magical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beings that reside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of space and time. The uneducated people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position of having to create these moral codes did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that magical beings were nonsense, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not the magical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beings who created the rules of human interaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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@aol.com> 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@freelists.org> 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@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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@charter.net; 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@freelists.org;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
> Roger,
> I never saw a purple cow...
> But even if there were, as long as it didn't impact our glorious
> Akmerican Way of Life, who cares?
> The problem with God, real or not, is that people act as if He exists,
> and as if they have a pipeline to His True Word. So the Purple Cow is
> not a problem, but the problem is that people all want to sell you and
> me Purple Milk.
>
> Good grief! I know it's late, but this is rediculous.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
From: Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 07:36:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Schizophrenia and Religion, was Re:
Re: Original Sin
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com>
Cc: blind-democracy@freelists.org, blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
Roger,
You wrote: "no one has ever demonstrated whether there is a purple unicorn in
a paisley teacup orbiting Jupiter or not either."
True, and I've never seen a Purple Cow. But I am indifferent to both.
I'm indifferent to the Unicorn in its cup and to the Purple Cow
because neither is presenting a threat to me and my life style. Nor
to that of my loved ones. Where I become concerned is when the
Unicorn in a Cup and the Purple Cow Believers begin to gain enough
power that they demand changes in the Law, giving their belief a power
position and the ability to twist our social standards to comply with
their view of how we came to be.
It doesn't matter to me if God exists, or not. What bothers me are
the Believers who, anytime they gain enough power, demand that I must
live by their rules.
While I find your detailed explanations interesting and informative, I
do not believe they will change a single mind. Besides, as I say,
proving or disproving God's existence will not solve the problems
facing us. Our major problem, as I see it, is based upon our Human
Nature. In a way, religion has attempted to address our Human Nature,
calling for our need to be "born again". But religion is unwilling to
believe that we Humans can do this without some sort of divine
Guidance. And so religion falls back on its own Creation. It dusts
off and updates the notion that there is some all mighty dictator who
has absolute power, and only speaks to His devout Subjects.
It is at this point that I am caught on the horns of a dilemma. How
do I continue to fight for our individual freedom to believe and do as
we choose, but enforce limits on the right of others to promote their
beliefs?
Of course the simple answer is, to set our societal rules to allow
freedom of thought and action up to the point where they threaten or
interfere with those of the people around us.
Of course history shows us that this has never worked. When some
folks believe that they have a perfect dictator who knows absolutely
what is right and what is wrong, there can never be a "live and let
live" existence. Same sex relations are wrong and Evil, because our
Great Dictator said so. If those who believe it to be wrong could
simply live and let live, the problem might be solved. But no! The
Perfect One has spoken. And since He cannot tolerate such behavior,
we must do something about it. Make it illegal...castigate
them...jail them...extinguish them. All in the name of the Great
Dictator.
I know I'm wandering off the topic, but I often wonder how we can
avoid blaming the Great Dictator who knows all, and created Man in His
own Image, how we avoid holding Him responsible for producing a
creature that is not Perfect in His Sight?
Of course the solution is easy for those who Create the Perfect
Dictator. Invent the Perfect Evil One. A lesser dictator who we can
blame all our troubles and short comings on.
Notice that we Humans become the Great Victims? No, we don't really
say that we are victims, but all of our actions point to that fact.
And so, it is not the Unicorns in Cups, or the Purple Cows that
concern me. What concerns me is whether we Humans can overcome our
insanity long enough to save ourselves. No great god will do it. No
purple cow or unicorn in a tea cup. We Humans have created the world
as it now exists. Only we can save it.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/9/18, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
>> Carl, no one has ever demonstrated whether there is a purple unicorn in
>> a paisley teacup orbiting Jupiter or not either. Do you really think
>> that there may as well be one there as not?
>>
>>
>> On 6/9/2018 8:37 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>> Give it up, guys!
>>> After all the dust settles, I'm still an Agnostic. My reason is
>>> straightforward. After your best shots, no one has demonstrated
>>> whether there is a Creator or not.
>>> And in the human scheme of things, it makes no difference. We humans
>>> do not need some all wise Being to tell us what is good for us and
>>> what will do us great harm. In fact, with all of the great religions
>>> on this planet, we still manage to do some very harmful things, to us
>>> as well as to the planet, itself.
>>> Perhaps religion, or more to the point, Faith, is good for
>>> individuals. But the flawed religions we practice do much more harm
>>> than good.
>>> We have much more pressing, and life threatening issues to deal with
>>> than whether we came into existence through the wave of God's hand, or
>>> by a fluke. What we do know is that we are here. And if we don't get
>>> control over our behavior, we'll soon not need worry about the how of
>>> it all.
>>>
>>> Carl Jarvis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/9/18, Jason Meyerson <jason@calvarymorninglight.org> wrote:
>>>> Roger,
>>>>
>>>> I can appreciate that we may have misunderstandings and disagreements,
>>>> maybe irreconcilable. To me though you have greatly mistaken my direct
>>>> attacks on your stated worldview. You do not seem to get that I just
>>>> don't agree with you, no matter how you have described and explained, I
>>>> have found your points lacking and unconvincing. I read what you wrote
>>>> and have thought about these things. And I do question your very words
>>>> and I do try and use your very words to show you problems with them, if
>>>> you want to call that twisting I do not agree. But I am asking you
>>>> when
>>>> I bring them right back to you, I did not go somewhere else and
>>>> misquote
>>>> you and slander you, I directly confronted you with your words and
>>>> idea,
>>>> sometimes I may have misunderstood you and I apologized. You want to
>>>> interpret all that as me lying, that is your freedom. And saying it
>>>> directly to me, is fine if that makes you happy, but going around and
>>>> trying to smear a person's reputation and character certainly doesn't
>>>> seem right.
>>>> It seems to me, that when you cannot convince someone of your position
>>>> regarding this issue, you get very frustrated and begin calling names,
>>>> and names apparently you already have decided about someone who you
>>>> disagree with. Meaning you already decided you think people who
>>>> disagree with you on this topic are all the nasty vicious demeaning
>>>> things you declare. and yet you say I am closed minded and unwilling
>>>> to
>>>> change. Because a person strongly believes something and you cannot
>>>> understand it or they disagree with you, does not make them equivalent
>>>> to having a mental defect. It doesn't mean they do not have one, but
>>>> just being in a situation with you, where there is no agreement and
>>>> understanding is not the criteria for a mental issue. You and your
>>>> belief set are not the standard and benchmark for mental health, but I
>>>> am sure it makes you feel vindicated to think so, and understand this
>>>> is
>>>> my interpretation of what I read. And this is why we need things like
>>>> freedom of speech and belief, otherwise whichever side could gain
>>>> enough
>>>> power could seriously damage the lives of the other side and I am sure
>>>> there are already examples from both sides we could quote.
>>>>
>>>> Let me ask you this, since you are making such a big deal about it, is
>>>> this issue of lying. What is wrong with lies? Meaning for one, I do
>>>> not lie, two as an atheist I would ask you: is lying wrong? And Why?
>>>> You certainly seem to imply it is wrong, and yet how could you declare
>>>> in a non arbitrary way or in an absolute way that it is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-06-08 21:03, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>> Let me address this to the list as a whole, because it has become very
>>>>> apparent that no matter what I say Jason is going to completely
>>>>> misrepresent it right back at me right after I say it. That makes it
>>>>> impossible to discuss anything with him. A long time ago I offered up
>>>>> an hypothesis of my own on this list concerning religion and the
>>>>> discussion didn't go very far, but I was thinking that Jason just
>>>>> might be an example of some of the kinds of people I was thinking of
>>>>> and so I want to revisit it. About ten to fifteen years ago I found
>>>>> myself hanging around frequently on the streets of downtown
>>>>> Charleston, West Virginia. At least it had once been the downtown.
>>>>> There were still stores around, but at a certain point in time an
>>>>> inner city mall had been built a few blocks to the west of that area
>>>>> and the main shopping area had shifted with it. That means that some
>>>>> of the stores in the downtown had closed and some remained empty while
>>>>> others had been converted into other things. There were two abandoned
>>>>> department stores that sat side by side that had been converted into
>>>>> group homes for the mentally ill. Those group homes have been moved
>>>>> elsewhere now, but when I was hanging around the area they were a
>>>>> going concern. They housed mental patients who were functional enough
>>>>> that they did not need to be in a state hospital, but they were still
>>>>> not functional enough that they still did not need some kind of
>>>>> supervision. They were allowed to run around on the streets during the
>>>>> day time unless they violated certain times of the day that they had
>>>>> to check in and, of course, they had a curfew. There was also a small
>>>>> apartment building nearby that was zoned for senior and handicapped
>>>>> residency. The only handicap that it housed, though, was mental
>>>>> handicaps. Those were the ones who had been deemed functional enough
>>>>> that they did not need the group home environment and so the mental
>>>>> health agency had secured apartments for them, but still kept them
>>>>> close enough that they could be kept tabs on. Well, even though there
>>>>> is nothing wrong with it and even though no one would necessarily be
>>>>> sure that you were nuts if you did it there is an unspoken social
>>>>> convention that you do not just walk up to a stranger on the street
>>>>> and strike up a conversation. Mental health patients seem to not be
>>>>> aware of the social convention, though, and quite a few of them did
>>>>> strike up conversations with me and I actually got to know a number of
>>>>> them fairly well. As a result I got to hear quite a few of their
>>>>> schizophrenic delusions. I remember one guy who was convinced that he
>>>>> had been abducted by space aliens and he had met a Russian woman on
>>>>> their spaceship and that he had the inside scoop on their coming
>>>>> invasion of Earth. The interesting thing about him was that when he
>>>>> was talking about other topics he seemed to be perfectly sane and if I
>>>>> had not known that he was a mental patient I would have thought that
>>>>> he was just joking about the space aliens. That was just one example
>>>>> and I could go on with some others, but that would use up a lot of
>>>>> time. I will say that not all of them seemed perfectly sane except for
>>>>> their schizophrenic delusions though. Sometimes I would just listen
>>>>> politely, but as time went on I tried arguing with them and telling
>>>>> them how absurd the things they were telling me were. It was exactly
>>>>> like arguing religion with a religious person. No amount of reason
>>>>> could dissuade them. No amount of demonstrable facts could dissuade
>>>>> them. This got me to start considering what schizophrenic delusion and
>>>>> religious delusion had in common and what the differences were. Well,
>>>>> when someone starts talking to you about how he has a direct line of
>>>>> communication to space aliens the absurdity of his claims really
>>>>> stands out. That is because you don't ordinarily hear someone saying
>>>>> things like that. But, really, it is no more absurd than the claim
>>>>> that one has a personal relationship with a disembodied consciousness
>>>>> that created the universe and both delusions are impervious to both
>>>>> reason and evidence. But there are differences too. Schizophrenic
>>>>> delusion is usually unique to the individual. You only find one person
>>>>> who has that particular set of delusions. Yet that unique set of
>>>>> delusions can be just as complex or at least near as complex as a set
>>>>> of religious delusions. Religious delusions, on the other hand, tend
>>>>> to be shared with a lot of other people who have the same set of
>>>>> delusions. Their may be minor variations from person to person and
>>>>> when you look at the holders of these delusions you can see variations
>>>>> from one group to another and these variations are called
>>>>> denominations. ON a global perspective the variations are enough that
>>>>> they are called different religions. But still, the set of delusions
>>>>> are shared with a lot of other people and these delusions are called
>>>>> religious doctrine. Another difference is that merely religious people
>>>>> tend to be a lot more functional in their daily lives. But, like I
>>>>> said, schizophrenics can be pretty functional too even if most of them
>>>>> are not. Now, one more thing about differences. I tried to talk to a
>>>>> professional psychologist about this once and I don't think he fully
>>>>> understood what I was getting at and our time, both of us, was short,
>>>>> so I didn't get to fully explain myself to him. But he started going
>>>>> on about how religion is cultural and schizophrenia is only influenced
>>>>> by culture. He did say something, though, that indicated that he might
>>>>> have been getting close to what I was getting at. On the subject of
>>>>> cultural influence on schizophrenic delusion he said that an American
>>>>> schizophrenic is likely to say that god is talking to him while a
>>>>> Chinese schizophrenic would be more likely to say that Chairman Mao is
>>>>> talking to him. What I did not get to explain was that I meant that
>>>>> culture may influence the particulars - that is, the particular
>>>>> theology that people will believe, but the fact of religious delusion
>>>>> and the capability of holding religious delusion is not cultural. So,
>>>>> about my hypothesis, unfortunately I do not have the means to test
>>>>> this and if I did then without the credentials and the status of being
>>>>> a working professional research psychologist I would not be able to
>>>>> have my results published in a professional journal. But my hypothesis
>>>>> is this. I think that schizophrenia is a spectrum disorder. On one end
>>>>> of the spectrum is the uncommunicative schizophrenic who has no chance
>>>>> of getting out of the state hospital and then along the spectrum would
>>>>> be the more functional ones who can communicate, but are still so
>>>>> nonfunctional that they can't be released either because they would
>>>>> undoubtedly cause harm to themselves. Going further along the spectrum
>>>>> you have a lot of homeless people who would really be doing better if
>>>>> they had some supervision and then you have the people who I met who
>>>>> can actually run the streets, but still have to check into their group
>>>>> home. By the way, I suspect that a lot of homeless people are on about
>>>>> the same level as those. But then if you move further along the
>>>>> spectrum you will find people who seem to be sane enough, but just
>>>>> seem to have some crazy ideas or behave oddly. It seems to me that
>>>>> religious people may be even further to the functional end of the
>>>>> spectrum. That is, they can conduct their daily lives just fine and
>>>>> relate to other people just fine, but they still hold totally absurd
>>>>> delusions. The fact that the delusions are shared may be symptomatic
>>>>> of being on that highly functional end of the spectrum. At the same
>>>>> time I will say that I have seen religious people who are only barely
>>>>> functional. Those are the super fanatics, the real bible thumpers who
>>>>> are such pests. I actually think that if some of those people's
>>>>> delusions were anything other than religious they would probably be
>>>>> housed in a group home for the mentally ill themselves. Now, as an
>>>>> addendum I wanted to mention one particular schizophrenic. He was an
>>>>> atheist. He had no use for religion at all and if someone started
>>>>> preaching to him he would become hostile. He also was convinced that
>>>>> some secret organization was following him around in a helicopter,
>>>>> tapping all of his phone calls and beaming threatening messages into
>>>>> his head. I mention him because I wanted to point out that atheists
>>>>> are not necessarily immune to this spectrum disorder. One would think
>>>>> that an atheist would be completely free of schizophrenia and be the
>>>>> most rational of all people, but I have met some atheists who are
>>>>> convinced of some pretty wacky ideas and less wacky than the example I
>>>>> just gave. But at least they are not infected with religious
>>>>> delusions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/8/2018 9:26 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the email.
>>>>>> You can call me names and express all the anger you want, frankly to
>>>>>> me as a follower of Jesus, it is just a small taste of what He
>>>>>> experienced.
>>>>>> I could understand if you concluded maybe we are just not
>>>>>> communicating well or having some misunderstandings, that is how I
>>>>>> try
>>>>>> and think about it.
>>>>>> Clearly we disagree, and have our reasons and clearly I have touched
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> nerve with you, I think it is because of some things going on in your
>>>>>> heart, some internal issues but that is my theory, and not really
>>>>>> about me, even though you seem obsessed with making it personal and
>>>>>> attacking me.
>>>>>> But I forgive you.
>>>>>> If you want to go back to the previous email and deal with some of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> issues that sounds good to me, but if not no problem. Like I said I
>>>>>> am satisfied with the display of your worldview, but would prefer to
>>>>>> get to the deeper issues, but that is not always possible, or maybe
>>>>>> not right now.
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-06-07 23:47, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>> Listen here, liar. And, yes, I called you a name because you have
>>>>>>> earned it. You just keep accusing me of things that you do every
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>> You tell me that I engage in contradictions while you do it. You are
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> bully. When you will not engage the points I make, but distort those
>>>>>>> points in order to provoke anger you are being a bully. And this
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> you end with telling me again that I have no path to absolute truth
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> if I hadn't told you the same thing. If you believe that you have
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> path to absolute truth then you have no path to truth at all. By
>>>>>>> making that claim you cut yourself off from seeking truth. You stick
>>>>>>> yourself into a glue that will hold you back from the truth if you
>>>>>>> ever come across it. It is likely that is the reason that instead of
>>>>>>> engaging in civil discussion you resort to bullying. Your absolute
>>>>>>> truth won't let you admit that someone else may know something you
>>>>>>> don't and so you condescendingly try to tell me about things that it
>>>>>>> is very clear that I know more about than you. You have proven
>>>>>>> yourself to be an intellectual scoundrel. Now, if you are so anxious
>>>>>>> to get an angry reaction out of me you have gotten it. You can take
>>>>>>> your god or any other fairy tale characters you cling to and stuff
>>>>>>> them up your ass. These are not ad homenum arguments. These are
>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>> telling you off for your strong attempts to be a complete jerk. I
>>>>>>> tried to show you where you were going wrong, but you purposely
>>>>>>> distort everything I tell you. That is simply the behavior of a
>>>>>>> complete jerk and a bully and an intellectually dishonest person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2018 11:21 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to pretend you are in high school math, that if fine. I
>>>>>>>> am talking about the real world and probability math is a tool.
>>>>>>>> Again I point to the weather. And I also say you are just like
>>>>>>>> someone who stacks the deck. You want to play a math game, fine,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> your example regarding infinity does not hold water. Who said
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> are in infinite number of events? You, not me. I do not agree with
>>>>>>>> your premise or your math or your calculations or your conclusion.
>>>>>>>> It is not representative of reality, even if you can argue that it
>>>>>>>> works in math class, in some technical sense. Your scenario of
>>>>>>>> evolution is so outlandish you need an infinite number of chances
>>>>>>>> for it to occur. I only need one in my worldview.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to evidence, of course it would have to be regarding what is
>>>>>>>> true. That is a given and redundant.
>>>>>>>> You stated the evidence would have to be above the ordinary,
>>>>>>>> "extraordinary" is the word you used. Now to me I understood you
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be describing something supernatural, maybe I have misunderstood
>>>>>>>> you, my apologies. That is what I thought you were saying. So what
>>>>>>>> is extraordinary evidence? We are proposing a supernatural being,
>>>>>>>> that is my claim to you. How can evidence that is not supernatural
>>>>>>>> be presented as proof of supernatural? I have given you plenty of
>>>>>>>> evidence including to show you the impossibility of the contrary.
>>>>>>>> Meaning without God you cannot have truth or even evidence. The
>>>>>>>> arbitrariness and bankruptcy of your worldview and the
>>>>>>>> contradictions you are left with, that is a proof that is evidence,
>>>>>>>> something is wrong with your premise if it leaves you in all kinds
>>>>>>>> of contradictions and arbitrary situation. Now if you wish to just
>>>>>>>> say: fine my worldview and stated beliefs are at odds, my ethics
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> arbitrary, you have no path to knowledge or absolute truth, you
>>>>>>>> cannot account for logic or reality itself, that is fine (you have
>>>>>>>> already agreed you cannot know anything for certain or absoluletly)
>>>>>>>> I am satisfied then if you wish to leave it there, so you have
>>>>>>>> admitted these things. You do not wish to resolve them. It makes
>>>>>>>> little sense to talk about truth with someone who cannot arrive at
>>>>>>>> it. If we can begin with our presuppositions and move forward in a
>>>>>>>> consistent manner then maybe we could continue discussing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for your character, I think it would be appropriate to take
>>>>>>>> responsibility for your actions and reactions, and not blame
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> else. I believe you are responsible for yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-07 21:15, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The actual probability of something happening, indeed, does have
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> factors and they are more than can be counted or determined. If I
>>>>>>>>> flipped a coin and knew the exact movements of the air particles
>>>>>>>>> around it and knew the exact weight of the coin and its surface
>>>>>>>>> structure down to a microscopic level and If I knew a lot of other
>>>>>>>>> factors that I don't even think of to enter the figuring then I
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> make a fairly accurate prediction of which side of that coin would
>>>>>>>>> land facing up. I cannot know all of that though. That is what
>>>>>>>>> probability theory is for. Now, I don't know how you missed it. I
>>>>>>>>> don't know if you never had a math class or if you flunked the
>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>> you had, but it still remains that the most basic equation in
>>>>>>>>> probability theory is how to calculate a probability. If you had a
>>>>>>>>> probability unit in high school math you would have had to come
>>>>>>>>> across
>>>>>>>>> it. It is, again, to calculate the probability of an event you
>>>>>>>>> divide
>>>>>>>>> the number of times the event happens by the total number of
>>>>>>>>> events
>>>>>>>>> considered. And by denying this and by telling me about other
>>>>>>>>> factors
>>>>>>>>> involved in probability you are again trying to lecture someone on
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> topic that he clearly knows more about than you do. As for
>>>>>>>>> Pascal's
>>>>>>>>> wager, you should have already seen how I would demolish that one.
>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>> I have already pointed out, there are an infinity of things that
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be made up out of nothing and without the the slightest bit of
>>>>>>>>> evidence that it is true - and remember that evidence means that
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> has to have something to do with it being true - and to each of
>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>> made up claims can be attached very dire consequences for not
>>>>>>>>> believing them. Now, just how am I supposed to pick out one of
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> infinity of claims to believe in just in case when none of them
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> anything at all to back them up? Next, you say that I said that
>>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>>> of god would have to be supernatural. I said no such thing. You
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the nerve to attack my character when I tell you something and you
>>>>>>>>> turn around right after I say it and then lie about what I have
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> said. I told you that evidence of a god would have to have certain
>>>>>>>>> qualities. It would have to have something to do with it being
>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>> Your personal incredulity has nothing to do with it being true. I
>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>> that the more fantastic the claim the more fantastic the evidence
>>>>>>>>> would have to be and that the hypothesis that there is some kind
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> invisible magical being that resides outside of space and time and
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> so outlandish that if proven to be true would falsify all of the
>>>>>>>>> science our civilization is built upon, would have to have some
>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>> fantastic evidence. I said that in order to sormulate the
>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>>>> to be tested you would also have to make a statement of how it
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> be falsified itself. Nowhere in that was a claim on my part that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> evidence would have to be supernatural. Now, as for your attacks
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> character, it is becoming more and more obvious that you are
>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>> your best to goad me into angry reactions. I hate to admit it, but
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> are succeeding in that. You succeed when you misrepresent what I
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> said right back at me right after I have said it. You succeed when
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> accuse me of the kind of behavior you engage in yourself.
>>>>>>>>> Obviously
>>>>>>>>> you have no leg to stand on when arguing for the existence of
>>>>>>>>> fairy
>>>>>>>>> tale characters, so you just try to goad and provoke instead of
>>>>>>>>> engaging in civil discussion. But, honestly, you have no room to
>>>>>>>>> attack my character when I tell you something and then you come
>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>> back at me right after I have told it to you and lie about what I
>>>>>>>>> said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2018 11:40 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The actual probability of an event can have more factors in it
>>>>>>>>>> than just dividing by the number of events.
>>>>>>>>>> It rains a lot in Seattle. we could say it will either rain or
>>>>>>>>>> not rain, so 50/50? Ridiculous, that is not how we predict the
>>>>>>>>>> weather or the probability of rain. So if you want to just
>>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>>> all other influences in a situation and you are just going to
>>>>>>>>>> flip
>>>>>>>>>> a coin for example, then 50/50. Not all scenarios can be
>>>>>>>>>> accurately stripped down to your formula. This is fairly
>>>>>>>>>> straightforward and I think I tried explaining this before. I do
>>>>>>>>>> not think it is that convincing or the best argument, but maybe
>>>>>>>>>> you should consider Pascal's Wager if you have not before, he
>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> math kind of like you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I understand the bulk of the rest of your email, you propose
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> evidence that would suffice for you, specifically you say you do
>>>>>>>>>> not know what would actually be evidence for the existence of
>>>>>>>>>> God. But then you go on and say that if there was any evidence,
>>>>>>>>>> it would have to be supernatural. But you clearly do not believe
>>>>>>>>>> in the supernatural. So if a miracle (something supernatural)
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> instance was to happen (like the Resurrection of Jesus an
>>>>>>>>>> historical fact, creation etc..) I think you would deny it. You
>>>>>>>>>> would deny any miracle (to me you already do by denying creation
>>>>>>>>>> and life etc... being created) You would rationalize any thing
>>>>>>>>>> supernatural and say that science could explain it, or would
>>>>>>>>>> eventually be able to explain it. So again we find you in
>>>>>>>>>> contradiction. You say there is no God because there is no
>>>>>>>>>> evidence. I give you evidence, you reject it. I ask you what
>>>>>>>>>> evidence you would like and you say give you evidence that you do
>>>>>>>>>> not even believe is possible or exists. How does this make any
>>>>>>>>>> sense? Your mind is closed and you have tried to insulate
>>>>>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>>>>>> inside of some circle of reasoning that is all closed up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Evidence of the supernatural by the way would not fly in the face
>>>>>>>>>> of anything you mention, and one of my points to you is that God
>>>>>>>>>> is a necessary foundation for science. And for many theistic
>>>>>>>>>> scientists there is not any conflict. God not existing and the
>>>>>>>>>> supernatural not existing are not foundations to science
>>>>>>>>>> technology and society.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You self admittedly do not know anything and of all things
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> we have learned in history is just a fraction of all the total
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that is out there. When will humans know everything?
>>>>>>>>>> never. They will never be omniscient, so in your worldview you
>>>>>>>>>> will always be left in uncertainty and on an impossible task of
>>>>>>>>>> trying to discover truth, but it is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your statements besides being repetitive are still not true, I
>>>>>>>>>> never claimed to know everything, I doubt any 'religious types"
>>>>>>>>>> do. And we do not 'just' insert the god of the gaps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are a few questions. Why is it wrong to be arrogant? Is it
>>>>>>>>>> that you just do not like it and it is just your chemistry or do
>>>>>>>>>> you propose there is something actually wrong and bad about
>>>>>>>>>> arrogance. I mean wrong and bad in an absolute sense, otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> your opinion about arrogance is arbitrary and without any real
>>>>>>>>>> meaning. You are expressing an ethic/morals but you have not
>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>> any support for their existence or truth. In fact you can't have
>>>>>>>>>> anything more than arbitrary opinion as an atheist, like
>>>>>>>>>> chocolate
>>>>>>>>>> or vanilla. You don't like arrogance so what, just like you
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>> not like vanilla, what does it matter?
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be implying that there is no absolute truth, but if
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> assert absolute truth, you say that is foolish and arrogant.
>>>>>>>>>> Here
>>>>>>>>>> is my question, are you absolutely certain it is arrogant and
>>>>>>>>>> foolish of me to assert absolute truth? I hope you see the
>>>>>>>>>> problem here.
>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I try to imagine you are a nice person, but for
>>>>>>>>>> various reasons you think insulting and trying to berate people
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> acceptable. I do not know what the details of the standard of
>>>>>>>>>> ethical behavior you claim to follow are, but I find it hard to
>>>>>>>>>> believe that insults accusations and trying to berate people are
>>>>>>>>>> on the list. Does your ethical standard include treating people
>>>>>>>>>> who disagree with you poorly, viciously? Maybe you should switch
>>>>>>>>>> ethical standards to something else that suits you. I wonder why
>>>>>>>>>> though you use this tactic? I wonder why anyone would choose to
>>>>>>>>>> attack someone personally when in a discussion of issues, ad
>>>>>>>>>> hominem. I can think of a few reasons. Frankly it is arrogant
>>>>>>>>>> and maybe yelling and screaming at people works for you in life
>>>>>>>>>> but I doubt it. all your attacks and insults do not affect the
>>>>>>>>>> issues, imo. You think, I suppose, you are so much better than
>>>>>>>>>> other people you can treat people like this (I am assuming it is
>>>>>>>>>> not just me). If you are not able to civilly disagree with
>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> on issues that are important, maybe you shouldn't, just a
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-05 21:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not bad math! Have you ever attended a class on
>>>>>>>>>>> probability
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> your life? When calculating the probability of an event you
>>>>>>>>>>> divide the
>>>>>>>>>>> number of the events in question by the whole number of events
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> set of events. The result is a probability ranging from 0.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0,
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.0 meaning that it never happens and 1.0 meaning that it
>>>>>>>>>>> happens
>>>>>>>>>>> every time. Are you going to deny that and call it bad math? If
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> do then you may as well deny that 1+1=2 and call that bad math
>>>>>>>>>>> too. If
>>>>>>>>>>> you are going to call these simple equations bad math then I
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> hard time understanding how you ever got enough education to
>>>>>>>>>>> spell the
>>>>>>>>>>> word math. Now, what kind of evidence would I accept for god? I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> know and it is not my job to find out. If you want to make the
>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis then it is your job. Remember, I am the one who is
>>>>>>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>>>>>>> the negative of the proposition. I can tell you some of the
>>>>>>>>>>> qualities
>>>>>>>>>>> it would have to have though. Carl Sagan told us that
>>>>>>>>>>> extraordinary
>>>>>>>>>>> claims require extraordinary evidence. If you made an ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>> mundane
>>>>>>>>>>> claim I would not have a problem believing it even without your
>>>>>>>>>>> providing evidence. Supposed you claimed that you went to the
>>>>>>>>>>> bathroom
>>>>>>>>>>> in the past hour. Well, you might be lying. Maybe it was two
>>>>>>>>>>> hours
>>>>>>>>>>> ago. But that is a common activity that everyone does all the
>>>>>>>>>>> time and
>>>>>>>>>>> so I would not even think of demanding evidence before accepting
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, if you claimed to have a degree in math or
>>>>>>>>>>> science
>>>>>>>>>>> I would have my extreme doubts because you show an abysmal
>>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance about such subjects. But I suppose it is possible.
>>>>>>>>>>> Look
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Behe, for example. The evidence would have to have
>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>> to do with it being true. I suppose that if you produced a not
>>>>>>>>>>> forged
>>>>>>>>>>> degree from a reputable institution that would do. I would be
>>>>>>>>>>> surprised in the extreme, but it would do. However, you are
>>>>>>>>>>> making a
>>>>>>>>>>> claim of the most extraordinary kind. You are claiming the
>>>>>>>>>>> existence
>>>>>>>>>>> of some invisible magical being that resides out of space and
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> that still influences the real world. That flies in the face of
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>> scientific discovery ever made in the history of science, in the
>>>>>>>>>>> history of humanity. The evidence would have to be something so
>>>>>>>>>>> extraordinary that it would falsify every principle that our
>>>>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>>>>> society and its technology is built upon. And it would have to
>>>>>>>>>>> actually have something to do with it being true. Saying that
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> a hard time believing that the universe could exist without that
>>>>>>>>>>> magical being just is not enough. As for my having no path to
>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>> truth, that is correct. This is something else that science has
>>>>>>>>>>> shown
>>>>>>>>>>> us. As I said, not only has the answer to unknown questions not
>>>>>>>>>>> once,
>>>>>>>>>>> ever, been supernatural when they were finally answered, but
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> every time one of those questions was answered new questions
>>>>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> that were not even thought of before they were answered. That is
>>>>>>>>>>> without exception too. There is so much that is unknown, likely
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> infinity, that we don't even know what we need to know. We do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> know that so many of those unknowns are even there. So we cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>> everything. That is one of the things that frustrate me about
>>>>>>>>>>> religious thought. You religious types claim to know it all. If
>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>> an unknown you refuse to admit that and just insert the god of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> gaps. That is extreme arrogance. and I hate arrogance. The
>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to
>>>>>>>>>>> admit to the possibility of being wrong is obnoxious. And that
>>>>>>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>>>>>>> me of something. There is another characteristic to the evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> god that needs to be included. It must be falsifiable. That is,
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> you formulate your hypothesis for testing a part of that
>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>>>>>> has to have a statement of what, if found in the testing, would
>>>>>>>>>>> prove
>>>>>>>>>>> a positive that would show that the hypothesis that is being
>>>>>>>>>>> tested is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Religious would reject that. Could ever formulate a
>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>>>>>> that would include the possibility of your being wrong? That is
>>>>>>>>>>> against the religious insistence on being right no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>> But as
>>>>>>>>>>> long as you are claiming that you have a path to absolute truth
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> that you already have absolute truth you are not making yourself
>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>> very good. You are making yourself look like an arrogant fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2018 4:18 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote:"But by claiming a neutral position one is
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually giving equal odds for both the positive and negative
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist? "
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fifty fifty situation is one you seemed to assume Carl,
>>>>>>>>>>>> (agnostics) was stuck with. And then you go on to explain why
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not the situation. So the fifty fifty assumption is bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> math and your solution of dividing by the whole set and coming
>>>>>>>>>>>> to one in infinity is bad math. I am trying to understand you
>>>>>>>>>>>> and point out some of the things I think are wrong. For the
>>>>>>>>>>>> sake
>>>>>>>>>>>> of brevity, you can just say I think you misunderstood me, that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is just a suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not make up a definition. I quoted you one.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think you are the arbiter of evidence, and while you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can reject my evidence, the connection of the evidence to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition seems to be interpretive. And you have not told me
>>>>>>>>>>>> what would suffice for evidence. We have a proposition, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> even you admit that it could be possible(however infinitely
>>>>>>>>>>>> small in your idea), that God exists. What evidence would you
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would think the idea that your worldview is bankrupt,
>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary and contradictory to your beliefs would be an eye
>>>>>>>>>>>> opener and some evidence. And remember the facts that we can
>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss as evidence for something will be interpreted based on
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> person's presuppositions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am glad you are not worried, but the fact remains, you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute truth and no path to ever knowing anything for
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even though you go right ahead and claim truth and certainty.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-05 15:54, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is incredible how daft you can be. It is you who twists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say around so that you can cling onto your irrational claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is very probable that you are doing it just to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into an angry reaction. The very first thing you say this time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am terrible at math and that just because there are two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions it does not mean that there is a fifty/fifty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either being true and I had just gotten through explaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing to you. Of course it does not mean that there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fifty/fifty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of either being true. I also did not word it in any way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could have been mistakenly misinterpreted to have said that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sounds very much like deliberate misrepresentation of what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me. What I said was that the agnostic makes the mistake of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both the positive and negative form of a proposition are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely when there is no evidence for either of them one way or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. In that case, the probability of the positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being true is one chance in infinity. Now if you can get out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I said that there is a fifty/fifty probability of either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions being true then You have some kind of mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next, it does no good for you to make up definitions just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will contradict what I say. Now you say that evidence is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is presented in support of an assertion. That is just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say that an ostrich just walked by and then I say that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that there are a lot of penguins in the Antarctic I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for the claim that an ostrich just walked by no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much I insist that it was evidence. Similarly, if you make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion that there is a god and try to claim that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is either blatant lies about how the world around us works
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just have a hard time believing that there might not be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> god you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have presented absolutely no evidence, strong or weak. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of penguins in the Antarctic has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether an ostrich just walked by me and lies and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feelings have nothing to do with whether there is a god. Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be weak or strong. That is why I said that if you come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some evidence for this god I would have to revise the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it being true from one in infinity to something greater than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity. The stronger the evidence the higher the probability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> become. As for my being certain of nothing, well, I suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life could be a dream and that I am really an ameboid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in another galaxy dreaming it, but I don't plan to spend any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worrying about it. That is a proposition that I just made up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as likely as any made up proposition like god, one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't get much more certain than that. As for other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence just keeps piling up for biological evolution. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire libraries of documentation of the research that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this evidence. It is true that all scientific theory is are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tentative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending incoming data, but to overthrow this theory there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a lot of evidence and incredibly profound evidence that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refute it. I am not going to spend any time worrying about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. Evolution is just about as much of a scientific fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact can be. I am convinced of it. Now, honestly, if you want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> retain any kind of credibility at all you will have to stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that what someone just got through telling you was something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than what it was. I would say that it makes you look stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't quite do that. If you failed to understand what I said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how clearly I said it you would look stupid. But what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing is making yourself look utterly dishonest. You are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself look like a schemer who just wants to goad someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they disagree with you. And that makes you look
>>>>>>>>>>>>> downright
>>>>>>>>>>>>> childish. You are likely to say that I just threw insults
>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> am telling you exactly how you come off. As long as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> misrepresent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything I say to suit your superstitious self you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> across
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 11:51 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are terrible at math, imo. Because there could be two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, it does not necessarily mean there is a 50/50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of then answer being one or the other, it could be,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be based on other factors, this is not just flipping a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coin. And I dismantled your one in infinity proposition in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prior email. You are just applying the percentages and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential outcomes based on what supports your cause. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the odds, not some neutral person. It is like leading the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witness, no thanks. False proposition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While the definitions can vary, an agnostic can mean someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who does not know- a gnosis- not knowing. an Athiest can mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - no God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was not around for you and Carl going round about this, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to guess Carl was not convinced, when you tried to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain to him that he really believes what you believe even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though he doesn't. At least I can imagine a conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a definition of evidence "Evidence, broadly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is anything presented in support of an assertion. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so at least according to that definition I did indeed give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. And I explained this before, you reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it not evidence. So I think you could say you did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the evidence, you reject the evidence you think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence is weak etc... But seems silly to say I did not give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim that science has worked it out is interesting. On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one hand you could be wrong and so could the science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science changes over time as facts and info are gathered. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current theory could be found to be incorrect. Or are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now going to state it as an absolute?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your other claim about everything that has been known and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we find out does not hold up as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are standing on sinking sand. Your foundation does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> match your words and beliefs. You have major contradictions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I do keep trying to tell you and you pass over it and try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and go on as if it is not problem. If I said I do not believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the supernatural and then went on to describe the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural as if it didn't matter, that contradiction would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a problem. If I said I did not think that I could know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything for certain and then went on to tell you of things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with absolute certainty that would be a problem. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you keep doing. doesn't it bother you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The funny thing to me with you not being able to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for certain, that you could be wrong about everything you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know, is that you continue to compile evidence so you can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more certain but in your worldview you can never have 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty, meaning you can never really know anything, no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute truths. There is no path to certainty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amazing how you evolved in a way where you have a thirst and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire for truth, but can't ever have it. You have a strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal sense of right and wrong and good and bad, but they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't ever really exist in a way that is not just arbitrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a desire to use logic and demand it of others, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot account for logic or why we should use it in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly you need God to resolve this. But after all this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back and forth, I do not think you want to do the hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into these foundational issues, and it is hard and will be or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be difficult. We can try and go through that if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want, but if you are just going to repeat the same things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict your foundational premises I do not see the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you keep talking to me if I constantly contradicted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself? I told you before we are both looking at the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts but draw different conclusions, not from the facts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground but because of our presuppositions, that is where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the disagreement lies and further I assume we will find if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go there, that connected to all this and rejection of God,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we usually find is a person is mad at God, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappointed with God or something like that, or they just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> love the things that God says are not ok, and they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to give up control.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-04 22:49, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You spend a lot of time here telling me what my world view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting it all wrong. But let me concentrate on whether I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the god fairy tale character could be and whether I am an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carl here is the agnostic and I have already spent a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explaining why his agnosticism is wrong, but I will go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. I was once an agnostic, from about age twelve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sixteen when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured out what was wrong with it, but for whatever reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't remember well I kept calling myself an agnostic until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eighteen. But if I go on about how my philosophy developed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up a lot of time, so let me start with where I am now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic is an atheist who just has not figured it out yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, an agnostic professes a lack of belief in super spook.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifies one as an atheist right there. The trouble is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic asks himself the question of whether he can prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invisible magical being being exists and comes up with a no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considers the question of whether it can be proved to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still comes up with a no and so says that he doesn't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. That is, he gives equal weight to both questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of whether you can prove that a god does not exist,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not even a legitimate question. As I have said before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can prove a negative is to prove a contradicting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that contradicts the positive form of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is proving a positive. But by claiming a neutral position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually giving equal odds for both the positive and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist? But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, as I said before, there are a lot more ways for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be wrong than there are for it to be right. Let's look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of a mathematical formula. Let's make the proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equals B and there is no supporting evidence for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without evidence you can make only two assumptions about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that the proposition is true or you can say that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false. If you claim that it is true you really cannot go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. You have it that A equals B and you can't say much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except, perhaps that B equals A, but that is just another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposition. If, however, you say that the proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you have a lot of alternatives. A could equal C. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XYZ. A could equal three divided by the square root of two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on and on and the reason I could go on and on is that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity of things that A could equal if it did not equal B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate the probability of the proposition being true you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divide it by the whole set. The whole set is infinity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divided by infinity is infinity. As I said before, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proposition being true is a decimal point followed by an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of zeros until you reach a digit that is not a zero and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you will never reach a digit that is not a zero. So I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is a possibility of there being a god and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of it is one in infinity. However, if some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up with then the probability will change. Despite your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insistence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have offered evidence you have not. First you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creationist lies. That is not evidence of anything other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lowly worms the creationist liars are. Then you seemed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back off of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a little and start expressing your personal incredulity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe could have come into existence without some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guiding consciousness. I am sorry, but not matter how hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you find it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that is not evidence of a guiding intelligence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do find evidence I will continue to make the negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another purveyor of superstition said to me once after I had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not have proof that there is a god that I make the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is not, Well, I assume that there is." I then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my assumption is a valid assumption and as valid as any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be while his assumption is as invalid as any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be and the mathematical example I gave above is the reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable complexity that we see in the universe does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of a guiding intelligence simply because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovery has shown that it does not and has worked out just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes about. So that claim is not evidence. Furthermore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has ever been unknown in the past and that may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be of a supernatural nature has when it was discovered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer was, has always, without exception, turned out to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural. Well, there are a lot of unknowns right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknown becomes a known it always opens up more questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not even thought of before the answer was arrived at. Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are still unknowns though. As long as they are unknowns I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculate on what the answers might be and maybe I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formulate some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments that might lead toward answers, but I will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute claim that I have the answer and insist on it being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have nothing to back up that claim. I will not say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists because some super cow in a bigger universe farted it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence and I will not say that god created it. Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have only one chance in infinity of being true. By the way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance in infinity is an equal chance. That is, you may as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the universe is the fart of a giant cow as that a god
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both are equally likely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2018 9:14 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the email and agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a theory as to how things have worked without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance, you assume it is true or believe it to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say there is a God who created things, because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Truth, not to make my life more mentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comfortable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can indeed admit to not knowing things. so most of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you wrote again is a lot of straw man fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear about what you wrote, are you saying it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible in your opinion that God exists? Are you saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a skeptic in the sense of being an agnostic? I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the impression you were the type of atheist that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying there is no God. You mention it is hard for you to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe it, but you do not claim it can't be true (God's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence). Would like some clarification before I read too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far into all of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are back to you want proof, evidence, truth, reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc... For one we have had the discussion were you admitted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do not know anything for certain, that is called giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up knowledge (justified true belief). And two I have asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in the past what kind of evidence would suffice for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you? I do not believe you answered that, or I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember you answering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Three I have given you so many forms of evidence. Including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primarily showing you how your worldview of atheism does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a foundation for truth, for continuity in nature,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose, meaning, ethics (that are not arbitrary), logic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human dignity. As well I have tried repeatedly to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how your unguided theory cannot account for information,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws, non physical things (logic) existence itself. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want me to rewrite the arguments? You can go back and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are banking on science. But science is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation. You have a metaphysic, ethic and epistemology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone does whether they know it or not. These are your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real foundation because science can only exist or function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under philosophical underpinnings that provide for it. Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of science and facts and truth are unaccounted for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never explain how your worldview provides for these things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in fact I have shown you what a contradiction you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because your stated worldview actually does not allow for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very things you are trying to use and demand. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldview does provide for these things. So it seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use something I can account for and you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is like you are trespassing or working with stolen goods.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your worldview you cannot know anything for certain but you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to tell me about facts and truth etc... in your world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view there can be no absolute good and bad right and wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you go on and on about what is good and what is bad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your worldview there is no meaning or purpose or point, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet you act as if these things do exist. In your worldview
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot account for logic and yet you demand we use it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want to have it both ways it seems. That is the proof,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know facts and truths matter, and there are things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are right and wrong and that logic is a universal law, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature is uniform, that there is a purpose and meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these very things you know internally you deny with your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-03 23:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, it is unguided. Furthermore, we have figured out how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works without guidance. Now, you want to push things back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further to the point that I have to say that I don't know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe how life on Earth came about and I can describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved. I can describe how abiogenesis came about. Before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe how the Earth coalesced out of the solar nebula.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe how the solar nebula came into existence by an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier star
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going supernova and thus causing all of the heavier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements to form,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the elements that were necessary for life. But as I go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further back there has to be a point that I am going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know. You claim to know. And you have nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim to know. You seem to be saying that there has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and continue to be an intelligent guiding force because of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal incredulity. I am sorry, but personal incredulity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to determine what reality is. And that speaks to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been saying about religious arrogance. If you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something you just don't know it. The purveyor of religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit to not knowing. You have to insist that you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been some supernatural being just because you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing something. When you come up with some reason to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion you are making you still don't know, whether you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it or not. As for me, I am personally incredulous at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion that some invisible magical being made or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe into existence, but I do not claim that it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is so hard for me to believe. I reject it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no reason to believe it. When you claim to believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something without a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason to believe it then whether you personally made it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own imaginings or not it is still something that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of someone's imaginings. And by reason I mean something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has something to do with it being true. That you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incredulous that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it could be not true has nothing to do with whether it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it makes you feel really good to believe that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has nothing to do with it being true. Now, if you can come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some real reason, that is, something that has something to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being true, for a supernatural being then I will have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skepticism aside, but the track record for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good. Humanity has arisen from unthinking cells in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primordial ocean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and those cells were ultimately ignorant. They knew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they had no brain to know anything with. But we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arisen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which we know quite a lot even if there is a lot more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Along the way very many supernatural explanations were put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain things that we did not know. But we learned. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many of those unknowns became answered questions. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without exception, that something that was unknown before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and had only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural explanations became known the supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were found to be untrue. This is without exception and so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural really fails every time. Also, every time the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously unanswered question was found there were people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisted that the demonstrated answer that had disposed of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supernatural explanation was wrong. They insisted on it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they died. And every time it was they who were wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2018 7:43 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try and be as clear as I can here. There are 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, at least.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1 I agree and have agreed and continue to agree and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand I am agreeing with you and the point you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made over and over that I have agreed with that the less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex(matter) can become more complex with energy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tendency as you described it is reflective of laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms that exist. OK? We agree in fact I never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denied that. I never said or claimed complexity just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared, and I never claimed you claim or believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity just appears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 The other part and the part that is important is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process you are talking about is unguided, it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposeful it happens by accident and I am going to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forced to use this word again but try not to miss or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget point 1, it is random. I am talking about here for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarification how the whole things starts off for one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your process has to begin somewhere, and it will end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere. No one, in your scenario, starts this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process. so how does it happen? Can you see my point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here? It is unguided, there just happens to be matter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy and time and laws, they just happen to be there in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your scenario and the process is just begins and goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it goes. Now you can repeat you do not know how it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begins or where matter comes from etc.... You are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left with choices like matter is eternal or it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 the major problem with your soup scenario is it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guided. You picked the ingredients, the 'right mix' and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'you add energy'. Now for the most part energy and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemicals will most likely follow entropy and probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast majority of reactions won't lead anywhere. And the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemical industry example is the same problem, totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guided R&D by smart educated people, with money, access
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a sterile lab, meticulously experimenting, theorizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.... This is an issue of what can happen unguided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus guided, designed versus not designed, it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serves my point I think. Your explanation that less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex becomes more complex, is a way to explain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and life in our world and universe, is faulty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you have a card you like to play when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient, time and infinite possibilities. So your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario is so implausible the only way you can even buy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is to have an infinite number of tries and then it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to happen. Well it doesn't have to happen, wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen and the only reason imo you think it is because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start with the end in mind. You a priori reject Design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Creator and God and so you are left with an even less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible theory. I understand you have literature and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science and theories and speculations and your examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less complex to more. And that may be fine for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or crystals forming structures repeating. But when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want that process to explain information and life it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't carry the same weight, besides that your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worldview assumptions of atheism do not provide for even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having this discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-03 15:28, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is something that is not just a difference in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have a chemical soup of the right mix and you add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy to it you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause chemical reactions to occur. The more energy you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add the more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex those reactions and resulting compounds become.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four and a half billion years of constant input of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex of organic chemicals the complexity becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tremendous. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tendency for the less complex to become more complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions has been experimentally confirmed over and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over. We would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no chemical industry without it. It is an objective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there can't be much in the way of facts that are more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factual than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. To claim that such a process does not happen is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What can I even say about a person who would make such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim? Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say liar? Should I say cognitively impaired? Should I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say abysmally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant? And then that person claims that the false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems of low complexity do not become more complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant energy is somehow evidence for an invisible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magical powers. Honestly, the only thing I can see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is evidence of is that there is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making the claim. That is on par for nuttiness with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heaven's gate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crowd who committed suicide claiming that what they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was hitching a ride on a spaceship that was hiding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a comet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 10:42 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How am I lecturing you? you have misrepresented the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a straw man argument, and I even said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "you SEEM to have misrepresented" maybe I was mistaken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not think so though. Now if I had done that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have insulted me. But I gave you a link to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. Seemed helpful to me. Either you have straw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man right or wrong, seems simple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure how I am distorting you, I quoted you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I misunderstood your intent behind your quote? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we have some definitional issues in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, regarding what just happened random
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc... mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I love your newest insult, I am just here to provoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, right I have nothing else to do. Don't be so full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of yourself, I have taken the time to try and get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through to you and understand some of what you say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe I should have cut my time losses a long time ago,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I keep thinking we will get to some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational premise issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not come to you to learn and I have no desire to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent you or anyone else from learning. You made, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I stated much earlier, some brash and arrogant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements on an email I happened to receive. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responded. I even laid out for you my 2 goals prior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amusing too that you think religion is opposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning. It seems to me many of science's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientists have been religious or at least believed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God. And yet they were not anti science. Amazing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-02 22:21, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You see? You have the nerve to lecture me on straw man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right then you go ahead and distort what I have said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. Yes, I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that if there are an infinity of universes then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would of course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be in the one that allowed for our existence. But if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe then we would of course, be in it only if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was one that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed for our existence. To say otherwise is like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so remarkable that the shape of the depression just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to match
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shape of the water in it in the form of a puddle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that the universe just happened. Maybe it did,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. Now, I think I am beginning to see a pattern
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. You just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep on making these distortions with the intent to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provoke and goad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me into anger and then you can say that because I lost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my temper you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the rational one. Sorry, the distortions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not rational. The purposeful distortion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone's words is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely dishonest. You show no interest in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You show only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in disrupting and in preventing others from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, that is something religion is all about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposition to learning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that is one reason that I utterly detest religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you removed your name calling you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write shorter emails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have misrepresented the straw man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what you said/wrote in the previous email:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As for why we seem to live in an anthropic universe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that just happened to have the structure and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws that allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for our existence would, of course, be in the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are in."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is funny to me that you harp on this, besides your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote, I have explained my position several times in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light of your explanations, that if ultimately there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no planning to have laws, and algorithms and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and energy, then they are just there and whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result is of their combo ultimately is random an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accident and just happened. Because there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose behind them, no plan no Maker or Creator. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not mean complexity popped into existence, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never accused you of saying that and you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me of accusing you of that, hysterical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other funny part is of all the things I wrote to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you that this is the thing you want to go over again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you could go back to that email and pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something more interesting to respond to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I do not think there are too many people reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along at this point, imo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to trade websites check out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.creation.com a lot of PhD's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also I bought this book but have not read it yet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harvard PhD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Nathaniel T Jeanson PhD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link: http://a.co/0oY8gr6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-02 20:25, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me tell you something about straw man arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickery. You claim that someone said something that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that person did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not say and you make that claim to another person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not hear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the original person said and then you refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never made in the first place. So you trick the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that another person said something he did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not say. So, what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the point of making this straw man argument right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to the very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person who said the things that you are saying false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things about in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first place? I know what I said and you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trick me into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that I said something else. Or is it that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are just trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your best to live up to that tradition among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious preachers of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the best jerk you can be? I did not say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone on this list knows that I did not say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it just happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I made some references to some speculative current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypotheses and said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were speculative and that I don't know. I.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't. Know. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not saying that it just happened. Now instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lecturing someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who knows more about the topic than you do try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learning about that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic and then say something about it when you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Again, you can start here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://talkorigins.org/ That site has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some really fascinating articles. But please don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie about what they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to say. Please don't distort them for straw man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 3:24 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for saying you do not know. Amazingly though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know you do not know and, you know no one else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can know either?, that is another fallacy. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth is you do not know and you do not think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else can know but how would you know what everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else knows? You can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your description of the Big Bang Singularity is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lovely story you have faith in. It is so far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fetched and forensic science like that is more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculative. Either matter would be eternal, or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came into existence out of nothing or nowhere,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one of these is a major problem for you. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of matter coming from nowhere compressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely small and exploding is a series of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that result in laws and algorithms, and matter and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and life. Where were the natural laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that came into existence prior to the singularity?,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were they not there before? It is amazing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything happens for no reason, and yet it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random not an accident. There just happen to be non
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical laws that exist that matter obeys. Truly a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feat of random magic. It is fine if you want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe this stuff, and in 50-100 years there will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be scientific theories that make this one look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous, I am sure. Just like many of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific theories of the past seem silly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again is your hypocrisy, you ask me about God and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell you answers, and here you say it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just happened that..... and what you are telling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me is highly speculative and you want me to look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phrases like this and say of course that is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random? You think this explains a material world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with immaterial things? How about logic? Ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts? your matter and algorithms sure can do a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your theory of how ethics came about is also pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculative. Much of Ethics is something in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hearts. Stabbing your best friend in the back is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, it is wrong in every culture and time, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone knows it. Evolution does not provide an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for a universal ethic existing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans. And your social theory is lacking as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And chalking it up to natural selection and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemistry makes it even less meaningful, besides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being implausible. And the main point is that any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethic without God is arbitrary. Just opinions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no absolute truth in your worldview regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethics, and yet you know there are things that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely wrong. And if you are willing to admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, then you have to see your worldview does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really provide for that and in fact contradicts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is love good? Can't be in your world, it is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemistry and chemistry is neither good or bad. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> love is not good or bad and no love would not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good or bad either (that is hate) just chemistry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet you judge people on an ethical basis all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. Major contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-01 16:23, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, because you have a tendency to ask short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions or make short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points that require long answers and because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have all the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world I have been addressing only one or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few of your points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any one message and waiting for you to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again later. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time you repeat one that I have, indeed, neglected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely. That is where do nonmaterial things come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from in a material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe? Okay, I have mentioned abstract but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective aspects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the universe like dimensions, directions or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just space. These
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are characteristics of the universe and just like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> origin of matter there are some very speculative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypotheses extant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have not been tested because we do not yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a way to test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. One is that in the singularity that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> popularly called the big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bang cause and effect did not exist and most any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural law or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristic could have come into existence and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of them did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you are so fond of throwing accusations of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explaining everything as randomness I am sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see randomness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in what I have just said. That is not the case if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all possibilities,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which in a case like that would be infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibilities, were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spawned all at once. This is one of the hypotheses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that advocate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiverse. As for why we seem to live in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropic universe, well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that just happened to have the structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and laws that allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for our existence would, of course, be in the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we are in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There would be other things that could only exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in their respective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universes. Again, though, all of this is of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most highly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speculative concepts. The real answer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is simply that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know and no one else knows either. And let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasize again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that not knowing does not mean supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. Not knowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only means not knowing. The things we don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are things that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to figure out, not just proclaim an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation out of nowhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and insist that it is true. As for ethics,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morality and that kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstractions, that is easier to explain. Each of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who are even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capable of communicating abstractions to each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are human beings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all evolved together and have to relate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world around us and with each other too. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be two directions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which concepts of ethics and morality came to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us. First, there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the genetic aspect. There was certainly a survival
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thusly a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproductive advantage to people who could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cooperate with each other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for mutual advantage. That would cause the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurochemicals that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate cooperation to be produced more over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had it and so survived to produce more offspring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These neuro
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chemicals are likely to have been adapted for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were already there to perform other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oxytocin is a muscle relaxant and facilitates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parturition. Since it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important for a mother to take care of her newborn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it also became a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurotransmitter that cause feelings of goodwill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and affection. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is why it is called the love chemical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vasoptressin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is also involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this behavior. So there is another way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the word love
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you used. Love is caused by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurotransmitters in the brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second, aside from emotions caused by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neurotransmitters the brain has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become complex enough that it can figure out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around it and how to best react in a considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment. So as humans came to live in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communities and to interact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with each other on a daily basis they had to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up rules that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate such interactions and to make deals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each other in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to maximize advantages for individuals and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole and to minimize harm that might otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result. Out of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> came codified rules of ethics and morality. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there you have your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer and it has nothing to do with any magical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beings that reside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of space and time. The uneducated people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position of having to create these moral codes did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that magical beings were nonsense, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not the magical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beings who created the rules of human interaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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@aol.com> 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@freelists.org> 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@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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@charter.net; 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@freelists.org;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
> Roger,
> I never saw a purple cow...
> But even if there were, as long as it didn't impact our glorious
> Akmerican Way of Life, who cares?
> The problem with God, real or not, is that people act as if He exists,
> and as if they have a pipeline to His True Word. So the Purple Cow is
> not a problem, but the problem is that people all want to sell you and
> me Purple Milk.
>
> Good grief! I know it's late, but this is rediculous.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)