All:
Fantastic commentaries, eh what?
Richard
On 7/24/2017 12:16 PM, Abby Vincent wrote:
About sin and hell. Sin isn't unconventional sex or adhering to alternative
facts. It is separation from God. Similarly, hell is not a place where one is
sent as a punishment for bad behavior or false beliefs. If you have no use for
God while you are on earth, you wouldn't want to spend your eternity with him.
So, you can go to hell, a place where God isn't .
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:16 AM
To: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Cc: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Pascal's Wager Again
During my "Rescuer" Period, I believed that Logic would prevail.
Probably the last time I tried this "technique" was with my elder sister. She believed
totally that her parents, especially her mother, hated her. She "knew" in her heart of
hearts that mother tried to abort her, and took out her anger that this unwanted pregnancy had
forced her to marry a man she did not like. This world of my sisters went reeling off into a Land
of Never Never, totally different than the one I and my younger sister grew up in. When I was
first totally blind, I had lots of time on my hands. I designed the perfect rebuttal to each and
every accusation my elder sister made. Over several weeks I would call her and take up this
project of mine.
I honestly believed, going in, that logic would prevail. Of course what I
failed to understand was that my elder sister truly believed that she was the
logical one, and I simply ignored the facts. We went back and forth for
several months, until I threw in the towel, deciding it was better to keep an
open line to my elder sister, than to close all doors of communication. After
over half a century do I think that staying in touch has been productive in the
slightest?
Yes. Of course she has not wavered from any of her fantasies, but by my
listening to her vent, she has come to believe that I understand her, even if I
do not agree. Perhaps it is as much her age, she is now turning 84, that has
had a calming effect. She is no longer a destructive, out of control person.
I have long ago stopped trying to convince her that she is nuts. I accept that
she lives in a much different Reality than do I and my younger sister. And
isn't that the world we all live in? Even those of us who have many areas of
agreement, don't we each live in our own Reality? And don't we feel the need
to defend and justify our Reality?
In my Reality there is no longer an Almighty God. He left town many years back. But my younger
sister has a deep belief in a "Greater Power", and yet we are true friends. My
mother-in-law says her prayers each morning and reads her Daily Lesson, and repeats each bead on
her Rosary. But even though I know that she quietly prays for my Soul, we never attempt to
"convert" one another. So, is it possible for 7 or 8 billion individual realities to
coexist peacefully, without the need to feel that one of us is more Right than those around us?
Certainly as long as we close doors and refuse to accept that other peoples
reality is as valid to them as ours is to us,we will go forth to do battle,
instead of going forth to make peace.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/23/17, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
It didn't really occur to me that it was an attempt to convert. For
one thing, if a person has renounced the use of logic and utterly
rejects it then you may as well forget about using logic to convince
that person of anything. To me it was simply a well articulated
explanation of why Pascal's wager is completely invalid. I have used
the same arguments myself and have done so on this list even if I was
not directly refuting Pascal's wager in particular. I have not
necessarily used the same words though and I liked the way it was
explained. Personally, though, I would add that in addition to having
a really difficult time choosing a religion to bet on there are also
an infinity of things that can be made up out of nothing and to each
one can be attached dire consequences for not believing them, so how
does one choose one irrationality out of an infinity of irrationalities to bet
on?
Not withstanding all of that, though, let us take a look at other
ideas or things that one can be emotionally attached to. There are a
lot of people who are emotionally attached to Donald Trump and hang
onto his every word. Many of them renounce the use of logic in
defending him and it will offend them deeply if anyone criticizes him.
Because they have renounced the validity of logic it is very unlikely
that they can be converted. So does that mean that we should never criticize
him at all?
Should we never try to inform one of his supporters because it might
cause distress for that person? Whether an evil comes in the form of
Donald Trump or in the form of a religion must we give up on fighting
evil because there are some people who are emotionally attached to
that evil and hold their beliefs in that evil very dear?
On 7/23/2017 1:53 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
In part, I agree with Miriam. At first I thought I was listening to
a couple of Robots, and there would be some funny ending. But the
links that follow are more interesting to me.
Still, nothing I heard would be discussions I'd use in trying to
"convert" others to Agnosticism. Everything that was said could
force the other person to dig in deeper. Of course that never stops
me from getting a bit over the top from time to time, but at least I
know at the outset that I am simply venting, not converting.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/22/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the problem with this little dialogue is that it is represented
as a rational discussion in which the young woman uses logic to
convince the young man of how irrational and, well, basically stupid
he is, to be a believing Christian. Aside from some of that stuff
regarding how much money he donates and that it may very well be
used for something other than he's been told, which is an unproved
allegation because it does depend on the church he attends, this
idea that people will respond to logical arguments regarding
religion is clearly incorrect. Religion fulfills emotional needs for
many people. Logical discussion doesn't make those needs disappear.
Sometimes, challenging religious beliefs causes people to cling to
them even more strongly because they feel so threatened by the
arguments against their beliefs. And again, why the need to convince
people not to believe what they clearly do believe and what is such
an important part of their lives?
I've
noticed that some of the people who feel most strongly negative
about religion, are the people who were once very religious
themselves. It reminds me of former members of the Communist Party
who became strongly anti-Communist during the 1950's. And there's a
blind guy who's on several lists and whose political opinions are
extremely right wing. He told me that he was once a left wing
Democrat and he worked on the McGovern campaign.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:38 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender
rogerbailey81 for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Pascal's Wager Again
It worked this time. At least it worked for me. I think I may see
the problem. The first time I listened to the whole presentation
before deciding to share it and by the time I copied the URL it had
moved on to something else and apparently it was the URL to that
something else that I copied.
This time I found the recording again in my browser's history
feature and it started out with what I wanted to share and I
immediately copied that URL.
When I tested it it worked. Now, if any of you try this and it does
not give you two synthetic voices discussing Pascal's wager after
they have dinner let me know and I will know that I am still doing
something wrong.
On 7/22/2017 9:29 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
rogerbailey81 for
DMARC) wrote:
Okay, I'm going to try that link to the discussion on Pascal's
wager
again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMk2kHZUrAc