Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7576  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction. So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
It was stated very clearly in the book that some choices are easier to make than others, but this has no bearing on the direction we are compelled to go.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: p. 52

Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth. Here you go, first premise refuted
You are completely lost LadyShea. You are acting like Miss Know It All as usual. You're not asking questions; you're telling me he's wrong when you don't have a clue. It really gets me upset when people think they have proved Lessans wrong when they did no such thing.
Reply With Quote
  #7577  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:25 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers.
Unsupported assertion
Reply With Quote
  #7578  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
We can easily dispense with this argument.

1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction.

2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST.
Thank you for this refutation but I have to disagree. We cannot DO if we don't move in this direction naturally. We cannot LadyShea. We can only DO what our desire is telling us to DO. Desire is the impetus here. I am trying to come from your position in order to show you where you're confused, so don't give up, okay?
We can do all sorts of things. Your challenge is to show that we must do them.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's an assertion that keeps your worldview safe. I can't fight someone who sets up a premise that cannot be disputed, which is what you're doing. :(
All you have to do is demonstrate where the "must" comes from. You need to differentiate between actual truths and necessary truths and show, through sound and solid reasoning, that this movement towards greater satisfaction is necessary rather than merely actual.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
Here you go, first premise refuted
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no modal fallacy.
Your heart is irrelevant, this isn't about emotions remember? Put your head in it.

If you can't show this foundational premise to be sound, the rest falls apart.
The foundational premise is very sound, so the rest does not fall apart. There is no modal fallacy. You didn't understand Chapter One at all. :(
Reply With Quote
  #7579  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:28 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Because it makes you look incompetent and stupid and not like someone who knows the answer to evil. But do what you want.
peacegirl's posting style is the very least of her problems.
Reply With Quote
  #7580  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
What conclusions? You said:
Quote:
I will have a question and answer period, but not before I cut and paste.
I know for a fact you have pasted this several times right here at :ff: and also at other forums. Instead of cutting and pasting yet again, why not just link to those posts? You can use the search tools and/or scroll through your own posts and search Google to find them and link to them.

How is that unbelievable to you?
I mean your conclusion based on the premise that I can't have a discovery if I don't know how to use the search tools.
Reply With Quote
  #7581  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:38 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you not to use the term non-discovery if you want to converse with me. Don't test me Spacemonkey or you'll be the loser.
You haven't offered me any alternative neutral term to use instead. I'm not going to call it a 'discovery' before you've actually shown it to be correct. That would be putting the cart before the horse.
Then say Lessans' claim, but don't use the term non-discovery. It's a slap in the face.
Reply With Quote
  #7582  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:44 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you not to use the term non-discovery if you want to converse with me. Don't test me Spacemonkey or you'll be the loser.
You haven't offered me any alternative neutral term to use instead. I'm not going to call it a 'discovery' before you've actually shown it to be correct. That would be putting the cart before the horse.
Then say Lessans' claim, but don't use the term non-discovery. It's a slap in the face.
That doesn't work, because each of his (non-discoveries) involves many different claims. Speaking of his first and second claim would only lead to confusion.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #7583  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:46 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
:shrug: as Spacemonkey said, get on with it. Do whatever it is you plan to do. Paste what you're going to paste. Then Spacemonkey will post his questions yet again and you can yet again avoid answering them with more of your weaseling.
^This^ Peacegirl. Get on with whatever presentation/copypasting you feel you need to do, and stop stalling. You keep saying you can't answer my questions without first presenting his chapter, but you're not making any effort whatsoever to even begin any such presentation.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #7584  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
:shrug: as Spacemonkey said, get on with it. Do whatever it is you plan to do. Paste what you're going to paste. Then Spacemonkey will post his questions yet again and you can yet again avoid answering them with more of your weaseling.
I'll get on with it, but now I feel the need to explain why man's will is not free again (for you and for those who are new here). This is not a modal fallacy as you suggest. Yes, we make choices but they are not free ones, the reason being that once a choice is made we could never have chosen otherwise based on our circumstances. He gave a lot of examples. If you don't get this, you will keep arguing that he didn't prove anything.
Reply With Quote
  #7585  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:52 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

You have to support where the "necessary", or "must", came from, otherwise it is fallacious.

You can state it isn't fallacious all day, but you need to show it isn't.

Quote:
once a choice is made we could never have chosen otherwise based on our circumstances
You can't derive "this option was chosen necessarily" from "this option was chosen actually". That's the modal fallacy right there.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-04-2012)
  #7586  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
LOL, anyway, do you think yet another copy paste of the same information you've pasted here several times previously will somehow lead to a different discussion than the one we've had multiple times over the last 10 months? You were unable to answer objections the last however many times. Can you suddenly do it today?
It's not only me that is at fault. You have to take some responsibility. I believe you will eventually understand why man's will is not free and why we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of our lives, but if you keep snubbing your nose at Lessans, it makes it difficult for me to even want to move forward. Would you please change your attitude LadyShea, so I can enjoy talking to you? I'm not saying you have to agree unless you do, but I am asking you kindly to stop being so confrontational. I will then do my best to answer your questions.
Reply With Quote
  #7587  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:58 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Get on with it already! Why do you keep stalling?

(Don't reply to this. Start your presentation/copypasting spree instead.)
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #7588  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:58 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
1. It is not established, merely asserted, that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Among other things, this claim runs afoul of real-world circumstances in which, very often, we do not know which option will bring us greater satisfaction. So that is the end of Lessans' argument.
It was stated very clearly in the book that some choices are easier to make than others, but this has no bearing on the direction we are compelled to go.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: p. 52

Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
2. However, let us say, by hypothesis, that the claim is true: We always move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This fact, if it were a fact, does not impeach our free will. As has already been explained, and as everyone except you-know-who understands, it merely means that we DO move in the direction of greater satisfaction, not that we MUST. To assert that we MUST move in the direction of greater satisfaction, is to commit the modal fallacy, wherein one mixes up contingent truth with necessary truth. Here you go, first premise refuted
You are completely lost LadyShea. You are acting like Miss Know It All as usual. You're not asking questions; you're telling me he's wrong when you don't have a clue. It really gets me upset when people think they have proved Lessans wrong when they did no such thing.
That's davidm's argument, not mine. I simply quoted it because he got it right.
Reply With Quote
  #7589  
Old 02-04-2012, 08:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers.
Unsupported assertion
It's not unsupported LadyShea. He made an accurate observation and it was explained very clearly how he came to these conclusions. Can you tell me what his observations were? Also, could you help me find where I cut and pasted Chapter One? I'm not sure what phrases to put in the search box.
Reply With Quote
  #7590  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Get on with it already! Why do you keep stalling?

(Don't reply to this. Start your presentation/copypasting spree instead.)
Because I want to link people to his first chapter before I proceed. This is going to be a problem for anyone who doesn't understand the two premises that lead up to Chapter Two.
Reply With Quote
  #7591  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:01 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Then link, or copy paste, do it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-04-2012)
  #7592  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:02 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Get on with it already! Why do you keep stalling?

(Don't reply to this. Start your presentation/copypasting spree instead.)
Because I want to link people to his first chapter before I proceed. This is going to be a problem for anyone who doesn't understand the two premises that lead up to Chapter Two.
:facepalm:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #7593  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you not to use the term non-discovery if you want to converse with me. Don't test me Spacemonkey or you'll be the loser.
You haven't offered me any alternative neutral term to use instead. I'm not going to call it a 'discovery' before you've actually shown it to be correct. That would be putting the cart before the horse.
Then say Lessans' claim, but don't use the term non-discovery. It's a slap in the face.
That doesn't work, because each of his (non-discoveries) involves many different claims. Speaking of his first and second claim would only lead to confusion.
Then narrow it down to his premise; the one you're alluding to. I'm just asking you not to use the term non-discovery. It's not nice Spacemonkey and you know it.
Reply With Quote
  #7594  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:04 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

There is no discovery. That's why we call it a "non-discovery."
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-04-2012)
  #7595  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:05 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is going to be a problem for anyone who doesn't understand the two premises that lead up to Chapter Two.
Fret not peacegirl, nonsense can be started at any point in the gibberish.
Reply With Quote
  #7596  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:06 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Get on with it already! Why do you keep stalling?

(Don't reply to this. Start your presentation/copypasting spree instead.)
Because I want to link people to his first chapter before I proceed. This is going to be a problem for anyone who doesn't understand the two premises that lead up to Chapter Two.
:facepalm:
I really don't know how to find the page where I posted the chapter. If someone can help me here, it would be appreciated. It's not that I'm stupid; I just never used this tool before on any of the forums. If no one can help me, then I'll have to cut and paste this chapter, but I'll do it in large chunks so it will only be one or two pages long. I feel uncomfortable without people having a basic understanding of why we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This does not mean we are always satisfied; it just means we are making the best choice of available alternatives under our particular circumstances. You cannot observe someone moving toward greater satisfaction, but you can know that this is what he's doing based on this knowledge which is absolutely undeniable. I'm going to cut and paste part of Chapter One since no one is helping me find the link. I am just letting people know so they won't be angry.
Reply With Quote
  #7597  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:07 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
That doesn't work, because each of his (non-discoveries) involves many different claims. Speaking of his first and second claim would only lead to confusion.
Then narrow it down to his premise; the one you're alluding to. I'm just asking you not to use the term non-discovery. It's not nice Spacemonkey and you know it.
I need some way of referring not only to his individual claims, but also to what you like to call his 'discoveries'. You haven't given me any alternative term for this, so until you do I will just have to call them non-discoveries, i.e. things you and he consider to be discoveries but which the rest of us do not. Also...

Stop stalling and get on with your presentation!

You've apparently got two whole chapters to get through before you'll even be willing to try to answer the questions I've been asking for over a month.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #7598  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

Long ago man formed a theory that the earth was flat
because he could not conceive of it as a ball suspended in
space. It became a dogma, such a fixed idea that when the
first astronomer, in attempting to explain the reason why
darkness came over the sun in the middle of the day, was denied an
opportunity to present his findings because his discovery called into
question this sacred belief. Let us imagine the first astronomer being
granted an interview by the leading authorities of his time to explain
the cause of a solar eclipse.

“Dear gentlemen, I have come to you to explain my findings about
the shape of the earth. In order for you to understand the cause of
the darkness coming over the sun, it is first necessary to understand
that the earth is not flat.”

“What’s that? Did we hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell
us that the earth is round which means it is floating in space?”

“That is true, and my discovery lies locked behind the door
marked the earth is round.”

“This is absurd! Who are you to come in here and tell us that we
are wrong? We are not interested in your theory because we say the
earth is flat [and since we are wiser than you, more learned than you,
more educated than you, you must be wrong], so why discuss this
matter further. Besides, our chief medicine man chanted the
incantation that caused the darkness to vanish. Thank you very much
for coming out to give us your explanation but we are not interested
in discussing this matter further because we know, beyond a shadow
of doubt, that the earth is flat.”

This is the second half of the primary problem. The fact that a
theory such as the belief that the earth is flat can hermetically seal
knowledge that prevents our discovering the invariable laws of the
solar system which, in turn, prevents the knowledge necessary to land
men on the moon. Children were taught this by their parents who
had received this knowledge from their parents who were instructed by
the medicine man who was considered the wisest man of his time.
Since there was no way the knowledge of the medicine man could be
proven false because no one knew any different, and since he was
considered the wisest man of his time, his conclusion that the earth
was flat brooked no opposition. Consequently, when those who were
judged inferior in wisdom or knowledge disagreed with the medicine
man, they were rejected. When an upstart scientist came along who
concluded that the earth was round after making certain observations,
how was it possible to get others to agree with him when they couldn’t
follow his reasoning which compelled them to compare him, not his
knowledge, to the medicine man, to the professors and teachers whose
wisdom and knowledge could not be impugned. To help you see how
easy it is for a dogmatic theory to prevent scientific investigation let
us once again return, in imagination, to the time when man knew
nothing about the solar system, and listen to a conversation.

“Say, Joshua; do you believe the earth is flat or do you go along
with my theory that it is round?”

“Even though most of mankind agrees that it is flat, what
difference does it really make what I think?” said our philosophical
friend. “The shape of the earth is certainly not going to be affected or
changed no matter what my opinion is, right?”

“That is true enough, but if the earth is really round isn’t it
obvious that just as long as we think otherwise we are prevented from
discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their
discovery, consequently, it does make a difference. How much so we
are not in the position to know just yet but thousands of years hence,
perhaps in the twentieth century, there may be all kinds of scientific
achievements attributed directly to knowing the true shape of the
earth, such as landing men on the moon which may never be possible
without first knowing the true shape of the earth.”

You may look back and smile at the unconscious ignorance of our
ancestors but pay close attention to what happened to me as I draw up
a perfect comparison with which you can identify. Because my
discovery was purely scientific, my attention was drawn to an article
by Eric Johnson, now deceased, who was once among other things the
President of the Motion Pictures Association. It appeared in the
November 6, 1960 issue of This Week Magazine of The Baltimore
Sun.

“If there is one word which characterizes our world in this exciting
last half of the twentieth century, the word is change. Change in
political life; change in economic life; change in social life; change in
personal life; change in the hallmark of our times. It’s not gradual,
comfortable change. It is sudden; rapid; often violent. It touches and
often disrupts whole cultures and hundreds of millions of people.
Behind it all lies an explosive growth in scientific knowledge and
accomplishment. Some 90% of all the scientists who ever lived are
living today, and the total accumulation of scientific knowledge is
doubling every ten years. But this is reality. If we remember that,
then we will never flinch at change. We will adjust to it, welcome it,
meet it as a friend, and know it is God’s will.”

Since my discovery would bring about the greatest change in all
of history, it appeared that this man would be willing to let me explain
my findings. By convincing him on the phone that it was now
possible to put a permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery,
he agreed to meet me on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C.
Our conversation went as follows:

“I’m really not a scientist, Mr. Lessans, and in all probability you
should be talking to someone else. Your claims are absolutely
fantastic, but I want you to know that even though I wrote an article
about science, I am not a scientist. Besides, after you hung up I
became more skeptical of claims such as yours because they not only
sound impossible but somewhat ridiculous in view of man’s nature.
Frankly, I don’t believe your claims are possible, but I am willing to
listen if it doesn’t take too long and if I can see some truth to your
explanation; I do have another engagement but I can devote at least
one hour. Would you get right on with it?” I then told him the story
about the earth being flat and he smiled at this, and then told him
that a theory exists regarding man’s nature that is accepted as true by
98% of mankind, and I pointed out that this theory is actually
preventing the decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door
to a vast storehouse of genuine knowledge.

“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnson, but in order for me to
reveal my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its
hiding place because they are related to each other.”

“What is this theory?” he asked.

“You see, Mr. Johnson, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”

“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me
that man’s will is not free?”

“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnson. I don’t believe it; I know
this for a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door
marked Man’s Will is Not Free, just like the invariable laws of the
solar system were concealed behind the door marked The Earth is
Round — until some upstart scientist opened it for a thorough
investigation.”

“I have always believed it to be free, but what difference does it
make what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be
affected by my opinion, right?”

“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if
the will of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery,
consequently, it does make a difference. The opinion of our ancestors
that the earth was flat could never change its actual shape, but just as
long as the door marked “The Earth Is Round” was never opened
thoroughly for an investigation by scientists capable of perceiving the
undeniable but involved relations hidden there, how were we ever to
discover the laws that allow us now to land men on the moon?”

“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of
the most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any
discoveries to change the world.”

“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none
of them had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there.
Most people do not even know it is a theory since it is preached by
religion, government, even education as if it is an absolute fact.”

“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have
discovered but whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it
cannot be valid because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank
you very much for coming out but I’m not interested in discussing
this matter any further.” And he would not let me continue.

Last edited by peacegirl; 02-04-2012 at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7599  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

Now stop to think about this for one moment. A discovery has
been made that will go down in history as that which will change the
entire world of human relations for the better, yet because it
challenges a theory which is held by many world religions, there is a
hostile reaction when it is questioned. This is a perfect example of
how this preemptive authority of false knowledge which is passed along
from generation to generation by theology, by government, and by
various other sources does not even allow a person to open his mind
to hear the explanation. The theologians I contacted, though they
admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil also believe it is
impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In a sense
they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to the
law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system of established dogma, religious or otherwise, which
shackles man’s mind and prevents scientific investigation needs to be
discarded, so that the truth can be uncovered. This is much easier
said than done because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will
is not free was buried deeper than atomic energy, and presents
problems that are almost insurmountable. Convincing a few people
of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire world is something
else. Supposing the very people whose understanding it is necessary
to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the discovery
could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that man’s
will is not free. To show you how confused are those who have been
guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author of the book “Decline and
Fall of All Evil” has the permanent solution to every problem of
human relation, and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us
to remove all evil?” Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this why do
all theologians ask God in the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil?

Another rabbi criticized me for not attending the synagogue to which
I replied, “Isn’t the reason you go to the Temple due to your faith in
God, your belief that one day He will reveal Himself to all mankind?”
“That is true,” he answered. “Well you see, Rabbi, the reason I don’t
go to the synagogue is because I know for a fact that God is real. I
don’t have faith or believe this; I know that 2+2=4; I don’t have
faith or believe that this is true.” Still hoping that I could convince
a member of the clergy to hear what I had to say, I phoned a Catholic
priest for an appointment and our conversation went as follows:

“What do you want to see me about?”

“Father, when you utter the words of the Lord’s Prayer I take for
granted that you are sincere and would like to see us delivered from
evil, isn’t that true?”

“Certainly, what kind of question is that?”

“Well the reason I had to ask is because I have just made a
scientific discovery that will bring about the actual fulfillment of this
prayer, this deliverance from evil.”

“What’s that you say? Deliver mankind from evil? Absolutely
impossible, it cannot be done.”

“But how can you know without first finding out what it is I have
discovered? Isn’t this your fervent wish, that God perform such a
miracle?”

“It is.”

“Well then, why don’t you let me come out and show you exactly
how all evil must decline and fall as a direct consequence?”

“It’s impossible, that’s why I’m not interested. The only time
such a world will become a reality is on Judgment Day.”

“But that’s just the point; this Judgment Day when interpreted
properly has actually arrived because it conforms to the basic
principle.”

“This still doesn’t convince me that I should devote my precious
time to what sounds ridiculous.”

“Sounds can be deceiving, Father. Who believed the first
astronomer when he predicted an eclipse or Einstein when he revealed
the potential of atomic energy? If I told you without adequate proof
that this discovery will bring about the inception of the Golden Age,
your skepticism would not be an unwarranted reaction, but the actual
proof is explicit and undeniable. It is only natural for you to be
skeptical, Father, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the
possibility of a scientific miracle.”

“I’m afraid that I will have to end this conversation. My advice is
to take what you have to one of the secular universities. I’m sorry I
couldn’t be more helpful but thanks for calling anyway.”

Later on, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will
and he responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you
can’t blame or punish anything he does, is that correct?” And when
I answered, “Right,” he actually got up and walked out of the room.
You see, this learned ignorance presents quite a problem, and only by
getting the world to understand what it means that man’s will is not
free can I hope to break through this barrier. This law of our nature
is not a premise, not an assumption, not a theory, but when 98% of
the world believes otherwise, they might just close the windows of their
mind to any scientific investigation which requires rejecting a theory
that has dogmatically controlled man’s thinking since time
immemorial. How is it possible to explain the solution when nobody
wishes to listen because they think they know there isn’t any? Where
is there one iota of difference between this attitude and that of our
ancestors regarding the shape of the earth?

To show how confused is
the thinking of the average person who is not accustomed to
perceiving mathematical relations of this nature, when I told someone
that his answer was incorrect, he replied with a tone of resentment,
“That’s your opinion, but I believe it is possible,” as if the answer
could be one or the other. The earth cannot be round and flat, it has
to be one or the other and your opinion can never change what is.
Remember, I am going to bring about an unprecedented change in
human conduct, but I can only do this if you understand what I am
about to reveal. If you can’t follow my reasoning as to why the earth
is round, you will be compelled to believe that it is flat for it gives you
satisfaction not to be wrong. In other words, if I were going to offer
an opinion as to why man’s will is not free, then your educational
rank, your scholarly background could assert itself as a condition more
valid to deny my claim, but when I declare that I am not going to
reveal a theory but will give a scientific, undeniable, demonstration,
then regardless of who you are you must wait to see the proof before
rejecting the claim. Therefore, it is imperative that you know well in
advance that my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific
and undeniable; so if you find yourself in disagreement you had better
reread that which you disagree, otherwise, your stubborn resistance,
your inability to perceive these relations will only delay the very life
you want for yourself. Many philosophers consider the discussion of
whether man’s will is or is not free equivalent to the discussion as to
what came first — the chicken or the egg. To them, what difference
does it really make? But if this knowledge can put an end to all war,
crime, and evil in general, it makes a very big difference and it is
imperative that the world listen so that this evil in our lives can come
to a permanent end.

Last edited by peacegirl; 02-04-2012 at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7600  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:23 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

It is time to draw an infallible line of demarcation between what
is true and what is false and you are going to be amazed at how much
of what is false passed for what is true. However, everything was
necessary. As we begin to understand the knowledge of our true
nature what is revealed is something amazing to behold for it not only
gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but that it was part of the
harmonious operation called the mankind system and was compelled
to come into existence by the very nature of life itself as part of our
development. Once certain facts are understood it will also be no
accident that every form of evil will be compelled to take leave of this
earth. Humanity has been gravitating at a mathematical rate, and in
an unconscious manner, toward this Golden Age when the seeds of
hatred and the domination of man over man will be a relic of our
collective memory. It never dawned on the theologians and
philosophers that man’s choice of what he considered better for
himself, even though it may have been evil when judged by others,
came about in direct obedience to his nature or the will of God who
had reasons we were not supposed to understand until now. Many
prophets foresaw the coming of this New World but didn’t know the
exact time frame, or from which direction, peace would finally make
its appearance although they were confident that when it arrived it
would change our world as we know it. Now the prophesies,
conjectures, and philosophies are no longer necessary for this long
awaited Golden Age that we have been looking forward to with
prayers, hope, and great anticipation has arrived at last.

This discovery I will soon make known to you reveals the infinite wisdom
guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought standard and
touchstone of truth and reality, but also that elixir of alchemy for with
it the baser mettles of human nature are going to be magically
transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every
individual on this planet and for all generations to come. Please be
perfectly honest, who can object to relinquishing the belief in free will
when the key to the decline and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies
behind the door of determinism?

In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages of
development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to
control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the
reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense
of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of
everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However,
in order to reach this stage of development so God could reveal
Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it
was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he
believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a
dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all
civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief
in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil for not
only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate
crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his
problems without blame and punishment which required the
justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience.

Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did
because he was endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to
choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon
to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way you
would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative
than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled
by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but
to think this way and that is why our civilization developed the
principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my
discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point
because if man’s will is not free it becomes absolutely impossible to
hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the
solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it
possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing
and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are
supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature?
Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough he
will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other
nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor
from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of
punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart
of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a
problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since
time immemorial. Although free will has had a very long reign in the
history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all,
by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. A
friend shared a story with me to show you how difficult it is to get
through this established dogma.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.09123 seconds with 14 queries