James Dunn

You provided a lot of opportunities for me to discuss, so I'll choose one at a time for the sake of clarity.

John is quoted to say:

"Do you need science to confirm the existence of your parents, spouse or children? Of course not. If someone presented scientific evidence that they don't exist surely you would know their science was not, that your loved ones exist. Same here. Once you know someone no one can convince you they don't exist. "

James' response:

I don't believe this, this is an unreasonable and disprovable consequence.

If someone revealed to me proof that my spouse was a political sleeper, poised to be my wife because of my close relationship to a politically significant position. I might consider the possibility. I might investigate my wife's historical relationships and verify that there was no causal link to support the supposition.

If someone came up to me and declared themselves to be my biological parents, I would investigate the causal relations to ascertain the causal links that would support such a claim.

If someone came up to me and declared that my children belonged to them, I would have a DNA test of everyone involved to disprove the validity of that claim.

In real life, we attempt to show causal relationships back to a "foundation" of belief. In religion, there is hardly ever any ethical methodology to remove corrupt passages from a religious work. I applaud the Wahhabi for taking baby steps in this regard.

The study of "ethics" was created and first developed by religious scholars. I find it interesting that ethics is not used by theologists to remove corrupt passages from religious works. Or to fight for "public" acceptance of ethical interpretations that lead back to the foundations of belief.

There are billions of people, and most of them are not Muslim, most of them are not Hindu, most of them are not Pagan, most of them are not Jews, most of them are not Christian, most of them are not Wahhabi, most of them are not Buddhist, most of them are not Atheist, most of them do have their own unique beliefs. Take any two persons, and their stated religion will differ by their heart felt beliefs. All that is possible, people seem to believe; and maybe that is representative of God, that any number of people can not collectively represent a large enough vessel to hold all the diversity that represents God. So for any religion to attempt to acquire others into their narrow beliefs, is corrupt.

The same is true in science; except that everything is a theory until it is proved not to be contradictable; only then does a theory become a law. Only then do scientists have Faith in that theory. Even then scientific laws are strictly confined to a specific set of environmental factors. In a different context, any scientific law is without foundation and is often untrue. Take any physical law of science and abstractly abuse it and it will be obviously wrong. For instance, distance = rate x time does not work universally in four dimensional space; it needs precisely stated modifiers.

Religious leaders treat theories as though they are laws, despite overwhelming evidence that their theory is flawed and without foundation. In science there are an enormous number of theories, and very few laws. But we make use of well founded theories to predict naturally occurring relationships that are useful, in specific circumstances. Theories in science are always bounded by the circumstances where they appear to be valid.

Religion has the opportunity to establish well founded relationships that are useful specifically with regard to a relationship with God, but religions use unrelated relationships and circular logic to trick people into believing there is a foundation and predictable outcomes, when they continue to fail to show the links between real world considerations and what is plausible foundation.

The Ten Commandments seems to be the root of physical truth for Ba'hai, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Therefore every passage should have a causal link back to that root of truth. If any statement made conflicts with the roots of truth, then that statement is a corrupt influence within those doctrines. Either "concise written" modifiers are needed to link to the roots of truth, or the corrupt statements must be removed.

Religious leaders refuse to eliminate obviously corrupt statements from religious texts. A lack of ethics is continuously displayed by religious leaders. They exemplify the corrupt nature of organized religion.

For example: any plagiarism, passages that contradict with the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (the only direct written words from God), ...



Mankind has for thousands of years corrupted doctrine to suit their own perspectives. Often sighting relationships that have no legitimate causal relationship back to the Ten Commandments. Pretty words and phrases are used to guile disciples into believing that deviation from the Ten Commandments is appropriate under certain conditions. But the "conditions" are vague and those "conditions" have no causal relationship back to the Ten Commandments.

Religious leaders simply manipulate the system of "context" to pervert interpretations to justify their own corrupt position. As I've been reading about the Wahhabi, I have a limited appreciation for their attempt to remove the guile from their religious works. However, they do not go deeply enough to touch the roots of truth in their faith. They accept broadly the statements of profits; where a profit may only have been inspired by God for a short period of time. They corruptly stop where it becomes uncomfortable for their minds to explore. They simply stop and exclaim, we believe.

Faith should not be the same thing as a belief. I can have an irrational and unfounded belief that the sky is blue, but faith should be a law that pertains to everyone, and therefore based upon broad and well defined ethical relationships.

The sky is not simply blue, it only seems that way because of our limited perceptions. The sky is filled with diverse aspects of color, but our minds and eyes are unable to see the vast diversity in color. We only see a very narrow band of light wavelengths, and we can only see the differences in light amplitude that are close to one another. Typified by our inability to see into the shadows on a bright sunny day. So too is our unfounded perception of God. Artificially confining a religious belief to an unfounded perspective, is self-deception. A belief while making an "honest" attempt to show causal links back to the basis of belief is faith. Belief without an "honest" attempt to discover truth is willful self-deception.

At the very best, a person who espouses beliefs that were simply handed to them, are empty vessels of potentially corrupt rhetoric. At the very worst, a person who espouses beliefs that are being explored by them, are vessels containing pieces of spiritual diversity.

Corrupt evangelists and other religious leaders are simply criminals, as they fraudulently use religion to further their physical world endeavors. In the worst case, they represent demonic presence.