Atypican's Waterfall
First principles are nothing more than speculation, and I see no hope in any discussions or agreements on them.
Odd, here I am arguing on the same side as you, and I think just the opposite, I see no hope in any discussion or agreement without them. Without them there is no starting point for a logically progressive discourse at all. However, if possible I'd like you to explain how you came to believe that first principles are nothing more than speculation.
Atheism is simply a refutation of a denial for the need of these discussions (God bypasses them by simply existing throughout eternity).
Your perspective is not clear to me....Is it that of the "atheism" you describe? Because if so, it seems like your argument should be on the other side. I don't see how your position could be both that there is a "need for these" discussions AND that you "see no hope in any discussions or agreements on them".
Religion unites us and divides us, and fortunately so.
In a sense, everyone does believe in only one religion. A person cannot help but believe in the religion (belief/value system) that is intrinsically the most powerful. There is a prevailing ideology of self interest, and it's absolutely universal. Anyone not adhering to it's fundamental tenets will either reform or die in short order.
Therefore it certainly seems like there is no room for diversity when you get down to fundamentals. However, religious diversity is to us, as fundamental and important as roots are to a plant. If we don't view religion in an overly sectarian sense, we recognize and value both our commonality and our diversity. I do think that we are better off being able to look past our differences to recognize that we are ultimately part of a single community, but I also think failure to purposefully diversify would be fatal for us.
So then, just so you know, according to that logic... if you claim an understanding of god, your understanding is of someone who truly is not god....
But I am actually wondering if you agree with the OP statement: "Immature notions of god imbue individuals with a certainty where curiosity should remain. A mature notion encourages the opposite."
Only if 'immature' = 'most popular'.
Don't you suppose that the most poorly informed notions of god are the most popular?
Most atheists I find argue against 'Yahweh' because that's the most commonly held idea of "God", not because he's a soft target.
Assuming Yahweh as nonexistent makes him not targetable at all. You can't logically argue against the nonexistent.
There are much softer targets available.
example?
Now, some theists pull this ad-hoc loopty-loop bullshit where "God" is equal to whatever God has to be in order to dodge your criticisms of it. In this case, they're banking on the idea that if you make something sound complicated and ethereal enough, you can use the confusion your ideas cause as evidence that they are 'deep' and 'mature'. Debating these kinds of people, while tempting, is ultimately pointless.
Any logical discussion about god must start with the parties agreeing on an adequate definition of the term "god". If this consensus is never reached (and it almost never is between theists and atheists), than discussions truly are pointless. Practically all theists assume the agnostic position that god is of an undefinable nature, (god is by nature beyond our understanding) therefore atheists should realize the futility, and not take part in fundamentally illogical discussions.
Their whole method is to hide the contradictions in their ideology. You will never be able to peg them on anything substantial in their philosophy because they would never consciously risk being proven wrong and will instead remain permanently aloof.
Ideology...Now there's something atheists and theists can logically discuss. But in my experience, those who profess atheism are far more likely than theists to make the claim that they "have no ideology". Are you one of those? If so than you, just like the theists you describe are making it pretty hard for anyone to scrutinize your ideology (god?). If not I challenge you to be forthright about your ideology and let us know what your philosophical first principle is. What is your ideology based on?
In short, no. Atheists are not arguing against an immature notion of God.
Do you doubt that most atheists regard their "notion of god" as better informed than that of theists?
They argue against what's presented to them.
And what is presented to them is a concept that theists almost universally admit defies explanation. So the logical approach would be a refusal to proceed until terms are defined.
Not presenting anything concrete =/= presenting something 'mature'.
I don't particularly disagree. But admitting that a satisfactory understanding of ultimate truth eludes us, is common to both theists and atheists. If you are willing to present anything you regards as "concrete", it could be argued that you are treading the same ground as gnostic theists.
I see you took some inspiration from me here ;)
Sure did. But if you read my debates you'll know the subject is nothing new to me.
it's not a position I take
Got a reason why?
So when we say "God", how do we know we are correct in our usage?
Oh dear you'll have to get to know someone deeply and personally, and who wants to do that when stereotyping them is so much easier!
So emotions exist for the purpose of protecting valuables? Wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly.
I was sloppy to merely state "protecting valuables". Emotions arise due to our strongest desires. Desire may be to keep (protect) and also to obtain. Paying close attention to what we are emotional about, or what fires us up, is key to self actualization.
Well I've done just what you said not to. =p Over time I've beaten my emotions into submission in favor of reason and logic.
The advantage of harnessing the power of your emotions as opposed to beating them into submission, will require that you don't view reason and emotion as polar opposites. Sure many find comfort in being dispassionate. If you are wired to stand up for what you think and feel is right though, you'll be miserable.
I did this because more often than not my initial, knee-jerk reaction to something (and the action I want to take, on a whim) usually isn't the smartest or most well thought out thing to do in that situation.
But thanks to your still functioning emotional response system, you feel strongly compelled to DO SOMETHING.
My emotions pull of influence me one way, but if I sit and just think about it for a bit, I can usually think of a more viable alternative and understand why my initial reaction was silly and groundless.
Your initial reaction was to be agitated. What do you mean by groundless? Are you saying you were agitated for no discernible reason?
Faith by nature is something active? This is true as the fact that by nature all men are rich.
more or less, yes.
How many people do you know who state to have faith in something, while they ain't move a finger to reach the target of their faith:
I can't say. Supposing these people (liars) claimed to have faith in X, and did not. They still have active faith that this lying will somehow be beneficial.
they cross their arms thinking faith to be something easy as existing: unfortunately, they will never know what living means.
And we, I suppose, have some other great flaw that puts us in just as sorry of a position, and we're hopelessly screwed because of it. :P
How so?
The intellectual structures and pathways through which emotional activity is carried out are initially formed by internal reasoning.
I've always seen emotions as knee-jerk reactions.
This is how they seem, but the underlying mental complexes are formed over relatively long periods of time, and except in cases of severe mental illness are universally for the reasoned purpose of protecting valuables.
We don't really have a whole lot of control over our emotions, even though we do control how we use them.
Mastering ones emotions is difficult, but worth the effort. Our emotional responses can be made to better serve us if they are carefully and consciously tended to, and NOT regarded as being, by definition, contrary to reason.
So if you're confronted with a person or statement or object that triggers a certain emotion and you immediately act on that emotion, how is that reasoned thought and action?
Well how about fear of being shot. One could stand there analyzing their odds of getting hit or go with their conditioned response and kiss the dirt or run for cover.
Emotions and, by extension, emotional thinking don't need any kind of logic or rational to exist.
Prove it :)
In your first paragraph, and in your madman anecdote, you are admitting that there is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith, that's better than how "common usage" (in some circles) treats the concept. I have met SO many people who find it SO important to treat the concept of faith as anathema, that even when faced with what I think to be plain evidence, and careful reasoning, they ignore context, and remain fiercely stubborn; unwilling to concede even as much as you have. This debate is a perfect example, for were I not to have answered everyone on the NO side, that's the side that would be winning.
If you believe that Faith=A belief without proof, I assume you disagree that Proof consists merely of what is convincing in which case I'd like to read an argument from you countering it.
We know reason is worthwhile, it can be shown to work.
It can also be shown not to work. Especially if the basis for our reasoning is fundamentally logically unsound, or based on incomplete information. And correct me if I am wrong but isn't this a predicament we are all beset by?
You don't need faith for that. We have evidence the sun won't explode tomorrow. We have predicted the path of the sun through our galaxy, we have seen it rise everyday for thousands of years, we are constantly monitoring the chemical processes going on inside it, we have worked out the elements that make up the sun. We have observed how other stars die.
Faith begins when you consider the evidence adequate, even though it might not be.
From all of this knowledge, we can predict with far more accuracy the likelihood of the sun exploding tomorrow than by merely guessing, as theists do when they guess that a god must have created the universe.
I am not arguing to support theism, I am arguing for what I see as a more reasonable and mature concept of what faith is than "belief without evidence". Beliefs can't form without convincing evidence.
Like I just said, you only need faith when you don't have evidence.
Are we not all lacking evidence to some degree?
If there is enough evidence, a prediction/hypothesis will stand up, if there is serious evidence missing, then we can't be sure and we have to wait until better evidence appears.
A theory need not be flawless to be mighty useful. IMO you enter the realm of theism when you assume that there is no "serious evidence missing", and you "wait until better evidence appears" as opposed to faithfully pursuing it.
A good example of this would be string theory. There is some evidence for it, and it seems to make sense in some areas, but there is too much missing for it to be considered the correct explanation yet. Physicists are still working on it.
If they didn't have faith that an understanding that's not in need of improvement can be articulated, they wouldn't pursue the holy grail of "the correct explanation".
They don't sit there and go, "well, we are missing very large pieces of evidence that X is true, shall we just accept it as scientific fact anyway?".
Nah these "new priests" sit there and suck up funds that would be better spent on health sciences.
Everything comes down to faith.
I tend to agree
At some point within our lives we all choose to evaluate the world through some sort of means.
The primary means are always the intellectual constructs of the individual.
Some of these means are the Bible, while some of these means involves reason.
There are various external record keeping tools like the bible that that are used to create standardized intellectual constructs found to be beneficial. ALL of these involve reason.
you cannot use the very thing that you have chosen for evaluation to give credibility to the means.
That doesn't make sense to me. If I have a rubber ball, and I claim that it bounces, what should I use to give credibility to my claim?
Continued, it is to say that reason cannot be used to advocate reason.
Yet I am doing so right now!?
An outside source from your means of evaluation must be used to advocate and give credibility to your means.
If you are concerned with being credible...I agree
I have faith in the Bible.
Me too, I have faith that it's useful for promoting atheism
Others have faith in reason.
If you are on a debate site you have faith in reason.
It is when a source that is hostile to your means, advocates your means that one can fully trust that very thing you have so much faith in.
WTF?
Reason is automatic. It's how we think.
No disagreement there
One doesn't need faith to merely think.
One doesn't think without a reason. Not trying to equivocate here, but thought is an endeavor toward some underlying hope, and hope requires faith.
One needs faith to accept an ideal without evidence.
How is it possible for an ideal to be formed in the mind without some sort of evidence?
How one reasons can be different from the others. For example: a Christian can reason that evidence is not necessary in order to hold a belief, therefore having faith-based reasoning. An Atheist, on the other hand, finds that unless evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe in an ideal, therefore evidence-based reasoning.
Would you seriously claim that beliefs are formed without evidence? I would say that standards for what constitutes convincing evidence varies, but invariably all beliefs are based on evidence.
You don't have to have faith in reason.
If you are going to make use of reason you have to believe it will be worthwhile.
Reasoning is demonstrably accurate, as it uses the laws of logic inherent in the structure of the universe.
Faith is demonstrably accurate/inaccurate too. For example, even though I might be wrong, because there is surely a great deal of evidence I haven't considered, I have faith that the sun wont explode tomorrow. Tomorrow my faith will be tested.
I'd be interested in reading any proof you can provide that the laws of logic are inherent in the structure of the universe.
You only need faith in things you have no evidence for.
You need faith if you admit you are likely missing seriously important evidence.
Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability? You do realize that we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right? As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it. I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.
I understand that your argument is based on the "belief without evidence" interpretation of the word faith, but this statement.... We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition. .... I don't understand. Please help
God, if you go by the traditional theistic definition, is the proper object of worship.
I don't go by it, and I wonder why any atheist would.
If you do not assume this is true, then you are attacking a straw man.
I do assume that the definition you provided above is the traditional theist definition. AND FURTHER I think only a theist could go by such a definition.
I am arguing with you and I'd prefer not to argue against a stereotype or strawman. So tell me what you (not the traditional theists) think god is?
However, even if you do, you are also begging the question because such an assumption is based on evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
That comes across as rather nonsensical but here I go responding anyway..
How my assumption (that you have indeed given the traditional theistic definition of god) would make you think my argument (which is that what gods are are real people who are worshiped) is begging the question is to put it mildly, unclear to me.
Thus, no matter how you look at it, your argument is invalid.
A statement like that is evidence that you completely trust a judgment you've made to be infallible.
So then......
if god is the unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives.
and The unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives is still happening
then god exists
Ah but an individual CAN communicate with themselves can they not? Messages are sent from one part of the body to another, are they not?
Do you disagree that prayer is a form of internal self dialog? Do you disagree that what is regarded as god is actually an element of a persons personality that is mistakenly judged to be infallible?
The communication is coming from "what god really is" which is an intellectual construct (based on personal interpretation of events and messages) that's regarded as infallible.
My definition of god might be in need of refinement, but I think it's more rational than an alternative that refers to a supposed non-existent.
How can you address a problem while claiming it doesn't exist?
A message or two ago, you weren't acting as if you regarded the argument as being clearly with out merit. A comment such as "I think this is perhaps where the flaw in the argument lies." displays doubt about your ability to clearly expose a flaw.
By all means expose the flaws. I am here to be shown the error in my thinking.
Perhaps you can help make it clear to me, by asking pointed questions and establishing a set of undisputed logical premises. I'm prepared to take the time to be held accountable. Even if no one else will commit to building a logical argument from the ground up, I will.
I'll try a different angle.
The problem of theism is not a believing in non existent entity problem it's an excessive and uncritical trust in (worshiping of) existing entities problem.
Declaring atheism does not make one immune to the problem of worship. Modern atheism doesn't amount to much more than constantly reiterating "I don't believe in fairies"
when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept?
It's a term that can represent a wide variety of concepts. Rather than talking about which are most popular, I'd prefer to address the concept you maintain in your mind about what god is.
are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'?
Please treat me as an individual and don't try to stereotype me. I didn't find the articulations of what is referred to as the ontological argument very convincing or compelling myself.
this type of argument has already been defeated.
I'm sure there's a number of people who disagree, so it hasn't been completely defeated.
concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.
I'll argue that with you if you don't think it would be a waste of time.
"An imaginary problem is a real problem" ~atypican
lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god.
I suppose that lots of ppl receive false teachings through communication with such a ppl, and when asked they'll say they learned it from god. The lessons aren't coming from nowhere.
'god', generally denotes a supernatural being.
If you want to use the word supernatural I'll expect you to define it logically. Are you sure you want to digress in that way just yet?
so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist.
Everything exists. Well described or not.
there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities.
How about a being that is regarded as being worthy of lifelong unwavering trust, and is considered incapable of error.
we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.
I think you would you agree that god is an imaginative construct.
you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.
Yeah I have. And it really bugs me that so many atheists accept and use the definition of god thats offered by them. Lets talk in terms of what is.
thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.
We can do our own scriptural interpretation. I hope you don't think I am being dishonest. I am just looking to refine the way I think and express my thoughts. If you want to help sweet, if not I understand.
There is some nuance here that may require some digging to clearly flesh out. But for the sake of argument, if god is defined as a worshiped being, I don't think that worship being improper would invalidate that definition, or somehow disprove their existence.
If there is no proper object of worship, either God's existence is unknown to us or that there is no God.
I think thats a false choice argument.
I don't think so. But atheism perhaps is itself a thought tradition in philosophy.
Indeed but I am thinking about a core principle that rules out certain intellectual activity that is absolutely regarded as something one ought not take part in. A ruling logic. I'm sure I could clarify...its late going to bed.
I never said it did, and I agree with you that the premise doesn't necessarily imply it. I'll go further and say the premise doesn't imply an ought at all. Are you thinking I am a theist? I'm not. Perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about theology. Do you think that even atheists have the intellectual equivalent of a theology?
So your argument is only that trusted people exist
Not only do trusted people exist, but individuals who are uncritically trusted exist. Uncritical and unwavering trust shapes my understanding of what worship is and worship is essential to what I think a god is. People seem to want me to only think of god in terms I cannot logically support. Can you understand why I refuse?
Not everyone who is unwaveringly and uncritically trusted is thought of as a god, but the term god does not need to exist for the practice of worship to exist and flourish. Since I think god most generally is thought of (by those who admit god's existence) to be unquestionably deserving of unwavering trust, this trust and who it's given to is what I think of while considering what gods are.
how is this a proof of God?
If anyone becomes convinced by my argument:
1. That beings that do exist are worshiped.
2. That a being that does not exist cannot be worshiped
3. That god is a term especially appropriate to what's going on during worship
Then I have proven the existence of god to them.
Talking to God is not difficult, getting him to talk back.....now, that's the tricky part.
I've got controversial opinions about prayer too. If your tendencies aren't too strongly dismissive. :)
Without having to admit the poorly defined terms "supernatural" "creator" and "universe" you could poll people who admit the existence of god and I'd wager they would invariably state that god is a being who deserves unwavering trust. I think god is more clearly and logically defined as a worshiped being.
It actually depends on which conception of "God" you are talking about.
I am talking about the one that exists because worship exists.
However, this argument still does not hold any water.
I am happy to read your thoughtful challenges
In traditional Abrahamic religions, God is said to be a maximally great being, if he exists
Most high is another way of putting it, I said in the debate description "most trusted" (until I changed "most" to "unwaveringly") because I see the practice of worship as involving great (Plenty often excessive) trust.
What this means is that God is believed to be an actual rational moral agent and not a mere metaphor.
And I suppose only an actual agent can be worsiped.
Thus, it is obvious that if "God" here refers to the Judeo-Christian God, then premise 1 is false.
It's referring to an individual or group that is worshiped.
If the premise is false, the argument is invalid and therefore, it doesn't prove the existence of God.
True. If you can show me how the premise is false, you'll be doing me a favor.
Even if you were to refer to God in the pantheistic sense, it still fails as the pantheistic "God" refers to nature. It thus is a metaphor for nature, and not "a person or group who is trusted".
I'm not referring to god in the pantheistic sense. I am referring to the type of gods invloved with the tradition of worship.
1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that.
Ok anything that can be discussed exists at least as a term. God exists at the very least as a term. So unless you disagree with that statement, you agree that god exists. The next step is to determine what is being referred to by the use of that term.
its not up to others to disprove it.
No one has to respond at all. But what objection can you give to the statement, "God exists at least as a term?" Unless you can give a reasoned objection, I'll note your agreement with it and move on.
I'd like to start with a logical definition of god instead of attempting to discuss things that don't exist.
you havent even provided evidence of a god.
Why bother try unless we can agree on the meaning of the word god?
you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god.
I'd love to see you support that assumption with what you call evidence. I'd say that in order for a being to qualify as a god it must be considered worthy of unwavering trust. Find someone to disagree with that in the general population of the modern world and I'd be surprised.
you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'.
I am unable to accept an illogical definition of the word. So if I am to use the word at all in good conscience, I'm should be able to define it logically. A great number of other people such as yourself, may not mind using an ill-defined word, but I do.
taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe)
Here you go again claiming to know what most people think and not presenting evidence. Let's not muddy the waters by introducing additional poorly defined terms. We need to create a series of agreements and begin our dispute from where we first disagree.
and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents
No I said most trusted. And here I clarify that I am talking about individuals who are worshiped or afforded unwavering trust.
then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison.
I am looking for someone to take the time to respect my point of view and challenge me. Not dismiss me. Challenge me. If you aren't equipped or willing so be it, and I'll do my best to make it clear if that is the case.
now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being.
That's right. I think doing so is retarded.
if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?
The habit of worship exists. It's impossible to worship a being that doesn't exist. Worshiped beings are what's being referred to by the use of the term god. Argue against the logic or slink away, it's your choice.
this really makes no sense.
That's the neat thing about polite debate, you can ask for clarification. And there's nice respectful people like me who won't try to make you seem stupid they'll just explain themselves.
this really makes no sense.
There's a difference between respecting someone and worshiping them, I'll explain it if you promise to quit misrepresenting what I said.
is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true?
I fancy myself as one who likes to challenge popular misconceptions. If by the way, I am challenged and can refine my thinking, all the better.
parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such?
Worship is useful early on, but it's a habit to outgrow. :)
you know what? nevermind
If you didn't want me to mind you wouldn't have responded. You should examine the disrespectful habit that underlies such pointless comments. I may not be a super genius, but I'm not an idiot. I know that such statements are made to say "This guys perspective is not worth considering" And it's insulting.
I am not doing any equivocation, I am talking about what a god is in reality. I can hardly argue about the qualities of a non-existent being. You might enjoy doing that, but you aren't being logical when you do. Face it.
My argument isn't self defeating, it's poorly considered.
Then what is this being or group of beings?
People who are extremely trusted.
If god is a metaphor for them, then they are not god.
This could help convince me to change the word "metaphor" in the description to "label" or "title". I'll grant that a title that describes something is only a reference to that something, and not the thing itself.
Patently false. I have had great trust in dogs that were unable to communicate.
Whats patently false is your belief that dogs are unable to communicate.
We are taking about an entity of which there is no objective evidence.
There is no such thing as objective evidence. Without an observer exercising their interpretation and judgement skills, evidence itself does not exist.
People think it exists and thin they communicate with it.
If you are admitting that people communicate with it, you are admitting that "it" exists. Which is the point you can't communicate with a non-existent being.
Your first point destroyed the proof all on it's own. if god is a metaphor the those entities are not god. Goes downhill from there.
The "map is not the territory" realization, or the realization that the words we use to describe things are not the things themselves, shouldn't lead to a lack of belief in the territory, or that something real is not being (albeit perhaps inadequately) described.
Here's the article that prompted me to post the debate : http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/
Is one obliged to strengthen those who would do one harm?
Those who desire to continue living are obliged to breathe, drink, eat food, etc.. Those who desire to improve living conditions for themselves are obliged to help improve the living conditions of others. I don't think that excluding those who would do you harm is wise. You make your own determination of that.
So the code only applies to those living under the auspice of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and where those rights are actively enforced? What for North Koreans? What for Somalians?
The code applies to whoever will honor it. As I see it there are rights that are legally articulate, and those that aren't. For instance I think I have a right to make a recording of anything I witness and keep it in a private library.
Though you presume the authority to dictate the terms whereby a moral individual ought to live?
I can use language however I please. To promote whatever suits my fancy.
Then surely you cannot, sir, render a commandment that inhibits one's right to wish harm upon others?
I am not sure how much influence words I type might have. I do however have some experience with how idea complexes can take root and spread like wildfire.
Ah, humour. Very good, sir.
I appreciate your critical consideration. If you ever help me find a fault with my logic I'll paypal you $10 :)
Yes (if I am understanding you correctly). My primary contention is with the over-generalization. I admit that not all rhetoric which might be characterized as anti-religion overgeneralizes.
If an argument is against religion in its broadest sense, it's an over-generalization. Being more specific decreases the likelihood of over-generalization.
You have supposed that I have made a generalization about "all" anti-religious rhetoric, but you could have just as easily assumed that I meant "lots of". It's your disposition to think of these things in such an absolutist manner, not mine. It's you who thinks there's a useful logical distinction to be made between what is religious and what is secular, but won't take the time to explain one.
Anti-Anti-religious Rhetoric is lame.
Not if it's the kind that helps disrupt the destructive habit of constantly blaming "them" instead of looking for our own flaws.
Your ancillary argument seems to be that anti-religious speech is not going to change the minds of the already religious.
I think everybody is religious and those who claim otherwise are poorly informed about what religion is. So no, that is not my ancillary argument.
Why is that, because there is some gray area?
Maybe just a tad.
it is still useful to understand the difference between the religious and the non-religious .
Useful for what?
The idea of basic human rights strongly correlates with the rise of secularism.
However if by "secular" you mean profane, then I might agree.
Actually I am trying to illustrate that secularity is not the opposite of religiosity like is so commonly supposed but instead a variant.
If one happens to already belong to such an organization
If you suppose there are people who don't "belong to such an organization" , you are also supposing a class of people without room for improvement.
Would it be helpful if I said 'Revealed Religion' or 'Organized religion'?
Immeasurably. :)
So protesting the immoral and unjust actions of an organization by leaving it is a 'cop out' then is it?
For the sake of argument I would liken it to being on a bus headed toward a huge drop off while loaded with people and a driver that you noticed was incapacitated. I would say jumping out of the bus would be a cop out compared to trying to bring it to a safe stop.
your argument is that I should just Shut Up, and I am not going to do that.
Actually my intent isn't to silence. I'd just like to read criticism that's actually directed at least to a specific individual or group.
How so?
You said "why should I treat religion any different?" The way you are using the word here is not referring to an organization or institution that could be given favorable treatment. If you had said "why should I treat a religion any different?" I would simply say that you shouldn't. You should remember that I don't make a distinction between religious and secular. If you'd like articulate a logical explanation of how a religious organization differs from a secular one I am keen to read it. You said the distinction is worth making, so help me refine the way I think about it if you please.
Before we continue, do you belong to these secular organizations?
What do you mean by "belong"?
I have never said that people shouldn't criticize government. So this is irrelevant.
The relevance is that even governmental criticism is more effective (less lame) when leveled against an organization you have intimate experience with.
So all anti-religious speech is unconcerned with the audience?
Rather a great deal of anti-religious speech is not concerned enough with it. Definitely not carefully targeted when you are hearing comments like "Religion is to blame for X"
Christopher Hitchens. He criticized religions for suppressing women's rights.
I bet he at least took the time to specify which religion.
The clergy.
If he mentioned them by name then one point of this debate is moot as far as his criticism is concerned
I don't find anything inherently naive about either.
Would it help if I said pointless instead of naive?
I get your point, it's just a bad point.
The texts between us so far reveal otherwise, but please indulge me as to why it's bad. Or did you mean that to be a conversation stopper?
All are granted special treatment.
The nature of special treatment, or favoritism is such that it is impossible to render it to all of them.
Often it is Government acting on behalf of religious sensibilities
Without yours or someone else's help, it remains inconceivable to me for a government to not act on behalf of religious sensibilities.
Have you ever heard of a silent majority? Just because people hold a certain view does not mean they express it or actively promote it.
So you want to activate the coward demographic eh?
The non-religious are the fastest growing group in the country.
I wonder how fast the group of people who are too lazy to form an opinion, and instead prefer to just repeat popular scripts is. I bet they didn't get counted in the study.
That you think it is too "ambiguous" in no way means the message hasn't been successful.
Indoctrination technology has been refined to a point where sound logic is no longer necessary. Yikes!
So I must join the religion I wish to criticize? I find this to be utterly absurd.
I'm not telling you what you must or must not do. I'm telling you that it's almost completely worthless to classify people as religious and non-religious. I'm telling you that organizations classified as secular are no less prone to, and active at committing atrocities, and violence of basic human rights, than those classified as religious. People asking themselves.."What organization am I a member of, and what role does it play in the causing of problems?", I argue, is a drastically more wise approach than thinking that our worst problems arise from a poor deluded group separate of course from the exemplarily virtuous one we ourselves belong to.
So tell me then why should I treat religion any different? Why should I give religion special consideration, that I do not afford to other organization or institutions that I consider to be misguided, ill-informed, or corrupt?
Read your question closely and pay attention to how you are using the word religion. Are you talking about a specific organization? No. You are talking about religion in general. I spot a fallacy of equivocation here. I don't think a religion should be treated differently than any other organization or institution (and vice versa!). What of "secular" organizations, who are super efficient at indoctrinating impressionable youth to believe that a great deal of killing is the only way to a better world? How do they escape the same widespread criticism leveled at the "religious" ones who do the same thing?
If my criticisms were sincere then why would I belong to such an organization or institution?
If you belong to an organization or institution that is misguided, ill-informed, corrupt, and regularly violates basic human rights, simply declaring that you "don't belong" is an attractive cop out. Certainly more attractive than accepting the highly challenging (though much less lame)role of reformer.
Why should religion be granted a special treatment?
I am not saying it should
I Rebuke your insistence that I should limit my freedom of speech.
I am not insisting that you do or not do anything. I am telling you about what I see as a waste of time.
If I see a problem, then I am going to say something.
And well you should.
You can dislike it all you want, you can call it lame but you are a fool.
Me being a fool doesn't mean that my argument is without merit. :)
What government authorities do or do not do is irrelevant to this discussion. Stop trying to deflect the issue at hand.
I think it's you who's trying to deflect the issue at hand.
It's foolish to ignore the relationship between religion and government. It's foolish to fail to recognize what most religions and governments have in common.
False Dichotomy. Being whipped doesn't preclude losing your home or job. This is a fallacious argument.
What I presented was an analogy so you might see how you give preferential treatment to "secular" organizations. Saying that I presented a false dichotomy, that my argument is fallacious, and strangely pointing out that one can both be whipped AND lose their home or job, is plainly out of place. I am learning not to expect better from you.
So then we should limit our free speech to what makes sense to you?
I'm saying that if you want your speech to matter, you ought to be concerned with your audience understanding you. If you just want to whine, join the crowd.
Many anti-religious folks have done precisely that.
Ok. Name one. And who did they think the worst offenders were?
That some anti-religion advocates don't, does not make all anti-religious rhetoric Lame.
Being against religion is just as naive as being against government. How many different ways do I have to word it for you to get my point?
On what? That religion is given special treatment? Do you deny that it is?
Which religions? Ones that promote an "us vs them" mentality, and a culture of violence and killing, (including ones that aren't thought of as religions)? No. I do not deny that they are given special treatment.
Here is a good example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws
That is an example of legislation meant to limit free speech. Free speech has legal limits!
What type of organizations are more active in the suppressing of free speech, governmental or religious?
I can rally support from like minded people, and perhaps sway those who are on-the-fence or undecided. What is lame about that?
You already have the support of like minded people. And of those who are on-the-fence or undecided, you are promoting that they reject as a whole this ambiguously defined "religion". It's a waste of time, and therefore lame.
I don't see anything lame about criticizing religious practices that violate basic human rights.
Wanting to discuss how we can improve is admirable, wanting to discuss how they should improve is totally lame.
And I don't really care what you or anyone else has to say about it, until you are the one being subjugated.
I live under the constant threat of subjugation by ostensibly secular authorities that consider my basic human rights subject to their dogmatic doctrine "laws".
I also don't like being told what I can or cannot talk about
Then be careful not to talk in a way that effectively challenges predominate authority structures, or you'll be more than told, you'll be silenced.
if your religion is so fucked up that a women gets whipped for driving
Here in the US you can be kidnapped away from your family and imprisoned for driving without permission from "non-religious" authorities. What happens to you and your family while in jail...well that's your problem. Frankly I'd rather be whipped than lose my house, job, and car all in one fell swoop.
Anti-religion is prevalent now, especially on the internet
Never mind that it doesn't make any sense to be against religion. A sensible approach would be to point out what acts are unjust, and who are the worst offenders. Ranting and complaining about nondescript "religion" is as hopelessly pointless and childish as saying, I'm sick and tired of all these wrongdoer types fucking the world up for all us do gooder types.
religion has been coddled for too long, given special treatment
Please expand on that.
there are certainly a lot of things to be critical about.
With religion, I argue, the effective criticism comes from within.
I will tolerate religious beliefs, but I am under no obligation to respect them.
Surely you must agree that being informed about the dangerous ones is pretty important. You are under no obligation to take anything seriously, you can opt to be a complete lunatic if you like.
I can only aspire to communicate my ideas as clearly as you do yours. ;)
I didn't dispute you. I was just trying to open up conversation. But here I will call into question your motivation for reiterating what I already expressed. I think you can be pretty sloppy too. If you'd like to be mean spiritedly contentious, we can make opposing "worst of" lists, where we cut and paste examples of the other's poorly expressed thoughts. lol
Would you still consider yourself an atheist if we were to redefine what it means to be God?
Not necessarily. For instance if I thought god and love were synonymous.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Magic requires that the observing audience not understand how something is done.
God is perceived to have magical like powers.
So are magicians
Atheism is solidly based on logic.
What philosophical position isn't?
Logic states that there's no such things as magic
Whose logic? mine doesn't.
statistically, there are other civilizations (very different from us) living on other planets (some of which may be more technologically advanced than us).
That doesn't make any sense
What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations? Would that make them Gods to us?
Depends on how you define "gods"
Would you call them God just so that they wouldn't kill us?
Sure, I'd call them that, but my "Give me liberty or give me death" philosophy would persist.
Maybe it's not logical for an individual or a species to strive for survival (i.e., the human race ;) but for arguments sake, I'll say it is logical to pursue survival.
You have doubts that striving for survival is logical?
Therefore, if an advanced civilization told us to worship it or risk extinction, it would make sense for us to comply.
What do you mean by worship?
So..., faced with a dilemma where an advanced species told us it created us (regardless of whether it was true or not) and that we should thus worship it or perish, which would you chose? Would you still say, "I am an atheist, hear me roar! There is no God. Therefore you are not God and thus not worthy of my worship. Besides..., I have better things to do..., like posting something on CD ;)" or would you bend your knee, bow and say, "Yes my lord and master. Glory be onto you. Praise thee for thou are a true, just, and merciful ruler (even if you would use your power to destroy us for disagreeing with you ;)."
I'd be willing to pretend to some extent. But I would not fully submit without a fight. I would hope to die before losing my capacity for independent thought.
just because one pretends to believe in something for the sake of survival doesn't mean our actual beliefs have changed.
I suspect that differences between declared beliefs and actual beliefs are more often for the sake of comfort than survival. Also, though I think that peoples "actual beliefs" are at the core, more similar than different, (despite semantic idiosyncrasies and the effects of dishonesty) I do regard dishonesty as being a primary factor in the formation of unhealthy belief systems.
I consider excessive trust to be a deeper problem than dishonesty.
Discussion about trust and honesty as they relate to the formation of beliefs and theology is interesting to me. Also discussion about how powerful a role personal choice plays. Just as there are obviously variants of theism, I think there are also variants of atheism. Worshipful thinking is , I think the difference that makes all the difference. Just like a profession of atheism doesn't guarantee that someone is not a worshipful thinker, neither does professing to be a theist guarantee that someone is.
So what I try to do is determine whether or not someone is a worshipful absolutist thinker while disregarding whether they refer to themselves as "god believing" or not.
Agnosticism is a philosophical position that need have nothing to do with theological considerations.
Ok...that's some pretty incoherent rambling but I hope it's enough to give you something to challenge me with. :)
All others, or just those dispose to reciprocate?
It's rather moot unless you consider yourself fit to play a significant part in the strengthening and healing of ALL others.
What are these rights?
The same rights you enjoy.
If one is not allowed to wish harm upon another person, is it not the case that freedom of conscience is not among those rights?
Provided I properly understood your double negative question...
I have no authority to disallow a person freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is nearly as irrevocable a right as the right to live. Me making a "thou shalt" statement doesn't revoke anyones rights.
Does the irony of commanding somebody not to obey commands escape you?
Did I make a command? Thou shalt understand them as commands if thats your disposition. ;)
1. Me=Yes Others=Never
But if you aren't concerned at all with the well being of others, you are neglecting your own.
2. Life, Liberty, and Property are the only rights that are important.
Rights are liberties. Check your logic.
4. Never
Of course it's your choice to stay in that crowded prison full of cowards
6. Why do I need a commandment to do that?
I'm stumped!
7. I will always worship.
I'm truly curious what your reasoning behind that statement is.
10. Why do I need a commandment to do that? Just living life is enough.
Who said these were commandments? perhaps I am describing a class of people so they can recognize each other. ;)
Ok here's 10
Find anything disagreeable?
1. Thou shalt take part in the healing and strengthening of oneself and others.
2. Thou shalt recognize rights of others equal to your own, and never desire harm upon someone, but healing.
3. Thou shalt recognize that susceptibility to error is inescapable, and that it becomes more dangerous with increasingly concentrated power.
4. Thou shalt with diligence, admit mistakes and wrongdoing.
5. Thou shalt not exalt comfort, ease, and convenience above all else, nor make a virtue of always avoiding strenuous effort.
6. Thou shalt not forget the importance of play, laughter, and rest.
7. Thou shalt not worship.
8. Thou shalt mature past the leader/follower mentality, neither desiring to give commands or obey them.
9. Thou shalt demand the dignity of give and take conversations and refuse to listen passively or submit to indoctrination.
10. Thou shalt take seriously your role as a living link between the past and the future, honoring the right and resisting the wrong.
Well the actions that government is concerned with are those affecting the survival of society and it's prosperity which is only a fraction of all possible actions, even so one may conform in action and dissent in thought or to dissent in both action and thought.
This can be said of religion as well. But I will note that the official definitions of society and prosperity are often skewed to favor a select demographic. If you can, or are willing to try, explain how my thinking that a religion is nothing but a government without the burden of securing territorial borders is somehow incorrect.
I think it's clear that neither a government or a religion can be expected to tolerate activity that significantly varies from the established orthodoxy. Anyone can think whatever they want and be considered in the protected group. Speak effectively against either, and expect a swift expression of dogmatism.
Here is something common to all of religion the priority of faith over reason, and the presumption of the supernatural.
I could list a few religious sects who don't fit that stereotype.
Have you ever conversed with an anarchist?
None that are comfortable with the label and what it has come to mean. :)
a distinction can be made nonetheless.
I'd love to read one that made sense to me.
Any legitimate form of government is concerned with actions and not innate personal beliefs.
It seems to me that there is no measure of conformity of thought like conformity of outward actions. So to be concerned with one is to be concerned with the other.
If I were to find fault with this statement it would be the use of the word 'Specific'. The principals a religion chooses to promote are often very inter-related not only with each other but with the dogma of that religion.
I think removing "those specific" from the statement wouldn't detract from it's meaning at all so... Do you think of yourself as "anti-religion"?
I don't see anything pointless about either.
I don't think you can make a critical comment about religion in general without referencing something that's not common to every religious sect. If you could I'd be greatly surprised. The same goes for government. If you can point out something about government in general that is objectionable without referring to a specific type of government, I would understand my logic to be flawed.
How about if I said "overwhelmingly will", would that be better?
Well I think that what it would be overwhelmingly deleterious of, would be the false distinction that there are religious and non-religious people.
It is a move away from independent thought and towards group-think.
Group think has it's advantages and disadvantages. Do you agree that the institution of a government is the same sort of "move away from independant thought"?
Please critique the following statement: "Religion consists of those specific philosophical principles that an individual decides to live up to and promote"
It is these belief re-affirming institutions and practices that I have criticized religion for.
You might criticize a religious sect as you recognize it, but to criticize religion itself would be just as pointless as attempting to criticize government in general.
One of your beliefs that may be in need of critical scrutiny is that a "move away from independent thought and towards group-think" is necessarily unwise.
To make atheism more like religion can only have a deleterious affect, not just on atheists but on everybody
Are you willing to defend the "can only" portion of that statement?
It gives the impression that we must totally surrender ourselves to some pre-defined school of thought.
It gives that impression to you.
BTW CreateDebate didn't notify me of that response.
It is the example that you gave, is it not?
It is...er I think you understand my point at least partially.
People give these sort of examples when they are trying to show that faith isn't just intellectually lazy and/or illogical.
To perhaps give you something to dig your heels in with, I do describe faith as something that is not just for the intellectually lazy and/or illogical.
Repeated observations constitutes evidence. If you have evidence then you don't have faith.
Contrastingly: Evidence is subject to (possibly faulty) interpretation.
One does not require a guarantee to NOT have faith.
I understand the meaning of faith as being inexorably involved with trust. Also I consider all voluntary behavior to be subsequent to trusting that the behavior is likely to be worthwhile, or at least not excessively harmful. Just as I think one cannot avoid trusting, I also think "having faith" is unavoidable. In my view, even doubt is a form of trust.
I suspect you think evidence is merely anything that persuades a person.
Make that suspicion a certainty.
I will use the definition of evidence as provided by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Evidence is that which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition (of being true).
I would challenge that with:
"How accurately a proposition comports with objective reality, has nothing to do with whether it is evident or not." ~atypican
While pascal's wager may persuade one to accept Christianity it does not change the probability of Christianity being true. People can be persuaded by things other than the likelihood that a given claim is true.
I agree. I agree
not all trusted things are proven.
I disagree. Nothing can be proven without someone perceiving what they regard as conclusive evidence. Whenever someone trusts, it is because they view something as having been proven.
What you seem to be saying is that nothing can truly be proven.
Rather, I think these words are being used illogically by a whole lot of people.
This is the common example I get, that people have 'faith' that some event won't occur for which there is no reason to believe it would occur to begin with.
I wonder where are you having these sort of conversations where people describe faith this way. It seems an uncommon way to describe faith according to my experience.
I would argue that it doesn't require faith to believe that the sun won't explode tomorrow, because everyday that we have lived that the sun has remained intact is strong evidence that it won't explode tomorrow.
Indeed repeated observations strengthen faith. But not having observed something happening before isn't necessarily a reliable guarantee that something won't happen.
Since our ability to correctly interpret just what's within the scope of what we observe is imperfect, (not to mention what we do not observe) confidence enough to act on our understanding without being paralyzed by excessive uncertainty requires faith.
By faith I am referring to: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.
I don't believe that one can believe something without evidence. So faith by that definition is illogical IMO.
I think you are referring to faith as simply trust in something unproven.
Actually I don't notice a meaningful distinction between the proven and the trusted. Of course I am open to hear arguments to the contrary. Zombee made a pretty good go at it here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Of course this thread is fine if you are up to the challenge.
I think of faith a bit differently than you.
For instance I have no reason to be certain that the sun won't explode within the next few days, however I behave as if I were certain that it won't. This behavior in the absence of absolute certainty is what I think of when I think of faith. I'd love to read an argument that challenges the way I think about it.
to assume there is more to something than there appears to be without evidence or at least a means of investigating your hypothesis is an even greater source of folly.
How did you determine that?
So I guess the key of your debate hinges on the idea that the disruption of that continuous flow, and then the restart, would constitute a replica.
Thanks.
Which is pretty much what this debate is all about. So...ahem...WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?
Because I notice similarities.
Deductive or inductive?
Neither
the main cast of each series, usually, walking out of the pad hale and healthy
Granted that's how it appears. But just because we are unable to describe a difference does not mean that there is no unperceived difference. To assume such is a great source of folly.
How many times was Spock "killed" in the original series?
I don't see how it could be disproven that every time the "transporter" was used one person was killed, and a remarkably precise copy of them was generated.
I must remind you that if what you speak of were true, nuclear plants would not be economically sound, that a-bombs would be redundant.
The technology is reliant upon huge, unstable, highly radioactive atoms. It requires MUCH LESS energy to bring them to critical mass compared to the relatively tiny, relatively stable atoms that make up a human body.
Okay then, why?
Because I do not assume that the perfect sequestering of matter supposed in your example can in reality occur. My thinking is that all matter exists in a constantly interactive relationship.
The original molecules in the original position equates a replica?
That such repositioning of molecules can be done with such precision that our instruments are unable to measure and account for a difference I don't doubt. Neither do I doubt there will be differences we are unaware of and cannot account for.
Perhaps one of us does not know the meaning of the word?
I admit it. I don't know the meaning of the word. I have my beliefs about the meaning, but philosophically I am agnostic. :)
Well, sir, I'll happily grant you that.
So then of your water example you must admit that it cannot be absolutely isolated yes?
we shouldn't work with and evaluate the "knowns". That is what you are saying, yes?
No. I am just not for placing complete trust in "knowns"
the only definition between life and non-life is one that our own semantics derive.
I haven't read a satisfactory definition of life myself either. :)
Its all chemistry. What separates a cow from a piece of malachite? Chemical interactions.
The laws of chemistry I indeed do believe are the selfsame immutable laws of reality. But I also believe that something special (albeit poorly defined) is happening that sets apart "living" things from other things that do not "live".
We, being sentient and alive, love to differentiate between the two concepts. But why? Warm fuzzies?
I don't think so. I think we perceive a difference we aren't that good at describing.
Knowledge.
hmm. revealing. The word I would pick is: Health
Why not?
It just doesn't logically follow
All we are talking about here is speeding up the process.
ie killing someone?
True. Which makes teleporters a renewable resource.
Perhaps you forget that for stable atoms (the vast majority in a human body) it will also require an amount of energy to split them commensurate with what's released.
Is this a replica of the original water?
No. It is the same water.
Is the ice a replica of the original block?
I would say that it is possible to recreate the block of ice in such a way as you describe, (and yes I think it's reasonable to regard it as a replica) , but not being able to account for a difference does not guarantee that there is no difference.
What, exactly, is the point?
It's just what popped into my head at the time.
The problem with meteorology is that it is EXTREMELY complex.
I've got this nagging suspicion that hidden complexities play into all aspects of reality.
even biologists, people who make their livings on this subject, have debates on what delineates living things from non-living things. Are viruses alive?
Good point. So I wonder if with that in mind you might be able to think differently about the existence of souls that can "live on" after someone is declared dead.
It is all priorities, atypican.
In a word what is your first priority?
As far as who assigns those priorities? That is more of a political debate...
So what body politic sets yours for you? :)
Perhaps you don't understand the hypothetical technology, or the relatively feasible theories behind it?
Relatively feasible compared to what?
Problem A; transferring matter into energy. Not really that hard, considering matter is, essentially, little more than heavily compacted energy.
Understanding matter to be "heavily compacted" energy does not make converting matter into energy a simple matter. The amount of energy released if all the atoms in a human body were divided into subatomic particles would exceed the amount of energy released by all atomic bombs detonated thus far. Not to mention the amount of energy required to split stable atoms smaller than plutonium uranium etc.
Problem B: Transferring said energy into a code that can be translated at another point.
So here you are admitting that the hypothetical technology we're discussing does not actually transfer matter but rather deconstructs, encodes, and in another location constructs a duplicate based on encoded instructions. We are talking about replicas here, pardon me typing.
Actually, that was not from my field of study
That's false on it's face.
I presumed that you were a geek. My bad :P
In my experience geek or not everyone excels in some areas and neglects others. I know plenty of people classified as geeks who when you get them off their favored subjects are as dumb as a stump.
If a certain value exists, it is likely to be assigned at some point.
This statement relates to our disagreement. Which I hope to address in a separate debate.
Example?
Meteorologists predicting the weather comes to mind.
I was simply referring to your apparent lack of understanding as to what the word "organic" means.
The word has different usage definitions that I have been aware of for quite some time actually. See usage definition 3a at the Merriam Webster Site......I'll give you a tip, when most people use the word organic in everyday conversation they are not referring to 3b but rather 3a just like I was.
Sigh. That's not even my best subject...
Well I am just happy to hear you now admit that it indeed was in your field of study.
No act of creation is without destruction.
So then is your logic that we shouldn't bother concerning ourselves with specifically what gets destroyed?
Taking current knowledge with the understanding that we may one day be proven wrong is the ultimate act of "taking one for the team." It is also known as "being a scientist".
But what about scientists who don't have a problem putting huge groups of people at risk should their theories be proven wrong? The ones who don't appear to be concerned too much at all with thinking "what if we're wrong" ie Biotech engineers IMO
There exists between us, atypican, a plot of sand. Consider the line drawn.
I've got a debate about it where Zombee made some pretty good arguments on your side, perhaps you can take up where she left off.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
You aren't the only one, but it grows tiresome.
And I was hoping to be irritating dammit!
I believe that your thought processes on this matter, while interesting and unique, are immature.
Thank you - If my immaturity leaves me open to make improvements to how I think, I would prefer to keep it. I don't want too much ossification in my organs of intelligence now do I?
