|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Posted on: March 13, 2008 - 1:03am
   Offline
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Just substitute "accept" with "believe" and you will clearly see that you are merely engaging in semantics to delude yourself into BELIEVING that you have no beliefs.
"Expectation is not belief, but rather a predisposition to believe that my perceptions will continue to be internally consistent."
Furthermore, you have just made my point that faith ("belief without sufficient evidence" as the atheist defines it) is a basic presupposition.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes, you are correct. Thanks.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I am referring to mystical traditions, which does not necessarily correspond to religious traditions (indeed they're usually at odds with each other).
What you are referring to is known as the "constructivist" viewpoint. There is another viewpoint known as "perennialism."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes, if we were to substitute 'accept' with 'believe', that would most certainly make you correct. However: I did not use 'believe'. I did not use it because it was not the appropriate word to use. Acceptance is passive, it is a lack of dispute. Belief is active, an assertion of knowledge, potentially in spite of, and thus, in dispute with, apparent evidence.
What you have done is, in effect, responded to the statement "If I leap off of a tall building, I will fall" with:
'Just substitute "fall" with "fly" and you will clearly see that you are merely engaging in semantics to delude yourself into flying straight into the ground.'
No, I have not made your point that faith is a basic presupposition. In fact, just the opposite, I have made my point that one can interact and function without even faith in one's own senses.
Furthermore, I must seriously question your motive in waiting this long to respond, perhaps to give yourself time to hope people might forget that 'belief' is "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing", so that you can attempt to brush aside the third sentence you've quoted: "That I am predisposed to accept their internal cohesion does not mean that I trust them to, or am confident that they will, only that it will not prove disruptive should they do so." Which directly addresses whether such acceptance constitutes belief, and shows that no, it does not.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Observable phenomena.
Actually I don't mind you using the term physical. However, you must remember that a mind asleep and dreaming sees mental phenomena (i.e. the dream itself) as physical phenomena. What differentiates the physical from the mental may not be as clear- cut as you think.
It is a model that will continue to undergo future modifications as long as science continues to evolve.
The fact is that many, if not most scientists have refused to acknowledge that there has been a fundamental shift. They still talk as if they are living in a deterministic universe.
What is destroyed (or at least modified) is the old theory to better explain the current data.
Right now, science doesn't have a model to explain the current observable data - namely, observed phenomenal events that are uncaused and unbidden. (Actually, there are interpretations of QM that do. However, the materialists are still clinging to their old dogma.)
No, there is not. There is no theological methodology analogous to the scientific method. However, there are those who are promoting a "scientific mysticism." Actually, I think the field of transpersonal psychology is doing good work in this area.
I see theology mainly working on the same methods that are available to philosophy in general.
They rest both on faith and reason. Reason is required to formulate a theological system. But without faith there would be no reason to do so. Also, theology requires religious experience as data - both individual as well as collective.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
If you recall, you were challenging the notion that memory could not be eternal.
Mesle stated that "The past exists as a memory in the present moment."
Concerning thermodynamics, you are assuming that the universe is a closed-system. "O ye of little faith." Matthew 16:8
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Faith and rationality do mutually entail each other.
Both empiricism and the scientific method are based on inductive reasoning - the view that inferences can be drawn on the basis of observations. Just because a sequence of events occurred repeatedly in the past does not necessarily imply that they will continue to occur in the future. The belief that they will is simply made on the basis of faith (belief without evidence.)
Also, every logical argument itself begins with a premise or assumption that is believed to be true.
Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to operate on faith because reason itself requires it.
Concerning the knowledge of God...God can only be realized when faith and reason become one.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Perhaps you have short term memory problems. Is English perhaps not you native language? Too many drugs in college? Interesting how you take even your own words and twist them. Somehow you have forgotten all about how you reached your faith through non-rational means.
As Spock would say Live Long and prosper. Done with you.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Paisley is a perfect example of someone caught up in their own sense of superiority to notice the irrationality of their position.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
I would argue that the vast majority of human beings believe they have free will and that this belief is based on first-person experience. (Free will is being defined here as the belief that, given the same situation and circumstances, one could have chosen otherwise.) Being that this is the case, the onus is on you to prove it otherwise.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Agreed. The intuitive mind is probably the source of genius. Unfortunately, I think our educational system tends to favor the development of the analytical over the intuitive.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This is what I mean by logical analysis. So I guess were not going to play ball.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
And I still am. The 'closest approximation' does, in fact, explicitly mean 'not the same thing'.
The universe is, indeed, a closed system. Limitless but finite. Were it not a closed system, we could not make estimates regarding the mass, or test predictions about gravity and its effects, because we wouldn't be able to say that the entirety of the mass off the universe remains stable.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
No, I'm on topic. Sam Harris, who is considered by this forum to be an honorary member and the embodiment of rationalism, actually shares my interest in mysticism. If Sam Harris is an "atheist," then he's apparently some kind of "New Age atheist." Can you say "om mani padme hum?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Nonsense. I'm not making an assertion that there is no free will. For all I know, it does. For all I know, it doesn't. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that free will exists. Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. How's that Earth-centered model of the universe doing for you? Seven celestial spheres? Flies arising spontaneously from rotting meat? All these things were once believed by 'majorities' of humanity. Belief does not cause reality. You're making an assertion. I'm asking you to provide evidence, not anecdotes.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Paisley! We agree on something.
I believe that is absolutely true. In fact, I'd go one further: I'd say the education system in the US tends to beat both into submission in favor of mental apathy. And though you frustrate the hell out of me, I'd rather have ten of you than one of a mentally-apathetic person. Although I believe you rely too heavily on your intuitive mind, and have an underdeveloped analytic mind, at least you bother using it.
And you are also absolutely right that the intuitive mind is the source of genius. That said, most of the people we consider "genius" we do for their analytical accomplishments. (Well, not so much for Beethoven or Paganini, but you get what I'm saying, I hope. Art and science are two different, though complementary, realms.)
Inspiration untempered by logic is merely inspirational babel.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Right. The various string theories have made more than one prediction. They have made several, not the least of which is the required number of dimensions. Also, the variations have made predictions of the quality of the string -- bound, unbound, etc. They have also predicted the existence of the graviton. (Not too surprising, since string theory was designed to merge the quantum realm and the realm of relativity.)
However, now I'm quibbling. These predictions are currently untestable. At least, until the large hadron collider comes online. Then we might be able to detect a graviton. Not that it'll "prove" string theory, but it'll be at least one piece of evidence.
I agree it shouldn't be called a "theory." It is at most an hypothesis.
Actually, you are wrong. "Nature" collapses the probability wave during an interaction. That is, it is a materialistic event that collapses the wave, not "free will." The wave cannot refuse to collapse. Nor can it arbitrarily collapse. The waveform collapses during interaction, when the information is required for the materialistic outcome. It is a purely-informational event.
Ah. Both a misrepresentation, and a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, all rolled up into one.
I didn't say God was an object. Many things can be objective without being an object. Although the roots are the same, they are two different words. What I said was, if God exists as a non-subjective delusion, then anyone who performs the sorts of soul-searching introspection you describe should turn up the same God. All evidence points to the opposite.
I'm trying to determine the difference between "spiritually-gifted" and "delusionally-gifted."
It's faith, as you've described faith. I truly believe this is the end we face, though I have no evidence. (Well, not you and me. I have faith that you and I will long be worm-food, all our toughts to be nothing more than a transient life lived in hope and joy.)
I have searched my soul, and meditated, and sought inward, and that is what I have found. We are doomed, you and I, and our only legacy is whether we have left a positive contribution, or a negative. We only matter to those we love, and those that love us, and maybe a few who get caught in the crossfire.
I'm really sad that you think that is not enough.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
A Rant for the simple minded: maybe this would be better posted else where, but what the hell .... thinking on this thread at work is why I scribbled these opinions.
Belief, Faith, God, sheezzz ....
Freewill is like asking if God Cosmos is free ? NO .... Do conscious beings make decisions ? Yes ... Alot of philosophy seems silly ???
God is no more than what any individual thinks it is. All have the right to wonder, to be in awe, to guess, to study, and even to write science fiction dogma, and create cults of like thinkers.
But no one has to the right to coerce their views on others. The foolish and fearful create religious dogma for many reasons and do force, trick, promise, beg, and create fear, to add numbers to their cult members. Numbers make for power and a false sense of being right.
The religious obviously use many tricks to "save" the others etc. They make false promises of rewards to come follow their science fiction god dogma. Promises of a false happiness and enlightenment and my despised favorite , an afterlife ......
The mysterys of the cosmos and consciousness does not merit a need for religion. Science is the highest appreciation and true promise of understanding GAWED .... and actualy supports the simple concept of meditation, biofeedback, and even wishful thinking, reflection, self improvement, and goal setting, as some call proper prayer.
Science attemps to to know the "truth" and eliminate bull shit religion and hocus pocus. All is "divine", all is god .... so why lie about it ? .... Yeah, I understand the poor blind fools, said jesus/buddha wisdom ..... so I bring a sword of challenge that they may awake from the darkness of their superstitions, fears and separatism .... I and you are god, all is ONE with with the father cosmos, now what ? Properly or constructively pray and meditate ? Okay, no problem , but don't lie.
The fact that we have hocus pocus evangelists and New Age nuts on our media is most troubling, especially when it is not immediately counter debated ( the SWORD ) The concept of a separate god must be defeated. All is one, no matter what me might discover in the future. Religion is a disease of wrong thinking ....
I see Mr. P and the religious, as doing a huge dis-service to the world, "but they do not know what they do" .... an ancient wise one said .... Yeah atheistic Jesus ..... "THIS is the kingdom NOW , we and god are ONE". Amen ! Go science, go wisdom, stop religion of wishful confusion.
BTW, my atheist late mom, a jesus/buddha fan said 30 yrs ago that I should be a "preacher" ummm ??? I AM finally beginning to see why .... yeah crazy sick religious world .... and a million recent dead Iraq's ..... BUT, no real biggy, they ain't really dead, they is doing the afterlife ! SHEEZZZZ .... Religion makes killing so much easier .... "Religion is poison" .... SUE the devil POPE for fraud ......
Ummm, will anyone ever write the perfect metaphor ??? Keep trying, Thanks RRS
Atheism Books.
After reading the whole thread, here's the short version of Paisley's argument it:
"It's obvious God exists because it's true. It's so gloomy to not believe that."
The end.
Sandwiches are SO Godly .....
Why would I settle for a stalemate when you're the one currently in check?
I never said it did. However, he is a prominent atheist. Indeed, this very website lists him as an "honorary member" and they are actively promoting his books.
If you're going characterize my panentheistic beliefs as claptrap, then I expect you to be consistent and characterize Sam Harris' beliefs in like terms. But instead, you're actually attempting to vainly support his brand of "atheism" - an atheism which praises Gnosticism, the Jewish Kabbalah, Hermeticism (magic), Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, etc.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I note that my fellow atheists and I have found plenty of meaning and purpose to give to their lives (and the lives of others) without having to resort to imaginary friends.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Ba-zing !!!
( ProzacDeathWish is sent reeling into the corner in an attempt to recover from this devastating retort !
)
Oh my fucking God ! Are you still bringing up Sam Harris ?
Dear Paisley...
I'm still waiting.
You seem to have once again retreated to your tactic of pretending responses you can't spin and obfuscate about don't exist. How about actually providing some evidence of ANY of the claims you've made, instead of trying to spin bullshit into silk? How about actually responding, instead of deflecting and running away?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Oh yes, and ( hopefully ) for the last time Paisley....
I don't care if Sam Harris moves to Vatican City and becomes the next Pope.
I don't care if he becomes the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I don't care if he becomes a devotee of Haitian Voo-Doo.
As I stated before...Sam Harris is free to choose his own path, he is free to believe whatever he wants to believe. I don't have a problem with that. ( Sheesh !
)
No, you're attempting to place your spin on it. You see faith and rationality as completely antithetical. I don't. I see them as complementary. That's the difference.
Yes, belief in God does entail faith. I have never denied this. But to give faith verbal expression also requires rational thought.
What agenda do I have?
Whether you believe me or not is not going to change my personal experiences.
How do I know that what I am experiencing is a mind other than my own? I don't know for sure. This is why it is called a belief. Beliefs are interpretations of our senses and experiences.
You are not in a position to speak authoritatively on my personal experiences.
Anytime an individual attempts to argue that a "belief in the supernatural" does not entail some kind of God-concept is usually proof positive that he has a lurking God-belief.
No, this is not what I meant. Let me rephrase. How did you determine the validity of logic itself?
This is not my problem. It's yours. However, there is no doubt that the vast majority of other human beings feel the same as I do.
But value being eternal is relevant when speaking of eternal value and meaning.
No, what I am saying is that my personal experiences will be eternally imprinted on an eternal mind and will therefore have eternal influence.
No, I am using the term "ultimate" to point to the fact that the atheistic worldview ultimately views an individual's life as being without eternal meaning and value.
Your worldview does not have room for ultimate hope because ultimately your worldview is without it. This is a fact.
All your life's experiences will ultimately be for naught unless there remains the future opportunity to apply them.
Faith values life. It has every reason to do so because it believes that all things are working out for a greater good. This is a positive outlook on life and only a mind given to irrationality would characterized it differently.
Agreed. This debate is not going anywhere and it is probably for the best that you bow out.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Does this mean that you will admit that you were wrong when you previously stated that Sam Harris is a real atheist?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, you can't. You can only delay your realization of this truth.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I have demonstrated conclusively that faith and rationality mutually support each other. Hence, I am the only one here who can honestly profess to have a rational worldview because I am the only one here who is professing to have faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This begs the question: How did you determine that logic works?
(Incidentally, if you use logic in an attempt to answer this question, then you will continue to beg the question).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Cogito ergo sum:
I think, therefore I am.
--René Descartes
That is all ye know on Earth;
And all ye need to know.
--John Keats
Whaddaya know?
<-Nihilist :3
No, it's called Absurdism because it views life as ultimately absurd and meaningless.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I call it a Freudian slip.
I guess the scientist calls it the "unified field theory" or the "theory of everything." The mystic calls it love.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I will interpret the this as your way of conceding the point. And no, no I haven't run out of arguments. Until now, I've only had to make two arguments and neither have been refuted.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Oh my fucking non-existent God. You are trying to equate the TOE with love? THAT is your ultimate philosophy?
That's... absurd. I mean, Monty Python absurd. That's the punchline to a long, tedious, rambling joke.
This isn't mysticism. It's a complete misunderstanding of reality.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Well, obviously it doesn't work for you.
I wasn't going to use logic; I was going to use empirical evidence. My toaster, my microwave, my blow-up sex doll with the AI vibratiing feature and life-like breasts are all evidence that logic works.
What do you have that's even close? How do you know your God works?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
The first "example" I'm assuming has to do with quantum mechanics, which you're now referring to only in the abstract because you've been duly spanked on the specifics by the science nerds in the thread.
The second "example" is even more of an abortion, and not worth acknowledging. If you want to write something of substance, go ahead and do it. If your words are representations of ideas elaborated on in other universes, I'm afraid I don't have access to a dimension where they aren't meaningless shit.
I have demonstrated that both empiricism and its stepchild "the scientific method" is ultimately based on faith.
I have also demonstrated that I am the only one here who can say his worldview is rational because I am the only one here who is making a profession of faith. Without faith, there is no way to account for the validity of inductive or deductive reasoning.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Actually you interpret everything in this manner. It is clearly your coping mechanism after you failed to achieve your glorious victory over the materialistic atheists.
It must be a terrible burden to possess such a huge ego. How awful for you.
You seriously have problems remembering that which you have posted.
Can you just not see that nonrational is defined
You have specifically said "I will acknowledge that my basic belief in God is probably "not rationally derived."
So just how exactly have you demonstrated faith and rationality support each other when you say your faith is not rationally derived, defined as "not based on reason"?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Yeah. Whatever.
You've demonstrated that you are incapable of maintaining consistency. You've demonstrated that you are very good at making assertions, but not so good at backing them up. You've demonstrated that you have no clue about quantum mechanics. You've demonstrated that you are excellent at ignoring posts that ask very pointed, hard-to-twist questions. You've demonstrated that your method of logic is to stick your fingers in your ears and say, "I'm right. You're wrong. That proves God exists."
Other than that, you've not demonstrated a damned thing.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Very curious once again to see this supposed panentheist resorting to typical Christian presuppositionalist apologetics. The one difference is that you fall short of saying a god "accounts" for x, saying instead that (religious/blind) faith does. It reminds me of how a dog looks at your finger when you point to something. In fact, it couldn't account for anything, since it absolves itself of accounting. In fact, we already know that induction is based on an assumption; but we acknowledge that the assumption could be completely false, and all that proceeded from it could be fallacious. There is no magic bullet to solve this and validate the rule absolutely; one can only deal in appearances and probabilities. From this view, human knowledge has been increasing in internal consistency, and appears consistent enough with reality to make reliable predictions about the way it will behave. The reasoning could, again, be completely flawed; and there could be some unknown reason why certain things have worked thus far, in spite of our misunderstanding them.
On the other hand, we have your view. Which misappropriates QM, takes a Postermodern approach to reality trying to break physical properties into matters of opinion, and talks about thoughts like they're cracker boxes and lampshades. This approach has produced "The Secret."
Still waiting, Paisley.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
How does empirical evidence prove the validity of logic?
I can't prove the validity of logic.
Because faith seems to work.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
In other words, inductive reasoning is based on faith (belief without evidence).
Translation: inductive reasoning is based on faith (belief without evidence).
I am not the one who's makng this false claim that my worldview is based soley on logic.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." ("Ode to a Grecian Urn" by John Keats)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, I did not say all beliefs are true. I simply stated that belief and reason require each other. Inductive reasoning leads to beliefs. Deductive reasoning is predicated on beliefs.
I do not subscribe to the heat death theory.
What introspection techniques and conclusions are you referring to?
An absurd worldview is an irrational one.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Apparently you don't. If you did, then you would not have taken issue with my statement that "A balanced mind is one in which the analytical and the intuitive complement each other."
I said that my belief in God is not completely rationally derived. There's a basic element of intuition from which it stems. This should not be miscontrued to mean that all my theological beliefs are without any rational formulation.
You have no logical basis to say that I have "squelched" my analytical mind. You are simply flinging ad hominem attacks for lack of a logical rebuttal.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead