The Case for Theism

[ManMachine]

Hello everyone. I'm new today. My name is Bitter. My family has and probably will continue to believe because it's been ingrained for generations now. The answer for them is simple, the majority will always be theists in my book for that very reason. It's become some morbid knee jerk reaction with them. They can't control what they believe anymore. I'm not particularly bright, but I cringe when I'm around them for brief visits home. Everyone seems "conditioned" somehow. My wife and I remain in the closet for fear of exorcism. Her family is as conditioned by it as mine.

Belief is not a simple case of 'conditioning' or indoctrination. There are many debates to be had about the nature of belief, many of them are interesting if not convincing.

You make an interesting point, how much can anyone 'control' what they believe?

Welcome.

MM

[Angrboda]

Secondly whether or not the existence of something is reason to believe it was caused is in the eye of the beholder. When we consider that everything we can think of in existence can be traced back to a cause we have no reason to make an exception of the existence of the universe.

I believe this an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, but I don't feel like explaining it, both because I'm lazy, and for other reasons. If you're going to introduce a cosmological argument in support of your argument from design, I request that you do so explicitly and support it on its merits.

(Weren't you the one whining about using one theory to support another?)

[genkaus]

Even though the weight and preponderance of scientific data is in favor of the universe coming into existence (at least in its present form) appox 13.7 billion years ago, I didn't argue from that point of view, I merely stated the universe exists which is a foundational evidence to the claim God created the universe. I couldn't make the claim someone murdered someone without a dead body or evidence someone was killed. Evidence is synonymous with facts. Facts that are probative (comport with a claim) are admissible. Secondly whether or not the existence of something is reason to believe it was caused is in the eye of the beholder. When we consider that everything we can think of in existence can be traced back to a cause we have no reason to make an exception of the existence of the universe.

First of all, do you really not see the difference between coming into existence and coming into existence in its present form?

Secondly, you can, in fact, make an argument for murder even without the dead body.

Thirdly, only evidence with probative value is admissible - not any fact that happens to comport with the claim. And there is a big difference. Any evidence that doesn't contradict the claim can be said to comport with it - and yet be judged as irrelevant and inadmissible. The evidence must prove something about the claim itself and here, it doesn't.

Fourthly, whether or not something was caused is not a matter of opinion but of fact. It is not in the eye of the beholder.

Fifthly, the reason to make an exception is that everything else we can think of exists within the context of the universe.

Again whether they equally do so or not is in the eye of the beholder. As an atheist committed to naturalistic explanations of course you would opine a naturalistic explanation is equally valid. But if by your own admission they are equally valid how does that refute my theory?

I know you probably suffer from some sort of reading disability, but atleast try to make sure that you get my arguments right before coming up with half-assed rebuttals.

Firstly, whether or not they are equally valid is not a matter of opinion. If the evidence in question supports them as well as supporting your theory, then they are equally valid - no matter what anyone may behold.

Secondly, the fact that they are equally valid shows that your assertion about the evidence having a probative value in proving your claim is false.

You don't actually subscribe panspermia do you? I know you're going to claim it's irrelevant whether you subscribe to the objections you want others to consider.

Personally, no.

Again I never made the argument that life began to exist. Let me refresh your memory.

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

Also there is irrefutable observable repeatable evidence that life comes from life.

Two things.

1. With regards to life coming from non-life, study the hypothesis of abiogenesis which evidence that it is possible. Your statement about life only coming from life is far from refutable.

2. Take a look at the bolded phrase. Is your grasp of logic so poor that you do not realize that they imply a beginning? Anyway, if life did not being to exist then there is no cause for it. If you are arguing a cause, then it has to begin to exist. This is not the logic a five-year old should fail at.

Again whether such alternate theories are better or worse is in the eye of the beholder. Of course you being a born again atheist you are going to prefer naturalisitic theories (even ones you yourself don't think are true) over a supernaturalistic explanation. If by your own admission the god theory is no better (but no worse) how do such competing theories refute my theory. Why by the same token doesn't my theory refute your theory?

Firstly, I'm not a born again atheist, I was born one the first time.

Secondly, which theory is better is not in the eye of the beholder. The one with greater explanatory power is better.

Thirdly, when I'm making a case for my theory, then you can present yours as a rebuttal, but rest assured, I can and will present facts to show how my theory explains things better than yours. It just isn't required here.

Fourthly, its your arguments that are refuted. Your theory itself is invalidated. Try and understand the difference.

Why did evolution care if sentience emerged?

It did not. Why do you assume caring was required?

Whether or not the fact of it is sufficient reason to infer the existence of a Creator is in the eyes of the beholder. People can decide for themselves if the better explanation is that mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent created something totally unlike itself life and mind or whether something known to exist (life and mind) caused it.

Once again - no, it is not in the eye of the beholder. Even if people decide for themselves, it'd simply make them wrong. Which theory is better depends upon which of them explains the evidence better, i.e. explains more facts more accurately.

In either event your opinion doesn't refute (disprove) anything. It just means you disagree but we already knew that.

No, but it is not my opinion that is presented as a rebuttal.

How does showing my theory is equilvalent to other theories refute my theory? If as an atheist you admit my theory is equivalent not only have you not refuted it, you have agreed its equally as valid as competing theories. But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you or I think it's what impartial people think that matters.

What it does show is that you have not made the case for theism that you have set out to do. The refutation of your arguments shows that your theory has no ground to stand on and there is no reason for someone impartial to judge it as correct. The fact that there is no given reason to go for any of the alternates is irrelevant.

[Drew_2013]

I think it's a profound mystery. I haven't found any proposed explanation for the existence of the universe that I find persuasive

It is a profound mystery my thinking is that the space time reality we live in is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If we aren't the result of some transcendent being who purposely caused us to exist...then we are gods because unlike anything else we observe, we can actually decide to do something and make something happen.

I do have religious opinions and such, but in addition to being somewhat personal and private, they are likely not of interest or benefit to anyone else, and don't have any real accepted evidentiary value. I accept the evolutionary explanation for the evidence about the diversity, form, and pattern of life, while acknowledging that abiogenesis still has no adequate theory at this time. (I'm also a philosopher, specializing in cognitive science and philosophy of mind, and I have my own, unproven, physicalist model for the phenomena typically referred to as consciousness. It's certainly speculative, but my current thinking is that there is nothing particularly mysterious about consciousness, whether or not my model proves accurate.)

I have heard from other folks who are convinced that humans don't really have what we refer to as free will, they claim its an illusion. I point out to them that there is no reason for me to subscribe to their opinion because if they are right, they didn't come to the conclusion through research and study and weighing the pro and cons, they came to the conclusion because they had no choice but to come to that conclusion. If we all come to conclusions not because we used reason and logic but because a set of circumstances led inexorably led us to that conclusion then we have no reason to think one opinion is better than another.

The Panspermia I was familiar with was the belief life here was planted by alien life. I stated the existence of life as a line of evidence in favor of what I believe. I didn't refer to whether it started here or when it began to exist.

---

Secondly whether or not the existence of something is reason to believe it was caused is in the eye of the beholder. When we consider that everything we can think of in existence can be traced back to a cause we have no reason to make an exception of the existence of the universe.

I believe this an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, but I don't feel like explaining it, both because I'm lazy, and for other reasons. If you're going to introduce a cosmological argument in support of your argument from design, I request that you do so explicitly and support it on its merits.

I don't think there is any argument one can make that can't be labeled somehow or another. Perhaps we should call it the argument from labeling arguments argument and dismiss it that way. Besides simply labeling an argument in some fashion you have to demonstrate it actually is guilty of the alleged fallacy.

[downbeatplumb]

As a theist I could say the sky was blue and folks would argue it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhdH88uM8bw

---

The Panspermia I was familiar with was the belief life here was planted by alien life. I stated the existence of life as a line of evidence in favor of what I believe. I didn't refer to whether it started here or when it began to exist.

Then you have no understanding of the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins.

[Drew_2013]

Even though the weight and preponderance of scientific data is in favor of the universe coming into existence (at least in its present form) appox 13.7 billion years ago, I didn't argue from that point of view, I merely stated the universe exists which is a foundational evidence to the claim God created the universe. I couldn't make the claim someone murdered someone without a dead body or evidence someone was killed. Evidence is synonymous with facts. Facts that are probative (comport with a claim) are admissible. Secondly whether or not the existence of something is reason to believe it was caused is in the eye of the beholder. When we consider that everything we can think of in existence can be traced back to a cause we have no reason to make an exception of the existence of the universe.

First of all, do you really not see the difference between coming into existence and coming into existence in its present form?

In some instances yes, like water going from ice, to water to steam, in either case its still water in different forms. In the case of the universe the current theory is it came forth from a phenomena called a singularity. The singularity can't be described by any of the physics we are familiar with, it isn't anything like the space time we exist in, the phenonmon of time may not have existed. The thinking is the 4 major forces of nature are one. It would be a stretch to say the singularity is the universe in a different form since they share nothing in common, matter as we know it doesn't even exist. Even a rabbit turning into an orange would be a stretch to say the orange is a rabbit in a different form but it can be said both share atoms and molecules in common. I would say this is something only atheists could buy into. Actually you probably don't actually buy into it either but that doesn't stop you from raising it as an objection. I should label this kind of argument the argumus from bullshitish fallacy. Thats when a person raises an alternative they themselves don't actually subscribe to.

Again I never made the argument that life began to exist. Let me refresh your memory.

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

Also there is irrefutable observable repeatable evidence that life comes from life.

Two things.

1. With regards to life coming from non-life, study the hypothesis of abiogenesis which evidence that it is possible. Your statement about life only coming from life is far from refutable.

In other words some day it may be a fact that life came from non-life through some process no one has figured out yet. When that day happens I will grant you its a line of evidence in favor of your belief. This is the irony, atheists claim they come to thier conclusion because supposedly that is the direction the available facts lead them; of course it isn't true but that is what they say. This is a case in point. The only verifiable, repeatable observable and proven method of producing life is from life. If one were led by the facts as atheists claim they are they should conclude (unless proven other wise) that life comes from life. Unfortunately that fact doesn't square with their apriori belief in the non-existence of God so they opt to disregard the proven fact and go for the theory instead.

2. Take a look at the bolded phrase. Is your grasp of logic so poor that you do not realize that they imply a beginning? Anyway, if life did not being to exist then there is no cause for it. If you are arguing a cause, then it has to begin to exist. This is not the logic a five-year old should fail at.

Truth is...you don't believe life always existed do you? Is there ever going to come to a point where you argue what you really think is true? There is a difference between a fact cited in support of a case and the argument made from the fact. When a jury retires they are admonished that the lawyers arguments are not themselves facts. Its fine for you to suggest something you don't actually believe, that life always existed in rebuttal but since even you don't believe in that line of BS its hard to imagine anyone else is. Its hard to be persausive when as you say something your nose grows.

Secondly, which theory is better is not in the eye of the beholder. The one with greater explanatory power is better.

And who determines that?

Thirdly, when I'm making a case for my theory, then you can present yours as a rebuttal, but rest assured, I can and will present facts to show how my theory explains things better than yours. It just isn't required here.

I can only hope if you do so you make a case you actually believe in.

Once again - no, it is not in the eye of the beholder. Even if people decide for themselves, it'd simply make them wrong. Which theory is better depends upon which of them explains the evidence better, i.e. explains more facts more accurately.

Right and that is a judgment call. How can you say if they decide for themselves it makes them wrong? Didn't you decide for yourself which arguments best explain the facts?

No, but it is not my opinion that is presented as a rebuttal.

Considering at least half of the things you offer in rebuttal you yourself don't believe I have to agree with you.

What it does show is that you have not made the case for theism that you have set out to do. The refutation of your arguments shows that your theory has no ground to stand on and there is no reason for someone impartial to judge it as correct. The fact that there is no given reason to go for any of the alternates is irrelevant.

Well good news I don't think you have lost any of your fellow atheists on this board. You mistakenly use the word refute because it makes it sound like you have disproven the case I am making when in fact all your offering is alternative theories many of which you yourself don't believe.

[Angrboda]

I believe this an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, but I don't feel like explaining it, both because I'm lazy, and for other reasons. If you're going to introduce a cosmological argument in support of your argument from design, I request that you do so explicitly and support it on its merits.

I don't think there is any argument one can make that can't be labeled somehow or another. Perhaps we should call it the argument from labeling arguments argument and dismiss it that way. Besides simply labeling an argument in some fashion you have to demonstrate it actually is guilty of the alleged fallacy.

Perhaps I was unclear. I'm dismissing the charge that it is an example of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness at this time because I don't see it as sufficiently important to discuss at this time. (Though it may come up later.)

I am however saying that if you're using a cosmological argument as a support for another argument, you have to make that argument as well; I'm not concluding it's fallacious before you present your support for it, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't self-evidently true, and it's also quite controversial. Introducing a theory or argument over which there is or may be legitimate dispute as if it were accepted fact is simply not going to wash.

---

The Panspermia I was familiar with was the belief life here was planted by alien life. I stated the existence of life as a line of evidence in favor of what I believe. I didn't refer to whether it started here or when it began to exist.

Yes, true, I was skipping ahead a bit because I participated in the "Let's say that science proves that God exists" thread where you appeared to be making the same argument that you are now. Since you've made it explicit, I have to ask, in the interest of fairness, are the things you said in that other thread still true and valid and fair representations of your beliefs about these questions? Are there any parts to that argument that you made there which you specifically want excluded from consideration, and why? Does the current argument you are making differ in any substantial respect such that we should treat the two arguments as separate, and if so, in what way?

(I may also have a tendency to reply to arguments you haven't made, as I've studied arguments of this type at considerable length, and know where similar arguments have gone in the past. I apologize in advance for any unintentional attribution of arguments to you based on my inattention or failure to reliably separate the two.)

---

1. With regards to life coming from non-life, study the hypothesis of abiogenesis which evidence that it is possible. Your statement about life only coming from life is far from refutable.

In other words some day it may be a fact that life came from non-life through some process no one has figured out yet. When that day happens I will grant you its a line of evidence in favor of your belief. This is the irony, atheists claim they come to thier conclusion because supposedly that is the direction the available facts lead them; of course it isn't true but that is what they say. This is a case in point. The only verifiable, repeatable observable and proven method of producing life is from life. If one were led by the facts as atheists claim they are they should conclude (unless proven other wise) that life comes from life. Unfortunately that fact doesn't square with their apriori belief in the non-existence of God so they opt to disregard the proven fact and go for the theory instead.

I believe this is somewhat inaccurate, though it depends somewhat on your meaning, as it's ambiguous. I'd have to research it, but I believe that they have created wholly synthetic organisms out of raw materials. Granted, the organisms themselves are not all that impressive, and if I'm remembering the details correctly, the pattern was based off of existing biological patterns (with some novel variation thrown in). I'm not necessarily suggesting this refutes your point, even under specific interpretations; however, it does point out that your terminology is sufficiently ambiguous that it's not clear what you mean by "producing ... life from life" [or non-life]. (Both the term, "life" and "producing" are inadequately defined; I will accept that it has not been demonstrated that life which, granting evolution, could lead to human life has been demonstrated to come from non-life, but then your objection and your claim starts to become unhealthily narrowly focused, in addition to being an implicit claim about what can and cannot evolve into human life; how would you even know this?)

(As a side-note, I once worked at a biomedical firm that manufactured hyaluronic acid. Hyaluronic acid was originally extracted from chicken feet, and is used widely in dentistry and medicine. The founder of the company had invented a method of manufacturing completely synthetic hyaluronic acid, thus bypassing the dependence on living organisms. Granted, hyaluronic acid is not life, but it does point out that one needs to be careful about what we are referring to as the process of creating life, as well as the defining characteristics of the end product of the process. It's valid to say that hyaluronic acid comes from living animals. It's not valid to say that hyaluronic acid only comes from living animals.)

(ETA: This also strikes me as a rather absurd claim for you to make. By all rights, you claim to believe that life came from non-life, or not life as we know it. Are you suggesting that life isn't a direct result of the creative act of God? (He is quite assuredly not life as we know it. I'm primarily teasing, but given that you've attempted to disallow arguments or theories on the excuse that we don't really believe in the truth of them, here you are explicitly arguing that life doesn't come from non-life when it's quite obvious that you believe 200% that it does.)

[genkaus]

In some instances yes, like water going from ice, to water to steam, in either case its still water in different forms. In the case of the universe the current theory is it came forth from a phenomena called a singularity. The singularity can't be described by any of the physics we are familiar with, it isn't anything like the space time we exist in, the phenonmon of time may not have existed. The thinking is the 4 major forces of nature are one. It would be a stretch to say the singularity is the universe in a different form since they share nothing in common, matter as we know it doesn't even exist. Even a rabbit turning into an orange would be a stretch to say the orange is a rabbit in a different form but it can be said both share atoms and molecules in common. I would say this is something only atheists could buy into. Actually you probably don't actually buy into it either but that doesn't stop you from raising it as an objection. I should label this kind of argument the argumus from bullshitish fallacy. Thats when a person raises an alternative they themselves don't actually subscribe to.

I've seen some pretty pathetic arguments from ignorance from you, but this one takes the cake. Space, time, the laws of physics, etc are properties of this universe. You would not expect them to be found in the singularity. Which is why it is considered a different form. If the properties were the same, why would we need to differentiate between the forms of the universe.

In other words some day it may be a fact that life came from non-life through some process no one has figured out yet. When that day happens I will grant you its a line of evidence in favor of your belief. This is the irony, atheists claim they come to thier conclusion because supposedly that is the direction the available facts lead them; of course it isn't true but that is what they say. This is a case in point. The only verifiable, repeatable observable and proven method of producing life is from life. If one were led by the facts as atheists claim they are they should conclude (unless proven other wise) that life comes from life. Unfortunately that fact doesn't square with their apriori belief in the non-existence of God so they opt to disregard the proven fact and go for the theory instead.

This is why I asked you to read up on it. All you are doing here is showing your own ignorance.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis. Study up.

There are many potential processes we have figured out by which life can come from non-life. That we don't know which, if any, actually occurred doe snot make it an empty hypothesis.

Truth is...you don't believe life always existed do you? Is there ever going to come to a point where you argue what you really think is true? There is a difference between a fact cited in support of a case and the argument made from the fact. When a jury retires they are admonished that the lawyers arguments are not themselves facts. Its fine for you to suggest something you don't actually believe, that life always existed in rebuttal but since even you don't believe in that line of BS its hard to imagine anyone else is. Its hard to be persausive when as you say something your nose grows.

Truth is? That's ironic. You are the one arguing from facts not in evidence. I'm simply holding you to them. You are the one insisting that you never claimed that life began and when shown otherwise, you go to the old tu qoque fallacy. Try and focus on the arguments themselves than what the beliefs of the person making them might be.

And who determines that?

Anyone who can make rational decisions can determine that.

Right and that is a judgment call. How can you say if they decide for themselves it makes them wrong? Didn't you decide for yourself which arguments best explain the facts?

And if you can show that an alternate theory explains the facts better, then I'd be wrong. That is not a judgment call. Recognizing what a theory can and cannot explain is an important part of the scientific process. And with the known limitations to to the theory, it is not a judgment call as to which one has less limitations.

Well good news I don't think you have lost any of your fellow atheists on this board. You mistakenly use the word refute because it makes it sound like you have disproven the case I am making when in fact all your offering is alternative theories many of which you yourself don't believe.

I use the word refute because your position is so weak that even the presentation of alternate theories is sufficient to demolish it. Your arguments are refuted because they've been shown to be invalid and/or it has been shown that alternatives with greater evidence to them are available. Neither science nor law can "disprove" anything in any absolute sense, but showing the multiple logical fallacies present in your arguments and the absence of any actual evidence is sufficient to disprove it as far as any disproof is possible.

[Drew_2013]

I am however saying that if you're using a cosmological argument as a support for another argument, you have to make that argument as well; I'm not concluding it's fallacious before you present your support for it, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't self-evidently true, and it's also quite controversial. Introducing a theory or argument over which there is or may be legitimate dispute as if it were accepted fact is simply not going to wash.

I am playing as it were before a tough crowd and virtually nothing I can say barring producing God before there very eyes is going to convince atheists there is a God. There is a reason 80% or more identify themselves as theists and it's not just because they were brought up that way. Its because the very lines of evidence I have submitted, we convienently live in a universe that supports our life, there is life and we are sentient. We can believe this occured without plan or intent and inspite of the charge of a false dichotomy, the fact is most atheists believe our existence is attributable to happenstance. There was no plan, no intent no design (according to atheists) that the universe, life and sentient life came into existence and in our daily experience if something isn't by design or plan then its by happenstance. What I don't get is this, you have been critical of my arguments since I first posted...but as yet I haven't seen you raise any criticism of the counter arguments in here though lord knows you could find as much fault with their counter arguments as you do mine. Or am I to believe all their counter arguments thus far have been sound and logical and only my arguments fallacious?

Yes, true, I was skipping ahead a bit because I participated in the "Let's say that science proves that God exists" thread where you appeared to be making the same argument that you are now. Since you've made it explicit, I have to ask, in the interest of fairness, are the things you said in that other thread still true and valid and fair representations of your beliefs about these questions? Are there any parts to that argument that you made there which you specifically want excluded from consideration, and why? Does the current argument you are making differ in any substantial respect such that we should treat the two arguments as separate, and if so, in what way?

I plan to present two more lines of evidence, the last one being the fine-tuning argument but I thought I'd lay down the foundation first, then make a closing argument.

[Angrboda]

...the fact is most atheists believe our existence is attributable to happenstance....

I am not responsible for what others, atheist or not, believe. If they have come to their conclusions through slovenly and reckless reasoning, that is no warrant for me to excuse slovenly and reckless reasoning in you.

My reasons for focusing on specifics of one side or another are, perhaps, fascinating, but of essentially no relevance. Perhaps it's simply a fact of who I am. I think, alongside honesty and integrity, one of my highest values is "good thinking" for its own sake, and I will likely attack bad thinking whenever and wherever I see it. At this very moment I'm engaged in a heated debate with another forum member whom I dearly love. But on the issue in question, I see him as dead to rights wrong. I will probably disengage from that debate, but not because I wouldn't like to see it through. Emotionally, and in terms of priorities in my life right now, I simply don't have it in me. The reasons for our choices are not always along party lines, at least not with me.