Is atheism simply a lack of belief in the supernatural?

[Leela]

Apples and oranges. Can you name anyone who has died as the direct result of not having sex?

Hi David,

An argument was made that boys should not masturbate because this is a behavior exhibited by monkeys and the mentally handicapped? I find this argument to be without merit since we do other things that monkeys do such as eating and sleeping which are not immoral. You counter that eating and sleeping are necessary for survival, but masturbation is not? But surely there are other behaviors in the category of those exhibited by monkeys and the mentally challenged that that are not necessary for survival and are also not immoral? I once saw a monkey scratch his head. Is head-scratching to be thought of as immoral on the basis of “monkey’s do it”?

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

im sorry if you were offended im not known for my sensitivity, one of my more egregious failings, among many.

That said though, i rejected your root motivation as an emotional response to childish taunts you received as listed in your post, that is why i do not consider it as a “reasonable and logical motivation” the fact that so many of your associates differ from you in belief also provides no logical reason to argue with them, and a reasonable, logical motivation is what i seek, not just any reason, but one that can stand up to a more than cursory inspection.

I usually work as a supervisor (just a sgt.) in supermaximum security penitentiaries. i get cussed everyday all day, and assaulted at least once a week, but i dont stand there and argue with them. i know many are crazy, some are just plain evil, and some are just bored. so when i walk the line i just ignore it as the mature and responsible way to handle it.

as to judging your argument of treating all delusions equally, frankly i said it wasn’t relevant because it doesn’t answer the central question i have been asking, which is “what is a reasonable, logical, motivation to defend ones disbelief of another’s delusion?”

that would be a separate argument for a new thread, i would be happy to participate if you choose to post that thread

on this thread my goal is to isolate that motive with reason alone, attempting to steer clear of all bias as far as possible.

Leela,

hi. i see your point about the most basic needs, but the underlying argument is belied by the vast masses of humanity that identify themselves as belonging to a faith, which is 95% or more (i didn’t bother to look it up) so i would have to say that most people do indeed have given enough thought to it to at least claim a faith, im not vouching for depth of belief just the number of adherents claiming fellowship

As to the second qoute of your post here is what i mean quoted from another thread

if there is no G-d than what differentiates any collection of atoms from any other collection of atoms?
why would a person be any different than a rock?
you can say they differ in level of functioning, but the rock might think the same thing,
so if there is no G-d than by necessity all collections of atoms are of equal value
so it follows that one can neither love nor hate anything at all
but i am sure you do, most people love their folks, or their dog or their wife or their kids
so either everyone on the planet is delusional, or something is differentiating the value of various collections of atoms
since in the absence of the supernatural we have that equality of substance, than no collection of atoms is capable of assigning more value to one thing or another.
alternatively there is no General to say this soldier is a Lt. or this soldier is Sgt., or this one is infantry
rather everyone would simply be a soldier
so the fact that most people assign value to various collections of atoms means that they are tacitly in agreement that there is a supernatural
otherwise one could neither love nor hate

But that is way off topic to so if you wish to debate it we can start another thread

Ateist,

grassroots seems a better answer than most but it does have some issues, however i would be willing to accept that argument for motivation if, and at his point only if, you are claiming that this is an organized, coordinated effort on behalf of some group of like minded atheists to redress grievances in the wider society. Further that group would most likely need to have a presence in other arenas also.

without that it comes back to the question of an individuals motivations

leaving the legislature as a more efficient means of change
you are right they are slower than molasses sometimes, however the courts often move with great alacrity, as they can rule by fiat.

but individually affecting grassroots change is by far the slowest least efficient of the methods we discuss

as to sexuality, i understand that you will not accept anything but pure reason as authoritative, so i use this only as a basis to argue from, the “intended purpose” of which i speak is the church approved purpose. and yes i know you may not like it but its easier than drawing up such a list here.

if someone skis 95% of the time for fun, and teaches skiing 5% of the time for money, he just doesn’t realize a concrete benefit most of the time, so its only for fun, not to get more skiers involved (have babies) and you can get hurt skiing, so one exposes himself to much more suffering by skiing so much for fun
(i think thats the dumbest metaphor i came up with all day)

as to homosexual guilt, i don’t believe one can realistically separate that from “normal” heterosexual guilt. my faith teaches that it is sinful to practice homosexuality, not to be homosexual.
guilt should not be part of that equation.

as for self abuse it is the mindless satisfaction of your glands, one should rise above the flesh, yes it is a struggle, for me too, but there are consequences to that misuse of yourself. but this isn’t the proper forum as young people may read here.

as to Switzerland joke, yes if you are Catholic you should, the scripture, which is authoritative for us urges one to discipline the flesh. I know that doesn’t mean anything to you but it is our rationale.

and i do respect other peoples opinion, but this is a forum for the discussion and evaluation of those opinions, if anyone takes my analyses of their post offensively i don’t mean to be that way, but i am a bit of a social retard so let me know

 

[RobinSebas]

true my friend,

but in this unfortunate case the “delusions” so to speak, are mutually exclusive.

all humanity can fall under the broad headings of atheist or theist.

do you have a logical reason that answers my question?

All humanity falls under four headings 1) Belief in God 2) Belief in Gods 3) Belief in a philosophy 4) Belief in the occult – I think I read that from G.K. Chesterton.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the apostle of common sense is oft quoted, i really need to dig deeper into what he wrote, i don’t know as much about im as i would like.

are you in eastern india, i read about some really bad persecution there.

 

[RobinSebas]

Well, I am still in the packaging mode for our trip and since I woke up pretty early, I might as well chime in.

Yes, atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god or deity, where god or deity is something “supernatural”.

Now, the word “supernatrual” is just a fancy euphemism for “unnatural” - regardless what Chesterton said. The opposite or negation of “natural” is “unnatural”. The unnatural could be subdivided into two more categories: supernatural and subnatural. But no one uses the concept of “sub”-natural. Therefore unnatural and supernatural are synonyms.

Now the other question presented, why should anyone bother to argue with the adherents of a delusion?

Let’s categorize delusions. The following categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, one particular delusion may belong to more than one of them. Nor is this categorization is intended to be complete. Just a few from the top of my head.

Category #1: active and passive delusions. The example of “alien abductees” is a passive one, religion is an active one. Religions tend to propagate themselves, most of them actively attempt to convert the “unbelievers”. There is nothing wrong with that per se, of course. The method could be questionable.

Category #2: tolerant and intolerant delusions. Most religions pay lip service to tolerance, but they don’t practice it. There is an ungoing theme of talking about the “Truth”, and asserting that only Catholics have access to the “whole Truth”, though some other Christian denominations may have access to some “partial Truth”. Believing that one has access to the “whole Truth” does not promote tolerance - on the very contrary. If one believes that one has access to the “Truth” (whatever that may be) it is natural to convince others about the errors of their ways.

Category #3: dangerous, neutral or beneficial delusions. Here I am going to poke into a hornet’s nest. There are some attributes of religions, which are beneficial - no doubt about it. It promotes a sense of belonging to a community, It gives one inner peace. It allows coping with disasters. These are all positive, beneficial attributes - though one does not need to be religious to experience these states of mind.

But there are others. Christianity in general has a very twisted and “warped” (sorry about the pun, buddy ) view of sexuality. I rarely ever go to the forum of “Moral Theology”, because I find it depressing to the extreme. Thread after thread deals with poor teenagers suffering from guilt, because they give in to the very natural desire to explore their sexuality and “succumb” to masturbation. To forbid such a natural act and instill tremendous guilt over it is highly dangerous to the kids involved. To assert that “abstinence” is “moral” and the opposite is sinful is simply horrible.

Then comes the view that sex is “sinful” if not practised toward procreation, and setting up all sorts of acceptable and “forbidden” methods of the most private activity is ridiculous. Whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their business. A sub-part of this highly repressive and intolerant feature is the condemnation of homosexuality.

So, based upon this scatchy set of categorizations, Christianity is active, intolerant and has some beneficial and harmful aspects to it. I am sure most will not agree with anything I said about the harmful aspects, but they cannot deny (of course they will!) the highly dangerous result of messing with the minds of children and teenagers. The examples are numerous where poor teenagers will commit suicide over the guilt they feel about practising their sexuality in a “forbidden” way - especially when it comes to homosexual tendencies.

Finally, even if all the aspects of Christianity were beneficial, its value would be downgraded by the fact that it is a “command” based system. Something is not “virtuous” unless it is subjugated to the ultimate commanding “boss”. Time after time it was asserted that good works, in and by themselves are irrelevant unless they are made for the glory of God.

And which category in this delusion is atheism?

 

[ateista]

Dear Petey

if you are a social retard then I am a turkey. Well, I am not part of any vast conspiracy of atheists, nor am I aware of such.

But the point is that there are many misconceptions about atheism, and to show that they are just misconceptions is a good idea - at least in my opinion. A long time ago I opened a thread and asked everyone to put forth a question about atheism, materialism, etc. It was most amazing how many “weird” questions showed up.

The truth is that your assertion about the supernatural is making the difference between one collection of atoms from another, also was there in a different form. But that is a too simplistic view. A bunch of bricks is not the same as a house, even without appealing God. Is that not obvious? One should never forget about the emerging attributes of complex structures.

Now, it is not what I like or dislike about the teaching of the church in respect to sexuality. I am talking about the fact, that humans and the great apes are the only animals which are free of the biological pressure of procreation. There is another nice old saying: “of all the sexual aberrations the most unnatural ones is chastity”. It is not beneficial to abstain. It leads to frustrations and stress.

By the way, I am very sure that no one, not even the Pope can know God’s intentions for us. It is all conjecture derived from an ancient book, written by superstitious people. It can “claim” of divine origin, but such a claim is neither here nor there.

As a matter of fact, if there is a loving God, he would never instantiate such a pleasureable activity and then put all sorts of totally nonsensical requirements around its “proper” use. Just think about it: if we were like all the other animals, who can have sex only during the estrus, this whole question would be moot.

And by the way, I am not advocating the “mindless” following of your glands, just like I am not advocating the mindless following of your other emotions. We must control our innate urges, for sure, but only when it makes sense. In this case it does not. The funny stuff is that one can eat himself to death, can drink himself to death and those are “forgivable” sins. But one can never have sex in the extreme, the body will not allow it. Little Jack just goes to sleep (to be poetic about it).

Anyhow, have a great day, and I am back to packing (not heat!).

 

[RobinSebas]

the apostle of common sense is oft quoted, i really need to dig deeper into what he wrote, i don’t know as much about im as i would like.

are you in eastern india, i read about some really bad persecution there.

I personally prefer C.S. Lewis and am reading GK cause CS Lewis refers to him quite a lot. I am not from eastern india but from Southern India, Kerala, a lot of the priests and nuns are from my state.

 

[RobinSebas]

But if a teenage boy is suffering because he believes that his inability to exert enough self-control to stop masturbating is endangering his eternal soul, then I wold like to free him of this delusion that this is a sin to relieve him of his suffering.

If a fat lady is suffering in her inability to exert enough self-control to stop eating which is endangering her life, wold you like to free her of her suffering?

Leaving the morality of masturbation aside for now that boy would gain a lot strength in his exertions of self control, would you prefer that he live a life of no self control?

Socrates liked people to define their terms, could you define god? I have an atheist friend who lost all belief in god when man first went to space and didn’t find god there. His definition of god is quite different from my faith.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

yes , i understand the frustration of misconceptions i have lived in the South, protestants think we eat babies while we pray the rosary down there.

now i don’t know the theory of emerging attributes. but let me say the difference between bricks and a brick house is the workman, an outside force assembles those bricks into the house they are not self-assembling.

I have found my attempts to be chaste very freeing in several spiritual ways, which is why one is advised to practice chastity,

in fact that is reflected in the animal kingdom, they remain chaste except for the very act of procreation, indeed that is even more chaste than we are asked to be.

obviously i cant use scripture to support G-ds intention, but i trust the evidence of Divinity, it would have taken a lot of crazy people separated by thousands of years thousands of miles and across several different cultures to come up with such a cohesive theology, possibly made up but highly unlikely. so i choose to accept it. i know from experience coordinating crazy people is like herding cats

funnily enough he did create another very pleasurable, even more necessary activity, and then he surrounded it with even stranger restrictions, we call it eating

eating kosher is a very ancient practice

as to the sexual sins they are forgiven at the exact same rate as any other. gluttony, self abuse, they are all sins in the same mode
they all offend god, but he made arrangements to fix that. you can always be forgiven, because its about love, not blame

 

[ateista]

yes , i understand the frustration of misconceptions i have lived in the South, protestants think we eat babies while we pray the rosary down there.

Yes, it is sad that Catholics are also discriminated against, and they are just as decent people as people of other religions or people without any religion at all. Though I have to point out that JFK was a Catholic, and I cannot see that a self-professed atheist would have a snowball’s chance in hell to become the president of the US.

now i don’t know the theory of emerging attributes. but let me say the difference between bricks and a brick house is the workman, an outside force assembles those bricks into the house they are not self-assembling.

True, but that was not the point. You said that without a supernatural power there is no distinction between one set of atoms and another. And the difference between a house and a pile of bricks does not need a supernatural power to explain.

I will give you a different example: take 6 carbon atoms, and arrange them in a hexagonal format, and you get graphite. Take the same six carbon atoms and arrange them in the shape of an octahedron, and you get diamond. Same atoms, different arrangement, and two very different substances - all without a divine explaining factor. So, even without a supernatural assumption there are differences between different “lumps” of atoms.

obviously i cant use scripture to support G-ds intention, but i trust the evidence of Divinity, it would have taken a lot of crazy people separated by thousands of years thousands of miles and across several different cultures to come up with such a cohesive theology, possibly made up but highly unlikely. so i choose to accept it. i know from experience coordinating crazy people is like herding cats

But it was a long and arduous process to separate the chaff from the wheat - so to speak. Lots of debates among fallible people, and I simply do not see evidence that the result is trustworthy. I am sure you do, but I don’t.

funnily enough he did create another very pleasurable, even more necessary activity, and then he surrounded it with even stranger restrictions, we call it eating

eating kosher is a very ancient practice

And it is just as nonsensical to say that God wanted a “kosher” way to prepare food. There is no evidence that these supposed requirements came from God, and not from people, who believed that they came from God. No one, not you, nor I, nor the Pope has a direct hot-line to God, where they could ask for enlightement. They are all human concoctions.

As a matter of fact most Levitican “commands” are simply overlooked today as totally irrelevant - and people conveniently forget that they also come from written word of the “unchanging” God. If even believers will “cherry-pick” which parts of Bible are to be taken seriously and which parts are not, then you should not be surprised that I will discard the whole shebang as wishful thinking, without any merit whatsoever.

as to the sexual sins they are forgiven at the exact same rate as any other. gluttony, self abuse, they are all sins in the same mode they all offend god, but he made arrangements to fix that. you can always be forgiven, because its about love, not blame

I am not aware that one must ask for forgiveness if one takes an extra piece of a delicious pie, or drinks an extra glass of wine - because these are intrinsically “disordered” and mortally sinful behaviours. But maybe I am wrong there. You can tell me if I am mistaken.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

no, not a snowballs chance, did you see Doles ad in north carolina?
her opponent was seen at an atheist meeting and its killing her campaign, in a secular nation that is unwarranted.

as to the brick house analogy, i am still formulating this idea but maybe you can help me flesh it out, but it seems to me the importance is that they all have the same substance, at the most basic level, roll a sheet of your graphite up and you have a nanotube, string carbon together and saturate it with hydrogens you get the basic hydrocarbons, from methane to hexane, to the waxy solids, throw them into a cat cracker however and they all breakdown to the same basic components. even on the sub atomic, quantum wave function level.

maybe i am trying to say that there is no logical basis to assign differing values to different collections of particles?

with no G-d there is no difference between us, a great, ape, a fish, a rock or a car

the normal answer would be level of function but to a great ape or a fish or a car we dont have a high level of function, to an ape we are weak, to a fish we swim badly, and who knows how a car might see us, as some beneficial parasite?

so there is no logical way to differentiate one collection of particles from any other. there is no reason to love and no reason to hate. the particles that make up your children are no different from the particle that make up your childhood bully.

most people would say that humans are more important than animals(but don’t get me started on the ones who don’t, i have special disdain for them)
by assigning more value to one pile of particles than another it seems a tacit agreement that there is a supernatural force, or as Christians might say, we are made in His image

i know this idea needs much work but i feel something in there somewhere.

i understand why you might not accept Scripture, and thats ok
but i dont understand why you would expect G-d to act in a way you find sensical?
After all, the mere act of creation is non sensical. obviously He knows something we dont

and yes gluttony is a sin, though i dont think second servings qaulify

and Christian sexual mores are sensical from our view point.
Staying in the lines has no bad effect, crossing those lines does, you attempted to refute that argument with discussions of guilt and nervous breakdown over the issue, yet that is exceedingly rare. even in those cases we may consider that those ill effects you speak of are ill effects that we say come from violating those mores, they may be one in the same thing.

ji admire your compassion for those people, but i have seen first hand the destructive effects of disordered sexuality, guilt is the only prophylacticone would need if only it was heeded

its fun to debate you, but i a have a couple broke ribs and am rather drugged up so i got to lay down. any ways im kind of mad, you havent said anything all day about my theory of bib overall materialism

 

[Leela]

maybe i am trying to say that there is no logical basis to assign differing values to different collections of particles?

with no G-d there is no difference between us, a great, ape, a fish, a rock or a car

Hi Petey,

Why does believing in God mean that there is a difference bewteen us, a great, ape, a fish, a rock or a car? Why does not believing in God mean that there is no difference?

Why do I have to believe in God to recognize that we are not merely different collections of particles? Aren’t thoughts and values more empirical than the notion that we are composed of atoms that are composed of subatomic particles which are composed of…uh… probabilities or something?

You make all sorts of wrong assumptions about what it must be like to not believe in God. You would have a better idea about what it is like to be incredulous about Christianity if you think about why are not a Muslim.

On virtually every page, the Qur’an declares that it is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible’s account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the Muslim point of view, proves his unique status as the Prophet of God. While Muhammad did not claim to be divine, he claimed to offer the most perfect revelation of God’s will. He also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Qur’an 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believed otherwise would spend eternity in hell. Muslims are convinced that Muhammad’s pronouncements on these subjects, as on all others, are infallible.

Why don’t you find these claims convincing? Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi Robin,

If a fat lady is suffering in her inability to exert enough self-control to stop eating which is endangering her life, wold you like to free her of her suffering?

Yes

Leaving the morality of masturbation aside for now that boy would gain a lot strength in his exertions of self control, would you prefer that he live a life of no self control?

No

Socrates liked people to define their terms, could you define god? I have an atheist friend who lost all belief in god when man first went to space and didn’t find god there. His definition of god is quite different from my faith.

I don’t find the need to posit a supreme intelligence that governs the universe. It is not a word that I use to describe my experience of the world or to explain meaning and purpose in my life, so I’d be happy to communicate based on your definition of God.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

leela,

i admit the argument is not fully formed. bear with me

but i am trying to say one has no logical basis to assign different values to different collections of particles. because no matter the configuration of those particles they are all of one substance so to speak, at the most basic level we know of is the idea that all particles are quantum wave function.

therefore no particular pile of wave functions, can reasonably be valued differently than any other pile of wave functions

so the question is not about G-d, its why do you love your mom more than a rock, why do you dislike the school bully more than some politician, in fact why do you value the safety of your own body? with no other explanation than the empirical universe we observe than it seems you would have no reason to value any of these things over the other.

but we do assign value, and that assignation is clearly not in keeping with logic, so whats up with that?

no, thoughts, in a purely physical universe are just interactions of particles, they are in fact the same substance as everything else and are therefore no more or less empirical than a stick, values are an immaterial concept, with no empirical evidence, therefore using reason alone, i have to question their actual existence(no im not trying to be flip) im making the point that you cannot choose to believe in one thing because almost every one believes in “values” and deny another(existense of the supernatural) with the same evidence. common acclamation

i am not making assumptions about not believing in G-d, i was an atheist as a teen, i know what its like. i am making assumptions, so to speak about what the world must be like with no supernatural. dont take it personally

funny that your defense falls to relying on religious texts, i thought they were an unacceptable method of defining the truth.
(ok that was a little flip, but smile! )

as too why im not a muslim its simple, In the old testament, written over thousands of years, by dozens of different people, belonging to several different cultures, these writers who did not all know each other, but they all predicted the coming of a messiah, accompanied by certain signs.

in our belief Jesus met all those conditions,(yes some Jews believe and some are still waiting on a different messiah) and this was what the apostles and all the people who followed Jesus believed as well, if you accept the statements they made in scripture.

Christianity is just the extension of Judaism, it is a new covenant for all people, to replace the old covenant with the Jews, a way that we might all come to G-d.

on the other hand, islam started 600 years after the resurrection of Christ, they have no direct connection to that long history of the prediction of a messiah over all that time, predicted by so many different people. they only claim relation by way of Abraham.

they don’t claim a theological place in the order of salvation history
they aren’t part of the chain

instead they are a faith based on a “revealed text” in other words you just have to trust their prophet that he really was given the koran by angels. i have the same issue with mormons, you just have to trust one guy, joseph smith, that angels gave him the book of mormon

so, no disrespect to either faith, but they have no real justifiable connection to the very ancient, Judaic tradition which is logically justified in the idea that the bible was written over a great length of time, by people who did not know each other, who did not even have the same cultural influences, or even live in the same area, yet they all have a common agreement, and in our case their prophecy of a messiah came true

no other faiths than Christianity and Judaism, can make that claim, in those casees you must trust just a few people who all knew each other and all lived at the same time.

that is why i don’t find their claims convincing, and that is why i don’t lose sleep at night that i should have been a muslim

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I don’t find the need to posit a supreme intelligence that governs the universe. It is not a word that I use to describe my experience of the world or to explain meaning and purpose in my life, so I’d be happy to communicate based on your definition of God.

I agree with petey.

It is an innate value to assign value
Just as
It is innately meaningful to assign meaning

Since meaning guides our reason
And we confirm it with our reason
Then meaning itself is a supreme intelligence.

Leela,
What is a word that explains meaning in your life?

 

[Chris404]

If that definition completely and wholly describes atheism, than why would one bother to argue it?

after all, if someone claims that they were abducted by aliens, most people would consider them crazy, paranoid, or just plain delusional.

they would shake their head, grin and wonder if he is off his meds. but they surely wouldn’t stand there and argue with him

so, i am asking

why bother to defend a disbelief in another’s delusions?

My personal definition of Atheism is a belief (or faith if you will) in the idea that there is no deity. A lack of belief is more the definition of Agnosticism.

In answer to your other question, I would say that there is an array of reasons why non-believers debate the points:

To sound intelligent / for attention.
To try and make more people like themselves.
To promote awareness and understanding.
To promote respect among different beliefs.

I’m not defending these points mind you, no one should pick a fight for attention, but I think they’re pretty accurate. I also think that all sides have members who are guilty of them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

those general motivations have already been rejected here under the ‘reasonable and logical’ heading, i refer you to my previous posts on this thread

in general these reasons don’t meet that test if you have further thoughts on the subject please post, but i dont want to cover the same ground twice

 

[Leela]

those general motivations have already been rejected here under the ‘reasonable and logical’ heading, i refer you to my previous posts on this thread

in general these reasons don’t meet that test if you have further thoughts on the subject please post, but i dont want to cover the same ground twice

Hi Petey,

Who are you addressing with the above and what motivations are you referring to? It would help a lot generally if you addressed your posts and quoted the text that you referencing.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

My personal definition of Atheism is a belief (or faith if you will) in the idea that there is no deity. A lack of belief is more the definition of Agnosticism.

Hi Chris,

To be agnostic about something is to claim that it is impossible to know the answer to the issue at hand. This is a very different sort of situation from being unconvinced by the available evidence of something.

Best,
Leel

 

[Leela]

I agree with petey.

It is an innate value to assign value
Just as
It is innately meaningful to assign meaning

Since meaning guides our reason
And we confirm it with our reason
Then meaning itself is a supreme intelligence.

Leela,
What is a word that explains meaning in your life?

Hi Psycho,

Meaning is a word that means meaning. Why would I need another word? When you say that something means something, what does that mean to you?

It appears that we are all in agreement that reason is a type of value and true is a species of good. I just don’t believe in the transcendent essence of Good that you do.

Best,
Leela