The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[tdgesq]

I suppose the ontological question is important but I think the epistemological one is more important still: is faith, as such, an epistemological virtue and a useful tool?

Non-theist naturalists seem to think so. They rely upon the work of other scientists all the time. Of course their ontology doesn’t allow them to conclude that these scientists actually exist. Nevertheless, they place great faith in their research and conclusions - research and conclusions that they haven’t conducted themselves. I think it’s absurd, but then again I don’t subscribe to their materialistic worldview.

I don’t know that it would be considered nonsense to a Thomist but that’s a different issue.

It is considered nonsense to a Thomist, and that isn’t just me quibbling. What questions like: “who created God”? demonstrate is that the person asking the question doesn’t recognize our ontological construct at all. It could be a result of ignorance or the tacit acknowledgment that non-theists disagree with our ontology. If it is the latter, then bring on the arguments.

I would indeed say that it at least seems possible that the universe has–in some form–always existed. My major issue is that this notion of the unmoved mover seems to, in the Thomist metaphysical system, is then conflated to the all-loving, all-powerful, self-sacrificing Judeo-Chrisitian God.

No, while it is true that Thomists believe in the attributes of the Christian God, it isn’t because of the Cosmological Argument for his existence. I don’t require from that argument alone you should accept Christianity. I would insist that you accept the deist understanding of God or that of Aristotle.

Just as I acknowledge the possibility of an infinitely regressive universe, I must acknowledge the possibility of a deistic clock-maker who gave the universe its first bump. I cannot, however, acknowledge the possibility of the Thomists’ God, I think–as I believe has been explored above–such a being is demonstrably nonexistent.

Hmmm… that is an interesting position. Based upon our empirical observations and mathematical set theory, it appears impossible (using the new atheists’ own ontological tools) that an actual infinite could exist in the material world. Why then would it be considered a possibility alongside other possibilities? It seems to me that the new atheist should reject an actual infinite as highly improbable from the empirical and mathematical evidence at their disposal. Or perhaps this is a faith matter again.

 

[ThomasToo]

Non-theist naturalists seem to think so. They rely upon the work of other scientists all the time. Of course their ontology doesn’t allow them to conclude that these scientists actually exist. Nevertheless, they place great faith in their research and conclusions - research and conclusions that they haven’t conducted themselves. I think it’s absurd, but then again I don’t subscribe to their materialistic worldview.

But I think it’s a different sort of faith. When I, for example, take on faith that the circumference of the Earth is, roughly, 12,450 miles I’m not taking it as a statement that cannot be proved but one that I have not undertaken the training to be able to verify. I could–if I had time, energy and inclination–get a Ph.D in cosmology and confirm that observation. Frankly, I think this is an equivocation issue as well.

It is considered nonsense to a Thomist, and that isn’t just me quibbling. What questions like: “who created God”? demonstrate is that the person asking the question doesn’t recognize our ontological construct at all. It could be a result of ignorance or the tacit acknowledgment that non-theists disagree with our ontology. If it is the latter, then bring on the arguments.

It is this later situation that makes me assert that it’s not nonsense to a Thomist. A Thomist is still a person and usually one with rather rigorous philosophical training so it wouldn’t so much be nonsense as equivalent to the statement ‘we disagree metaphysically and epistomologically.’

No, while it is true that Thomists believe in the attributes of the Christian God, it isn’t because of the Cosmological Argument for his existence. I don’t require from that argument alone you should accept Christianity. I would insist that you accept the deist understanding of God or that of Aristotle.

Granted but Thomists would–and do–argue that aside from the self-sacrificing attribute I cited the notion of goodness, love, omnipotence, omnibenevolence &c are intrinsic to the nature of the Thomistic God. As I said above I can almost intellectually get to ‘deist’s god’ but no certainly no further.

Hmmm… that is an interesting position. Based upon our empirical observations and mathematical set theory, it appears impossible (using the new atheists’ own ontological tools) that an actual infinite could exist in the material world. Why then would it be considered a possibility alongside other possibilities? It seems to me that the new atheist should reject an actual infinite as highly improbable from the empirical and mathematical evidence at their disposal. Or perhaps this is a faith matter again.

How so? As we’ve said it’s impossible–scientifically speaking–to say anything about the state of the universe before a Planck time after the Big Bang and certainly nothing about its state before the Big Bang occurred. I’m also highly confused how set theory comes into this at all but my higher maths education stopped after university so I don’t have post-graduate training in it. Being for want of reason to reject the possibility I’m unwilling to reject the possibility but I would very truly be interested in reading any articles supporting your supposition. (NB this isn’t an angry ‘show my your data!’ this is me honestly wanting to read everything I can on this subject which is wholly fascinating to me)

 

[tdgesq]

But I think it’s a different sort of faith. When I, for example, take on faith that the circumference of the Earth is, roughly, 12,450 miles I’m not taking it as a statement that cannot be proved but one that I have not undertaken the training to be able to verify. I could–if I had time, energy and inclination–get a Ph.D in cosmology and confirm that observation. Frankly, I think this is an equivocation issue as well.

There are at least four faith commitments being made here. First, there is the assumption that other minds like the atheist’s exist, but light reflected to the retina and interpreted by the brain cannot give us this knowledge. Neither can sound waves detected by the human ear. Second, we observe that scientists not infrequently incorporate speculation, errors and outright fabrications in their research. Take for example cold fusion or claims of cloned human beings. Third, your statement that if you had the inclination to get a Ph.D in a specialized field you could confirm the observations of your peers spectacularly begs the question. It simply shows the deep level of trust necessary. It is not possible for a single person to train himself in even a fraction of the scientific disciplines necessary to independently confirm all scientific observation. Although you may be, most people are not intellectually capable of attaining a degree in astrophysics. All scientific observation involves historical data that many times (particularly in the social sciences like anthropology) are not repeatable by experimentation. There are a multitude of historical observations made that are not repeatable, yet scientists rely upon them as trustworthy. Finally, there is the problem of induction, which is the stake in the heart of naturalism. The new atheist’s ontology almost by necessity requires an epistemic empiricism, but it cannot prove the uniformity of nature required for the scientific method to be reliable.

So, I guess you will have to point out given these objections how faith for a theist differs substantially from faith for an atheist. It isn’t because one cannot be proved and the other can.

Granted but Thomists would–and do–argue that aside from the self-sacrificing attribute I cited the notion of goodness, love, omnipotence, omnibenevolence &c are intrinsic to the nature of the Thomistic God. As I said above I can almost intellectually get to ‘deist’s god’ but no certainly no further.

And that’s fine. I’m not here to defend God with Christian attributes, and I’m certainly not here to try and convince you of it. I’m merely commenting on what I see as the primary flaw with the new atheists’ philosophical position. Ontological naturalism limits their empirical epistemology to the point that science can’t be done at all, at least not without arbitrary faith commitments.

How so? As we’ve said it’s impossible–scientifically speaking–to say anything about the state of the universe before a Planck time after the Big Bang and certainly nothing about its state before the Big Bang occurred.

Correct, but atheists have to live within their own worldview, and the fact is that no one has ever observed an actual existing infinite series of anything. Why then would it even be a possibility as equally likely as other possibilities?

I’m also highly confused how set theory comes into this at all but my higher maths education stopped after university so I don’t have post-graduate training in it. Being for want of reason to reject the possibility I’m unwilling to reject the possibility but I would very truly be interested in reading any articles supporting your supposition. (NB this isn’t an angry ‘show my your data!’ this is me honestly wanting to read everything I can on this subject which is wholly fascinating to me).

No problem. It is based upon William Lane Craig’s Kalam variation of the Cosmological Argument, which you can find here: Maths and the Finitude of the Past. I used to have a link to a website that did a good job describing the mathematical proof. I will post it later if I can find it. It is different in some respects from the classical explanation, which focuses more on the fact that the absence of a bound is not an explanation of anything. It does not describe the existence of change, motion or cause. Under the Kalam version, an actual existing infinite (in the material world) is a mathematical impossibility. Under the classical version, it fails to describe anything about the universe. It seems to me that the best the atheist can do is admit that they can’t know what happened prior to the Big Bang. I also think that an infinite series of prior events must be excluded from the list of reasonable possibilities.

 

[tonyrey]

If an explanation is sterile and offers no opportunity for further research it is clearly inferior to an explanation which does.

Scientific and philosophical explanations.

The analogy of the mind with a house is unsound because a house is a material object.

Do you believe truth, freedom and justice have a physical location?

The house analogy is the closest I can come by way of analogy. The house, while a physical thing, is also over and above the individual quality of each individual block or the heap of them. So too we can say the self is the assemblage of everything we are in the form we take. I believe we’ve covered elsewhere that freedom and justice are only meaningful in a moral community comprised of physical entities and emerges from such a community.

I have not agreed that physical entities comprise a moral community!
Why do you exclude truth?

In that sense they can be said to have the physical location consummate with society. If you’re looking for an individual point, however, it’s obvious you are looking for something that can’t possibly exist. The relevant principle here is supervenience.

Supervenience is simply the name of a theory but it does not explain how the self has been assembled, what gives it unity nor how purpose has emerged from that which is purposeless.

Since the overwhelming majority of your cells are replaced continuity must rest in those cells which remain - which is clearly an unsatisfactory basis for identity and responsibility.

No it doesn’t (cf. Ship of Theseus–which I incorrectly named Ship of Odysseus above, sorry).

Once again your analogy is unsound because it implies the mind is on a par with a physical object - which lacks responsibility.

I meant why does it need to be a part of the brain? Why cannot it fall out of the assemblage of the whole. As above, supervenience applies.

You need to explain how integration has occurred. Otherwise it amounts to an act of faith in the power of blind processes to produce rational insight.

 

[ThomasToo]

Scientific and philosophical explanations.

Thank you. I that necessarily so though? At some point isn’t a perfect explanation one that completely explains a phenomenon and doesn’t not need any more research or examination?

I have not agreed that physical entities comprise a moral community!

Surely you don’t think that purely nonphysical entities can compose a moral community.

Why do you exclude truth?

Because I think truth is a slippery notion. Truth simply denotes a supposition that is an accurate description of reality. Insofar as we need rational beings to make statements that can be true (or for that matter false) truth is reliant on us as well. I think, however, the statement indicated by ‘2+2=5’ is false even after the sun engulfs the Earth. Does that make sense?

Supervenience is simply the name of a theory but it does not explain how the self has been assembled, what gives it unity nor how purpose has emerged from that which is purposeless.

I don’t think that matters, frankly. Suprevenience simply impies the notion that we cannot have a proper understanding of an entire entity looking at only a small part of it.

Once again your analogy is unsound because it implies the mind is on a par with a physical object - which lacks responsibility.

I’m doing no such thing. I’m explain how we can have physical continuity of body even when all our cells change in the absence of a nonphysical mind to hold responsibility.

You need to explain how integration has occurred. Otherwise it amounts to an act of faith in the power of blind processes to produce rational insight.

What integration? Of the whole brain to cause the self? I think we can extract an arbitrary part of the brain and the self remains though we get into the paradox of the heap if we remove too much. Frankly I’m confused about what you want me to explain here.

 

[tonyrey]

At some point isn’t a perfect explanation one that completely explains a phenomenon and doesn’t not need any more research or examination?

Because I think truth is a slippery notion. Truth simply denotes a supposition that is an accurate description of reality.
A supposition is not (a) truth. Truth is the intangible correspondence between the supposition and reality.

Insofar as we need rational beings to make statements that can be true (or for that matter false) truth is reliant on us as well.

Truth does not require statements. All that is needed is a rational being to recognise the truth. We do not create truths; we discover them.

I think, however, the statement indicated by ‘2+2=5’ is false even after the sun engulfs the Earth. Does that make sense?

Yes - if “statement indicated by” is omitted! Numbers, ratios and physical constants do not depend on us for their existence.

Supervenience is simply the name of a theory but it does not explain how the self has been assembled, what gives it unity nor how purpose has emerged from that which is purposeless.

I don’t think that matters, frankly.
How the self originated doesn’t matter?!

Supervenience simply implies the notion that we cannot have a proper understanding of an entire entity looking at only a small part of it.

Then it is not an explanation but a self-evident truth.

Once again your analogy is unsound because it implies the mind is on a par with a physical object - which lacks responsibility.

I’m doing no such thing. I’m explaining how we can have physical continuity of body even when all our cells change in the absence of a nonphysical mind to hold responsibility.
How can physical continuity of body hold responsibility? Is the body responsible for what it does?

You need to explain how integration has occurred. Otherwise it amounts to an act of faith in the power of blind processes to produce rational insight.

What integration? Of the whole brain to cause the self? I think we can extract an arbitrary part of the brain and the self remains though we get into the paradox of the heap if we remove too much. Frankly I’m confused about what you want me to explain here.

You identify the self with the brain. You believe the self remains if we remove some parts of the brain. So the following questions arise:

1. Which parts of the brain are essential for the self to exist?
2. An ape has a similar brain to ours but does it have a responsible self?
3. Is the whole brain responsible for its activity? If not which part is responsible?
4. In which part of the brain are decisions made?
5. In which part of the brain does insight occur?

[/QUOTE]

 

[ThomasToo]

That is quite a rare event even in science. Complete explanations are undoubtedly fertile.

Granted but my point is that such a complete explanation would be necessarily infertile at your definition of the term.

Why not? How would you prove that physical reality is the sole reality?

There is no evidence for a nonphysical reality. You know it is a fool’s errand to try to prove that a given class of entities does not exist but your second question here is tantamount to you telling me that you can fly and then demanding I prove you can’t. I am not trying to say–in this point–that we don’t have souls but simply that any purely non-physical entities do not form a moral community. Surely neither souls absent their bodies nor angels do so.

A supposition is not (a) truth. Truth is the intangible correspondence between the supposition and reality. Truth does not require statements. All that is needed is a rational being to recognise the truth. We do not create truths; we discover them. Yes - if “statement indicated by” is omitted! Numbers, ratios and physical constants do not depend on us for their existence.

I think truth exists only as a quality of a supposition. Without suppositions truth, in the sense you define above, cannot exist. There can be no correspondence between unmade suppositions and reality. I think this gets into a if a tree falls into the woods with no one around sort of situation. My argument is that ‘2 + 2 = 5’ is, without rational entities to imbue those symbols with meaning, a meaningless doodle. It’s not the suppositions with those symbols that matters but the idea that ‘xx + xx = xxxxx’ (not algebraically sound but that 2 things and 2 things is 5 things) is not so but without a rational being to conceive of such an idea I don’t know that truth can adhere to anything because there aren’t any ideas, there’s only reality.

How the self originated doesn’t matter?!

Why should it at least for this purpose? I think it’s an interesting question, of course, but I don’t think the genesis of the self is relevant for moral questions.

Then it is not an explanation but a self-evident truth.

I don’t know that it would be self-evident, strictly speaking, but it is more truth than explanation.

How can physical continuity of body hold responsibility? Is the body responsible for what it does?

Your point was that a body can’t hold responsibility because it is always changing (unless I misunderstood you) and so I was saying that argument doesn’t hold water. I think the entire assemblage of a person can be held responsible without digging around to find the single point that identifies as ‘self’ (as if there were one).

You identify the self with the brain. You believe the self remains if we remove some parts of the brain. So the following questions arise:

1. Which parts of the brain are essential for the self to exist?
2. An ape has a similar brain to ours but does it have a responsible self?
3. Is the whole brain responsible for its activity? If not which part is responsible?
4. In which part of the brain are decisions made?
5. In which part of the brain does insight occur?

1. As I said before I think it’s less a matter of parts of the brain than of volume of forebrain. I think if we remove everything but the brain stem we’ve meaningfully removed the self (and the mind and what could be termed the soul–qua rational organizing principle). The brain is an amazingly resolute organ and removal of an arbitrary part of it can usually be repaired and the powers that part governed rerouted.
2. I have not done extensive study on non-human primate neurology but from what I do know, I don’t think that a human’s and a chimpanzee’s brain are sufficiently similar for this argument to be meaningful.
3. Whole brain. I think the principle of supervenience applies partly because of what I covered in (1).
4. I’m not a neuroscientist but part of it depends. The posterior parietal cortex seems to be involved as does the hippocampus amongst many other parts of the brain. On the whole, however, almost the entire brain is involved in most decisions.
5. Again, it depends on what you mean by insight but the brain isn’t like a computer in that there’s a program on this part of the hard drive for this and on this other part of the hard drive for that and you can run Excel when you want to use numbers and Paind when you want to draw. It’s all intertwined.

 

[Slowlearner]

AntiTheist and Thomastoo,

Regarding atheism and morality, I understand that atheists can have different world views, world stances, value sets, and moral codes. I curious how these differing codes or value sets used by atheists conceptualize violations, or immoral, or bad conduct with regard solely to the individual – let’s call him the – violator. By saying “solely with regard to the individual,” I mean I am not interested in an explanation of societal retribution or punishment. Instead, I wonder if outside the effect of society, is there any sort of culpability upon the person? What are the schools of thought? And are there any commonalities?

By way of example, and I don’t mean to trivialize my question, if a person were able to commit the perfect murder, be innocent under the law, and be quite pleased with himself (suffer no conscience) and otherwise live a law abiding life, is there any culpability and why?

Thank you, and please do not consider my question as an indictment of atheists as immoral. I am trying to understand.

 

[AntiTheist]

I curious how these differing codes or value sets used by atheists conceptualize violations, or immoral, or bad conduct with regard solely to the individual – let’s call him the – violator.

The way I conceive of it, the “violator” generally operates on the basis of his values and judges his own actions accordingly. For example, someone might get angry at his friend and snap at him, and then later, on the basis of his values, judge his own action as something he doesn’t approve of and desire to make amends.

By way of example, and I don’t mean to trivialize my question, if a person were able to commit the perfect murder, be innocent under the law, and be quite pleased with himself (suffer no conscience) and otherwise live a law abiding life, is there any culpability and why?

I don’t know what “culpability” would even mean in this – I agree very hypothetical – example.

Someone who commits the perfect crime and who never feels the slightest bit guilty for it will…live his life and then eventually die, and then that’s it.

Now you might protest that that’s unfair, but 1) life is unfair, and 2) cases like that are rare.

Can you explain more precisely what you mean by “culpability”?

 

[ThomasToo]

AntiTheist and Thomastoo,

Regarding atheism and morality, I understand that atheists can have different world views, world stances, value sets, and moral codes. I curious how these differing codes or value sets used by atheists conceptualize violations, or immoral, or bad conduct with regard solely to the individual – let’s call him the – violator. By saying “solely with regard to the individual,” I mean I am not interested in an explanation of societal retribution or punishment. Instead, I wonder if outside the effect of society, is there any sort of culpability upon the person? What are the schools of thought? And are there any commonalities?

Major schools of thought are much the same as in ethics in general. There are deontological ethics which hold we have an absolute duty to follow moral norms; this is the category in which Kant falls. There are utilitarians who again, basically, think morality is about duty but what that duty entails is very different; Peter Singer and John Stewart Mill fall into this category as do, it seems, most modern people–atheist or otherwise. Finally there are aretaic ethics that stress virtue; obvious examples here are Aquinas and Aristotle.

The one major problem in the way you framed the question is that no moral system really speaks only about the individual. Morality does not exist in a vacuum and is necessarily tied to the notion of human flourishing in a community. Insofar as that goes we cannot speak only in regard to the individual but we can speak about morality without respect to legal or cultural punishment (e.g. jail time, shunning &c).

The commonalities are complicated and frankly a bit much to get into here. The short version is they all have to do with action and why we should do good but the reasons they give and their conception of the good are–sometimes radically–different.

By way of example, and I don’t mean to trivialize my question, if a person were able to commit the perfect murder, be innocent under the law, and be quite pleased with himself (suffer no conscience) and otherwise live a law abiding life, is there any culpability and why?

It doesn’t trivialize the question; it is a good thought experiment for this purpose and–without trying overly hard–I’m hard pressed to think of a better one.

I think there is clear moral culpability. It’s also important to note that the criminal justice system only renders verdicts of ‘not guilty’ and not of ‘innocent.’ OJ Simpson was found ‘not guilty’ but we all know what really happened there… Murder–regardless of how cleanly it is carried out–is a fundamental violation of someone else’s rights and is (though I am hesitant to use this language) an intrinsically evil act. In so doing, the violator is clearly culpable. It’s hard to explain the whys of morality and partly I think that’s because I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘why.’ Do you mean where does the culpability come from without divine punishment? Do you mean how do I justify that an unknown act can be immoral? In this later case the act is surely known only the specifics are unknown. Do you mean something else entirely?

Thank you, and please do not consider my question as an indictment of atheists as immoral. I am trying to understand.

I appreciate this proviso and they are good questions and I hope I did an ok job answering them.

 

[ThomasToo]

I don’t know what “culpability” would even mean in this – I agree very hypothetical – example…

Can you explain more precisely what you mean by “culpability”?

Was what the murderer did morally wrong?

 

[AntiTheist]

Was what the murderer did morally wrong?

As a moral skeptic, I don’t think that “right” and “wrong” have any meanings outside of human value judgments.

Certainly, I don’t like that this guy got away with murder, and I’d prefer that he be punished, but what I like or don’t like or what I want is irrelevant to the example, in which no one would ever find out that this guy committed the murder.

What do you mean when you say that he was “morally wrong”? Do you just mean that most people would judge what he did to be wrong? You’ll get no argument from me there, but I don’t see any reason to ascribe any more significance to it than that.

 

[ThomasToo]

As a moral skeptic, I don’t think that “right” and “wrong” have any meanings outside of human value judgments.

Certainly, I don’t like that this guy got away with murder, and I’d prefer that he be punished, but what I like or don’t like or what I want is irrelevant to the example, in which no one would ever find out that this guy committed the murder.

What do you mean when you say that he was “morally wrong”? Do you just mean that most people would judge what he did to be wrong? You’ll get no argument from me there, but I don’t see any reason to ascribe any more significance to it than that.

Not in the context of an abortion debate but in the general case of a born person do you deny the reality of the right to life?

 

[AntiTheist]

Not in the context of an abortion debate but in the general case of a born person do you deny the reality of the right to life?

“Rights” are human inventions that we impose on the universe – they come entirely from our minds.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favor of human rights and such, but they don’t have any objective source outside of our agreement that we’re going to value human life (or whatever it is that that particular right grants).

 

[ThomasToo]

“Rights” are human inventions that we impose on the universe – they come entirely from our minds.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favor of human rights and such, but they don’t have any objective source outside of our agreement that we’re going to value human life (or whatever it is that that particular right grants).

Insofar as the murder is a member of the (artificial) moral community that acknowledges (or has created) rights isn’t he violating one of the core principles on which his or her society is founded? Isn’t he or she having the cake (of not being killed) and eating it (killing) too in a way that undermines the ground on which his or her society is built?

 

[AntiTheist]

Insofar as the murder is a member of the (artificial) moral community that acknowledges (or has created) rights isn’t he violating one of the core principles on which his or her society is founded?

Yes. Is that what “culpability” means? Ok, in that sense, he’s “culpable.” But, in this example anyway, he couldn’t care less and there are absolutely no effects on him as a result.

Isn’t he or she having the cake (of not being killed) and eating it (killing) too in a way that undermines the ground on which his or her society is built?

I don’t see how it “undermines society,” since we can safely assume that almost no one is ever going to pull off a “perfect crime” and also have no conscience about it.

But anyway, accusing this guy of “undermining society” is different from saying that there’s some objective “wrong” that he’s done. At least to me.

Again, I’m against murder in society, and I’m all in favor of locking up murderers. I don’t think we gain anything – except a sense of moral self-righteousness – by attributing some sort of ill-defined objective “wrong” to the whole thing.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not in the context of an abortion debate but in the general case of a born person do you deny the reality of the right to life?

If I was the head robot in charge of a society of clockwork robots and one of the robots in my charge malfunctioned and began to dismember and obliterate the others, I would order them to remove him to a place of restrained captivity where he could either be repaired or kept out of harms way for the greater benefit of the society at large.

 

[ThomasToo]

If I was the head robot in charge of a society of clockwork robots and one of the robots in my charge malfunctioned and began to dismember and obliterate the others, I would order them to remove him to a place of restrained captivity where he could either be repaired or kept out of harms way for the greater benefit of the society at large.

That’s nice… I was asking AntiTheist a question in the context of a discussion we were having. That said you failed to answer the question.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That’s nice… I was asking AntiTheist a question in the context of a discussion we were having. That said you failed to answer the question.

That’s very nice. You should have said on the Thread title that this was a private thread for you and AntiTheist… I’m not a mind reader you know!

That said, you do have one saving grace. You’re ill mannered.

 

[ThomasToo]

That’s very nice. You should have said on the Thread title that this was a private thread for you and AntiTheist… I’m not a mind reader you know!

That said, you do have one saving grace. You’re ill mannered.

My point was just that you’d taken a question I’d asked in the context of a discussion out of that question. Your answer was interesting though, frankly, you didn’t actually say anything about the right to life.

The title of this part of the thread actually is ‘Q for AT and TT’ but that’s neither here nor there.

Glad I’m good at something. =]