GuzzyBone

When you have already decided and concluded in your mind that "a rational argument for -insert subject here- cannot be made" and that "there isn't any evidence of -insert subject here-". You set yourself up for failure in finding truth. This is the counter-productive anti-thesis of having an open mind, exploration, philosophy, self knowledge, expanding your mind, etc. It is impossible to put forward an argument with such a person, because they have already concluded that every word out of your mouth is bullshit. The well has been poisoned. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, this is exactly the large majority of response I have received in this thread. Some have conducted themselves with honor and integrity, but many have resorted to petty emotional slander. This arrogance has no place in finding truth. I have the humility to admit that I could be wrong, I have strong foundation of evidence saying otherwise, but I am open to arguement and willing to entertain any possibility. Are you? No, instead a large portion of this thread has devolved into vandalism, Where people have come here to badger and belittle a person into ostracism. If you beleive that no rational argument can be put forward to God, then you have arrived at this thread from a petty emotional desire to stop someone from even trying to make the argument. Nathan, you admit your intention and you expect to receive pride and accolade from your peers for such a dishonorable and shameful act. Your intentions are transparent and displayed with pride, because you know as well as I do, that many others on this thread are coming from the same petty place of emotional desire to bully and poison the well. The desire to "muck up this thread" from having any value. These are not the actions of people who seek truth, wisdom, or enlightenment. If you take personal offense to this observation, that is not my doing, so further attributing slander and misdirected resentment towards me is a waste of both of our time. Use that emotion to take a look at yourself and really try to see the conversation from my perspective. Unfortunately, these actions have only confirmed the observation that many Athiests do not arrive at that place from a desire to seek truth, but from a desire to deny any possibility of God. A desire to escape the moral impositions and perspective implications of God's potential existence. I didn't want this observation to be proven true, and I hoped it wasn't true, otherwise I would never have even started this thread. This is not unlike the person who denies any possibility that 9/11 could have been a false flag, purely because of the terrifying reality and vulnerability that it would impose on their perception of the world.

Majority bias and conformity bias are an imepediment to logic, reason and consistency. These are just words, actions speak louder, and the behavior on this thread says otherwise. You admit you are trying to muck up the thread. So it is voluntary and with full self-awareness that you let pettiness turn into attacks? This is why I have very little desire to participate in these forums anymore. People have listened objectively and with an open mind to transgender people. The level of imposed tolerance toward "transgenderism" (which is by definition: a lack of unconditional self-acceptance) is staggering and dangerous when you consider that it is a condition that escalates rapidly into drug addiction, further rejection of their body, self-mutilation and amputation. If Christians were drugging themselves with hormones and slicing up their genitals and rejecting their bodies, it would be a whole different story. I suppose we should have more tolerance to suicide and cutters and just let them be who they really are (dead or injured)?

The conventional sense of skepticism is to be wary of all positive claims, but it would be infinitely more productive to be wary of all sides of a debate and question everything, including yourself, rather than only "positive claims". The skeptic is always at risk of falling into contrarian or anti-conformist positions without treating both sides with equal doubt or opportunity to prove itself. If there was less emotional investment in this subject I think it would make for great and open debate. As it is, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there is emotional investment in Athiest positions. I was guilty of the same thing, it just happens. I am not saying everyone has done this. I am not trying to insult anyone, I'm just stating a reality that has all too easily manifested in ugliness, one-sided intimidation tactics, and disrespect... To make things worse, it is shamelessly and unapologetically encouraged and upvoted by those who share the same "side". You already know the large majority of this community classifies themself as "Atheist". Any group can be partially guilty of conformity bias or majority bias. I've seen it on plenty of other threads with completely different subject matter. Whether you see it or not, the environment gets way too hostile and heated for open debate on certain subjects. I'm not implying anything or trying to upset anyone. I am just saying my reasons for not wanting to discuss the subject anymore. Making people repeat themselves over and over, then complaining when they have to type so much just to respond to the same accusations over and over and from multiple people at one time. How could that ever lead anywhere productive? Then add to that the upvoting of intentionally insulting jab posts... all that this leads to is missed opportunity. Text is probably not the greatest form for this kind of conversation anyway. Too many times my words are taken out of context or the religion debate is treated like some kind of verbal warfare. I mean honestly... accusing someone of trolling, who takes the time to explain their arguments thoroughly and elaborately for you, and then backing the guy who dishes a snarky one-liner jab that essentially says "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say you are"... The hypocrisy in these actions is not self-evident??? Conversation isn't the world of Sports. It's not about winning.

A cutter is suicidal. They are using the destruction of flesh, causing physical pain and damage to their body, self-harm and self-violence to escape or change reality. The cutting may stop after one time, or they may bleed to death, or it may escalate into a pattern of ritual self-abuse. Either way, the cutting didn't solve the problem or change anything except temporary "releif". Why would cutting your penis off change anything? Im not re-classifying what you are thinking of doing as violence. It is violence. It is in the definition of violence. You think you need some state-corrupted institution's diploma to help someone? Some hippa-approved compliance certificates and documentation of government or institutional approval to intervene and try to help a fellow human being who is in danger of hurting themselves or making a potentially life-destroying decision? I am not offering services of a therapist. I am not offering to twirl a spoon inside someone's head. I am offering to talk and listen. Are addicts told not to listen or talk with people who got out of addiction? What about someone with low self-esteem? If a therapist is encouraging, approving, or allowing the idea of self-violence as a rational method to reaching self-acceptance. Then they should be boycotted and run out of business before they hurt anyone else. This is an article I found interesting: The Path to Unconditional Self-Acceptance https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/200809/the-path-unconditional-self-acceptance What Alice is going through is not Unconditional Self-Acceptance. Alice won't accept herself with a Penis. She will only accept herself if the Penis is gone and a facisimile of a Vagina is put in it's place. This is dangerous because it assumes that after the operation that she will accept herself. The original problem goes ignored, and new problems arise while the original problem gets worse. I am thinking about what happens next. Will there be new conditions? Will she want more surgery to fix anything that goes wrong or that she disapproves of? (surgery is not able to make a Vagina) What if Alice feels like a female finally and then thinks she is a disfigured female or ugly? What if Alice ruins her social relationships by needing everyone to confirm that she is now a female? This is my point, that new problems are created instead of addressing the original problem of lacking Unconditional Self-Acceptance. When we turn to violence instead of accepting who we are, exactly HOW we are (physical and all), the problem is not being addressed. Alice admits there is a problem (whether it's the penis or her mind). I am simply saying a knife is not the answer to ANY problem unless it's a matter of life or death. Here is a question my wife asks out of concern: Alice, even if you go through with the surgery, will you ever be able to accept that you can not actually fully become a woman in every way that you want? No one transforms into a drug addict over night. In the beginning they tell themselves that they have it under control and that everything is with a goal. They start telling themselves and others that they are not addicted and can/will stop at any time. It may not be an addiction now, but this behavior escalates, we reason it out in our head, and then denial entraps us. Drug addiction is nearly always linked to a history of trauma or trying to mask or hide from a major problem in their life. Eventually the drug itself manipulates your thoughts and clouds your judgement from seeing what it is doing to you. I am not saying you are a drug addict. I am just saying this is something to consider. I think self-knowledge should be your ultimate goal. Figuring out if you are a man or a woman has nothing to do with self-knowledge. You need to learn WHY you feel like you are a woman trapped in a man's body.

Yes, correct. That I could handle. That I appreciate. That I understand because that was me. Unfortunately I have noticed that Atheism has become corrupted from healthy skepticism into a Faith and Religion of it's own. I would love to discuss this with you, but I do not think it would be productive in this thread at this point. I think it would be like trying to explain to many modern Christians that they are worshipping a book instead of God. I am not trying to attract people. I am trying to have an open-minded and respectful discourse that helps seperate truth from misunderstanding. I am not sure that it is possible regarding this subject matter any more. What you call "wall of text" is my arguments, real life examples, comparisons, reasoning, explanations, experiences, and the other things that constitute as evidence and debate in this world. It is the result dedicating my time and effort to respond and explain my positions in detail. I try to keep it short as possible, but I am responding to multiple people, multiple arguments, or misunderstandings at one time. If you don't see how that would take time and a lot of text then I am sorry that it puts you off. It's a shame that I have had to explain this multiple times now. I appreciate that you are trying to help. I feels like being told "if you want to attract people, it would help to stop posting all that worthless garbage". Hopefully your self-awareness and empathy can bring you to seeing that.

Yes. I would really like that. If this is Michael, then I believe we have already made the arrangements Thank you for the invitation. AynRand, I may have overreacted but eventually I came to the understanding that it doesn't matter what I bring forth, I am chucking stones at a wall. Not a wall of critical or skeptical reasoning, but a solid unbreakable wall of emotional bias. I lost my cool, but respect goes two ways. I have not been given the equal respect that you expect to receive. This is the same wall that I've experienced when trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job to a self-deprecating Statist. You could drown in the weight of scientific, video, pictorial, testimonial, and physical evidence proving 9/11 as a deliberate false flag, but try to show these things to a state-loving toadie then you are just "crazy, irrational, delusional, and a horrible horrible person". Everything you throw at them will have some absurd excuse and bounce off the wall, because: A. They've already made up their mind on faith alone. B. They don't WANT to discern the truth vs. their desired perspective. I'm not going to repeat why it is important to first break down the "official story" before you can prove something close to what really happened... Can I claim to know exactly how 9/11 was pulled off? No, but there is overwhelming and life-consuming proof to conclude that it was a false flag operation. Same as I don't claim to know exactly how God works, but there is overwhelming and life-consuming proof to conclude that God exists. In both cases, much of the evidence or proof has already been observed and witnessed by the person to whom you are trying to prove your argument. This matters very little when they see what they want to see, and have already made their decision against the weight of evidence. This is why I conclude that an Atheist wants to believe that "God doesn't exist" for their own personal or emotional satisfaction. This is of course the same charge that is leveled at Religion, ironically enough. Atheism is not neutral ground or an open-minded stance. It is the predetermined stance that "God can't exist" or "doesn't exist" despite that neither claim can ever be possibly proven. It is not a conclusion reached through the languages of deductive reasoning or the experience of empirical reality, but rather it a conclusion reached from a place of desire. I cannot change what you or anyone else desires to believe, so I am not going to break through this wall of disbelief even if I were somehow able to show you a booming voice that says "I am real" and then strikes you with a bolt of lightning. Regardless, God doesn't work like that anyway. Yes, definitions are subjective, and dictionary definitions are largely manipulated and can differ dramatically from cultural definitions. Nonetheless I did not show any definitions that actually differ from what people already know. I am not playing Square Circle game anymore because it does not relate. You will get no where by trying to compare the universe to an extremely simple mathematical construct. There is language and understanding to be gained from symbols, allegory, and abstract concepts, but you're not going to prove or disprove God with 2-dimensional Circles and Squares (unless the observer has already made up his mind). Humans made these 2 symbols (shapes), they are not infinite (like God), they have limited values assigned by humans. If you insist on limiting yourself to Circles and Squares, then we will get nowhere. I do not need to prove that a square circle can exist, because the two concepts of God and Shapes are incompatible. It would be like trying to explain consciousness with Shapes. A Square Circle exists the day we solve "the problem" (thus creating one), or when we simply state that it exists. If people didn't think it was solvable, then no one would even try. This is the last I am going to talk about Circles and Squares. If you really want to only use the language of math and fully apply it to the concept of Infinity then through deductive reasoning you will always arrive at what we call God. There was a time when I thought this was worth explaining, that time has all but passed. You claim to be open to the evidence and arguments in favor of God, but I now realize this is not true. That a conclusion has already been reached despite an impossibility to ever gather the evidence to prove it. You claim to be open to the evidence and arguments in favor of God, but if this was true you would call yourself an Agnostic. What I have learned through this conversation is that you cannot change the mind of an Athiest, the Athiest has to change their own mind. Remember, I was once an "Atheist" too. My entire conclusion that "God doesn't exist" was based on denial of evidence, contrarian skepticism, irrational denial through peer confirmation, an emotional distaste and resentment towards Religion, a willful desire to believe that I can do everything all by myself, a willful desire to not be held morally or emotionally responsible for my actions and words... bottomline: I wanted God to not exist (though I did not know this consciously). It was when I truly needed him, that everything changed. I do not claim to know the motivations behind all Atheists, but I think the conclusion ("god definitely 100% does not exist") speaks for itself. If you have already concluded that you have the omniscience required to determine that God "definitely doesn't exist", then there is no reason or room for evidence against this position. If you think that my breakdown of Aristotle's major fallacy "the law of non-contradiction" is incorrect or false, then prove it. Don't just simply state I am ignorant of what it means. I made the effort and had the balls to actually claim and prove that Aristotle (who is held up like an infallible God in philosophical communities) was wrong. Did you make the effort to prove I am wrong, or that he was actually right? No. You simply stated I am "ignorant" in attempt to intimidate and reaffirm a dogmatic faith in Aristotle's methods. This is what I'm talking about. Empirical reality becomes rendered obsolete in the face of the determination of faith. The same accusation that is leveled upon the religious community. I will never be able to prove anything about God to anyone as long as they have determined that they are an "Atheist". We can resume the conversation when you are at least honest enough to say "I don't know if God exists or not" and call yourself Agnostic. The fact will always remain that Atheism cannot be rationally confirmed or proven, without omniscience. This is an a priori. So the first question that I would ask an Atheist, and will also ask Stefan is... Do you actually WANT to know whether or not God really exists?

shirgall: And, the witness faces severe penalties if they were lying, unless they are lying about sex and they are a sitting president. Are you really suggesting that "sexual misconduct" is the only area of false witness where Government employees are immune to penalities? I will assume it was a joke. You can't penalize a liar when he holds the biggest gun in his hand. shirgall: "Good luck finding unbiased juries to examine paranormal claims." Which only demonstrates the ignorance, emotional bias, and majority bias of jurors. The concept of the "atom" could just as easily be dimissed as paranormal. Magic or supernatural are simply synonyms for "mystery", that which we don't or cannot currently understand. Much of the world of science appears as paranormal or supernatural to ignorant eyes. Case in point: Magic (definition): the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. Supernatural (definition): (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Paranormal (definition): denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding. Ignorance is not a suitable cause for dismissal by default. To quote the trial in the book Gulliver's Travels, "Sir, you offend reason!" Reason cannot be offended. Only you can be offended, and this is a completely emotional response. Juries are seething with impartiality, emotional bias, majority bias, preference and ignorance, but this is not a post about the mechanisms of State. My intial position still stands that Testimony and Witness are a form of evidence and proof. That doesn't mean all evidence can't be challenged. Testimony (definition): 2. evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something. Witness (definition): 2. evidence; proof. AynRand: "but I maintain that most members of this community are rational." This may be the case, but emotional bias, majority bias, myths, misconceptions, and fallacy are still present even within those who consider themselves men and women of reason. I think most people consider themselves to be of rational persuasion. This doesn't make them infallable or not subject to their emotions. AynRand: "I am curious why that is disrespectful to point out a book with very similar arguments" It felt like you were creating the impression that my ideas were not my own conclusions, or that I might be recycling information without critical analysis. Also, with me being unfamiliar with this book, the potential is there for someone to use it as a strawman to "debunk" my arguments. This is why I took offense. You could still have sourced the book and stated it has similar views. I just ask for a bit more consideration with how you phrase things. You are now absolved of your sin AynRand: "I'll try to clarify to use your analogy If a tree falls and nobody witnesses it or it's effects then that is not conclusive evidence that the tree does not exist, but on the flip side then their is no logical reason to support the existence of the tree." I specifically stated that it doesn't prove one thing or the other. I don't think there is any disagreement here. Now if the fallen tree trunk was brought to the community, or people started talking about their experiences with trees in the woods, then there would be logical cause to investigate and consider the possible existence of a tree. However the implications of an infinite universe is that somewhere, throughout the entirety of space in time, there is in fact an object that is called a "tree" (whether found on earth or not). In an infinite universe, everything exists. If I were able to travel forever through space and time, I would eventually come across a "tree". Now whether or not it could be found on Earth, would be the true debate. However God is claimed to be "all", the totality of infinity, therefore saying God doesn't exist is like saying the universe doesn't exist. When you consider that omni-consciousness is the abstract concept of how Religious people perceive and describe the known and observable functions of the universe, it almost becomes a debate over symantics. A debate over who has the better "words" to describe something much larger than us. It's when we assume or posit that "man knows, understands, and can explain it all" that things can get dangerous, and irrationality consumes. The dangers of fantacism towards science are no smaller or greater than the dangers of religious fanaticism. Both languages are ever-changing and ever-evolving toward what we hope is a greater understanding of the relationship between ourselves and the universe. The first thesis that I put forward is solely that Athiesm is an irrationality. I beleive I have made many arguments toward this point. If you do not feel that I have satisfied that burden of proof. We can continue to discuss this. But again I will state that; through all that can be known, we can never know or ascertain that something "doesn't exist" (an absolute) unless the argument is made that "nothing exists at all". The argument "nothing exists at all" is both true and untrue (a natural contradiction), but this can only be proven with the languages of mathematics, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and also through hyper-sensory experience. I am happy to elaborate and show you exactly how, but the subject may be better suited for thread all of it's own. Now if we are to progress, my second thesis would be that, overall, Athiesm is a dangerous irrationality. If we can agree that fantacism is a moral responsibility of the individual or group, then this thesis is null, and I will rescind my claim. However if the inverse argument is to be made that "Religion is dangerous" then I will continue to debate that Athiesm is equally, if not far more dangerous and threatening to our survival. I put this argument forward because Athiests quite regularly will equate violent actions to religious philosophy, as if to say that "God can't be real, because look at this violence over here". This is a red-herring that unfortunately pervades debate over religious veracity. If we can argee that PEOPLE are ultimately responsible for their actions, not a philosophy, and that extremism and excess can be found in anything... then we can move on. Then we can really debate (with reason and evidence) my original thesis that, overall... Religion holds wisdom and truth that benefits survival. I would love to skip back to this topic, but if we continue to espouse myths, ignorance, and disrespect then it de-rails me from focus on my original thesis. AynRand: I believe that is another misunderstanding of Stefan's view. I believe what he was saying is that thoughts do not physically exist. Not that because we can't physically see thoughts they don't exist. Similar to how the state does not physically exist. Only buildings and people violating the non aggression principle exist. This is still a contradiction. You just stated that something can "exist" outside of "physical reality", which contradicts Stefans claim that nothing can exist outside of "physical reality". This is going in circles. We know that abstract concepts "exist" in some form, outside of physical reality. He even uses the examples of Circles, Squares (abstract concepts that don't "physically exist") but then Stefan changes his position when it is convenient for his arguments. This is a contradiction of logic. O Rly Aristotle? "Aristotle and I are the same, but we are also very different" (are not the same). "I am both up and down" (am not up) "I am very intelligent but I am also very ignorant" (am not intelligent) "That rock is still, but it is also moving" (is not still) "The rock and the seagull both consist entirely of "matter". They are the same, but they are different." (are not the same) Need I go on? That's the funny thing about "laws", people like to make them, but they get broken all the time. This is an extremely antiquated "law", that defies reality and common sense. If you have faith that Aristotle was infallable, then you are no better than any other dogmatic adherents. Scientific laws are defied about as much as they are proclaimed, so are legal laws, so are mathematic laws, and so on... Generally there is only one scientific constant, that "everything changes", and even that has it's contradictory counterbalance of "nothing is changing at all" (nothing exists) [see: another thread] We can discuss this more in-depth, but can we agree to move on from this notion that "paradox" and "contradiction" do not exist within reality (whether physical or abstract)? Ayn Rand: "In no way have you demonstrated that a square circle can exist" I covered this in detail. Squares and Circles are abstract concepts. They are not found in physical reality. Math is a pattern-recognition language. Squaring a Circle is just a game, a "mathematical problem", not some enigma of the cosmos! Are those patterns really there? Do they "exist"? Yes and No (logical contradiction despite physical evidence) I am not dedicating any more time to Squares and Circles (a 2-dimensional man-made concept) being compared to the notion of God. It feels deliberately offensive to be honest. This is part of how I see an intentional disrespect and emotional hatred from Stefan towards a subject that should be considered critically and with an open mind. If you have faith that Squares and Circles "exist", then you cannot use the same argument to absolutely "disprove" God. Troubador: "I wish people wouldn't automatically roll out quantum physics as a catch all polyfiller for holes in their argument" Simply stating someone has holes in their argument does not make it so. If you would kindly point me to these holes, I will be happy to elaborate and source the studies that relate. Are you trying to imply that Scientific evidence is not applicable in a debate? That seems entirely irrational. If you would afford me the respect to not just "wish" and state things, but rather make an argument with reason and evidence, I would appreciate it. Troubador: "religion wants to present faith/belief as proof in and of itself" Last I checked, "Religion" was not a living being that could project "wants" and "needs". This is a blatant generalization and very presemptuous. If there were any truth to your unsupported claim then this thread would not exist at all. Your strawman doesn't hold. Troubador: "You either have to let it go because this debate cannot go anywhere useful" Again, your opinion is not an argument. I don't "have to" do anything. You could help make it useful. Troubador: "However why not let people think/believe how they choose to and work on philosophical problems we can all work on together? It's fine to say "hey guys just FYI I have a religious belief" I've done much the same myself, but it's really not cool to proselytise and I'm sorry that is what in a round about way you are doing." The whole point of your role in a debate is to sway the opposition to agreeing with your position. If you were to say "There is a thing called an atom" and then proceed to support your position with reason and evidence, I suppose you would just be trying to "convert" or proselytise me to The Atomic Cult, huh? Your post has contributed no argument, evidence, or actual information... Instead you just resort to personal accusations. Of course, Athiests demand the same respect that any human would receive, but Thiests are just trying to "brainwash us all", right? See how easy it is to make presumptious accusations and generalizations? Troubador: "And the state didn't tell me lsd can be bad fucking news I worked that out all by myself stopping a mate who was off his trousers at uni from coming to any harm." So you formed an emotional opinion of faith based entirely on one negative personal experience? This is a great example of how not to use critical judgement and instead adopt ignorance as an absolute faith. This would be like if a Cop helped me change a tire and I said "Wow! Police really are heroes!" One time I found a piece of glass in my icecream. Ice Cream is "bad news" maaan! ...and yes, the State did tell you it was bad. State has everything to lose from people expanding their minds. Troubador: "In closing even if what you posted was true about God both existing and not existing, and you and Stefan being both simultaneously right and wrong, and belief and non belief being basically the same thing. Doesn't that render this whole thread utterly redundant and only useful as some sort of mental masturbation?" That's not a closing argument at all, but OK I'll bite. The world does not revolve around you or your opinion. You may find the information in this thread to be "utterly redundant", but your opinion is not absolute truth. If you can find it in yourself to be a respectful and decent human being who gives equal respect to what they wish to receive, then you can simply move on. If this thread is useless, what are you even doing here? Unfortunately, I think your post was a bunch of mental masturbation. AynRand: "Essentially every claim you have made in this entire thread has been a claim without evidence. I'm not seeing the difference." So far I have had a lot of patience and tolerance, but this is the point where I wonder if I am talking to a person or a brick wall. If you are really going to say something as extraordinarly visibly false as "this entire thread has been a claim without evidence", then I am pretty certain you have no interest in finding truth and rather personally choose to dismiss religion because you don't WANT it to be true. This claim that I have not provided "evidence" of anything at all is complete and utter bullshit. Are you not familiar with the word "evidence" and what it means? Thank you for showing that I am completely wasting my time talking to some people who resort to outright lies, childish bullying, and cling to their myths like a teddy bear. I am thankful to the people in this thread who conducted themselves with respect and an open mind, but at this point I would be stupid to stick around. I came into this thread with an admitted emotional bias (from being an Athiest myself) that all Athiests are playing a game of denial reinforcement with each other. That they feed off each other to absolve themselves of the moral responsibility for their own actions. Like a child saying "I can do it all by myself. I don't need no stupid God. I'm a big boy!". An agnostic at least admits that he doesn't know, but the Athiest is a special breed of arrogance... I went out of my way to be tolerant, self-aware, respectful, critical but open-minded and try to fully set this emotional bias aside, but I am not being given the same respect in return. It's a shame, I didn't even get to finish my story or put forward my main evidence for review. Sure sounds like a productive way to head into the future! Truly a free domain... You can do whatever you want with this thread. I'm pretty sure that was my last straw. I just hope if you take anything out of this discussion, it's that every single argument and accusation you put forward AGAINST religions of God, applies even more-so to the religion of Athiesm. Athiesm, the new faith on steroids. Science holds all the answers! It is everywhere, it is everything, and it KNOWS ALL. I do beleive in scientists! I do beleive in state-funded research! I do! I do! It is the word of MAN! The word of MAN is eternal and unchanging! It is law, it is the word, and it is unquestionable! <- respect goes two ways -> I appreciate that you may think you are being open-minded, tolerant, or respectful, but you're not. This is trying to prove to a Statist flagellant that 9/11 was an inside job using countless smoking guns... all over again... No thank you. If you do not want to see the information voluntarily, then there is no point. It doesn't matter how sound or solid the argument or evidence. I should already know that an Athiest doesn't want information, he already assumes to know the answer. ---- BTW, the way upvotes and downvotes get handed out in this thread is distracting to any reasonable debate. It's the equivalent to an audience of people going "boo" and "hiss" when they hear an opposing argument, or the crowd roaring with approval when "their team" disrespects and shit-talks the opposing "side". Are we playing sports games, or are we gonna act like adults and learn something?

Upvotes and downvotes obviously communicate something. I would argue they communicate herd/tribal preference of support or disapproval. Furthermore, they have consequences... Like in the case of MMX receiving large quantities of downvotes simply for stating uncomfortable ideas, arguments, or truths. His posts are forcibly blocked from view unless you willingly reveal them, and the illusion of him being an "undesirable" of this community is perpetuated. This is castagation, it is punishment. It is to say that punishment works and the results of that punishment are "neccessary" to be forced upon all, without choice, through majority rules voting (Democracy). If someone uses hate speech, or is blatantly trolling without presenting arguement or evidence, then you have option to "report" them, because this IS a privately-owned forum. But anonymous group whippings and approval just encourages emotional bias, forced ostracism (no choice), and the idea that punishment is even effective at all. I argue that this kind of system is to the detriment and cost of the community as a whole. Uncomfortable truths will be buried in dislike, comfortable conformist fallacies will be propped up on a pedestial. Bullying and intimidation is given the weight of group support, and irrationality is reinforced through emotionally-motivated group denial.

J. D. Stembal... There is no argument, content, evidence, logic, philosophy, ideas or proposition in your post. No, just a sad pathetic attempt to illicit an emotional response (Trolling) with infantile name-calling. I will be reporting you for vandalizing this thread with your useless and hateful one-liner and transparent attempt to bully and belittle. I seem to have struck a chord. Why don't you take that as a sign to rethink your position like a reasonable and decent human being instead of trying to turn this thread into a flame war. You are the only one engaging in irrational behavior. You dishonor yourself with this kind of conduct.

Alice, please take the time to read my last post. It took forever to show up because of this state-like "moderator-approval" system, but I spent a lot of time on that post, and I did it for you. It would be tragic if my attempts to talk you out of doing something you may regret for the rest of your life, were to simply be chronologically buried because it took forever to get "approved" and show up in this thread at all.

Look at it like this... If you argue that "downvoting" is necessary for things like trolling and hate speech or whatever you dislike... You are essentially saying "I believe that punishment works and is beneficial" I would say: AT WHAT COST? Ostracism is about choice. I did not choose to have MMX's posts hidden, and frankly it's very annoying. I also have an added emotional bias towards him personally. I sympathize with his punishment because I have been there in life. I am more inclined to agree with him and take his words more seriously because I know how it feels to be in his position of being punished for simply offering views that aren't "comfortable" or "popular". If you believe someone is a troll or disruptive, would it not be more effective to completely ignore them entirely? You always have to consider that this net of punishment that we place to catch "bad-intentioned people", always inevitably catches many "good-intentioned people" as well. One innocent person getting screwed is too many. Voting isn't choice. It's majority rule. I understand this is a privately-owned forum and we are all here at the owner's invitation and permission, but if you have a grievance that someone is just trolling or doing these things you find disruptive, then wouldn't it make more sense to simply contact the administrator? If you don't have the moral responsibility to do that, then at least chill out with this whole group-whipping and group-praise nonsense. Punishment is not the answer. Choice is the key that will save us. Just my 2 cents...

AynRand, please don't make me repeat the same thing over and over. How many times now do I have to go through my position on having the patience to disassemble the wall of myth before we can delve into the juicy bits (evidence of religious truth)? If you were to argue the benefits of a Stateless Society to a devout Statist, would you not FIRST have to spend considerable time disassembling the myths that State Power is necessary/justified/beneficial/right? Before you could even begin to argue the benefits and argue the alternative of a Stateless Society, you would have to make clear the irrationalities and myths of Statism. This, as I hope you would already know, takes time and patience. Why? Because they won't even attempt to consider your arguments from a rational and unbiased perspective, and instead your arguments will fall on willfully deaf ears. I am being presented with these myths and misunderstandings throughout the thread, so it pretty reasonable that I would be dedicating time to responding and debunking these claims. I don't have the unlimited time to both debunk accusations/claims AND present my case as fast as you WANT me to. - - - - Also, my arguments are my own. I am not familiar with the book you referenced. It's not very respectful or wise to assume that someone is just regurgitating someone else's thoughts or positions. - - - - In regards to your question on "Existence"... Yes, we absolutely know and can say with certainty, that is more to reality than what has been discovered and can be observed in any way or is consciously detectable. Considering the evidence that this has been a consistent trend for the entirety of human history, it's pretty safe territory to say that there are unknown and undetectable parts of Existence (that exist) but have not been observed. Unless you are arguing, "if the tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear, or has ever even seen a tree, does the tree really exist at all" ... Which quantum physics has somethings to say on this subject. There are results of studies that seem to indicate that nothing exists outside of our immediate perception until we actually observe it. This still does not prove or disprove God or any religious truth. But it does indicate that reality might be a separate and self-contained experience for each observer. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole right now? Yes we know that matter/energy/effects already exist that we can't observe yet. This is a given. If not, then we should probably just stop all scientific exploration.

I don't have all the time in the world to discuss this, and I am being bombarded with arguments and accusations that require in-depth discussion and analysis if you want to have any kind of objective perspective on this subject. I could try to keep this short and sweet but then communication ability would be diminished. So I am sorry if you are put off by a "wall of text", or feel that I am not moving fast enough or starting where you WANT me to start, but I already explained where I'm coming from several times and my time is limited. Before we can begin to actually objectively discuss evidence we have to start from an objective position and discard as much emotional bias as possible. This subject almost always devolves into an emotionally-charged hate fest, and largely due to walls of myth that create assumptions and misunderstandings from BOTH sides. Furthermore, I'm not trying to convert you, I'm simply trying to put forward my arguments for analysis and discussion. Get over this and learn patience because I am essentially debating against many people all by my lonesome (BTW I've said most of this already and goading me into repeating myself doesn't help move the conversation at all). I will start by addressing Stefan's arguments in the video called "Proofs for God destroyed by a Philosophical Athiest". Fallacy #1 - "Existence" only consists of "observable matter/energy/effects" Firstly he begins by setting a definition of "Existence" as pretty much what we can observe/experience ("OBSERVABLE matter/energy/effects") however we already know this to be nonsense since there are entire microcosms and macrocosms of worlds and events that we cannot even begin to observe or understand. We are breaching these worlds all the time and discovering new layers of what we call reality, especially in the fields of Quantum Physics, Microscopy, Astrophysics, Astronomy, etc... The one thing that has been consistently agreed upon within almost all science, academic, mathematic, spiritual, and logic-based communities is that Reality or Existence is "to persist", something that "is", "to be", and that reality/energy/effects/matter/space/time/existence (ALL that persists) is INFINITE. Afterall, Existence is also called the "Space Time CONTINUUM". Existence is a fancy word for saying "That which IS", "what IS", not Stefan's special definition of "what can be seen". In fact, Stefan is the only person I have ever heard argue that existence is defined as "observable matter/effects", which is inherently absurd and implies that "The things that we don't know exist and we can't see, obviously don't exist". This implication is a contradictory statement, which he says at the beginning of the video can be "dismissed outright". Also, lack of evidence does not make ANY case a truth. So this is definition of "Existence" is doubly false. Now if Stefan is referring to "objective material presence/effects" as "Existence" (including what we have not yet discovered) then he is completely excluding the realm of "thought" and "consciousness", and concluding these are "non-existant" or "unreal", however we all know that "thought" actually occurs and "consciousness" is a "real" phenomenon and thus these have some degree of actual persistence in reality, whether immaterial, observable, measurable or otherwise. This is particularly relevant when discussing the subject of God, because God is described as the "ultimate consciousness". If you define the realm of "thought" and "consciousness" as "non-existant" then you are creating a paradox and contradictory statement and admitting that something can persist (exist) but not exist at the same time. Right off the bat his explanation of "Existence" is filled with contradiction and does not even remotely conform to common held belief, definition, or understanding. As he says in the video: "Compared to what" If you are comparing all of his arguments to this false definition of "Existence", then you are starting from an illogical paradigm. FALLACY #2 - Paradox and Contradiction "don't exist" Stefan doesn't really argue, but rather states that a "contradictory statement is irrelevant of material evidence". He uses the example of the abstract concept of a "Square Circle" in attempt solidify his case, but this is also inherently absurd. Squares and Circles are abstract geometric mathematical measurements that do not exist outside of the realm of "thought". There is no such thing as a perfect circle or square in the material world or even a straight line for that matter, only the illusion and measurement of consistency (pattern recognition). No matter how symmetrical or perfect the measurement appears, eventually the closer you analyze it the more imperfection and inconsistency will emerge. Take for example, if I were to cut a piece of wood into a circle. Would this circle actually be in perfect dimensions? What if I were to microscopically analyze the texture of the edges, would they not form bumps and splinters that would render the circle imperfect and jagged? Math is an abstract language of measurement based on pattern recognition, not an objective material presence. So does that mean Math is not real? He is contradicting his own definition of existence by using this illustrative example to suggest that a "square" and a "circle" actually do exist as separate material forms. Furthermore, since math is only an abstract concept based on perception, couldn't we simply draw a circle inside of a square and then proclaim it to be a "Square Circle". Yes, we could. This would form your material evidence. To deny it at that point is just willful. Illustrating that abstract concepts do in fact exist in some form, is a bad way of disproving what he calls an immaterial or abstract concept ("God"). Self-contradiction is abundant in this video, but I still allow Stefan the opportunity to present evidence, because no argument (regardless of how contradictory) can be dismissed outright when empirical evidence can be presented. Finally, this whole notion of contradiction and simultaneously existing paradox has been quite extensively explored in the relatively new field of Quantum Physics. Some studies have concluded with the hypothesis that this is a Paradoxical Reality, where the material can be both "real" and "unreal" simultaneously. The more we look into this field, the more the concept of paradox/contradiction is found not wholly independent of truth and reality, but rather a major defining quality. If you desire more research, proof, or evidence on this subject, then I can elaborate further or help point you in the right direction. Yes, paradox and contradiction can often render conversations awkward, moot, or unresolved, where both parties agree that they are both "right" and "wrong" at the same time. It can make conversation difficult and arguments seem pointless. For example in the greater picture, it is an accurate statement to say... "God doesn't exist AND God does exist." So in admitted truth, me and Stefan are BOTH right and BOTH wrong. However, adopting one side fully and absolutely is hardly what we could call "understanding truth". If you are having trouble understanding the concept of Infinity (Paradox) as the ultimate and only constant physical law of the universe, or if you simply refuse to admit or believe it... Then I highly suggest researching this subject further, because it will truly liberate your understanding of how reality works to a degree that can rival philosophy, sociology, physics, theology, or any other field of study. It is quite the "ah-ha!" moment that puts all things into perspective. This is really a heady and immense subject that should have a thread all to itself. Reality itself is an "impossibility" and this makes for excellent conversation. A "rock" and "seagull" have an infinite amount in common (same as they differ). "Rock" and "Seagull" are just human words assigned to measure seemingly separate phenomenon. Stefan using "2 + 2 = 5" as an example in this argument, is again taking math (a man-made abstract language based on relative measurement) in attempt to mislead people into believing that Math has any kind of material or existential substance outside of our minds. "2 + 2" may not "equal five", but the amount of numbers between 1 and 2 is the same as the amount of numbers between 1 and 5 (Infinite numbers). Existence is not Math, in that Math is only a language for communication and measurement. FALLACY #3 - Lack of evidence constitutes proof of anything. If someone were to say to me that "Bigfoot exists", I cannot legitimately (or with any authenticity) turn around and state "Bigfoot does not exist because I have never seen him". This should be obvious, but I have to mention it anyway, because this fallacy is repeated throughout the video. You cannot form a hypothesis or conclusion that something does not exist, simply because you have no evidence one-way or another. You have to have some form of evidence to form any kind of substantial, authoritative or valid statement. Therefore the same burden of proof to proclaim that "God definitely does not exist" lies upon the Athiest, however "proof" of this statement is rarely submitted for review. Bottomline: You cannot prove that something doesn't exist at all in some form, in some place, in some way, in some time. An Athiest does not take a neutral stance like the Agnostic. They do not simply shrug their shoulders and admit that "I don't know if God exists", but rather they argue to have sufficient evidence that something does not exist at all (in any way, shape, or form). If you can prove this statement, then by all means, prove it... but yes, this does require that you hunt throughout the entire universe (known and unknown) for eternity. Say you were to scour the entire planet (inside and surface) to prove the validity of the statement "Bigfoot does not exist on this Earth". You would be excluding the possibility that you simply missed him and cannot be in all places at once. It is beyond human capability to prove this statement with conclusive evidence. The person would be lieing to themselves to say "I know that Bigfoot does not exist, FOR A FACT". The only truthful statement would be "I don't know if Bigfoot exists". "THIS THING does not exist at all" is not an argument or a hypothesis. It is a blanket statement made with no human way to obtain proof of being an absolute truth (it cannot be tested). However, as I pointed out "Everything exists" AND "Nothing exists" (this is basic Infinity/Paradox theory), so the original blanket statement is misleading and made in ignorance. FALLACY #4 - Immaterial Existence is "false" We already established that immaterial things "exist" (thought/consciousness/gravity), whether a material source has been proven or not. We generally believe that the organ called a "brain" (observable matter) is the origin and source of "consciousness", but we have not proven that absence of a brain ends all thought/consciousness altogether. We have only proven that upon death, the person's "thoughts" cease to be observable to our senses. Again, lack of observable evidence does not prove anything, one way or another. We cannot make the conclusion that thought has stopped, purely because we no longer can see it's effects. We have to admit that we "don't know" if you are a person who requires reason and evidence to draw conclusions. Stefan's statement: "Consciousness is empirically an effect of matter, in that no consciousness is ever present without a physical brain" Better statement: "Consciousness empirically seems to be an effect of matter, in that human/animal consciousness has never been observed without the presence of a physical brain" Honest and humble statement: "We don't actually know what consciousness is or how and why it occurs" There are even studies that suggest that plants may actually have a form of consciousness (without brain). This field of study is rather new, but the results are interesting to say the least. There is much that we don't know, haven't seen, and can't see. This does not make these things "unreal", or "false". I already partially put forward that "Non-Existence" is a perfectly valid concept, and that one thing can simultaneously "exist" yet "not exist" at the same time. If you do not feel that the burden of proof has been met, we can discuss this further in a topic all of it's own. I will soon make a topic relating to exactly this subject. FALLACY #5 - "God cannot be All-Knowing and All-Powerful" I don't know how Stefan draws this conclusion, or based on what evidence or logic. I do not recall anyone definitively putting forward the concept of human "Free Will" (as we understand it) upon God, but merely that he "IS" and "has observable effects". We do not need to know how he works. When we try to describe it or understand it, we are limited by the constraints of human language and experience. No one has claimed to be able to definitively explain, understand, or describe God. We do the best we can with what we have. If you want to open the rabbit hole that is the mind of God, go for it, but I doubt you will retain much sanity in the process. Not understanding how something works, does not prove that it doesn't work. Yes, this is an "impossible" entity and we live in an "impossible" universe. Impossible is an abstract human concept that we use to describe our perceived limitations. People have defied what is deemed "impossible" all throughout history. If God seems "impossible", this does not constitute any proof of whether or not he exists. YOU are not "All-Knowing", and existence is not limited by your understanding of what is and isn't possible. Look into the experiments that led to the coining of "The Observer Effect", the results certainly seemed "impossible" until they actually happened. We once thought it impossible to fly. Are airplanes "impossible" or did they defy our perceived limitations of what is possible? Is it "possible" that Science has already proven God's existence but that majority bias, emotional bias, and underlying philosophies (man knows all/state is god) inhibit research and undermine objective hypothesis? This is certainly within the realm of possibility, but this question does not constitute proof of anything in itself. FALLACY #6 - God cannot be put "outside of time" Why not? Is everything bound by time? What proof is there that nothing is outside of time? Two major scientific developments/theories/discoveries are gaining legitimacy at this very moment. That time is "Infinite" and time is merely a "Perception". If time is "Infinite", then the question follows, does time exist as anything more than an illusion?. This is a much larger topic, and we could share and source studies and hypothesis in another post I will make soon. Does "history" exist as a concrete unchanging concept, or is "history" as subject to change and influence as the "future"? These are questions we can explore in another topic, but for now I'd like to keep this topic specifically about the existence of God. The point I'm making is that you can't simply assume that nothing can be placed outside of our understanding of "time". What about the theory that if you were to travel at the speed of light, you would arrive before you even started your journey? Am I to assume then that "light does not exist at all"? FALLACY #7 - God is defined as "consciousness without material form" By whom? Most religions believe that God is "everything". Even the allegory and understanding of "Satan" or "Lucifer" is that he is an aspect of God (created from/by God). Within the majority of Religious communities, existence itself is considered the material form of God's consciousness. Stefan's cherry-picked definition of God is demonstrably false. FALLACY #8 - God is defined as an "undetectable form of energy" By whom? This notion that God's influence and presence is "undetectable" demonstrates a very large ignorance of religious belief and teachings. Furthermore, "energy"?. Where is this "religious theory" put forward? Where is Stefan getting these alleged definitions? "Energy" has hardly even been defined in any consistent manner, because of it's many forms. It is mostly a catch-all to describe "change", "movement", or real "invisible forces/change" with "detectable effect". FALLACY #9 - God is defined as the "most complex life/consciousness in existence" Complex is a relative term. If you are uneducated something may seem "complex" to YOU, but "simple" to someone who has been educated. Evolution does not necessarily produce complexity, but can also be said to simplify organisms into the best form of survival in their environment. "God is complex" is a fancy way of saying God is "hard to understand". Complex is not a definite scientific measurement, it is a perception and is completely relative. The concept of God seems "simple" to me, but could seem very "complex" to someone else. I can't believe Stefan actually put forward the notion of "complexity" as any kind of tangible or empirical constant. Complex is an abstract term. See, this is why people use languages (symbology, astro-theology, allegory, parable, fable) other than Math, Science, Logic, History, and Linguistics. When describing the Infinite, it is best to use all tools available for a deeper understanding. FALLACY #10 - Perhaps God exists "outside the Universe"? Stefan, who actually made this argument? You? I do detect a man made of straw in our midst. Burn baby burn... What is your definition of "Universe"? Some people use it synonymously with "everything that is". Some scientists theorize and define that "the Universe" is a finite and limited space that exists within a larger and infinite Space Time Continuum. God is almost always defined as "omnipresent" and "all that is", and is synonymous with "the Universe". So that was a nice little straw man you built there, but it only belongs to you. I would say that God is the conclusion that the Universe is "Conscious", based on observable effects and pattern. - THAT'S ENOUGH FOR NOW - OK, at this point I've dedicated way too much time to just exposing the fallacies in Stefan's video... I haven't even had a chance to respond to other arguments put forward. I skimmed through the rest of the video but it is much of the same stuff regurgitated in different ways, but with a Stalin and a Dragon made of straw thrown in the mix for a good burn. I've already sent to Michael a friendly request for the opportunity to debate this with Stefan on his radio show, so hopefully I will get the chance to challenge him on these positions. Regardless of what I know or don't know, I can legitimately say that Stefan does not KNOW that "God doesn't exist", because "God doesn't exist" is a declarative and proclamatory statement which cannot be proven without omniscience. Are you both Athiest and omniscient? Atheism requires the same level of Faith, Dogma, and suspension of disbelief that they charge Religion with. Here's some quick rushed responses to other posts... LSD. Is it dangerous? So says State. State is a known liar. Scientifically LSD only increases the amount of input you receive from all your senses. It does not make you see "dragons", "elephants", or "goblins". It is a tool that can be used for good or ill. It is neutral. It is how you process the information and experience that matters. I am not responsible for how or if someone uses a neutral substance. I am not responsible for anyone's decisions. I have not encouraged or discouraged it's use. I stated that I have had both negative and positive experiences that have all been extreme LEARNING experiences. Is it actually dangerous though? Life-threatening? No (it's practically non-toxic). Mind-changing? Yes, but the mind is subject to numerous factors beyond just a drug (environment, past, personality, etc). Psychedelics are some of the most harmless substances in the world if you are of sound mind, in a good place, know thyself, and have a good environment. You know, people still believe hysterical myths like that LSD stays in your spine forever! On evolution of religious thought... No, the gay people thing is superseded by the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jesus, just as circumcision is not a Christian practice (Jesus's crucifixion was the end of all blood sacrifice ritual) but a uniquely American and Jewish practice. You can take things out of context to build some straw men, and fanatics can twist words and the teachings of pacifism into hate speech all they want, but it doesn't actually prove anything other than ignorance and irresponsibility. On building strawmen of Athiests... Yes, I admit it. I've been generalizing and stereotyping the Atheist community much as they do to Religious communities. People typically receive the kind of respect that they dish out. If you wish me to be held to a higher standard, then hold yourself to the same standards. The picture meme was very stereotypical of the Athiest community. Taking snippets out of context and broadcasting them to push an agenda. Don't be the stereotype, think for yourself. On expecting Athiests to take personal witness and testimony of others as proof... Witness and testimony are considered valid evidence in a "court of law" and in most disputes. I don't expect anyone to take this evidence at face value, but rather to actually consider it, critically analyze it, and make determinations for themselves. Hopefully I'll actually get to finishing my own personal testimony eventually. Remember, I used to be an Athiest and was proven wrong.

Alice, the "twisted values" and "moral responsibility" comment was not about you, that was directed at Nathan (re-read that post). "Sick" and "Desperate" are not shameful conditions, I don't know where you would get this perception. You admit that you are "sick" (a rare and distressful personal problem), and you admit that you are "desperate" (resorting to risking death, injury, disfigurement and disatisfaction) to "treat" or "cure" your problem. Why should anyone be ashamed of this? Please don't shut down and mistake empathy for intimidation. Cures and self-awareness can be intimidating, but empathy is not. I have nothing to gain by helping you other than seeing another human being prosper in life. I have no need or desire to prove I am right other than wanting to HELP you. You've got me emotionally invested in this conversation and I no longer care about the original topic of discussion. I only care to help prevent you from resorting to an irreversible act of desperation. I do not have the burden of proof that lack of self-acceptance, low self-esteem, and body dysphoria is an addictive and escalating self-destructive spiral. The statement is an A Priori (self-evident) if you've ever known a Drug Addict, Plastic Surgery Addict, Anorexic, Bulimic, or Cutter. If you haven't, then I highly suggest doing research into the subject, but I suspect many people (if not most) have already seen this destructive escalation firsthand. All decisions are made by weighing the pros vs. the cons. Does the good outweigh the bad? Will I benefit more in the long run than I will lose now? The weighing of good vs. bad in the decision making process is not always rational, though it certainly seems so at the time. It can be made unconsciously, on impulse, through emotion, and/or bad information. As it stands, you currently believe that letting someone slice off your penis and further mutilating your body will be advantageous over what you are dealing with now, and that the pros outweigh the cons. Is this a rational judgement, or is it being made from emotion, impulse, denial, emotion, and/or bad information? Firstly, I do discourage Rhinoplasty or any other elective mutilation of a healthy body, but dissatisfied mind. I do not think it is that different from what you are experiencing. Of course, cultural perceptions have been ridiculously skewed by copious amounts of plastic surgery advertising, marketing and propaganda... an entire industry dedicated to the exploitation of low self-esteem. Preying on people who experience extreme dissatisfaction with their body, and are willing to mutilate it in the belief that the outcome will change their self-acceptance. Does a woman who gets a boob job actually feel "better" than before? Or does a boob job create scars, health complications, and swollen/stiff damaged looking breasts? Is it possible that the woman who has the boob job generates new dramatic insecurities over these scars and effects of mutilation? Is it possible that the woman then goes into a compulsive and insecure state of needing constant confirmation from others and self to reaffirm that she actually looks better and made the right decision? If you've ever met someone with a boob job, you would already know some of the answers to these questions. You are assuming that transgender people who have undergone surgery are actually healthier and happier than before the surgery. Violence always creates new problems (even in the case of self-defense, which is an act of true life-or-death desperation only). It may create the illusion or appearance of solving the original problem (only in the short run), but soon the new problems emerge, because the original problem has not actually been addressed. Imagine that you go through with this procedure. You are assuming that you won't biologically, psychologically, and physiologically feel handicapped, mutilated, deformed, and disfigured. You are assuming that you will LIKE your simulated "Vagina". You are assuming people won't look at it in disgust. You are assuming that it will feel or look anything like a real Vagina at all. You are assuming that this won't dramatically increase your insecurity and lack of self-acceptance. You are assuming you won't develop even worse compulsions and insecurities that cause you to resort to forcing everyone to accept you, or confirm you, or respect you, or support you, or appreciate you. This can destroy your social life and ruin inter-personal relationships. You are assuming that you won't eventually get cured in the mind or have a dramatic mental change. You are assuming that this wouldn't cause extreme feelings of regret and loathing after the surgery. You are assuming that there isn't a cure or solution that doesn't involve violence. You are assuming that violence is the only and best answer, or even a solution at all! You are assuming that a surgical operation (violence/physical damage) is not just a quick-fix emotional impulse decision in attempt to cover up a larger problem that could potentially get far worse. Much like the drug addict who takes a larger dose of Heroin to improve their current condition, but ends up with much larger problems and exacerbating the original problem exponentially. You are assuming that by taking drugs (hormones) that you are not doing permanent or escalating damage to both your biology and mind. With that said... I would seriously recommend changing your Therapist, because if these are the type of conclusions that he has supported, then he is in serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath and is practicing Therapeutic nihilism. Your mind is part of your body. The two are not separate. The mind does not come BEFORE the body. They are physiologically and biologically linked. If the mind is in disharmony with an otherwise completely healthy physical body, then the problem always lays within the mind. Your body is not some vehicle that you can modify, discard, or replace. It is a permanent physical extension of you, and without it, your mind would cease to function. The mind is extraordinarily adaptive and transformative beyond our current comprehension, where as the physical body cannot be altered without harm, violence, and consequence. You are trying to physically force a solution to the problem, rather than seeking to truly heal yourself. You already know something is wrong. You already admit that there is a problem, but you are giving up on healing and resorting to violence instead. Violent force is not a treatment. Violent force is not a cure, it is the last resort measure of a threatened life. Violent force causes a whole quagmire of new problems, but I shouldn't have to tell you this if you are already on this forum. Therapists are imperfect human beings who are put in a situation that requires great responsibility with a vulnerable individual. Therapists can be predatory, manipulative, legally threatened and liable, manipulated by cultural irrationalities, emotional bias, and motivated by bad incentives. This is why it is so important that you make sure that you have chosen the RIGHT therapist. Someone who truly cares about your well-being and is familiar with similar conditions (low self-esteem, body dysphoria, 'me plus' syndrome, lack of self-acceptance and self-awareness). Someone who is really willing to dig into your past (the perceptions and experiences that constructed our personality) and find the under-lying impulses and motivations that cause us to impulsively act or think in certain ways. From what you are telling me, I gather that your current experiences with therapy have been ineffectual, unproductive, or have destructively exacerbated the situation to where you are considering violent force. This is the very meaning of Therapeutic Nihilism. Feelings go away after (maybe even years) of hard work and progress. You should never simply give up and resort to violence. This is the anti-thesis of successful therapy. One of the only human survival instincts is ADAPTION. If you treat a child like a dog and raise them with only dogs, they will start to think and act like a dog. I would look into "Feral Children" if I were you, it is fascinating and informative stuff. Our minds will adapt to any environment to stay alive, healthy, and fertile. I think you really need to delve into the environment and experiences that have lead you to feel and think the way you do. You do not need to change anything about your body. You think it will help, but I am certain through experience, reason, and evidence that this will only lead to even more and larger problems. I have done plenty of introspection and work with others to understand myself, my impulses, my motivations. I have a largely healthy, satisfied, happy, and successful life, so why would the amount of self-knowledge I have achieved bear any relevance to this conversation? I have been in similar situations of sickness and desperation, and that is part of what helps me to relate to where Alice is coming from. Do I have some requirement to humble myself before the community and share all of my personal dirty little secrets of the past? Nope, I don't. So Nathan, please get off of your hostile high horse. What makes me feel like I am qualified or can help Alice in any way? I am human being who empathizes and sympathizes with what she is going through, and who has experience with dealing with, curing, and coping with many very similar issues on a personal level. I am willing and volunteering, and for free, if it means potentially saving another person from making a decision that they could regret for the rest of their life. I don't think that can be done through text or forum posts though. It certainly can't be done by throwing blind emotional support for such an extremely consequential decision. I also understand it's an extremely sensitive situation, but I've been there... at the end of my rope.

I thought it important to share this little piece of genius with the folks of this community: Jim Henson's "The Cube" (1969) Here's the hiqh quality watch and/or download link: https://archive.org/details/TheCube-JimHenson-1969 In my opinion this is one of the greatest pieces of film of all time. It is a symbolic and allegorical representation/exploration on the nature of reality. Most people remember Jim Henson for his Muppet puppetry and his work on Sesame Street, but they forget that this is the same genius who made the original Star Wars trilogy so memorable (though we give George Lucas all the credit). Few people have seen his lesser known works, which I think are much better than what he became known for. The film itself involves no puppet I made this thread mostly to share this great piece of art, but also to raise discussion on our interpretation of the various scenes of the film. I hope you enjoy the experience Also of note is: My Dinner with Andre (1981) This one is not public domain so you will have to obtain it for yourself, but here is the wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Dinner_with_Andre This is a film that revolves around a dinner conversation between old friends who have not seen each other for many years. Discussion topics include the nature of reality through experience, societal structures, and much more. This is the film that truly woke me up to the terrifying reality that Cities are essentially a "voluntary" State-sponsored Concentration Camp, and that interment and extermination camps have taken on a whole new form. Finally, my top favorite of the bunch is Synecdoche, New York (2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche,_New_York This is a Charlie Kaufman film. The same guy who brought us so many great films with philosophical undertones like "Being John Malkovich", "Human Nature", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". Synecdoche, New York is a must see. I can't talk too much about it though without spoiling the movie. The subject matter that being explored is Microcosms. TIP: Don't let the wikipedia synopsis spoil these excellent films. Watch them first!

This issue has changed for me personally, because I am now emotionally involved and the empathy in me wants to help Alice, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. Self-violence in itself is a form of suicidal violence, so this also is very obviously a sensitive issue. Alice, again I extend my offer to talk privately if you ever feel suicidal or just need to talk at all. I am not just going to let someone "walk on by" with these kind of thoughts without extending my hand to say, "I am here to talk". I am not here to judge. People are more important than critical debate. I want this to be clear before I participate in this discussion any further. Anyone can judge me all they want, I don't take offense easily. I hope Alice continues to share her side with us, but doesn't feel too much pressure either way. I'm sorry if I let my emotions get carried away.

Respect and empathy towards a fellow human being involves discouraging self-destructive behavior, not supplying encouragement and support. Like I said, healthy people do not get surgery (self-mutilation), only those who are truly sick and desperate will risk injury, death, and disfigurement in hopes of a better outcome. The pursuit of any kind of elective surgery is a mental disorder akin to anorexia or elective amputation. The problem lies in the head, not the body, and the head can be fixed without violence. Just remember that when you support and encourage someone who is considering elective surgery, you are encouraging self-violence. Have the decency and moral responsibility to admit it. Honestly... you're arguing about whether or not someone is a man or a woman, when sometimes I can't even tell if we're all human anymore! When the world encourages or accepts violence as a solution, we all watch the world fall. Isn't this the major point that this website tries to point out? Alice, if you are reading this, I am sorry for getting emotional but it chills me to the bone to watch people choose to willingly hurt themselves. I really am here for you if you ever want to talk about it.

My head is spinning because you guys are dancing in circles with abstract, subjective, intangible, or relative concepts, labels, and names rather than sticking to the actual issue (SELF-MUTILATION). We're all human, and gender/sex/orientation whatever is merely degrees (we all start as Female in the womb and we all have both Testosterone and Estrogen to varying degrees). You guys are arguing over where to "draw the line" with dictionary labels instead of focusing on the self-violence which is most important issue at hand. Nathan, you conveniently avoided addressing anything I've said and instead decided to make a statement that has no rational foundation whatsoever, and with no evidence to back it up. ~ Welcome to Reality ~ THIS IS ME: Please don't pick up a knife and mutilate your body, You are perfect how you are, and you should love yourself for who you are, exactly how you are. Do not injure your body in hopes you will somehow feel better afterwards. THIS IS YOU: It's perfectly reasonable to pick up that knife and let the amputation and mutilation begin! You will feel better afterwards and be your TRUE self. Let's see, which side is "destructive".... - My stance is to discourage the permanent physical damaging of flesh, organs, and body. - Your stance is to encourage the permanent physical destruction of flesh, organs, and body. So when exactly did up become down and the sky turn red? I must have missed this dramatic reversal. Man it's really sick... Have some responsibility for your twisted values. If she were a cutter, suicidal, or anorexic, you wouldn't even dream of condoning this behavior (I'd hope). Truly shameful. I don't assume to know anything about Alice and I have stated that plainly. All I know is what she has told me, which includes the intention to commit an act of violence upon oneself (with the belief that this action will bring happiness or satisfaction). Violence: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, AGAINST ONESELF, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" Surgery is self-violence by very definition. Healthy people don't commit self-violence (undergo surgery).

I am going to get involved here and try to inject some common sense toward the major fallacy I see in Darwin's "Theory of Evolution". This won't get peer-reviewed, because I'm not a scientist. I do not speak the language of Scientists and I have not heavily researched the theory, it's modern revisions, nor all of the applications of the theory in how life on Earth evolved to where it is today. However I am a person who sees a major error in this catch-all theory. "Random Mutation"... my my my this is a convenient little net. "Natural Selection happens because of this, this, and this, and if anything contradicts this model, well that's just RANDOM!" Random is defined as without cause/reason/method/pattern, but this is really a fancy man-made way of shrugging your shoulders and saying "I don't know why it happens, how it happens, or what will happen". "I don't know" should never be accepted as a valid scientific hypothesis or explanation for anything. Random is not found anywhere in nature or life. We create the illusion of random, but this is usually within a set of fixed values or subject to any number of internal or external force/variables. For example a 6-sided Dice creates the illusion of a random result, but this dice does not roll by itself. There is cause, effect, and reason why a fixed result between 1-6 is achieved after building a cube, applying numbers to it's faces, and then subjecting it to physical forces like Inertia, Gravity, and Airflow. The result is not Random at all, but merely it "seems" random enough to us because we can't exactly predict the result with precision. Lacking the evidence to explain why or how something occurs does not constitute proof, evidence, or even the suggestion that it is Random (without cause/reason/method/pattern). It is a simple, well understood and observable fact that all things happen for reasons (whether we know those reasons at the time or not), that all things are subject to the cause & effect of internal/external forces and variables, even when these forces are invisible to the naked eye. This tacked on hypothesis of "Random Mutation" is what I call a Bandage Theory. Something that is tacked onto a flawed theory in attempt to obscure, conceal, or dismiss any contradictions or holes in the original theory. It's a child's way of saying "I'm right, and if you prove I'm wrong, well I am always right" We deride a "Conspiracy Theorist" who will provide a Bandage Theory for every inconsistency or flaw in his/her claims, but we accept it at face value when Scientists turn around and do the exact same thing. This is dogmatic and the exact same behavior that Athiests accuse of religous groups. Where is Darwin's proof or evidence to the claim that mutation occurs at random and isn't following a set pattern? This is a convenient and unsupported claim when you can't actually prove that anything happens at random, because 'lack of evidence' does not constitute proof of anything. I cannot say that "Bigfoot definitely exists, because you can't prove he doesn't exist", this would be fallacious. The correct thing to say is... "I don't know if Bigfoot exists. I have never seen a Bigfoot, but I also have not seen much evidence either way. The testimony and witness of fellow man does count for something, so MAYBE Bigfoot exists, but I personally cannot legitimately say either way with any degree of objective authenticity." When it comes down to Random (Darwinism) vs. Pattern (Intelligent Design). Pattern has the heavy weight of evidence on it's side, because cause/pattern/method/reason is found everywhere in nature and nothing can ever be proven to be without cause/pattern/method/reason. Whether you want to accept this or not, at least one side is not saying "I know for certain that it is Random, purely because I can't figure it out". My entire argument: Any Scientific Theory that proposes "Random" as a viable explanation or hypothesis should be ridiculed for laziness, lack of desire to pursue answers, and dramatically revised. Lastly, this topic should be about the legitimacy of "Intelligent Design", not "Creationism". Creationism is the strict and literal conflation of the historical with astrological/symbolic allegory and fable, in order to form a narrative of humanity's past. This whole interpretation of religious allegory and texts as a strictly-literal science textbook is a very new and irrational phenomenon within religious groups. ...because when The Bible says that a sword came out of Jesus's mouth, it totally means that an actual physical sword came out of his mouth [sarcasm] *facepalm* Intelligent Design has major cases and new developments in the fields of Quantum Physics and Christian Science and is outright dismissed by majority bias in the establishment of "Big Science". Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationist theory, where they take Genesis and turn it into a literal and precise timeline.

God help me but I feel like this conversation is just going "well what is a man that is a female that has a gender that has a sex that is a man that is a woman that is a gender that is a man"..... My head is spinning. This all reminds me of the people who purposely amputate perfectly healthy limbs because they have an irrational and overwhelming dysphoria for some limb of their body. I will not suppose to know what is going through their head, what their childhood was like, but this is still behavior that often leads down a rabbit hole of addictive self-abuse. To purposely handicap oneself in order to gain some perceived advantage is an act of desperation. You obviously feel there is an advantage to this elective surgery and taking of hormones, because otherwise you would not be doing it and then you would accept yourself as who you are, no matter what you look like. Instead of pursuing self-knowledge (as in why you might feel this way, what might have happened in your life, what lead to this point, what childhood factors have made the person) you are electing to undergo permanent irreversible self-mutilation in the hope/wish/belief that this will address the issue. Surgery is not taken lightly. It is extremely risky and dangerous. It is permanent and can result in injury, disfigurement, or death. You are not handicapped, you are a perfectly functioning healthy human being, you only THINK you are handicapped. The problem is in the mind, not the body. Your condition is not life-threatening unless you let it become life-threatening (which you are choosing to do). The mind can be worked with, but the body is permanent, and when you start amputating and damaging things instead of turning to alternative solutions for your mind, you are committing self-violence. Right now you are not in danger, except from hurting yourself. You do not have a life-threatening disease, you have a condition, a state of the mind. There have been amazing developments in this field, and you would be amazed at how we can lie, deceive, and deny to ourselves, but by working through these things we can learn to truly love who we are, exactly AS we are. I want to help you. I want to stop you from hurting yourself any further. Ultimately that is your decision. I cannot possibly know what you are going through, but if you can't see that you are made exactly as you should be, then I really hope someone can help you see that. There is nothing wrong with being different. You don't have to conform to a gender. You don't have to be anyone or anything but yourself. If your mind is not in harmony with your body, this is an issue with self-acceptance and self-esteem. Self-acceptance does not involve picking up a knife and carving up your body, so please don't try to twist self-mutilation into some form of self-acceptance Please please please think about what you are doing. Think about the consequences. Think about the risks. Think about the inability to have children. This is gene-death. It is sacrificing the future for now. Having children is the most profound experience in the world and gives people's lives meaning. Biologically this is the only reason we have for existing, and everything we do revolves around child birth/raising. Find someone who can accept you for who you are, but you will not find this without first accepting your physical appearance. You cannot love someone else until you love yourself. Do you have a partner, or husband/wife? If you do and they want you to change yourself through mutilation, then they are a shameful person. You say that you suppressed these woman feelings for years, but by undergoing surgery and self-medicating you are only avoiding the real issue and trying to suppress your anxiety towards your biology and appearance. In the video about the straight Transgender (no genital surgery) couple that had children, the newscaster interviewed the transgender couple and asked the woman "Do you feel happier now that you have made this change?" and the woman responded "I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders". This is not happiness, this is suppression. This is the same thing an addict to Xanax would say about taking Xanax to ignore the real problems that are causing the anxiety in the first place. Pain is a motivating factor. It says something is wrong, and you need to change it. There is obviously something that needs to change, but you are trying to bring your body into an issue that exclusively about the mind. You would also feel extremely traumatizing pain if you were to mutilate your body, but if you do the procedure I am sure you would choose to be put under with drugs, and ignore that the pain is saying "STOP this is wrong"!!! Please stop looking for reasons not to seek therapy, to read about self-acceptance, to seek out support groups dedicated to self-acceptance. I am not a therapist or qualified in any way, but even I would be willing to try and talk with you through this process if it means I can stop you from picking up the knife and help you learn to love yourself exactly how you are.

There is common misconception that a Religion or the existence of God can not be proven. A large part of this thread is about trying to break through this myth. If Bill Nye was truly interested in seeking truth, then he would heed the advice of millions of people and listen to their claims that God cannot be shown directly to you, you have to seek or see him for yourself. This is a fancy way of saying, "have any open mind, and take the appropriate steps towards RESEARCH". Scientists and Athiests alike love to research only the actions of man as if this is supposed to have much bearing on whether or not there is a God. They will conflate things like "if God is life and love, then why is there Violence, Death and Hate". They will take that statement and accept it as proof at face value against religion, without bothering to hear the other side's perspective, rebuttal, or explanation. I have seen a few of these pseudo-debates where they pick ONE GUY from the religious community, he tries to support his case (whether he is a good at explaining it or not) and then the Athiest will retort back with "Well you're just delusional, these are delusions"... Then they will turn around and use differing interpretations of God as if that is any kind of evidence against the existence of a God, but all this proves is that people interpret and interact with God differently depending on culture. The similarities between these religions go ignored, despite the similarities being far more numerous and valued than the minor differences. From my perspective it's like watching one guy state his case, and the other guy says "Oh yeah, well you're just crazy, and look at all these other crazy people that I don't understand!" The debate is not about the guy, or those people, it's about GOD, but the Athiest in his ignorance will continue to shut down all attempts to encourage him to actually research the subject and get involved in these communities. Not everything can be brought TO you, some things you have to see for yourself, but in the meantime if you keep your mind open to pursuing truth despite emotional bias and preconceived notions, then you may actually get somewhere to finding an objective answer. To many Athiests the question of God is "self-evident" or should be "obvious", but when it comes to a subject as heady as religion... You might want to be more objectively curious, rather than trusting only your eyes, nose, mouth, and ears. Hear what people have to say, listen to actual testimony, find out what proved it to others, and then discern your own truth with all available evidence. Anyway, this post was in response. I will put forward more arguments soon, but I've been talking with this community a lot for one day Also, I would like to add that the strain of fanaticism that has corrupted something spiritual (emotional interpretation) into pure literal interpretation has definitely not helped Religious commentators make their case. This kind of close-minded worship of a book (written by man) instead of God himself has caused stagnation in the ability for Religious people to express themselves in a world that is increasingly demanding answers.

I have wondered myself why DROs don't already exist, since there is obvious and large demand for WIN WIN dispute resolution in a State society of arbitrary LOSE LOSE "resolution". Then I remembered things like all the "laws" that will get you thrown in jail for "practicing law" or "practicing medicine" without obtaining explicit permission from the oligarchs of violence. Unfortunately, I think the threat of jail for providing legitimate competition to the State system is what keeps people from doing it already. However, the internet is changing all that and making enforcement quite difficult if not impossible in some of these areas. Much like how Liberty Coin was violently crushed and pillaged, but yet BitCoin seems untouchable. How "Napster" was crushed with threats of violence, yet "The Pirate Bay" is still up and running (despite a number of violent raids and seizures). The internet is the rise of Anarcho-Capitalism and the living proof that it "can be done" and is "the best way to do it".

I don't see the "need" for upvoting or downvoting at all. Rating a comment is like warning people not to read something because you disagree with it. Why should people be blocked from exposure to information simply because you don't like it. This is herd mentality. If I am saying something truthful, but everyone hates hearing it, should no one listen? Should we simply bully them into conformity or not wanting to talk at all? I saw a post that brought up extremely rational debate, but it was downvoted so heavily due to it's "sensitive" nature that it was hidden from the site and I had to click a button just to reveal the original post. This is not the actions of a community in search of truth.

The wall of myth is using a picture meme as if it provides any kind of argument or debate to the things I've already mentioned. Ken Ham is not representative of all religious people and he didn't say it can't be proven. He is saying HE can't prove it to you, but you can prove it to yourself if you are willing to look for proof. It's like if I said... There is an oasis 3 miles away, but I can't ultimately prove it to you, you will have to see it for yourself. I can take pictures of it, I can draw pictures of it, I show you books about it, I can show you people who have seen the oasis, I can show you people who enjoy the oasis, I can bring you a bucket of water from the oasis, and you can walk with me to the oasis, because there is definitely an oasis. Bill Nye is not representative of all Athiests but he is basically saying... But I just need proof that there is a oasis! Something that contradicts that I have never seen the oasis. Somethiing that contradicts my photos that we are in the middle of a desert. Something that contradicts that all I see is sand in every direction. Something that contradicts all these books and testimonies that "the oasis is bad", etc etc etc.... If you are trying to find God by using his creations to disprove him, you are not going to get very far. If you are trying to use Religion as a scientific textbook with strict literal interpretation, you are missing the entire point. This is a book with proven real-world history mixed with blatant allegory and symbolism. If you conflate the two concepts into literal scientific interpretation, then you will definitely miss the bigger picture completely. It's like saying Love doesn't exist because I can't see this thing called "Love", I can only see it's effects.

Alice, thank you for giving us your personal inside perspective. It is definitely important when discussing a subject that we are not necessarily directly emotionally invested in, to always hear from people who are. I think the importance of this often goes overlooked. However, I think the core of this issue is not being rebutted by one side. I see it mentioned over and over, but it is simply being ignored. Let's take for example: An African American woman who identifies herself as Caucasian. This is something that actually happens. If a "black" person were to engage in plastic surgery (for white skin), drugs (for white skin) and other physical enhancements (for straight hair) to become a "white" person. What is going on here, and why should it be viewed as "wrong". Well let me state my case plainly, and please do not simply ignore it and get into a detailed conflation of what is "black" and what is "white". Many black people (women mostly) will straighten their hair and stylize it to look as straight and white as possible. When young black women see that the most successful black women have straightened "white people" hair (Oprah, Condileeza Rice, Michelle Obama) then it is a reasonable assumption that a degree of "assimilation to white culture" will gain them success. No one frowns upon this practice. No one tries to intervene. No one tries to explain to them that curly African hair can be absolutely gorgeous on black women. No one tries to appeal to them to stop what they are doing. In fact, most people just simply ignore it. In my personal opinion, I think they are denying their beautiful biology for cultural ("me plus" syndrome) acceptance and perceived advantage. Regardless, in this example NO ONE IS BEING HURT. No violence is involved. But if the same black woman were to take this a step further and obsessively use skin whitening drugs (which can upset biology and cause any number of damaging side effects) and use plastic surgery (bodily mutilation) to change her nose or lips, then we have violence being committed onto oneself. It may seem abundantly obvious that cultural and psychological factors are what is really at play. It is not very likely that her biology is saying "You're white!!! Be that white woman you've always dreamed of being!!!"... yet when it comes to Transgender we have an emotional bias that can prevent us from seeing this. The mutilation (violence/damage) or self-inflicted punishment through drugs, is a much more serious issue than the clothes you wear or the straightening of your hair. When this kind of behavior is spotted in another person, the empathetic response is typically to intervene by appealing to the person to seek help or actually try and help them to accept who they are, without the need for inflicting self-violence and abusing their physical body. The irrational, comfortable, easy and selfish response is to encourage their self-destructive behavior. It is much harder to approach a person who is inflicting or considering self-violence and to help convince them that it is dangerous. It is well known that this kind of self-violence and these feelings of insecurity can escalate rapidly and become an addiction. It is not hard to find examples of plastic surgery addiction, anorexia, and body mod addictions, and to see where they lead. Michael Jackson had an addiction to self-inflicted abuse. He may have had Vitiligo, but his response to this disease caused him to develop a neurosis that destroyed his self-esteem and escalated his self-hatred. He talked about his self-hatred rather candidly, while vehemently denying his addiction to self-mutilation and assimilation to the "white"-image. Now you could argue that ALL surgery or even hair straightening is "damage" to the body and therefore self-abuse, but we have to remember that everything is relative and found in degrees... Sex change surgery is not a surgery performed to "save your life" in the now, it is a cosmetic ritualistic surgery. It is the belief that "looking different" will somehow change things, and you are willing to risk permanent injury, death, and deformity to achieve something that can be addressed through self-knowledge and loving oneself for who you already ARE. Sex change surgery is viewed by many to be the extreme manifestation of an escalating addiction to self-abuse. The right thing to do is to empathize, sympathesize, and encourage self-knowledge of why you would be so desperate to commit violence upon yourself. Encouraging self-violence and telling the victim to wear the violence as a badge of pride is destructive to everyone.