When is it OK to ask a RW to change her religion for you

[deccie]

Scientific minds and non-believers usually don't try to convert others to their viewpoints .

Discussions where scientific papers are presented  can get quite "passionate" as well a times.
I think Physics is a good example where scientists divide into different groups based on what they believe in.

[Jazzyclassy]

Why are the two contradictory for you Jazzy?

Well that is just how it is I understand scientific theory has the right to exist but I do believe in God, for me scientific theory is not the core I treat to it as something which was discovered by people.

You might say that bible was invented by people as well, but there was God who created everything and he is the one! and  I believe in that

[deccie]

Well that is just how it is I understand scientific theory has the right to exist but I do believe in God, for me scientific theory is not the core I treat to it as something which was discovered by people.

You might say that bible was invented by people as well, but there was God who created everything and he is the one! and  I believe in that

I don't see any contradiction between the two. A scientist is never going to be able to give you a reason why life exists or any sort of moral compass. At best he can tell you what the evidence tells him as to dates, times and process. There really should not be any conflict between a scientific process and whether or not God exists.

[Jazzyclassy]

That is what am telling I do not see a conflict at all

[2tallbill]

That is what am telling I do not see a conflict at all

I agree as well,

Bill

[Ronnie]

Religion must be separated from one's belief system.  A person's church is a social organization where people can network, and commune with others. While church should be a place of diversity coming together once a week, sadly, they are not. A lot of conformity is expected if not demanded.  If your religion is not oppressive and you feel your future bride would feel accepted and comfortable, then she should be invited to attend.  But as to core belief, that will certainly not be a matter of immediate assimilation, nor should it be. 

It requires no faith but the simple Occam's rule: do not invoke unnecessary entities.  I say: based on the available evidence, I am pretty sure God does not exist.  I need not doubt this conclusion unless I am presented with new convincing evidence contrary to it.  In that case, I'll be willing to reconsider, provided the evidence is convincing enough. 

In the same way, I do not need much "faith" to claim that mermaids do not exist.  However, If I am presented with a live mermaid, or at least a well preserved skeleton of such, I'll be happy to reconsider. 

So what does that make me?

I just happened on this thread and find it fascinating and thought I'd weigh in as a late arrival to the party.  I'm, as always, intrigued by Blues Fairy's writing and am compelled to respond to her comments. 

I will tell you up front that my views have changed since I passed midlife.  As a young man, I did not understand the complex interplay of faith and religion and rational thinking.  I pretty much had it sewed up in a nice neat packet that I can summarize this way:  There is obviously a "God" (need proof of God?  Might you also need a torch to see the sun?); That the Christian religion was the one true one; and that my particular denomination was the most correct if not perfectly correct.

My own evolution in life has been more like a sorting and re-organizaton of beliefs and ideas.  I realized first that my own denomination was not perfect, and probably not correct.  What this did was free me up for a examination of religion in general and of Christianity in particular.  I then reasoned that Christianity appears to be more defined as a "religion" by those who were drawn to the power that religious leaders can acquire over their fellows.  But Christ himself seemed uninterested or even opposed to organizational structures.  So Christianity as an organized religion failed to pass muster in my conscience.

So where did that leave me?  I was left with the question of Jesus of Nazareth.  First, was there really such a person?   There are too many contemporary and early accounts to refute his existence out of hand, and the evidence that he did not exist are of no comparative weight.  So if I were to judge based on the weight of evidence, I say he did live when and were the record places him.

The question next becomes, who was this Jesus?  The accounts say he worked in the carpenter trade with his father until about the age of 30 when he became suddenly a preacher whose knowledge of scripture and Mosaic law astounded the scribes and the great sanhedrin. How did that happen?  What explanation demands the fewest assumptions?

I think that I'm not taking as a matter of faith that Jesus possessed traits that are difficult to explain without making just one simple assumption: he communed with someone whose knowledge and wisdom were superior than that of his comtemporaries.  Certainly, other explanations can be devised but let's go on. 

As to religion, it seems to make the most sense to me, that Jesus did not intend to create an organized religion.  He had seen how religious authority affects a person's free agency - devising arbitrary rules for no other purpose than for making judgments (such as what activities were or were not suitable on the sabbath - remember he was challenged for administering on the Sabbath and his own family had to wait until after the Sabbath to properly prepare his corpse for burial).   

The accounts convince me that his mission was to restate the law as he had been instructed by a being he called "Father."  One can debate the dogma of his relationship with this "Father" but whether he was himself the "Father" ("he who has seen me, has seen the father") or a separate entity (a voice out of the heavens spoke saying, 'this is my beloved son...'), what is solid to me is that he was someone whose words and precepts were of tantamount importance.

Adding the the argument of his extraordinary nature are accounts that he performed a number of supernatural acts: healings, raising from the dead, walking on water, calming the sea, multiplying loaves and fishes, turning wine into water (at his own wedding) and his resurrection after death and his reappearance in a locked room.  In each of these cases there were enough reported witnesses that a reasonable judge must rule with the preponderance of testimony.  And, so must I.

Why mention Jesus in the context of theism or atheism?  Because this Jesus brought a paradigm of behavioral standards and a new understanding of the essence of existence that was at a higher level than the commandments Moses claimed were written by God. 

The ideas Jesus preached were not in common practice or even consideration at the time: 

The ethic of reciprocity..doing to others what you would have them do to you...form the basis for today's notion of human rights.  At that time, cruelties were an accepted part of life.

The hypocrisy of judgmentalism...why try to remove a splinter from someone else's eye when you have a whole limb in your own...to show the fallacy of double standards.  Modern society is still unable to incorporate this precept.

Nonresistance to violence...turn the other cheek to violence..was in direct opposition to the law of "eye for an eye" justice.  Modern day leaders are still unable to practice this teaching..Only MLK and Ghandi have had the discipline to put it into practice...and they were incredibly successful.

The absurdity of vanity and materiality...Why do you worry about your clothing? Consider the lilies of the field; they neither toil nor spin; yet even Solomon was not arrayed like one of them...It seems that Jesus didn't think much of mankind's obsession with material possessions or the desire to obtain them.  When we work at our jobs (most jobs), we are only exchanging our limited time - which we could be using to acquire knowledge - for something of a material nature.  This seems a poor bargain when material things are soon gone where knowledge remains and yields dividends.

So, Blues Fairy, you've been lucky to have been given an exceptional mind through the rather extraordinary process of your birth.  Does that fact alone not give you pause?  I think you will one day come to realize that this individual who was called Jesus was a pure vessel of truth.  Personally, I hesitate to place my opinion about creation or the existence of God, over his.  But I don't need to.  I, through my own eyes, nose and ears, observe the phenomenon of life and the extraordinary creativity, adaptability and order that is nature.  These manifestations may be argued to be the product of mere fortune; but I see that proposition as far less probable and a labored detour around the obvious.

Occam's razor suggests that explanations of phenomena should make as few assumptions as possible.  My dear Blues Fairy, (would that every woman and man were of your brilliance) it seems to this old, simple man that you may have, at least temporally, adopted the antithetical view of Brother Occam.  I've given my reasoning but your truth may vary.

 

[Eduard]

nicely written Ronnie!

[Ronnie]

It was late and I make a few errors..hopefully they're corrected now.

[Shadow]

Ronnie, looking from a different viewpoint you can state that in those times there were many children born attributed to spiritual beings. Just check the mythology of Roman and Greece times.
While very inspirational, the stories do not hold up in any other way than being spiritual allegories that have been rewritten and retranslated many times in to a combination. When inspected closely they do teach a way of life that is taught on many similar books and rites. And indeed not many find the way to follow this.
The heart of the matter is that with the development of our consciousness, we have also developed the fear of being temporary. That is why people want to leave their mark on the world. That is why they want to be remembered. That is why they want to be able to live on an a non-material way in an afterlife.
We will not find truth of religion and afterlife until it is our time to experience it. And that is a blessing. Any religion at core teaches values not to harm others if it can be avoided. It teaches to live your life in service of other people, and to take your joy from making others happy. This is the part of religion that, no matter which form it has for you, should be kept in your heart and soul.
If you manage that then you can be sure that when the time has come and there is a spiritual world, you will be accepted there no matter which form or worship (if any) you followed.

[Sort]

I agree with Shadow.
There is no matter what religion you have if you are sincere and honest and love strikes the religion have no matter.
A good heart is a good heart.
But still i can't undertsand the reason for this thread and the Stupid question.
Why is "She " the one that needs to change her religion?

[Blues Fairy]

So, Blues Fairy, you've been lucky to have been given an exceptional mind through the rather extraordinary process of your birth.  Does that fact alone not give you pause?  I think you will one day come to realize that this individual who was called Jesus was a pure vessel of truth.  Personally, I hesitate to place my opinion about creation or the existence of God, over his.  But I don't need to.  I, through my own eyes, nose and ears, observe the phenomenon of life and the extraordinary creativity, adaptability and order that is nature.  These manifestations may be argued to be the product of mere fortune; but I see that proposition as far less probable and a labored detour around the obvious.

Occam's razor suggests that explanations of phenomena should make as few assumptions as possible.  My dear Blues Fairy, (would that every woman and man were of your brilliance) it seems to this old, simple man that you may have, at least temporally, adopted the antithetical view of Brother Occam. 

Ronnie,

How should my being "given an exceptional mind through the rather extraordinary process of my birth" induce me to believe in God?  I assure you, my birth was quite ordinary, and my mind is a product of many years of reading, study, and mingling with people smarter than myself.  Nothing, absolutely nothing unattainable by mere humans.

You think you follow Occam's razor by explaining all "extraordinary" things by the intervention of a Divine mind.  That only shows that you are a very impressionable man who takes an easy shortcut in explaining the phenomena of this world, but by no means a true Occam's follower.   The extraordinary adaptability, creativity etc. of nature becomes far less enigmatic if you examine the principles of geological processes, genetic reproduction, natural selection et cetera.  To see these subtleties, you need no torch but a microscope, a scale, a thermometer etc.  To see (hear, feel) God, you need to abandon reason and simply believe.  Faith is the only tool of cognition of the Supernatural available to humans.  It is, also, the easiest and the weakest method of describing the complexity of the world - hardly a proper tribute to the wonderful phenomenon of human mind. 
   

[Blues Fairy]

Any religion at core teaches values not to harm others if it can be avoided. It teaches to live your life in service of other people, and to take your joy from making others happy.

Have you read Quran?

[Shadow]

Have you read Quran?

Have you ?
Some of my friends are Iman.

[Blues Fairy]

Have you ?
Some of my friends are Iman.

You mean Imam? 

Yes I have read Quran as part of my training in World History.
Quran qualifies as hate speach on each of the following counts:
- Drawing a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it
- Moral comparison based on this distinction
- Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the insistence of personal superiority
- The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
- A call to violence against members of other groups

[Shadow]

I know about which passages you write (if you refer to those not shared with the Bible), but there is discussion on if these are part of the Quran or part of the scriptures surrounding it.

[WmGO]

  The extraordinary adaptability, creativity etc. of nature becomes far less enigmatic if you examine the principles of geological processes, genetic reproduction, natural selection et cetera.  To see these subtleties, you need no torch but a microscope, a scale, a thermometer etc. 
    

These things all refer to MICRO evolution, not Macro evolution. Most
people confuse the two and/or fail to make a distinction between the two.
Micro evolution (natural selection and variation amongst species) is
testable, repeatable and observable and thus subject to the scientific
method.  On the other hand, Macro evolution - the theory that the world and universe created itself out of nothing is not.

Darwin spoke of MICRO not MACRO evolution.

The theory of MACRO evolution defies the scientific laws
and processes we know are hard and fast rules in the fields
of physics, chemistry and biology..............

 

[Shadow]

These things all refer to MICRO evolution, not Macro evolution. Most
people confuse the two and/or fail to make a distinction between the two.
Micro evolution (natural selection and variation amongst species) is
testable, repeatable and observable and thus subject to the scientific
method.  On the other hand, Macro evolution - the theory that the world and universe created itself out of nothing is not.

Darwin spoke of MICRO not MACRO evolution.

The theory of MACRO evolution defies the scientific laws
and processes we know are hard and fast rules in the fields
of physics, chemistry and biology..............

Would you please define the exact line between Micro and Macro evolution other than time scale ?
Would you please come up with *facts* that show macro-evolution defy the rules in those fields and state exactly which rules they defy ?

Please do not confuse macro-evolution with abiogenesis or theories about the creation of the universe, our solar system, planet or the creation of life itself.
Evolution is a theory (note not a hypothesis) that explains what happened *after* life was created, and does not go in to the process of the creation of life. It has been accepted as possible theory by the Vatican.

[WmGO]

Would you please define the exact line between Micro and Macro evolution other than time scale ?

Who said it was a time scale?  .


Would you please come up with *facts* that show macro-evolution defy the rules in those fields and state exactly which rules they defy ?


All of them, from the Rules of Thermodynamics to DNA Gentics - Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (may have that one reversed) to basic organic chemistry - nonorganic does not and cannot create organic


Please do not confuse macro-evolution with abiogenesis or theories about the creation of the universe, our solar system, planet or the creation of life itself.


Actually, that would be your confusion and lack of understanding of micro vs. macro as set forth by the world's scientists the last 200 years. But yes, MICRO is often confused, misrepresented and merged with MACRO, although
MACRO does include more than just creation itself. See infra.


Evolution is a theory

Again merging micro with macro.


(note not a hypothesis)


Theory = not a fact


that explains what happened *after* life was created
 

that is where  MICRO and  MACRO evolutionary theories and arguments become blurred and misrepresented. Adaptation and variation amongst species (always within and never without) is fact (MICRO) but not proof or evidence that 1. the world and universe created itself out of nothing or, 2. that nonorganic objects/things are capable of spontaneous creation of living organisms or, 3. that one living thing can or has every magically transformed into a completely different thing. ( all 3 MACRO evolution).


It has been accepted as possible theory by the Vatican.


Who gives a rat's re*ar what the "Vatican" says or does?

[Shadow]

Please answer the questions without trying to divert them.
Would you please define the exact line between Micro and Macro evolution other than time scale ?


Would you please come up with *facts* that show macro-evolution defy the rules in those fields and state exactly which rules they defy ? Be more clearer as to which rules exactly defy what.

Actually, that would be your confusion and lack of understanding of micro vs. macro as set forth by the world's scientists the last 200 years. But yes, MICRO is often confused, misrepresented and merged with MACRO, although
MACRO does include more than just creation itself. See infra. .

It is you who are misguided here. The theory of evolution does not and will not ever handle creation. Many people who debate evolution are drawn in to debating origins of life and theories related to those. However they are not part of the evolution theory, and telling otherwise is complete misinformation.

Evolution is a theory

Again merging micro with macro.

(note not a hypothesis)

Theory = not a fact.

that explains what happened *after* life was created,

that is where  MICRO and  MACRO evolutionary theories and arguments become blurred and misrepresented. Adaptation and variation amongst species (always within and never without) is fact (MICRO) but not proof or evidence that 1. the world and universe created itself out of nothing or, 2. that nonorganic objects/things are capable of spontaneous creation of living organisms or, 3. that one living thing can or has every magically transformed into a completely different thing. ( all 3 MACRO evolution)..

It has been accepted as possible theory by the Vatican.

Who gives a rat's re*ar what the "Vatican" says or does?

There is just one theory of evolution, although some people who have to accept proof try to split it in to two parts. And it does *not* try to explain the origins of life.
The remark about the Vatican is because a number of people will portray anyone who accepts the evolution theory as atheists.

It is far more likely that the changes we observe in fossils are created over time than believing they were all zapped in to existence without explaining why they do not exist as live specimens at this time and date.

[Ronnie]

Ronnie,

How should my being "given an exceptional mind through the rather extraordinary process of my birth" induce me to believe in God?  I assure you, my birth was quite ordinary, and my mind is a product of many years of reading, study, and mingling with people smarter than myself.  Nothing, absolutely nothing unattainable by mere humans.

You think you follow Occam's razor by explaining all "extraordinary" things by the intervention of a Divine mind.  That only shows that you are a very impressionable man who takes an easy shortcut in explaining the phenomena of this world, but by no means a true Occam's follower.   The extraordinary adaptability, creativity etc. of nature becomes far less enigmatic if you examine the principles of geological processes, genetic reproduction, natural selection et cetera.  To see these subtleties, you need no torch but a microscope, a scale, a thermometer etc.  To see (hear, feel) God, you need to abandon reason and simply believe.  Faith is the only tool of cognition of the Supernatural available to humans.  It is, also, the easiest and the weakest method of describing the complexity of the world - hardly a proper tribute to the wonderful phenomenon of human mind. 
  

Blues Fairy,
You said that if you saw a mermaid's skeleton you would believe in mermaids, yet you preclude the option that complex biological engineering may be the result of intelligence.  You find it easier to accept that it resulted from a chance process, not just once but over and over again.  Who is believing in fairy tales?
You find the process of birth to be ordinary?  I too find it ordinary that my car starts when I turn the key, but when I stand back away from my cognitive microscope I see the extraodinary engineering that produced what I now may think is ordinary.  Same is true for so many feats of intelligent work.

You surprisingly fail to attribute any of your knowledge or ability to reason to your inate intelligence.  Do you honestly believe everyone can acquire knowledge in the proportion to the amount of time spent studying?  You don't believe in IQ?  Maybe I misunderstood you.

Twice you mentioned that believing in God is the easy explanation or shortcut and therefore wrong (aren't shortcuts supposed to be the most direct way to the correct destination?).  Does not Occam's view state that the best explanation for a phenomenon is the one the requires the fewest assumptions?  The number of assumptions required to reject intelligent engineering of the universe, earth and all life is infinite.  Yet my explanation makes only one assumption.

I'm beginning to think that you have gained a certain pride in your acquistion of knowledge and that pride is dictating things to you that override your better judgment on this one topic.  You and I agree on virtually every topic but this one.  Why is that?  Because I, twenty years your senior, am impressionable?  Think that through again.

[Ronnie]

As to natural selection;  It does make sense and I don't fully reject it.  However, the theory does raise questions. 

For example, I remember in school learning about the long necks of the giraffe as resulting from natural selection.  I makes sense at first that giraffes with the longer necks would be able to reach the higher leaves on trees and where all the lower leaves are consumed by overpopulation, the longer necked giraffe survives and the reproduces even longer necked offspring over time.
Now without thinking too much I can accept it.  But when I think and question the theory starts to fall apart.  Here are a few questions that I have about the giraffe:


• Are there any fossilized skeletal remains of shorter necked giraffes?
• Why only the giraffe, were there not other contemporary herbivours who didn't develop longer necks? Wildebeest or rhinoceros for example?
• Would not the process reverse itself in a region where the giraffe population increased to the point that tree leaves were more plentiful on the lower branches?
• Why is it in observations of giraffes on the Serengeti, they feed mostly at or below shoulder level... the only time they are seen feeding from the tops of Acacia trees in during the rainy season when all plants are abundant?

The renown British physicist Lord Kelvin wrote, "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us...the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that i cannot put it into words."

[Shadow]

• Are there any fossilized skeletal remains of shorter necked giraffes?
• Why only the giraffe, were there not other contemporary herbivours who didn't develop longer necks? Wildebeest or rhinoceros for example?

• Would not the process reverse itself in a region where the giraffe population increased to the point that tree leaves were more plentiful on the lower branches?
• Why is it in observations of giraffes on the Serengeti, the only time they are seen feeding from the tops of Acacia trees in during the rainy season when all plants are abundant?

1. Yes.
2. There are alternative explanations for the development of the long neck.
3. No, see 2
4. Because Giraffes have a specialized taste for Acacia leaves.

Kelvin lived mostly in the 19th century. Had he lived today he might have had another opinion.

[Ronnie]

Shadow,
Your answers are short and elicit only more questions.  About Kelvin..how can you pretend to know what his opinion would be today.  My point in quoting him was that his frustration with atheism comes from the wholesale abandonment of reason by those who profess it, to the point that no words seem to trigger rational discussion with them.

As to the fossil remains of "evolving" giraffes... could they not be the remains of okapi?

http://www.atpm.com/7.06/southern-california/images/okapi.jpg

The alternative explanations for the long neck in giraffids are, pardon the pun...a stretch. 

Here's my point I was raising with Blues Fairy.  She claims that the explantion that requires the fewest assumption is the best, citing Friar Occam (?).  Then finds in her conclusion that any explanation that involves intelligent design is "too easy."  This defies reason on its face.

I spent my life analyzing risk vs reward.  What is the risk in accepting the existence of God?  What is the downside?  I'll answer.  I find no upside to denying God.  See no downside in accepting God as long as man continues to study and learn.  Do we not understand our own language?  Discover means literally to "uncover a previously unknown fact"  Man does not create he can only discover.

Does mankind need God to do good works?  Of course not, but those who do evil things seem to have no regard for God whether they profess his existence or not.  Those who will do good will do it without considering God , those who will do evil will also do it regardless of God's existence.  I suspect that many are in the middle and are guided by or comforted by God's existence and refrain from bad deeds and others who convince themselve there is no God, may be less compelled to so refrain.  So, were there is doubt in anyone's thinking, there can be little doubt that the risk/reward analysis favors only one side.

 

[Shadow]

Ronnie, your Occams razor seems to be working in the wrong direction.

Supposed the intelligent design is true, by which God/being was this done ? There are many religions in this world, and many more religions that are no longer followed. There for intelligent design raises the scientific question of exactly which entity is responsible for the design, at which time the design was done, why the design was redone or changed over time....
In your version there is the assumption there was intelligent design, the assumption it was the Biblical God who designed and many more assumption regarding the level of earth history vs creation myths that you take for granted or not.
As for atheist there is just one assumption that it is the result of a chaotic pattern that is repeatable.

The downside of accepting God and following the procedures he set up for forgiveness is that when it turns out to be Allah you are really screwed.  Having said that, I fully respect anyone who embraces religion to lead their life according to the principles I posted earlier.

I do not know which alternatives for the Giraffe you speak of, the ones I read seem as plausible as the one reaching for leaves.
As the Giraffes split off from the deer a very long time ago, there are distinct differences between them and an okapi, who by itself shows that similar traits can develop in different animals.

[Blues Fairy]

You find it easier to accept that it resulted from a chance process, not just once but over and over again.  Who is believing in fairy tales?

Are you saying there are no other options in between Chance and God?  Evolution is not a chance process; it's a long and gradual accumulation of micro-events that are somewhat improbable but not prohibitevely so.  The cumulative results may seem highly improbable, but not irreducibly so.  Think of a mountain unscalable on one side but with a nice long walkable slope on the other side.  You are standing on the brink of the precipice in awe of the Unthinkable Heights in front of you and failing to see the slope right behind you.

You find the process of birth to be ordinary?  I too find it ordinary that my car starts when I turn the key, but when I stand back away from my cognitive microscope I see the extraodinary engineering that produced what I now may think is ordinary.  Same is true for so many feats of intelligent work.

So you agree that to perceive something as extraordinary (= Divine), you have to "stand back from the cognitive microscope".  That's exactly how a religious mind works: it stands back from the cognitive tools and resorts to the unwarranted default of God, failing to explore the true mechanisms of phenomena.

You surprisingly fail to attribute any of your knowledge or ability to reason to your inate intelligence.  Do you honestly believe everyone can acquire knowledge in the proportion to the amount of time spent studying?  You don't believe in IQ?  Maybe I misunderstood you.

I believe in the good genes and good upbringing.   No God necessary here to explain things.

Twice you mentioned that believing in God is the easy explanation or shortcut and therefore wrong (aren't shortcuts supposed to be the most direct way to the correct destination?).  Does not Occam's view state that the best explanation for a phenomenon is the one the requires the fewest assumptions?  The number of assumptions required to reject intelligent engineering of the universe, earth and all life is infinite.  Yet my explanation makes only one assumption.

Bravo, Ronnie, on your very elegant, though hardly original argument!  You mistakenly suppose that God is the simplest, and therefore the true, explanation of the natural phenomena.  However, the assumption of the existence of God raises more questions than gives answers, if you think about it carefully.  Why is the omniscient and omnipotent God so horribly inefficient in his creative efforts?  Why so many failed designs, given his perfect Mind?  How do omniscience and omnipotence co-exist in one God if they are, in fact, mutually exclusive?  Etc, etc.

These problems arise every time you introduce an unwarranted entity into your theoretical constructions: e.g. explaining the principle of operation of a TV set by the intervention of God, or little demons, or Elves.  By shortcutting to God, you restrict your exploratory urge and stand back from the path that would lead you to real knowledge.   That's laziness, at the very least. 

I'm beginning to think that you have gained a certain pride in your acquistion of knowledge and that pride is dictating things to you that override your better judgment on this one topic.  You and I agree on virtually every topic but this one.  Why is that?  Because I, twenty years your senior, am impressionable?  Think that through again.

Being proud of one's knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of, Ronnie, as is being young.  And if anything, your appeal to our age difference as the compelling argument in your favor, displays your lack of more compelling arguments.