- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Science and morality cannot co-exist because for science and morality to co-exist scientists have to give way to morality to be the guiding force for all actions scientists take.
Example, look at how science uses animals, cruelty to animals is illegal but why can science use animals to advance their efforts?
Science uses animals to advance their research and this is immoral, but the argument against this is it is for the greater good.
Who's greater good, the greater good of general population or mega corporations? Science is steeped in greed and self glorification; greed from the business perspective and self glorification from the nobel prize perspective
Science and morality will never co-exist, because for science to advance (in one of many aspects) there always has to be a guinea pig and money, and the only way to prove the scientists efforts are worth funding is through experimentation or some profound find.
You're right, atheists do make their claim God does not exist at all, but not one atheist has proved their claim and position even "once". Here is the polemic argument of an agnostic against atheism.
A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.
Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.
If this comes from CNN why shouldn't they be shut down for egregious display of modern day oppression and slavery. They themselves are using their platform to get a rally going to shut down one voice. Could this one voice be so damaging to American belief system better shut him up? In a day and age when the main mantra of the day is equal rights and equality for everyone this is what comes out of the wood works. I don't believe in equal rights for everyone but I do believe everyone is allowed to have their say.
Thought you were a Jew Super Stupid ????
What is wrong with Jewish people???? State your claim, but don't run down another race especially Jewish people to make your point heard. You sound like a person who loves to be heard, and to get your point out there you will use racial slurs to assist your efforts. If you can't articulate your point with class and style don't make one!
Hey man, I agree with your argument for the most part however if the 2nd amendment can be amended when will the issue be resolved because everyone involved in the amending will have their opinions and expect their opinions to be encapsulated in the amendment? Another point is we are talking about politicians on both sides of the debate and they each have their personal agenda, this will be another roadblock to contend with. And here is the unknown factor which is a probability - on a scale of o 1-10 probably around 5 - what about the responsible people who suffer traumatic events which cause them to become embittered and seek revenge of some sort, sad and true we have teenagers suffering cyber-bullying and other atrocities which have a dangerous impact on their psyche etc. For those of us who are not in the seats of authority it's easy to give quick witted solutions to a very complex problem, but dealing with the inherent "person" problem is going to take far more than a few laws and amendments to effect the problems we face. Why not just ban guns altogether? Very noble idea but it won't stop people killing. And what about the people who enjoy hunting should they be banned from a sport they enjoy? Stopping people from enjoying their hobbies because of a few bad apples who ruin the environment for others is unfair. The same argument goes for weekend warriors who enjoy time at the gun range. Why not lower the price for professionals help. I.e psychologists lower their fees to give assistance to people who are mentally unstable. The problem isn't the guns, it is the people who are doing the killing, and the murderers are spiritually, emotionally and mentally unstable. They are unstable both in spirit and soul. To stop a murderer from murdering they need real help, but here is another problem the cost to get real help is really expensive, so what are they to do? Just another perspective to look at this difficult situation from.
Part A) I am simply claiming to understand things that they don't about objective reality because their beliefs happen to be wrong.
Part B) I don't know better than everyone, just people who are wrong about things that I am correct about.
My Argument: The argument against God has and will always be the writer knows better than anyone and everyone else!
You prove my argument by trying to disprove my argument. Are you stupid?
Which nation? Which God? There are multiple cultures with "proofs" of their Gods.
If there are multiple nations with proof about their god, give me another example other than Israel? And proof about the existence of God? Yeshua Hamashiach was God incarnate! Disprove this satatement.
Some things have been found to be historically accurate.
Which parts are historically accurate? I say all of history in relation to the Tanakh is and will always be historically accurate including but not limiting to the miracles contained within.
I'm done wasting my time with this hogwash poppycock drivel.
Four statements to get to the depth of your understanding? You're not even worth arguing against because the depth of your understanding and knowledge base is as shallow as a puddle. Go and read a thousand books about Jesus Christ then come back and argue other wise your a waste of time.
Wrong again retard, I am simply claiming to understand things that they don't about objective reality because their beliefs happen to be wrong.
You think you know about objective reality better than anybody else? And how do you know their beliefs are wrong? You're the idiot with the wrong beliefs. If you think you know about objective reality, tell me how this happened "objectively"? A lady who has been dead for 130 years and she has "NOT" decayed in the slightest bit. Here is a link to her photo http://bit.ly/2GWByKI.
And here is another fact you little snake, you wouldn't know what is right or wrong if you had the manual to help you tell the difference. Wouldn't matter anyway because you wouldn't know how to understand it.
And here is another fact: What about Dr Heidi Baker who has personally seen impossible to explain miracles in the country of Africa? Here is a link to a video: http://bit.ly/2BjDc8y
Or what about Kathryn Kuhlman and the miracles and ministry she operated? Then you have the likes of Smith Wigglesworth, who himself raised 17 people from the dead (including his own wife), maimed people received their body parts back. Then you have Margy Palm and Stephen Peter Morin, Katie Souza, Steve and Pam Johnson - their 2 year old daughter was murdered and then 12 hours after being dead she comes back to life, who is as far as known 14 years old, perfectly healthy no problems, mentally physically or emotionally. Carol Kornacki and the list goes on and on and on.
You are being stupid on purpose. I don't know better than everyone, just people who are wrong about things that I am correct about. If you are going to say this simply because people disagree that God exists then it could be applied to any argument about anything universally including arguments FOR the existence of God. You know it alls think you know everything, how dare you tell me God exists!
GOD EXISTS!!! I will tell you and I will tell you a thousand times. But you are a deluded fool who still thinks you know better than everyone else, you don't even bother to look for evidence to prove your right! There are more miracles happening in todays day and age than anytime else. But why don't you go out there and look for it, because you're an idiot and lazy.
Which nation? Which God? There are multiple cultures with "proofs" of their Gods, in reality all of these "proofs" are pure bullshit and all religions are the product of the culture they arose from.
Yeah, where is the proof? The only nation to show proof about the existence of God is Israel. And then there is the death and resurrection of Yeshua Hamashiach. You have Israel and the Exodus from Egypt, you have the Israeli nation walking the desert for 40 years, you have Noahs flood. You have the miracles Yeshua did himself - historical fact!
There are more evidence and facts in all the world to make a liar out of you any time of the day and any day of the year. Go bury your head in the sand, you're just like all these other idiots who think they know better.
This entire argument is a contradiction because the person who formulated the argument is attempting to express dominion over another persons beliefs, values and opinions. And this argument is attempting to show they have supreme wisdom and intelligence. The argument against God has and will always be the writer knows better than anyone and everyone else!
You take a look at every argument trying to disprove the existence of God, God doesn't exist because, because of this, because of blah, and blah and blah. There are thousands of different arguments created to try and disprove the existence of Adonai.
Now here is some evidence against these nay-sayers:
- You have an entire nation whose heritage and history is spotted and speckled with evidence detailing acts of God.
- You also have an entire scientific community who have scrutinised the historic validity regarding the Bible. The scientific community has used textual criticism, archaeology, medicine, history and a slew of other science based resources. So this writer knows better than all these scientists too
- And then you have social communities who have experienced miracles, healings, prophecies, knowledge, wisdom the world over in today's day and age too.
- And then you have the hardest mystery of all to try and disprove; God Himself turn up as a man. His original name is Yeshua HaMashiach, but people today also refer to Him as Jesus Christ. There is blood evidence scrutinised by scientists. And they have diagnosed and determined the blood has a foundation impossible to possess, unless for one specific premise, He was born of a virgin and His chromosome numero viente cuatro came from another source other than a human male.
If the person who created this argument actually dug around for some evidence looking at both sides of the coin before going off on their little rant, they would have found some evidence which makes their current position look foolish. People are always going to think they know better when it comes to disproving the existence of Adonai. The truth of this person's position is very very dire indeed, because they only have themselves to look to for strength and support or to their fellow man. The problem is when you look to yourself for strength and support your like a wave tossed about in the ocean by the winds or if you look to another man for strength and support the person you look to will probably throw them under the bus just to get ahead, his bros will probably screw his missus too, and when he gets married his missus will screw around on him too. And then after all his pain and suffering and when he is old he will probably turn to Adonai and say why did you do this to me, I thought you were loving. The irony is he ranted off about God and then after all the pains, trials and tribulations he will take the audacious position of trying to talk to God to find comfort and solace. So all in all when he suffers his consequences and life has smashed him to the ground he will trun around and talk to God, so he's a hypocrit too.
I am definitely opposed to the idea of siblings marrying each other etc, but what happens if an couple meet each other, go out, have sex etc then get married. Now after they have gone way over the boundaries of what they shouldn't do, dig back into their past and learn they have the same father but different mothers, because back in the father's hey-day he liked to sleep around and refused to be tied down to any one girl?
What happens here, two people who are completely innocent in the beginning, have now created a life with each other, may even had kids? The complexities of the situation are way beyond anything any one can work out. For the sake of simplicity they should get a divorce and then kill off the child/children?
The added problem to this (seemingly) fictitious scenario is, it HAS happened here in Australia. I have my values and beliefs and also the added bonus of not being caught in a situation like this, yes I agree it is incestuous at a fundamental level. Here is hoping they fall out of love and break up, and life runs its course of events.
I can't condone this, but I can't condemn it either, because I refuse and cannot play judge, jury and executioner. Given this scenario, the lesson learned for me, is I understand why it is important to not sleep around.
Food for thought.
First off let me say, I choose no not because of a sanctimonious perspective but because I believe in the abilities of the human spirit to overcome atrocities, traumas of any kind and more. This is a really difficult position to stand for or against, I totally comprehend and understand why the person would do such a thing, because the baby is conceived out of the most horrible circumstances and everyday would be difficult for the mother who stares at a reminder of her violation instead of through loving eyes and heart.
But then there is the opposing view (and this may well come off as arrogant) we all suffer tremendous trials and tribulations and we don't get the choice of the easy way out, 99% of us who suffer sexual crimes have to go through it and endure it too, we would like the idea of being able to kill off the people who violated us sexually, unfortunately this is not how society works and so we have to live with the knowledge the people who have violated us are allowed to endure according to the graces afforded them through civil laws and liberties.
So aborting the baby could be a form of revenge against the assailant, and a physical expression of hatred towards another, these acts and more are definitely within the abilities of the person who does so, but the problem isn't being address for the better it is being exacerbated.
The person who was violated should seek counselling and healing of the soul so she can deal with the trauma and receive power to overcome the event and the effects it has on her. Be transformed from one person who was stripped of her rights, dignity and honour into one who maintained who dignity, honour, values and righteousness as well as increasing her graces, glories, mercies, compassions and more, then being a role model and shining light for other people who have suffered similar atrocities.
I get it, she wants to get rid of the baby because of pains she is feeling and wants out of the pain, but through counselling and healing she and many others can be taught to embrace the horror and through embracing learn to forgive truly, and then be caused to forget their pains. Having the baby would cause her to become one of the most powerful voices and woman on the planet. Pain precedes glory, the only thing is normal people cannot say what pain they have to suffer and endure then overcome in order to attain the glory reserved for them.
I remember a story about a woman who in one night was blocked by four hundred men, she took all those men and when they all finished she pulled up her pants, walked out of there with her head held high. If you're ignorant of what "blocked" means, it's a gang term for being screwed by all the men in a gang. This happened back in NZ.
If you can persuade me that you're willing to make a proper contribution to this debate, I will lift the ban I've just placed.
Why does someone else have to prove to you they can make a proper contribution to the debate. Who do you think you are placing a ban on someone, and then they have to justify to you they can make good contributions to any debates. You're not the judge, you're not the be all and end all of their actions and decisions.
What if the person doesn't know how to argue according to the level of logic you use to make your arguments, what if the person is just learning how to argue, and because of you, you are preventing them from honing out their skills to become an effective critical thinker? We all must persevere with people lesser than ourselves just like people better than us have to persevere with us.
If you don't like someone elses reply to your argument, and their argument is nonsense, tell them it's nonsense but don't ban them. You will do more for them using criticism than you would banning them.
God is not made, He is. And all His decisions are guided by wisdom. The real problem is people think they know what is right and wise until the consequences of their actions reveals the truth about their decisions. I'm sure you would agree with this statement, people are easily fooled and manipulated into wrong choices, the problem is we don't know these choices are bad for us until the consequences hit us for those bad choices. And even if we are made aware of the consequences for our choices our souls are already attached to the thing which is bad for us.
It's like bad choices/decisions shackles our souls/takes our soul hostage and we become prisoners to the outcome whether we try to resist or not. If this is true, humanity is screwed and we are powerless to stop our own destruction. If it's true how can we stop the demise which waits for us around every corner? But if it's false, what is the cause for dumb decisions and choices people make, and if we make dumb choices how come we can't escape making more dumb choices?
Why is God naive. He created everything and we screw it up the best part of it all. When we receive something good we destroy it somehow or waste it because of the foolishness inside of us. It isn't God is naive, it is people are stupid and foolish with small, and good blessings. People in general don't have the wisdom to utilise the gifts we receive in the right manner which will increase the quality of our lives. E.g: how many people have won the lottery and now they are broke again? How many people keep buying lottery tickets hoping to get rich quick? How many people have started a business for it to fail almost instantly (I know this one I have done it myself)? How many of us have wasted the opportunities we have been given? God isn't naive, people are inherently foolish, and only the rod of pain will drive the folly out of us.
This handle people with kid gloves because of their folly stupidity will not work, if being gentle on people would actually work, there would be a lot more happy people on earth because we made better decisions, not folly driven decisions.
Well 16 yrs is probably a safe number people are comfortable with accepting. So what is the definition of an "adult" anyway. According to websters dictionary it states an adult is someone who is "fully grown or developed". Well for me and many other people this is a very vague definition for something seriously important like adulthood.
If we use factors like abilities to make money, and buy major items in life; house, car, reproductive abilities etc there are children as young as 6 years old who are doing better at some of these factors than adults. I consistently read stories of children a quarter my age making 5 times more money than me, and I am on some descent coin, so to be honest we can't use external factors to determine if a person can be considered an adult or not. Not to mention 10 year olds popping out babies, and engaging in sex exposing themselves to responsibility while being totally vulnerable and unprepared should they make a baby.
Maybe we should use internal factors like being able to make wise and sensible decisions leading to favourable consequences. If this were the case then many adults who are alcoholics, or drug addicts, or the many men and women who make babies then hit the highway as soon as possible, or theives, or adulterers, or murderers, or con artists would totally destroy this argument of "the ability to make wise decisions is the defining characteristic to determine when a person becomes an adult or not". Fact of the matter millions upon millions of people make appalling decisions daily, and people are mortgaging their homes in the desperation of getting rich quick, anyone who is sensible enough knows this is a very dangerous move and game the people are playing, what if their gamble fails (and nine times out of ten it does), the people and children lose everything, the man loses everything he worked for as well as his wife and children all because of the desire for money was the root for all their stupidity, and some by longing for it wandered away from sure steps and exposed themselves to many griefs.
I believe a kid becomes an adult when they are given a situation which is difficult to handle even in the eyes of an adult, take on the challenge presented to them and cause the situation to succeed instead of erode into chaos and destruction. History is riddled with stories of families losing the bread winner and then the eldest son steps up and takes on the responsibilities as man of the house, or parents are tragically killed and the eldest daughter steps up and nurtures her siblings towards success and taking on responsibility.
I believe you become an adult when you take on responsibilities whatever their form and shape and you steer those responsibilities and the situation towards success. Age is nothing but a number.
The jurisdiction of Adonai extends to the farthest recesses of the universe, and higher and wider still, you talk about things you don't know anything about and in your arrogance you make claims based upon your ignorance. You don't have the balls to do some research to get a clue so you can present an argument which inspires a debate. You speak from your own foolishness, typical of a fool I suppose.
1. Historical evidence routinely includes ancient literature, business records, and government documents, analyzed in conjunction with linguistics, geography, and archaeological analysis of physical objects (pottery, coins, remains of buildings, etc.), using forensic science techniques.
2. After many millions of man-hours of research and evidence analysis, archaeology has repeatedly confirmed the reliability of the Bible. The Bible has been proven geographically and re-proven historically accurate, in the most exacting detail, by external evidences.
Here are some other facts to seriously challenge atheistically inclined mindsets. And food for thought, if the Bible is proven to be historically accurate what about the miracles which have taken place too?
3. The Bible has become a significant source book for secular archaeology, helping to identify such ancient figures as Sargon (Isaiah 20:1); Sennacherib (Isaiah 37:37); Horam of Gazer (Joshua 10:33); Hazar (Joshua 15:27); and the nation of the Hittites (Genesis 15:20). The biblical record, unlike other “scriptures,” is historically set, opening itself up for testing and verification.
4. Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other “religious” document comes even close.
5. The 19th-century critics used to deny the historicity of the Hittites, the Horites, the Edomites, and various other peoples, nations, and cities mentioned in the Bible. Those critics have long been silenced by the archaeologist’s spade, and few critics dare to question the geographical and ethnological reliability of the Bible.
6. The names of over 40 different kings of various countries mentioned in the Bible have all been found in contemporary documents and inscriptions outside of the Old Testament, and are always consistent with the times and places associated with them in the Bible. Nothing exists in ancient literature that has been even remotely as well-confirmed in accuracy as has the Bible.
What you call bigoted, other people refer to as adamant. If you want to be truly tolerant, it means having no beliefs at all. Because being bigoted or adamant requires being firm in your beliefs, so what's it to be; are people to be tolerant or believing. The problem with tolerance is no one will ever rise to higher levels of success, but with belief people are capable of astounding levels of success. And if we pursue tolerance to it's ultimate conclusion society will be transformed into a new form of dictatorship because the general public cannot get their own values and beliefs right, so government will step in and implement what they believe is right for society, standing on the brink of martial law.
What?! Oppress the homophobes. Why? Why does any oppression have to happen in the first place? You don't have to be homophobic to not want to tolerate gays. This is stupid. I and anyone for this matter can be friends with people of same sex orientation but we don't have to be accepting of their sexual orientation. What is wrong for wanting better for people who cannot get it right when it comes to sexual orientation?
Example: We know poverty is wrong. Poverty doesn't harm the people who live this way, yet there are many people in the world who know there is a better way to live and offer methods and teachings for those living in poverty, so they can rise above their blight and step into a more glorious lifestyle. But the people living in poverty who refuse to accept the offers for a better life are considered foolish, arrogant and stupid, by people who live richer lifestyles. And from simple observations those of us who live better lives know poverty is wrong.
So why can't those of us who are heterosexual and have righteous beliefs offer our way of life to those who live sub-par to their natural inheritance. And if same sex orientation were righteous and true, what would have happened to mankind from the beginning, if two men or two women got into a relationship? Same sex relationships has been and will always be the curse to eradicate mankind. No good will ever come from same sex relationships.
But your suggestion government should oppress people for their beliefs as an answer is down right stupid, don't get me wrong any crimes should be punished, but not people for their beliefs. You seem a smart man. Instead of working together for elevating people to a higher level of living you would rather one group be oppressed so the other group can live better. This sounds similar to what Hitler done.
Give one example of same sex relationships producing good results for society, where heterosexual relationships cannot compete?
Well it doesn't matter what anyone believes, sane or insane. If Trump is INsane then America is made up of the most insane people on the planet, because the INsane people chose him to be the next President. But then if President Trump is sane, the sanity of the people has spoken. Now President Trump being a multi-billionaire, you do not acquire this level of success from being insane, to think so is proper insanity. You only ever acquire this level of wealth from being smart and intelligent and courageous. But President Trump is a very smart man and the people who try to manipulate the government for personal purposes cannot run their game on President Trump because he is very savvy to their tricks and trades. The voices of the christian community and the voices of the middle classed people and the voices of the black community and the voices of the workers who are sick and tired of all the lies spit out from the government elected Trump because they wanted someone who would initiate change, and change he has initiated. You want an insane person you take a damn good look at Kim Jong Un.
Why do you say Trump is out of his mind? Chaos has always been in the middle east, you can't say there is more chaos because the is no way to measure whether it is more chaos or less chaos than before. Trump has done what many other Presidents before him have "said" but failed to "do". Other presidents used the Jewish people and their situation to win the hearts of people for the purposes for winning an election but when it came time to fulfil their word they completely disregarded and never even bothered to try and make good on their statements. Trump is one of the last reasons America has not fallen into total destruction yet. Trump is in many ways the grace of God for the nation of America. When Trump has had his run, America will fall. The economic crises, the unemployment situation, the bubbles which are all over the country, the nation is on its last legs.
America wasn't in the possession of the native Americans 3000 years ago. But here is a bit of 411 for you, the native Americans may well be Israeli descent. There are many similarities between the Indians and their style of living and the style of living of the Israeli's before the nation was divided, archaeological evidence has revealed this profound fact.
Fighting sports should NOT be outlawed. Here are some reasons why.
1. Fighting is prevalent in any society. And because of bullying people take up a fighting sport to learn how to protect themselves. So if we outlaw the fighting sport, the opportunity for people to learn how to protect themselves because of oppression from bullies, now becomes illegal. The flow on effect, bullies become oppressors with no one to stop them, and the style of oppression these bullies incorporate does not warrant using weapons and arms to stop them harassing. So what should the victim do, tell someone else so they can try and stop the harassment? Then the oppressor has a new target to practice their new found strength on, and the oppression continues.
2. Fighting sports is one of the most effective ways for people to develop self confidence and self protection. If people didn't fight back there would be two kinds of people in this world. Oppressors and victims. Even the simple act of SPEAKING back can incur a violent response, so what then let the violent act occur without a like-minded response.
3. Violence is prevalent in every society. One of a few ways people learn to protect themselves is through fighting sports.
4. Women being raped. Without learning to protect themselves from fighting sports many more women would be victims of rape and sex crimes, than has already happened.
5. If you want to outlaw fighting sports, you will have to outlaw all full contact sports entirely. Because Rugby, Rugby League, Grid Iron, Ice Hockey have the potential to do a lot more serious harm and cause much more injuries than fighting sports can. Based on tackles and full contact hits from sports like grid iron and rugby etc, the amount of ex-players in these sports who suffer from serious medical conditions is astounding, yet very little is spoken about these conditions and the causes of them.
6. You see a few people get a couple of black eyes, and fat lip and other injuries and call for an outlaw on this form of sport. What about motor car racing, equestrian, show jumping, sky diving, etc? The risk of serious injury or even fatality is present in any sport in the world. Even chess can cause mental stress and potentially depression, should we outlaw chess too, because mental anxieties can cause a person to commit murder.
The point of the argument is, fighting sports has many benefits, and in comparison to other sports it is a lot more safer with fewer risks. Risks are still present, but they are more easily mitigated.
It's unethical, why should anybody be forced to tolerate same sex? Would the same sex practicing person tolerate a Biblical perspective and public declaration same sex practices are an abomination? If we are forced to tolerate one group of people so they can feel a little more comfortable in society, which group will be next, and so on and so on and so on. And of all the forced tolerance happening the groups who are forced to tolerate are having their freedoms, their rights, and their personal values and beliefs forcibly silenced. The people who have values and beliefs same sex practices are wrong are entitled to keep them and should not be forced to tolerate the opposing value of their beliefs, we in essence are creating a society of schizophrenics. The ultimate conclusion of being forced to tolerate a group in society is 'society, eventually, will not have an individual identity'. Forced tolerance is murder of individual identity.