What you're doing is showing your faithiesm

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

The difference between everything you mentioned and God as a concept is that the idea of God has explanatory power. The question of whether the Universe had intelligent causation is a valid question, and from what we know (that space time energy and matter had a finite beginning), the cause of the Universe would be immaterial, spaceless, timeless and transcendent. These perfectly describe attributes of an all powerful God. We also have evidence of design in the Universe and the fine tuning of physical laws. So, to rule God out as an explanation is simply ignorant. Between evolution and special creation, you have virtually exausted the possibilities of how life came to exist.



>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Morganth:
No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.
If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play.
Seriously dude? Hamlet? That's not a person. He's a character in a play, your analogy is utterly useless other than to confuse the gullible.
I make no assumptions about the nature of God, you are the one who makes assumptions about the nature of God. You HAVE to make assumptions about the nature of God to make your argument work. I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature.
There is an infinitum of proposals you cannot prove to be true or false. Unicorns, wizards and dragons ruled the earth 2000 years ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created God. All the matching pairs of socks that go missing are stolen by sock-goblins. The proposal that God exists is, therefore only one in an infinity of unprovable junk. Unless you are prepared to believe that UFOs abduct people and mutilate cows and every other stupid theory people throw out there, you have no reason to believe the Universe was created by some kind of sentient being. One is just as likely as the other. If we believed in unprovable junk we'd never get anything done, the scientists would all be bogged down in nonsense and we wouldn't have iPods and personal computers. We'd still be banging rocks together.

It leaves me wondering when Sagan first uttered those timeless words, 'corrosive flatulence'.

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

Laughing at people falling, especially those in low gravity, is timeless.

Hey there. I guess I've just been focused on other things, but I still love you guys.

According to Occams razor, the theory that makes the fewest amount of assumptions is the right one. IE, do not multiple causes unnecessarily. There are only 2 ways to look at this. Either something came from nothing, which is logically incoherent, or there is an eternal first cause. The eternal first cause is obviously the more simple explanation. So, this eternal first cause created the Universe, and since we know that time, space, matter and energy had a beginning at the big bang, we know that the first cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and transcendent, as well as being enormously powerful. Those all match God perfectly. God is the most simple explanation for origins based on the evidence. Since God is uncreated and has always existed, we don't need to explain His origins either. The buck stops with Him.

Many scientific theories about origins violate occams razor but no one seems to care about that. For instance, the fine tuning of the Universe, the precise calibrations of the 30 or so values that make it and life possible, are a mathematical impossibility to come about by pure chance. The ratio of electrons to protons must be better than one part in 10 to the 37th power, otherwise no stars or planets would have formed. That's 1 with 37 zeroes. The expansion rate of the universe must be tuned to within one part in 10 to the 55th power. If you take all of those values together, you have a well crafted Universe which defies explanation by naturalistic means. Scientists have recognized this..even dawkins admits the Universe has the "appearance" of design.

So, to counteract this fact they postulate the multiple universe hypothesis. The corralary would be, if you have one roulette wheel, you are very unlikely to guess the number that comes up. But if you have 500 roulette wheels, your number suddenly becomes very likely to come up. So, if you have multiple universes, you can now explain away design because we just happen to be in the Universe that appears as if it is designed, which is mathematically certain to happen at some point. However, this metaphysical explantion, for which there is no evidence, completely violates occams razor. You now must not only explain all of these Universes and how the laws of physics evolved in them, but also the Universe Generator that is churning them out, which would require even more fine tuning than our Universe has.

On the question of first causes, science is rambling and incoherent, delving into metaphysics which contradict reason and just plain common sense. God is a far more simple explanation than any of this, and it matches the facts of the matter perfectly.

Yeah, this was awesome. Queen is one of those few bands that are timeless.

It's nice to see a well reasoned defense that the Universe had a beginning. The thought of science before that was that the Universe was infinite and had no beginning or end. This is something Einstein believed as well. It used to be one of the tools of the skeptic to say that creation couldn't be true. But, we now know the truth, that the Universe was created by something else. One of the discoverers of the cosmic background microwave radiation said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you
are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis"

Even men of science understood the definitive connection between God and the origin of the Universe. Materialists though like to posit that there are infinite Universes and dimensions, anything they can do to muddy the conclusion that there was a single source. They want an infinite stack of turtles because they don't ever want to see what is at the bottom of the pile.

It's clear the ultimate cause of all things is eternal, just by simple logic. Something doesn't come from nothing. Either there was always something, or there would never be anything. So, therefore something always has existed, which means it is eternal. The Universe has an eternal first cause which is transcendent, immaterial and timeless. Anyone with even the thinnest shred of reason can tell what that means, but reason doesn't often enter into the argument.

Cramming "statism" into every sift that involves some manifestation of government makes you look like a crackpot and a fanatic. This is about the inherent weakness and inadequacy of our species, our timeless capacity for cruelty, and the way in which lesser men react when in positions of authority.

OK Winstonfield, I'll tell you why you're a (religious) idiot. You seem to be asking for it after all.

1. All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers. It probably goes further back than that, but we only have records up to the Greeks. Religions at that time did not concern themselves with ethical matters, at least not in any systematized way (it was a collection of old wives' tale about what happened to the boy who cried wolf, etc.). Judaism was one of the first, if not the first, religion to do this. This is why it was laughed at. Everyone in the ancient world knew that religion had nothing to do with raising good people: the City did. Nowadays we would say: the school, or the government or whatever. Only when religion takes over the schools or the government (like Judaism did in Judea or Christianity in medieval Europe) does it serve that purpose. And all monotheistic religions, by their nature, seek to become the only power, so it makes sense that they would encompass all things about life. Which makes their message too spread out and (philosophically) weak. This is why a religion like Christianity, that was proliferated by Roman slaves, could itself become the basis for Black slavery centuries later.

2. Churches do not want to build better people for a better world. They want to indoctrinate people so that the Church becomes the World. They want uniformity of thought. They are totalitarian in their very nature. Especially monotheist Churches. But then again, polytheisms usually do not have Churches.

3. Churches do not teach moral behavior. They preach moral behavior. Anyone can preach. Few can teach. The ancient Greek and Roman nobility would pay fortunes to get a good teacher for their children, and the City was seen as having a duty to educate all children to become proper citizens. And here you say we must put our faith in the words of preachers, who recite two thousand year old parables about a supposed King of the Jews that lived in a Roman controlled desert? What the fuck is wrong with you?

4. You should learn about Evolutionary Stable Strategies. For a strategy to be evolutionary stable, it is not required that it do anyone any good, only that it be good at reproducing itself. Religions are such strategies. They are parasitic. They hijack the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.

5. He means what I said at 4. Since it's important, I'll repeat it here: religions are hijacking the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.


To be on topic, as an aikidoka I believe this is a perfect example of the good usage of violence (or force). Once you cannot peacefully avoid conflict anymore and the opponent still presses for combat, you give him the fight of his life. It may very well mean that you failed to avoid conflict, but that is why we learn to fight: so that when we do fight, we can prevail without killing or maiming (this kid probably does not know aikido so give him a break). But even so, in very rare and specific circumstances, you will have to kill to preserve your life or that of someone close. But if you tried to avoid conflict as the precepts of aikido dictate, it is safe to say that you are still a better person than he was*. After all, sometimes a good razing is the only thing that will keep a forest alive. Individual trees do not matter in the long run.

*Some aikidoka would be reluctant to say this. They are either Japanese people and thus have a hard time admitting to unpopular/controversial opinions or they are deluding themselves and being weak. How can there be good if no one is better than anyone else, if no one is worth more than anyone else? Of course, it's easy to say "worth less" = "worthless", but that is only being cynical and misses the point. As for me, as an atheist I do not believe in Good or Evil and so goodness is more like IQ: normal people in a given society get a median of 100 points of goodness or virtue or whatever you want to call it. Even psychopaths need to be good sometimes in order to live in society (some may say they fake it, but faked or not their actions are sometimes good). Inter-cultural comparisons, while not impossible, are difficulty to do and ultimately arbitrary.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.
Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior. I've never been in a church (Baptist, Lutherain, Catholic, 7th Day, Mormon, Jewish, whatever) where I heard the message, "Its OK to steal, lie, cheat, sleep around, or be intolerant to others." Quite the opposite. Most churches teach what would be called 'positive morality'. The relative degree of success each church achieves then becomes represented in the population.
2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.
You are using absolutes here. I did not say "all the morals". I said that churches teach morality codes that encourages the "build a better world by building better people" outcome that some were saying was a preferable dynamic to a soceity where we cheer the slamming of bullies into the sidewalk.
3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.
4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to
producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.
This I DID say. Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people. Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.
Let's move it away from religion for a second. For the sake of argument, let's say that we're talking about a completely non-religious group which has as its sole purpose the desire to teach people the societal benefits that come from adhering to a Utilitarian philosophy. This group goes around, building charities, helping the poor, caring for the sick, and otherwise providing a bunch of service and societal benefits. In short - they are doing good and helping people.
But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy. They begin to loudly shout that these Utilitarians should be eliminated, ignored, and marginalized because what they believe is 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned'. They acheive a certain degree of success, and the Utilitarian group starts getting fewer people showing up, and therefore has less ability to continue doing its good deeds.
Now - how exactly has society been advanced by this scenario? It hasn't. These hypothetical Wittgenstienians are not doing good themselves. They exist only as a parasitical contradiction to the Utilitarians. They are not replacing the good deeds, actions, and benefits that were being done by the group they disagreed with. They are doing nothing except reducing the number of people who were doing good things. How is that "building better people?"
Now - that is an exaggeration of course. In real life, not all of Group "A" are necessarily doing good things, and not all of Group "B" are not contributors to the good. But by and large the example serves the purpose of illustrating that religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.
5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.
I... have no clue what you mean with this statement. At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"? All I said was that one of the main functions of religion is to teach morality to people. Well - that's true. When you sit down in a church & listen to a sermon or go to Sunday School, 99 times out of 100 the message is one of personal morality. I've been in all kinds of different denominations, and this is a characteristic that they all pretty much share.

Describing their trips I noticed a few recurring themes. First, the stoppage of time. I've read a few books on time limited psychotherapy and they came to mind there. True joy is the state of timelessness - you lose all anxiety if there's no yesterday or tomorrow. Second was the loss of the physical self. This made me think of the supression of activity in the superior parietal lobe, (the part that processes your spatial awareness, including where your 'outer shell' is in space), which is possible with good meditation.
I also noticed the one lady saying she saw a pink light and tried to make it white, suggesting she had some knowledge that the trip was exclusively from her own mind and there was the possibility of controlling it.

Not to be a dick, but I think the problem I have with this is that a psychiatrist performed the tests without a neurologist.

This was the first and only game I ever beta tested for. I was 12, and so excited.
I've played it as recently as a year ago, and it's timeless.

Actually, there has to be a smallest unit of time logically speaking. You can also understand time in a "tickless" way; as a proceeding chain of events or states. Much akin to a program in a computer. A computer has code adjacency that exist in a timeless state, there is no objective amount of time it would take for one line to execute to the next. However, you could describe the progress from one line to the next time; a progression of events in a "tickless" state would still approximate our current understanding of time. So, you can see the entire universe in state "A", then state "B" even without knowing how "long" each was. Metaphysically speaking, though, you need an actual smallest unit of time for things to happen. It is similar to Xenos paradox. A smallest unit of space joins space so that you can actually move. Without a smallest unit matter would just be moving around through space boundlessly. Interestingly, when you combine both ideas of smallest unit of time, and smallest unit of space you get a bit of magic. If an something has to move from point a to c, and has to hit all points in-between, it can only do so in t=1 units which builds in a speed limit to the universe. As fate would have it, we observe just such a phenomena! The speed of light gives credence to the Xenos paradox solution of smallest units of time and space! Indeed, even particle physicists are now clamoring about a smallest unit of space via recent measurement experiments.

Ya, I share your problem of entanglement. It is why I have come to the notion that science will never get us "Truth" with a capital T. It will always be humans current understanding of how "WE!" experience the universe, a very subtle but distinct difference than truth and understanding. I love science, it is my field and one of the few things I have a natural nack for! But when it comes to truth and certainty, you have to check it at the door and pick up philosophy and metaphysics. There isn't much money there, so bring some food with ya if you come!

...had my vote at 2:20 onward...the whole "bomb, dog poop, atoms" speach is timeless...

Same here, though I enjoy both.

Seven thoughts as I watched this vid:

1. Gangs of New York was such a nothing film. The Departed and Shutter Island were terrific.

2. Scorsese's early work (Who's That Knocking on My Door, Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver) was very artistic. His movies since that time: not so much.

3. "We Are the People is not the same as We Are the People. Let's not fight. Look, I'm gonna make it real simple. We don't pay for the buttons, We throw the buttons away."

4. The only Kubrick film I was really disappointed with was Eyes Wide Shut. That was also a nothing film.

5. Kubrick's movies are timeless and infinitely re-watchable. But then, so are Scorsese's.

6. Kubrick started as a photographer and so his films are meticulous and beautiful, especially Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was an artist through and through.

7. "Hey Dad. There's a strange fella sittin' on the sofa munchy-wunchin' long tics of toast!"

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
'Electronica' is an antiquated 1990's marketing term for electronic music, much like 'Alternative' was a marketing term for rock, which has since been replaced by 'indie'. When I think of 'electronica', I think of more commercial electronic music. It just wouldn't feel right to invoke electronica on Aphex Twin or Squarepusher. 'Electronic music' is a timeless term that gives electronic musicians more respect and ties them to the larger history of electronic music, which dates back to the 1950's.

Electronic Music would also be more inclusive, because it would include early electronic music, like Stockhausen, Steve Reich, music concrete, the Theremin and other such awesomeness. Electro-Acoustic music (electronic music that uses live instruments) would also be covered by this term.

I'm not a purist or an overly protective electronic music fanboy, I'm just particular about music terminology. Don't even get me started on 'Classical Music'. (Classical music is a sub genre of concert music that ceased to exist hundred of years ago - think Mozart and Haydn.) Concert music, not classical. Electronic music, not electronica.

2 cents from a musician.

remind me to never argue music history with you..........ever.