Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Unum · 01-08-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren
Unum, your postings make baby jesus cry. Start a new thread, this has nothing to do with the Original Post.

I doubt my posts are making baby Jesus cry, but they sure seem to be making some other babies on this BB cry.

Instead of starting a new thread, I will do you one better. I'll leave this BB. I have better things to do than to constantly defend myself against people putting words in my mouth.

When I joined this BB I expected to encounter some good debates from intelligent, open-minded people. I did find some good debates from intelligent people, yet many of these people were as close-minded as any fundamental theist I've ever met. I've presented a lot of evidence explaining why I believe what I believe. I'm not afraid to have people go through the evidence and point out where my logic is flawed. Unfortunately that hasn't happened very often on here. Instead, I've had people say "What you believe is wrong." That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. No reasons or counter evidence as to why I am wrong, just a claim "you're wrong". If a theist were to say this to someone on this BB, people would be coming out of the woodwork to slam them for making an unsubstantiated claim, yet when a fellow atheist does this, there isn't even a peep. That's a sad sign from people who claim to be so intellectually honest. It absolutely reeks of hypocrisy.

I've learned quite a bit during my short time on this BB. I hope people can say the same about me.

I'm going to respond to the rest of the posts directed at me in this thread once and then quietly and finally go away.

Peace,

Unum

Unum · 01-08-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by parkdalian
To Unum:

Assuming God exists, here is my reasoning:

1. God knows precisely why I disbelieve. (The glitch or bias in my reasoning)

God knows precisely why you chose not to believe.

Many people say that we can't choose what we believe. I think that's only an excuse. Before my junior year in high school I didn't believe that I could integrate calculus equations as I had never learned calculus. After much reading, lectures and tests I believed I could do it, by learning how to do it. It's amazing what some mind exercises will do.

Quote:

2. God could perfectly and convincingly argue through a human intermediary to overcome the bias in my reasoning.

A human intermediary could help, but it is still you that ultimately has to figure it out for yourself. I'm not sure why you would expect someone else to do this for you.

Quote:

3 God could reveal himself directly in such a way as to provide me with undeniable proof.

I believe God has been and continues to provide us with undeniable proof. God is everything, as such God is all around us, God is inside us and God is us. For God to seek us out, we must actively seek God out. From your lack of belief it is obvious that you've already given up the seach.

Quote:

4 I am not responsible for the pre-existing bias in my reasoning (and I'm certainly unaware of the extent of it)

We are all responsible for our actions. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We are responsible for the action and the reaction that this action caused.

If it helps, always assume that you have a bias and always seek to correct this bias. It creates an unsolvable infinite loop, yet it also keeps us moving towards perfection.

Quote:

5 If Hell exists, I may go to or deserve Hell if I am either inherently evil or I have become evil.

If hell exists and someone chooses to do evil, then it shouldn't be much of a surprise to them when they end up in hell. Although, I believe hell is only permanent for those that permamently choose evil.

Quote:

6 If I am inherently evil, I was born that way. I didn't plan on being born.

I do not believe that we are born evil. I believe we are born neutral and choose either good or evil.

I'm also not so sure that we don't plan to be born. I don't know as I haven't seen convincing evidence one way or the other. That being the case, I'll leave it open as a possibility that we do choose to be born. This doesn't mean I believe that we do choose to be born, just that I don't know, so to say that do or don't seems presumptious.

Quote:

7 If I have become evil, God knows precisely how I've become evil.

Yes, God will know why you chose evil.

Quote:

8 I don't know precisely how I became "evil" (if non-belief in God can be called evil).

I disagree. I think inherently we know or can figure out what is right and wrong. Even people who claim that stealing or killing someone is okay, normally do it under the cover of darkness or otherwise not in the open. Why would they hide themselves, if they thought it was perfectly okay? I think it is because deep down, they know it is wrong.

Quote:

9 Free will does not exist in the ultimate sense because all human behavior neither escapes God's foreknowledge nor is beyond his analysis. There are in fact, known internal causes for certain thoughts and behavior, that are beyond conscious control and we can't exclude the possibility of futher unknown physical causes of choice. Since we can never account for all of the internal physical causes or the extent of those internal causes of thoughts and behavior, it gives the illusion of a mysterious free will.

I'd like to hear about these things within us that are beyond our conscious control. I believe that we can become conscious of anything that is within us. I'll admit that this is a very subjective thing to say, but how can you be sure as to what I or anyone esle is able to be conscious of. When I sit very still and focus my attention, I can feel every beat of my heart. But, even better, I can feel all four valves, pumping in and out. I can feel the blood being exchanged in my lungs. I can feel it being pumped to all the places of my body. When I focus on an area, I can feel the tingle in my cells of the oxygen being replaced. I would have thought this impossible before I tried it. However, I worked at it. I taught myself to sit very still. I taught myself to focus. I taught myself to become conscious of this. Actually, I believe I've always been conscious of this as I believe it is something we all learn while we are in the womb. We learn to beat our heart. This ability eventually gets pushed off to our sub-conscious mind as we begin to concentrate on other things. This is just one of the many things that I can become conscious of. That is why I question you when you say there are things within us that are beyond our control.

Quote:

10 Free will defined as "freedom from reasonably apparent external coercion AND an awareness of reasonable, possible consequences of choice or behavior" along with an acceptance of responsiblility, exists usefully in human terms as a matter of pragmatism. (as opposed to #9) This "free will" does not address internal coercion, such as obscure physical/chemical abnormalities in the brain, individual experience or other numerous pre-existing psychological biases.

What I'm trying to say in point form here is what I expressed in my original post in this thread although I didn't want to get in a free will debate.

Free will and responsibility exist in a limited sense. We implement those terms because they are practical ways of dealing with criminal or bad behavior and is useful, given our limited ability to moderate our collective behavior. We accept responsibility not because we are ultimately responsible, but because there is no other known system available to promote individual behavior conducive to the common good.

Free will and responsiblity exist in a total sense. I believe there is a perfect system that lies underneath what we implement on top of it. In effect, with our laws and governments we try to mimic the perfection that is within us. While our human laws may fail sometimes to catch a murderer, if there is not enough evidence, this person will not escape the underlying laws as no one can escape these. For example, say I choose to steal or shoplift something. I know this is wrong as I get a wrong feeling when I do it. This right there should tell me something. However, say I get away with it. The wrong feeling does not go away. It catches me wherever I go. Things might even happen such as I "accidently" slam my hand in a door, I "accidently" trip on a smooth sidewalk, or I "accidently" cut myself while opening a can of tomatoes. These accidents are not accidents in the traditional sense, in that they are not random. They are the consequences of my earlier stealing. It is the concept that some call karma getting back at me. It can also be expressed this way "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". We try, with our courts and laws, to do this very thing, but we are not perfect and we do not see everything. Those things that we fail to address or let slip through the cracks will be addressed. With God, nothing goes unnoticed.

Quote:

God has no such limitation and as a supreme being with both ultimate awareness of consequences and absolute power and causation, must bear the ultimate responsibility.

God does bear the ultimate responsibility. What sort of blame are you trying to pin on God? God has given us free will, we get to choose what actions we do. God holds us responsible for those actions. If those actions product good results, we get good results in return. If those actions produce bad results, we get bad results in return. It is a perfectly fair and balanced system.

Quote:

If I go to Hell for non-belief, God must know the precise reason why and at what point in time I became biased and he was in a position to rectify it. I was not aware at the time I became biased and have no idea how far such supposed bias may be influencing my thinking as I type this. Even in human, practical terms, I refuse to accept responsibility for something which I am mistaken about or lack the knowledge of the consequences. Obviously, there's no reason for me to believe in Hell if I don't believe in God in the first place!

Assume that your bias is influencing your decision right now. Always assume this. Of course it is, you view the world through your eyes and no one elses. The same thing applies to me. I always assume that I am biased and I try to work on correcting this all the time. I always assume that anything that happens to me is my doing and I am ultimately in control of this aspect of my life. I always assume that I don't know everything as it helps me to continue to learn. I always assume everyone I meet has some good in them and I'll do whatever it takes to bring it out. I always assume that anything is possible, I've seen some amazing things in my life, why should I assume that even more amazing things aren't possible?

As far as hell is concerned, you and I might go to hell. I might even go to hell and you might go to heaven. If I do end up in hell, I know I have no one to blame but myself. I've chosen the path that I am walking. I believe that I am walking towards the light, but I can never be sure.

Quote:

Because of both the human lack of physical and perceptual awareness of Hell, and God's greater responsibility/options for the state of the universe, you can't equate a human justice system to a divine one. Call the natural universe God if you wish, but where is the independent evidence of Hell?

I don't know a whole lot about hell. For all I know it could be being an insect squashed over and over again. It could be having to experience your greatest fears over and over again, until you are no longer scared. I don't know. I try not to think much about the place, as it's not something I even want to imagine. There are too many good places that I'd rather think about.

Quote:

One more thing to add--I find the whole Hell scenario a blatant cheap shot. It seems quite easy for some theologians and religious leaders, from a position of their own self-perceived spiritual safety, to entertain such horrific thoughts about the ultimate fate of dead atheists.

I agree. I don't think any person knows for certain who is going to hell and who is not. I also agree that many theologians use this concept to scare people into believing and that sickens me. Personally, I do not believe that these people are as spiritually safe as they think they are.

Peace,

Unum

Unum · 01-08-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin
Synonym ~ one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.

I'm perfectly aware of what a synonym is, thank you. Are synoyms superfluous? Surely, not everyone one of them is needed.

Quote:

When you ascribe anthropocentric theistic qualities, such as the ludicrous tales of the Abrahamic religions, to that which empirically does not hold to those descriptions then it makes the word �God� no longer a synonym for the universe.

Limited human emotions such as rage, vanity, jealousy, wrath, narcissism, etc. are not attributes of the vast universe, no matter your desires or your religious mindset.

Using the word �God� empty of these limited qualities found in religion to describe the universe makes its use, directly, superfluous.

Though you attempt valiantly to weave and dodge around your perspective of the attributes of your brand of �God�, it has become clear that you favor the Abrahamic deity complete with these limited human failings according to the tales.

Do people ever have feelings of jealousy, rage, vanity or wrath? I think they do. These people are part of the universe, so it is obvious that the part of the universe that they are exhibits these characteristics. If you read my earlier post to you, you will see that I said the universe as a whole does not show these characteristics, but in parts it can and it does. Also, your attempted words in my mouth aside, I do not favor the Abrahamic version anymore than I favor the Islamic, Taoist, Hindu, or Buddhist version. They all refer to the same thing.

Quote:

Anthropocentric ~ considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe.

You�re kidding right?

No, I'm not kidding. This is both true and false. In a long view, we are nothing but a speck of dust on an insignificant planet, orbiting a medium sized star. Just one of many in the universe. In a short view, chaos theory tells us that if we beat our collective wings hard enough we have the ability to change the fate of this vast universe. We are both very important and very unimportant at the same time.

Quote:

We must all be responsible for our actions, Unum, on that we can agree, but you have disingenuously changed gears.

If you recall, you have been asserting that mere non-belief in something lacking in evidence is justification for punishment...eternal punishment at that.

I would like for you to show me where I have asserted this. Try reading what I write next time, instead of making things up of what you think I have said. What I did say is this, if the lack of belief leads to something that is detrimental, than of course a punishment is reasonable. I would also like to see where I've advocated eternal punishment to anyone.

Quote:

You have single-handedly shown how your brand of deity is not benevolent, but allegedly acts out of a limited jealous rage over something as benign as non-belief.

Lack of belief is benign. However, if this lack of belief leads to detrimental conduct, then it is no longer benign. Do you understand the difference in what I am saying?

Quote:

Followers of your cult and the conflicting cults of other, equally senseless, theologies will continue to cause pain, suffering and catastrophe under the pretext that since they have �belief� they will be rewarded and not punished.

You have simply confirmed this with your bland acquisence that this is acceptable to you.

Again, it is obvious that you misunderstand me. Belief by itself means nothing. It is when this belief is combined with action and leads towards the spreading of goodwill, peace, harmony and unity does it mean something.

Peace,

Unum

Unum · 01-08-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Going back miles, Unum wrote, in relation to the ignored middle-manager (god): �If a lack of recognition does lead to the employee acting in a detrimental way to the company, then that employee should expect a demotion or cut in pay. �
Asserting that not believing in a god leads people to act in a detrimental way �to the company� (and by �company� you meant, I think, human society) is highly contentious, and can be countered by the well-supported assertion that belief in gods has led hordes of people to act in extremely detrimental ways.

Read what I wrote again. I said "If a lack of recognition....". Notice, I didn't say a lack of recognition leads to detrimental conduct and therefore punishment. Instead, I said if this lack of recognition leads to detrimental conduct, then a punishment would be justified. There is a big difference between the interpretation of these two sentences. I don't think that a lack of recognition automatically leads to detrimental conduct, but if it does than it seems reasonable that it would be punished.

This seems to be a common theme with many of you responding to me. Please read carefully what I write before flying off the handle accusing me of things that can not be found in my writings.

Quote:

Later he wrote: �The more difficult tasks that people willingly take on in life, the more reward they receive if and when they accomplish it.� So Mozart, who did the easiest thing (for him) that he could do, i.e. compose, will have received very little reward?
The teaching that merit is only to be found in doing the things we find difficult to do is destructive: it makes us feel guilty about doing the things we are good at and enjoy, and encourages us to do the things we are not good at and don�t enjoy. The result? Well, we have seen it time and again in Christian communities where it has caused lives to be scarred by frustration, stress, anger, unhappiness and guilt.

How do you know that Mozart found this so easy? Were you Mozart? Did you know him personally? While he may have made it seem easy, I'll bet that inside this tore him apart. I've read where he was never happy with his pieces. In his mind, he imagined something so much better and he felt limited having to put it down on paper. This is a common theme with almost all great artists. They see something incredibly beautiful in their mind and they try to reproduce this in another medium. The problem is, none of these other mediums comes close to what we can imagine in our minds. Information is always lost in the translation from mind to medium. To perfectionist artists, this is not an easy concept to take.

When did I encourage people to do what they are not good at? I have said over and over in this post, that people can choose whatever it is they want to do. It is true however, that the more challenges that a person takes on and completes the stronger they will be because of it. Mozart took the challenge of putting the beauty that he heard in his mind to musical instruments. This was not an easy task and he has been rewarded for this.

Quote:

Still later he wrote: �I've described the universe and some of its fundamental truths and these fundamental truths also fit the description of God. Most of you posting on this thread have said "that can't be it", but none of you have said why it can't be it. That's what I'd like to know.�

It is absurd to ascribe god-like truths (all-power, all-knowledge) to the universe: you might as well say that the house I live is a living, sapient entitiy because it contains living, sapient beings.
If your god created the universe, then your god is not of the universe but extra to it; to say that god and the universe are the same thing is nonsense. If you make a Plasticine model it might reflect your genius, but it doesn�t contain your DNA.

If it's absurd, tell me why it's absurd. The universe contains everything that has power, it has all the power. The universe contains everything that has knowledge, therefore it has all of that knowledge. The house you describe is not sapient, it posseses things that are sapient. That is why I said the universe possesses consciousness. Although I think it can be safely said that the universe is conscious. Fundamentally everything can be broken down to energy (or mass, but since they are equivalent I'll use energy). This energy when it is structured in certain ways becomes conscious or the appearance of consciousness. I assume that the more structured the entity, the more consciousness it is going to display. I assume this because humans are more structured than dogs and we seem to be more conscious of our surroundings than dogs are, likewise a dog is more structured than an earthworm, that is why they appear more conscious than an earthworm, likewise an earthworm is more structured than one molecule that makes it up, therefore it is more conscious than this molecule, etc. However, the earth is considerably more structured than one human as it contains the structure of over 6 billion humans, not to mention every dog, earthworm and every other molecule that makes it up. The earth itself is not alone as it is just one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in a universe with (thousands, millions, billions, trillions,????) of other galaxies. We can only imagine what the consciousness of the universe is.

Quote:

I�m sorry: these were digressions I couldn�t resist.
The god Unum and thechort believe in hides behind trees. Both think they know what it looks like but because neither has actually seen it, their ideas are slightly different, being based on a selection each has made from all that he has read and been told in order to fit a preconceived �ideal.�
This qualifies them for Heaven and everlasting life.
I don�t know why.

Right. I go on what's been told to me and what I've read, yet you have come to your own conclusions. How pathetically arrogant of you. I do not know if I will go to heaven, I don't know if anyone will. I hope I do, it sure would be nice. I do know for certain that I am made of energy and energy is neither created nor destroyed, so I already know I have eternal life.

Peace,

Unum

Unum · 01-08-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch
Unum is a gorgeous example of my point. He insists the evidence is so clear that the cognitive shortcoming of not believing that a god exists, amounts to a moral failing -- indeed, the worst moral failing imaginable, deserving of the worst conceivable punishment.

Show me where I wrote this please. Where did I say that not believing in God gets you a first-class ticket to hell? Where did I say that not believing in God is a moral failing? Where did I say not believing in God deserves the worst conceivable punishment? Go ahead, look back at what I wrote. You will not find it, because I did not say it.

I did say that if the evidence is conclusive and one chooses still to deny this evidence and if this denial leads to detrimental conduct (notice again that I am not saying it does, only that if it does) that a punishment would be reasonable. That was the question that was posed originally in the beginning of this thread. If because of some bias, someone chooses not to believe the evidence, is it reasonable for them to receive punishment? I say yes. I don't even believe that the person will receive a punishment, instead I think they just won't receive an award.

For some reason because I believe in God you all assume that I must believe in hell and that all non-believers are going to hell. That couldn't be further from the truth with me. I don't think anyone goes to hell, I think we all eventually make it to heaven. However, I am not afraid to point out "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If I were to continually do bad things, I shouldn't or wouldn't expect good things to happen to me for doing these things.

Quote:

I mean, I could see being genuinely disgusted, maybe even repulsed, by someone so deliberately obtuse as to steadfastly deny that 2+2=4. But I wouldn't think that warranted consigning them to eternal damnation. Nor even killing mercifully after a day or two of torture, nor a severe but non-fatal beating. Heck, even a single punch in the face seems a bit excessive, to my way of thinking.

Yes, mine too. This person shouldn't be punished. However, do you think this person should be rewarded for this?

Quote:

Know what? I think someone who steadfastly denied that 2+2=4 would deserve... a good hard noogie, right on the head. Maybe there's room for some disagreement here; maybe some folks would opt for the punch in the face, while others would settle for a really dirty look and some tsk-ing. But that's how I see it. Noogie-ville.

I wouldn't do anything to them. Although, I would probably talk to them to get them to explain to me why they thought this was so. They might actually be right. But, as long as they did not infringe upon me believing 2+2=4 I wouldn't do anything to them.

Quote:

Now, that's for 2+2=4: an utterly obvious and logically necessary truth. But a proposition the disbelief of which would warrant eternal damnation? Not the punch, not the beating, not the day of torture and quick bullet to the back the neck -- the whole eternal damnation she-bang? That's gotta be fabulously more obvious than 2+2=4. I mean, that's gotta be some eye-poppingly clear evidence!

Again, go back and find where I recommended eternal damnation to anyone. I'll wait.

Peace,

Unum

Keith Russell · 01-08-2003, 06:35 PM

Unum:

For someone who--four posts ago--had decided to leave our happy little forum, you certainly were loquacious.

I was interested in, and very disappointed by, your response to parkdalian. You state your beliefs, but you offer no evidence to support them. You say that 'God' is everything, then you tell parkdalian that his disbeleif shows that he has 'given up the search' for 'God'.

Why search for 'God', if 'God' is everything? If 'God is anything, we needn't search at all. Anything we find, discover, or become aware of by default would be 'God', would it not?

Care to explain this contradiction?

Keith.

Clutch · 01-08-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unum
Where did I say that not believing in God is a moral failing? ... Go ahead, look back at what I wrote. You will not find it, because I did not say it.

Uh, okay, I'll find it. How about this?

Quote:

I believe the evidence is right in front of you and always has been right in front of you. You might not see this as evidence of God because you do not want to see this as evidence of God. However, do not be surprised if you are punished (or not rewarded) for not realizing this. From the evidence available it seems perfectly fair to me.

You say you think it is perfectly fair to have the punishment in question -- we're discussing eternal condemnation, whatever that amounts to -- since the evidence is so clear. Why would you attempt so feeble a dodge as to claim you hadn't said this?

Quote:

I did say that if the evidence is conclusive and one chooses still to deny this evidence and if this denial leads to detrimental conduct (notice again that I am not saying it does, only that IF it does) that a punishment would be reasonable.

No, you did not say that. You said, "I believe the evidence is right in front of you and always has been right in front of you. ... From the evidence available [punishment] seems perfectly fair to me."

Sheesh, what a lame evasion.

xeren · 01-08-2003, 07:21 PM

Unum said:

Quote:

Many people say that we can't choose what we believe. I think that's only an excuse. Before my junior year in high school I didn't believe that I could integrate calculus equations as I had never learned calculus. After much reading, lectures and tests I believed I could do it, by learning how to do it. It's amazing what some mind exercises will do.

You mean it's amazing what twisting your mind in order to keep your faith does.

Okay, right now, for just ten seconds, start believing that god DOESN'T exist. Ready!? go!
...
Hmm. Can't do it? Why not? maybe because you can't CHOOSE what to believe. Given that you see that there is enough evidence for god (though no one here sees any of your evidence as remotely convincing), you believe in Him.

None of the atheists here can do the opposite.. that is, make our selves believe in God, if we don't see the "evidence" as convincing.

Jobar · 01-08-2003, 08:09 PM

Unum, threatening to leave an argument in a huff makes you look defeated; threatening to leave and then not leaving makes you look at best silly, and at worst like a liar. No matter what the subject of the argument.

If you want to name the unity you perceive the universe to be, God, you are free to do so. But you should not attempt to shoehorn your definition into a word which others apply to a long-bearded old man who looks down on the (flat) earth from the sky, once drowned practically everyone in the world (which he created 6,000-odd years ago), and has a thing against pork (maybe). You should call it just Unity, or Brahma, or the Tao (as I have started to do.) The words are similar but not synonymous- the connotations are vastly different.

One other thing. I am no longer a mod on this forum; however, if I were, I would insist that you start a seperate topic, since xeren has told you specifically that your contributions here are not appropriate.

B. H. Manners · 01-08-2003, 08:20 PM

I think Jobar had a good idea about starting another thread. Let's not let this one degenerate into an argument.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-08-2003, 06:35 PM	#76
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Unum: For someone who--four posts ago--had decided to leave our happy little forum, you certainly were loquacious. I was interested in, and very disappointed by, your response to parkdalian. You state your beliefs, but you offer no evidence to support them. You say that 'God' is everything, then you tell parkdalian that his disbeleif shows that he has 'given up the search' for 'God'. Why search for 'God', if 'God' is everything? If 'God is anything, we needn't search at all. Anything we find, discover, or become aware of by default would be 'God', would it not? Care to explain this contradiction? Keith.

01-08-2003, 08:09 PM	#79
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Unum, threatening to leave an argument in a huff makes you look defeated; threatening to leave and then not leaving makes you look at best silly, and at worst like a liar. No matter what the subject of the argument. If you want to name the unity you perceive the universe to be, God, you are free to do so. But you should not attempt to shoehorn your definition into a word which others apply to a long-bearded old man who looks down on the (flat) earth from the sky, once drowned practically everyone in the world (which he created 6,000-odd years ago), and has a thing against pork (maybe). You should call it just Unity, or Brahma, or the Tao (as I have started to do.) The words are similar but not synonymous- the connotations are vastly different. One other thing. I am no longer a mod on this forum; however, if I were, I would insist that you start a seperate topic, since xeren has told you specifically that your contributions here are not appropriate.

01-08-2003, 08:20 PM	#80
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	I think Jobar had a good idea about starting another thread. Let's not let this one degenerate into an argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.