Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Troll?
Oh the irony!

Jan.

You have a thundering herd of vapid on your side here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The issue is evidence that rationally supports the existence of a soul. If you can't see why your circular reasoning doesn't provide that, well, that says more about your thought processes than anything else.

What would you expect to see, or predict, if souls did exist?

As far as we know, we are conscious beings with subjective experience of ourselves (as individuals), and the world around us.
No theory exists for how consciousness (specifically subjective experience or qualia) can arise purely from physical materials.

Of course you could argue that one simply hasn't emerged as yet. And it would be your perogative to wait until such information emerges (at least till death) . Even though it would be dogmatic.

But as it stands, the best explanation for how consciousness just is, is the presence of a spiritual spark, commonly called a soul.

But let's go with the best nonsense scientists have to offer. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

Note there is no evidence to support this notion. But, it keeps the divine foot out of the door.

How is that any different (as a claim, explanation, or notion), than saying it's the soul? Why would you accept one as illogical, and the other, not?

Could you not refer to "your" consciousness, "your" soul, or even your "I"?
If you do, then how can you be the same as your consciousness, your soul, or your "I"?

Or perhaps you now see the issue with trying to make an argument simply from playing with words?

You can refer to your consciousness as yours. Consciousness is merely a symptom.

If you do, then how can you be the same as your consciousness, your soul, or your "I"?

The spirit-soul, is pure.
When it becomes a living soul, it runs the risk of contamination, by identifying as real, the character, and environment it finds itself in. Thus forgetting it's true identity. All of this happens in consciousness. Once you accept, what is now an illusion, it only leads to more illusory experiences, and notions. Hence our consciousness is now contaminated, while the "I" remains aloof.

Or perhaps you now see the issue with trying to make an argument simply from playing with words?

"Playing with words"
Why do you have to block the flow of discussion with this?
Why not simply dicuss the points I raise?

So now your defensive posture is to st that because you don't ask for evidence of someone else's claims, they shouldn't ask it of you and yours?

I've no need to defend my points, at this point in the discussion, because it seem everyone is desperately avoiding them.
There are also some people here who either want to, derail the thread, respond to anything but the actual points, or get me banned.

At some point you have to acknowledge that there are no real, atheist, or even scientific explanations for what is consciousness.

It has even foolishly been dubbed as a hard problem. Followed by a vague, and empty promise, that science is working on it.

It is noted that while atheists are contented with this post-dated cheque of a promise, you have not seriously read any literature that explains what the individual soul is, and how it came to inhabit a body, so that it can live in an alien atmosphere.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in the likes of you and Baldeee. I think you're better than what you project.

Jan.

How lucky are you?
It seems I've responded to the same post, twice.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have a thundering herd of vapid on your side here.

Maybe this isn't the thread for you?
Let me patch you into a thread that maybe a little more suited to perceived intellect.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/show-us-your-pets.159119/

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you had evidence what would it entail?

Answer my question first, please.
Thanks.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe this isn't the thread for you?
Let me patch you into a thread that maybe a little more suited to perceived intellect.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/show-us-your-pets.159119/

Jan.

You sound like you're the go-to person for sniffing dog butts, that's for certain.

 

[Sarkus]

You seem to be splitting metaphysical hairs.

No, I'm not. The article isn't titled whether or not most people have some sort of metaphysical belief, but whether there are people without a specific metaphysical belief - which the headline suggests is doubtful.
If the article, and subsequent discussion, is simply whether or not people hold metaphysical beliefs then that is a very different proposition than singling out and focusing on a specific belief.

Philosophically a god can exist at any level of existence. There can be god of the thimble, god of the forest, or god of all there is. Essentially a god for any occasion. If you’re assigning supernatural qualities to elements of reality, and personal connections to said elements, then you are aping the behavior of theists. “If it believes like a duck ...”

Yes, there are many flavours of god that one can believe in, and with theist being considered "belief in God / god / gods" those who hold such would be theists. Those who don't hold such a belief would be atheist.

Supernatural does not equate to "god". Metaphysical does not itself equate to "god". Even you are needing to qualify what the metaphysical belief is (supernatural qualities, and personal connections to said elements) for you to consider the holding of such a belief to be aping the behaviour of theists.
But, again, aping the behaviour is not the same as holding the same belief: both agnostics (weak atheists) and strong atheists behave the same way with regard not acting like a theist, but their beliefs are different - strong atheists believe God to not exist, weak atheists do not.

 

[billvon]

If yeast is alive (eat, sleep, reproduce, defend), it is essentially a spirit soul. That is according to the definition of "soul"

Cool! Then you've just redefined soul as "life."

 

[Sarkus]

What would you expect to see, or predict, if souls did exist?

If souls do exist then reality is as it currently is. If souls do not exist then reality is as it currently is. I.e. whether or not souls actually exist is not a question that can be answered by observing reality.

As far as we know, we are conscious beings with subjective experience of ourselves (as individuals), and the world around us.
No theory exists for how consciousness (specifically subjective experience or qualia) can arise purely from physical materials.

So you resort to an unevidenced, unevidenceable, unfalsifiable, theory instead?

Of course you could argue that one simply hasn't emerged as yet. And it would be your perogative to wait until such information emerges (at least till death) . Even though it would be dogmatic.

No, it wouldn't be dogmatic. Dogmatic would be the insistence that it definitely is an emergent property. Most, though, are happy enough to conclude "we don't yet know". Of course, you may claim to know that your notion of the "soul" is the truth. And then we're simply back to you trying to explain why you consider it to be the truth. Which you can't seem to do.

But as it stands, the best explanation for how consciousness just is, is the presence of a spiritual spark, commonly called a soul.

Best explanation??? Seriously??? I know it's what you believe, Jan, but "best explanation"????? Oh, wow. That's a goodie!

But let's go with the best nonsense scientists have to offer. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

Note there is no evidence to support this notion. But, it keeps the divine foot out of the door.

How is that any different (as a claim, explanation, or notion), than saying it's the soul? Why would you accept one as illogical, and the other, not?

I don't claim that one is illogical. Why do you think I do?
The issue is not one of validity but one of soundness (and neither theories are known to be sound - as that would ultimately mean proof). And in the absence of soundness one favours what one finds more rational. Given that you are a theist, which means that, for you, God exists, it is not surprising that you find the "soul" theory to be the most rational. But you go further than simply finding "soul" to be the more rational... you believe it to be the truth.

The spirit-soul, is pure.

How do you know? How do you even know it exists?

When it becomes a living soul, it runs the risk of contamination, by identifying as real, the character, and environment it finds itself in. Thus forgetting it's true identity. All of this happens in consciousness. Once you accept, what is now an illusion, it only leads to more illusory experiences, and notions. Hence our consciousness is now contaminated, while the "I" remains aloof.

So you believe, and presumably been told. But how do you know?

"Playing with words"
Why do you have to block the flow of discussion with this?
Why not simply dicuss the points I raise?

Because there is no point being raised. By showing how you're playing with words one shows that there is no valid point being made. Raise a valid point to continue to the discussion. Any blocking is done by the person throwing illogic around and expecting the other to address those "points".

I've no need to defend my points, at this point in the discussion, because it seem everyone is desperately avoiding them.

Yet defend them you do, with words to the effect of "well, I don't ask for evidence so why should you!"

There are also some people here who either want to, derail the thread, respond to anything but the actual points, or get me banned.

The moderators aren't stupid, Jan. If you don't think that your behaviour is worthy of a ban then why worry about it.
As for for derailing the thread, you probably shouldn't throw stones from inside your house of glass.

At some point you have to acknowledge that there are no real, atheist, or even scientific explanations for what is consciousness.

Presumably you include "soul" in not being among "real, atheist, or even scientific explanations"? That said, there are non-theistic explanations, Jan. Consciousness being an emergent property is one such explanation. But, like the notion of the "soul", it is unproven and, like "soul" is questionable whether it ever could be proven. Or even falsified, for that matter. So no matter how much you want people to acknowledge what you think they should... they think differently to you. And your thoughts on what people should acknowledge or not is no bearing on the truth of the matter.

It has even foolishly been dubbed as a hard problem. Followed by a vague, and empty promise, that science is working on it.

Meanwhile theism has... what, exactly? Explanations that rely on the unproven, unprovable, unfalsifiable, and circular arguments? No thanks. I'll go with "I don't know".

It is noted that while atheists are contented with this post-dated cheque of a promise, you have not seriously read any literature that explains what the individual soul is, and how it came to inhabit a body, so that it can live in an alien atmosphere.

And where is the proof, or even evidence, that such explanations are anything more than fantasy?

Quite frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in the likes of you and Baldeee. I think you're better than what you project.

Better at what, Jan? You think if you pretend to be disappointed I'll somehow think more favourably on the rubbish that you spout forth? Because that's still the only disappointing thing, Jan: what you believe, and why, might otherwise be truly interesting to discuss.
Hey ho.

It seems I've responded to the same post, twice.

And still nothing of real note in either of your responses.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is for you to do, Jan.

So if you don't know what it means, or you are not aware of the context I with which I use it, why are we having this conversation?

My "I", as opposed to your "I". There, I have done it. It makes sense.

You're basically saying "me" as opposed to "you". Unless you are a Rasta, we don't refer to "I" as an object. The Rasta have their reasons for such objectification, but generally, people don't, and for good reason.

Simply put, you're playing with words to try to establish an argument. One which fails.

Firstly, I'm not playing with words. I'm merely showing that we instinctively know we are separate from our body, and I know this through the language.
Seco dly, you want it to fail, or just go away. Because it interferes with your world view. But I understand this defensive manoeuvre.

Define soul for me, please

In the spirit of simplicity, I will go with this.

A spiritual component, that animates all living beings.

It's not a stall tactic for those that ask, Jan.

It is, for the partakers in this thread.

But whether it is or not, that doesn't address your defensive posture being that because you don't ask them for evidence others shouldn't ask you. That is a flawed posture, Jan: you can not assert your rationale for not asking upon those that wish to ask it of you.

I've nothing to defend as yet Sarkus.

As for your question: No, I have no evidence that God exists, nor that God needs evidence to be known. I have never claimed to have such evidence. However, can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence

I don't think my points are circular. However if you care to discuss the issues that you think are circular, I would be happy to help with any confusions that plague you.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Cool! Then you've just redefined soul as "life."

Do you not read what I write?
Are you confident with your script that you feel you don't have to?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

So if you don't know what it means, or you are not aware of the context I with which I use it, why are we having this conversation?

Who said that I don't know what it means, or am not aware of the context. I'm simply leaving it up to you to define it.

You're basically saying "me" as opposed to "you". Unless you are a Rasta, we don't refer to "I" as an object. The Rasta have their reasons for such objectification, but generally, people don't, and for good reason.

Yet we can refer to it as such, and it continues to make sense. Thus proving the point.

Firstly, I'm not playing with words. I'm merely showing that we instinctively know we are separate from our body, and I know this through the language.

We don't instinctively know it. Nor do we know it is true through language. Our language has merely developed along the lines of what we think we know, or of what we think we perceive. Language does not make it true, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

Seco dly, you want it to fail, or just go away. Because it interferes with your world view. But I understand this defensive manoeuvre.

Now you are trying to argue the point via motive, or at least by what you percieve as motive. First, motive has no bearing on the validity (or otherwise) of an argument. Argue what is presented, not what you perceive as the arguer's motive for presenting it. To do as you are doing is an ad hominem fallacy (attacking the person - in this case their motive - rather than the point).
Secondly, you don't know my motive at all, Jan. You might wish my motive to be as you state, but it isn't. But either way, my motive is irrelevant.

In the spirit of simplicity, I will go with this.

A spiritual component, that animates all living beings.

And how do you know it exists?

It is, for the partakers in this thread.

And those that ask are partakers of the thread, Jan. It isn't a stall tactic for them. Or are you simply going to dismiss them as being irrelevant to the thread?

I've nothing to defend as yet Sarkus.

Other than the positions you take, Jan.

I don't think my points are circular.

Clearly. Although this doesn't actually address / answer the question I asked, and that you quoted and seem to be responding to...
I'll ask again:
Can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular reasoning?
Simply asserting that you don't think your points are circular does not answer this question.

However if you care to discuss the issues that you think are circular, I would be happy to help with any confusions that plague you.

I will hold you to that, although since you've failed to address the issue every time it's been raised, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If souls do exist then reality is as it currently is. If souls do not exist then reality is as it currently is. I.e. whether or not souls actually exist is not a question that can be answered by observing reality.

That would be correct if the definition of soul was... anything we choose it to be.
But it isn't .

So you resort to an unevidenced, unevidenceable, unfalsifiable, theory instead?

Why are you so stubborn Sarkus?
Is your worldview that important to you?

No, it wouldn't be dogmatic. Dogmatic would be the insistence that it definitely is an emergent property.

And that's where the delusion, and question as to whether or not atheism is real, comes in. You instinctively know it's a nonsense, just by the subconscious language you use, as discussed.

Most, though, are happy enough to conclude "we don't yet know".

Their subconscious betrays them.
They instinctively know, but they deny, an, ot reject.
This, in my opinion, is the underlying theme of the article.

Of course, you may claim to know that your notion of the "soul" is the truth. And then we're simply back to you trying to explain why you consider it to be the truth. Which you can't seem to do.

Of course "going back", and drudging up stuff we booth know would be counter-productive to the flow of this discussion, would be in your favour, as you wouldn't have to quote stion your worldview.

Best explanation??? Seriously??? I know it's what you believe, Jan, but "best explanation"????? Oh, wow. That's a goodie!

I'm open to better ones if you have them.

What's the betting you're going to weasel out of this challenge.

I don't claim that one is illogical. Why do you think I do?

My bad. I meant fallacious.

The issue is not one of validity but one of soundness (and neither theories are known to be sound - as that would ultimately mean proof). And in the absence of soundness one favours what one finds more rational. Given that you are a theist, which means that, for you, God exists, it is not surprising that you find the "soul" theory to be the most rational. But you go further than simply finding "soul" to be the more rational... you believe it to be the truth.

What is interesting about this response, is that you imply that because I'm theist, it's not surprising that I believe in God, or spirit-soul. Yet when I say you are atheist, therefore you do not believe in God, or a spirit-soul, you object. Like I said, your subconscious betrays you everytime.

But why would it not be the truth?
After-all it is only because there are objections (atheist ones), that really object to both notions.

Do you think it is possible that God, and any spiritual notions, do not exist, as far as the atheist is aware, purely because they have chosen to adopt this worldview called atheism? Just like there are many things that appear not to be so, because our particular worldview, or stance, prohibits us from knowing. Until we surrender what thought we knew, to something that is.

How do you know? How do you even know it exists?

By definition it has to be pure, because by definition, God has to be pure. It doesn't matter that we believe it to be true, or false.
Don't you think one should be aware of the subject matter, before deciding whether or not it is true or false?

So you believe, and presumably been told. But how do you know?

What's on offer, is the explanation. One doesn't need to invoke anything else. Like everyone here, I am assuming it is true, for the purpose of discussion.

Because there is no point being raised.

I don't believe you Sarkus.
I think you are evading them, so you don't have to examine your current position.

By showing how you're playing with words one shows that there is no valid point being made.

I've told you already that I'm not playing with words. But if you keep insisting that, there is nowhere for us to take this discussion. Do you agree?

Any

Any blocking is done by the person throwing illogic around and expecting the other to address those "points".

Are you accusing me of being "illogical"
If so, can you point my illogic out?

Yet defend them you do, with words to the effect of "well, I don't ask for evidence so why should you!"

How is that a defence?

The moderators aren't stupid, Jan. If you don't think that your behaviour is worthy of a ban then why worry about it.
As for for derailing the thread, you probably shouldn't throw stones from inside your house of glass.

Who said I was worried?
And what does the moderators state of mind have to do with what I said?

What house of glass.
I have posted an article, and put it up for discussion. Have I done something wrong, or made a mistake somewhere?

Consciousness being an emergent property is one such explanation.

No it's not. It is a place-holder.
Something to keep the Divine foot out of the door.

Consciousness being an emergent property is one such explanation. But, like the notion of the "soul", it is unproven and, like "soul" is questionable whether it ever could be proven

Why do you insist it needs to be proven?
Why isn't it an axiomatic truth, as theism suggests? After-all the only real objection against it, is the atheist one. But that's what one would expect.

Meanwhile theism has... what, exactly? Explanations that rely on the unproven, unprovable, unfalsifiable, and circular arguments? No thanks. I'll go with "I don't know".

Nope. Theism doesn't have those things.
Atheism, being diametrically opposed to theism, however, is bound to create these anomalies, to keep it alive. Exactly what you're doing.

If you didn't know, your language would subconsciously reflect that. But it doesn't.
It betrays you.

And where is the proof, or even evidence, that such explanations are anything more than fantasy?

You appear to be quite well read on the idea that hat consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. You even seem to think it is an explanation, equal to that of the spirit-soul. Did you require proof for that?

Better at what,

It's a figure of speech.

You think if you pretend to be disappointed I'll somehow think more favourably on the rubbish that you spout forth?

Okay.
I wasn't aware I was wasting your time.
Maybe we should end this discussion.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I will hold you to that, although since you've failed to address the issue every time it's been raised, I won't be holding my breath.

You are the one making the accusation, so point it out, and let's discuss.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And those that ask are partakers of the thread, Jan. It isn't a stall tactic for them. Or are you simply going to dismiss them as being irrelevant to the thread?

The partakers of this thread, know where I am coming from. We have discussed this in past, quite a few times. So to keep drudging it up, is a clear indicator that they/you are stalling.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence?

How is it that things objectively exist Sarkus?
How do we know they do?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

That would be correct if the definition of soul was... anything we choose it to be.
But it isn't .

No, Jan. That would be correct... period.
If the "soul" does not actually exist (however difficult you find that to imagine) then reality will not suddenly cease... because if the "soul" does not actually exist then reality has not needed the "soul" to get this far. So reality will be as it currently is.
If you can not understand this principle then it simply speaks to the circularity of your argument and your position.

Why are you so stubborn Sarkus?
Is your worldview that important to you?

What is stubborn about what I said? You think that because I don't drop everything based on what you have said and change my tune that I must somehow be stubborn??? Or is throwing around accusations all you have?

And that's where the delusion, and question as to whether or not atheism is real, comes in. You instinctively know it's a nonsense, just by the subconscious language you use, as discussed.

Eh?? Instinctively know what is a nonsense?? That atheism is a nonsense? Or that it could possibly be an emergent property?

Their subconscious betrays them.
They instinctively know, but they deny, an, ot reject.
This, in my opinion, is the underlying theme of the article.

No, it's not the underlying theme of the article. And it most certainly is not about people instinctively knowing anything. You're simply grasping at straws, Jan.

Of course "going back", and drudging up stuff we booth know would be counter-productive to the flow of this discussion, would be in your favour, as you wouldn't have to quote stion your worldview

Right, so we have to gloss over the inadequacy of your responses in the past, and simply assume that you have now answered them sufficiently for purposes of discussion? You're pathetic, Jan. Truly pathetic. If the same point arises and you still can't adequately resolve it then it remains a weakness.

I'm open to better ones if you have them.

No, you're not.

What's the betting you're going to weasel out of this challenge.

What challenge? To offer a theist a better explanation than along the lines of "God did it", that would require the breaking down of everything the theist believes in? It's not going to happen, Jan. You know that. I know that.

My bad. I meant fallacious.

Which means false logic - or illogical. My point remains: I don't consider one to be fallacious. Why do you think I would?

What is interesting about this response, is that you imply that because I'm theist, it's not surprising that I believe in God, or spirit-soul. Yet when I say you are atheist, therefore you do not believe in God, or a spirit-soul, you object. Like I said, your subconscious betrays you everytime.

Jeez, now you can't see the use of a mirror response for what it is - i.e. reflecting your own argument back at you for purposes of rhetoric. Seriously?

But why would it not be the truth?

Why would it be? Simply because you believe it?

After-all it is only because there are objections (atheist ones), that really object to both notions.

So if everyone believes it, and if there are no objections, you think that makes it the objective truth, as opposed to just a shared opinion???

Do you think it is possible that God, and any spiritual notions, do not exist, as far as the atheist is aware, purely because they have chosen to adopt this worldview called atheism?

As I am sure you have been told many times, Jan, being an atheist is an effect, not a cause.

Just like there are many things that appear not to be so, because our particular worldview, or stance, prohibits us from knowing. Until we surrender what thought we knew, to something that is.

Such as?

By definition it has to be pure, because by definition, God has to be pure. It doesn't matter that we believe it to be true, or false.

So what if God is defined to be pure? Why does that lead to the "soul" being pure?

Don't you think one should be aware of the subject matter, before deciding whether or not it is true or false?

Being valid doesn't mean it is sound.

What's on offer, is the explanation. One doesn't need to invoke anything else. Like everyone here, I am assuming it is true, for the purpose of discussion.

Eh? You're assuming the soul exists for the purposes of discussion? And you think everyone is doing the same???

I don't believe you Sarkus.
I think you are evading them, so you don't have to examine your current position

I really couldn't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not, Jan.

I've told you already that I'm not playing with words. But if you keep insisting that, there is nowhere for us to take this discussion. Do you agree?

So you refuse to acknowledge, despite being shown, that you are playing with words, and instead of addressing it you simply wish to close the discussion down? Staggers belief, Jan.

Are you accusing me of being "illogical"
If so, can you point my illogic out?

Have done, Jan, on many occasions, which no doubt you will choose to ignore.

How is that a defence?

It's not, in the civilised manner of debating at any rate. But for you it is a defense because you use it to evade having to address the issue at all.

Who said I was worried?
And what does the moderators state of mind have to do with what I said?

You think people are trying to get you banned. You sounded worried by it.

What house of glass.
I have posted an article, and put it up for discussion. Have I done something wrong, or made a mistake somewhere

Other than continually misrepresent the article, misunderstand the points raised, evade points raised against your claims. And that's just in this thread. The house of glass is the one you have created for yourself from all the other threads you have managed to derail and nose-dive.

No it's not. It is a place-holder.
Something to keep the Divine foot out of the door.

So sayeth the believer, dismissing any possible alternative. So please, provide the proof that it is not possibly an emergent property? Can you do that? After all, you claim it to be simply a place-holder to keep the Divine foot from the door, so surely you must have proof that it can not possibly be an emergent property? Right?

Why do you insist it needs to be proven?

Because without proof it becomes rather difficult to know anything.

Why isn't it an axiomatic truth, as theism suggests? After-all the only real objection against it, is the atheist one. But that's what one would expect.

So objective truth is decided by the majority?

Nope. Theism doesn't have those things.

So what does theism have, then? How do you know the answers it provides are objectively true?

If you didn't know, your language would subconsciously reflect that. But it doesn't.
It betrays you.

Whatever you say, Jan. Whatever you say.

You appear to be quite well read on the idea that hat consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. You even seem to think it is an explanation, equal to that of the spirit-soul. Did you require proof for that?

Proof for what?

It's a figure of speech.

To tell someone that they think they were "better than that" is not a figure of speech, Jan. It really does mean that they think the person was better (at some aspect or other) than they are seeming to be. So, what exactly did you think I was "better at" than I now seem to you to be?

Okay.
I wasn't aware I was wasting your time.
Maybe we should end this discussion.

Feel free. It will probably mean I lose less brain cells having to sift through whatever you come up with next.

 

[Sarkus]

How is it that things objectively exist Sarkus?
How do we know they do?

We don't, but unless you want to go down the whole route of God simply being a subjective matter....?

 

[Sarkus]

The partakers of this thread, know where I am coming from. We have discussed this in past, quite a few times. So to keep drudging it up, is a clear indicator that they/you are stalling.

Utter crud, Jan. But you are right in that the partakers of this thread know exactly where you are coming from.

 

[Baldeee]

Quite frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in the likes of you and Baldeee. I think you're better than what you project.

I am honoured by the company you place me in.
Alas I can not do the same for you.

 

[billvon]

Do you not read what I write?
Are you confident with your script that you feel you don't have to?

I did read what you wrote, and I do not have the same sort of script that you do. I am not required to hew to a given belief system, as you are.