Support NeoGAF

[Neuromancer]

I can't stand all these in-your-face atheists, always so angry and debating and trying to change government policy and converting me! Glad NDT can't either and is finally taking a stand.

 

[speculawyer]

I 100% agree with Tyson here. It's why I stopped referring to myself as a black male. People jump to conclusions when I use those labels, so instead of educating people about what the labels really mean, and explaining how their stereotypes are wrong, I'll just pretend like the word no longer applies to me, even if it actually describes me exactly.

If I was gay, I would probably do the same thing, because after all, I'm not an over the top effeminate hairdresser, so the word "gay" obviously wouldn't apply to me.

This is very well-played sarcasm.

 

[Loofy]

Unicorns are known? What evidence do you have that unicorns don't exist?

No one is assuming unicorns are real since we've mapped out most of the earth.
Many people assume aliens are real yet we have no knowledge of them.

 

[Kurdel]

Putting this on the new page seeing people don't actually read the thread before posting:

 

[BocoDragon]

and when theists come to your house you just say "I'm not interested" and shut your door. My point is that both hard atheists and theists proselytize alike. Which you find more annoying (if you even find them annoying, personally I don't mind talking to theists because I think it's fun to point out their inconsistencies. Also, I generally use it as an excuse to discuss my personal beliefs about Reality. Usually, they end up being the ones who try to get out of the conversation) is personal taste. But anyway, both behaviors are obnoxious - it's just up to personal preference for which one you tolerate more.

I'm more of the opinion that neither hard atheists nor hard theists are "obnoxious". I generally like people and I'm not afraid to be exposed to other people's ideas. I don't think anyone's doing anything wrong by being passionate in these matters. *shrugs*

 

[Neuromancer]

No one is assuming unicorns are real since we've mapped out most of the earth.
Many people assume aliens are real yet we have no knowledge of them.

There could totally be unicorns on the bottom of the ocean though, which we've explored like less than 5% of.

 

[onadesertedisland]

And that could quite possibly be the foundation and thrust of his tenets of belief: It indeed does not offer any answer to a question of belief, and neither does said question of belief matter in the grander scheme of things.

It's kinda weird how many people who profess to be rational or free thinkers can't grasp this concept.

To say you are not sure is to say you are without belief, thus atheist.

I am not sure Santa exists, but I am not certain he does not.

This statement means that you do not believe in Santa.

There is no middle ground in the concept of belief. It is sort of like being dead, either you are or you aren't. You either believe or you don't. You can't say you aren't sure if you believe because at that moment you do not, by definition, believe.

 

[speculawyer]

I can't stand all these in-your-face atheists, always so angry and debating and trying to change government policy and converting me! Glad NDT can't either and is finally taking a stand.

But he is actually doing the complete opposite. He is being a fucking pussy. Why not just admit that the atheist label is accurate but continue being a non 'in-your-face atheist' (whatever that is) and denounce them if he doesn't like their actions? He is allowing the label of atheist to be demonized. And he is running away from it.

 

[genjiZERO]

I'm more of the opinion that neither hard atheists nor hard theists are "obnoxious". I generally like people and I'm not afraid to be exposed to other people's ideas. I don't think anyone's doing anything wrong by being passionate in these matters. *shrugs*

that's fine and dandy. It's really just about tastes.

PS: everytime I see your name I read it as "Boca Dragon" and think about vegetarian dragon hamburgers.

 

[onadesertedisland]

There could totally be unicorns on the bottom of the ocean though, which we've explored like less than 5% of.

What about invisible unicorns? Those exist.

 

[Angry Fork]

No one is assuming unicorns are real since we've mapped out most of the earth.
Many people assume aliens are real yet we have no knowledge of them.

People say aliens exist because of the sheer probability due to how many stars and worlds exist. It's the exact opposite for god. The probability of a theist god (intervening, caring, all powerful, etc.) is zero.

 

[GrizzNKev]

To say you are not sure is to say you are without belief, thus atheist.

I am not sure Santa exists, but I am not certain he does not.

This statement means that you do not believe in Santa.

There is no middle ground in the concept of belief. It is sort of like being dead, either you are or you aren't. You either believe or you don't. You can't say you aren't sure if you believe because at that moment you do not, by definition, believe.

Ha, I was considering using life and death as an example of a binary concept. I am not alive nor dead, I am agnostic. lol

 

[SirChained]

No one is assuming unicorns are real since we've mapped out most of the earth.
Many people assume aliens are real yet we have no knowledge of them.

How do you know unicorns don't exist in another planet? It doesn't matter if "nobody is assuming". What matters is if you have evidence that they don't exist.

 

[Neuromancer]

But he is actually doing the complete opposite. He is being a fucking pussy. Why not just admit that the atheist label is accurate but continue being a non 'in-your-face atheist' (whatever that is) and denounce them if he doesn't like their actions? He is allowing the label of atheist to be demonized

I know, I was just fucking around. I agree with you 100%.

What about invisible unicorns? Those exist.

I think I've seen one

 

[Davidion]

I'm more of the opinion that neither hard atheists nor hard theists are "obnoxious". I generally like people and I'm not afraid to be exposed to other people's ideas. I don't think anyone's doing anything wrong by being passionate in these matters. *shrugs*

I'm just the opposite; both will defy well understood logic and observation and make stupid quality-judgments and attacks on the other side. Both have entirely more passionate and reasonable versions of themselves that one can carry a conversation with without making one's brain bleed.

That having been said, insinuating that atheists are somehow "worse" than theists because they're obnoxious, by any measure, is a bit laughable.

 

[speculawyer]

I know I was just fucking around. I agree with you 100%.

Yeah, I started to figure that out after I reread what you wrote. I missed the sarcasm.

 

[BocoDragon]

that's fine and dandy. It's really just about tastes.

PS: everytime I see your name I read it as "Boca Dragon" and think about vegetarian dragon hamburgers.

Lots of people have called me Boca too, lol

 

[GrizzNKev]

I'm just the opposite; both will defy well understood logic and observation and make stupid quality-judgments and attacks on the other side. Both have entirely more passionate and reasonable versions of themselves that one can carry a conversation with without making one's brain bleed.

That having been said, insinuating that atheists are somehow "worse" than theists because they're obnoxious, by any measure, is a bit laughable.

Nah man, I think agnostics, you know, JUST agnostics are the worst group. I mean, they don't even exist! How crazy is that? What a bunch of dicks.

 

[Zebra]

No one is assuming unicorns are real since we've mapped out most of the earth.

For every moment that every point on earth has been occupied by a person, unicorns could have been exactly in all the places at all the times that there was not a human.

Those sneaky bastards.

 

[Kettch]

I agree.

I mean, I never really get people who refuse to identify as something because of the baggage. If you fit the criteria, people are going to think that you're a part of that category. And this is something you see sometimes with queer people who refuse to call themselves just "gay" or "bisexual" or whatever; they call themselves queer or questioning or some other label besides that. And they'll say, "Well I don't want to limit myself by giving myself a label."

... But if they are specific about what sort of people they are attracted and have dated or had relations with, you can place them in an existing category. I feel like it's sort of the same thing here, where he doesn't want to identify personally, but I'm willing to bet if he were specific about his views on what he believes about the existence of God / gods, we'd be able to categorize him.

The problem isn't so much the baggage of being an atheist, it's the baggage of being what people think an atheist is. If people understood that being an atheist literally means nothing and that I have no connection at all with other atheists, then I'd be fine calling myself that.

Unfortunately, as you can see from this thread itself, people have their own ideas of what being an atheist is outside of the simple "not a believer in god" definition. So using the atheist label causes more trouble than it's worth when "not religious" works just as well and is harder to misinterpret.

It's not like I care about the term atheist at all, so I'm perfectly fine dumping it when it causes such confusion.

 

[staticneuron]

He said exactly what I've been telling people who want to debate me about religion or politics or ask me my stance on shit all the time. I don't have the time or energy to debate with you, I'm too busy actually living and trying to be a good human being.

And to people saying atheist and agnostic are the same thing, they aren't. An atheist actively believes that there is no higher power in any shape, way, or form, while an agnostic won't assign a yes or a no to it nor a name to it because we understand that, at least right this second, we have no way of knowing whether there is or isn't.

No.

This is all an annoying trend to add extra meaning onto words that when taken at face value is very simple meanings. An Atheist is someone who rejects the existence of a deity or deities. An Agnostic is someone who studies the evidence to support the claims before making a judgement. Since there are no hard and fast facts about deities or a deity existing, for now all agnostics are atheists. If there ever became enough evidence to prove a deity or more then the agnostic can also become a theists and chances are atheists would cease to exist in large numbers.

Now any modern day assumption that the actions of a few vocal and organized atheists represent "ALL" atheists people are now starting to pervert the dictionary definition.

 

[KHarvey16]

And that could quite possibly be the foundation and thrust of his tenets of belief: It indeed does not offer any answer to a question of belief, and neither does said question of belief matter in the grander scheme of things.

It's kinda weird how many people who profess to be rational or free thinkers can't grasp this concept.

I don't really understand what you're saying. The word describes a belief about knowledge, atheist describes the state of belief in a deity. If you claim agnosticism is the basis for his non-belief how does that somehow prevent him being an atheist?

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

You just nope'd your way right out of the English language. Sorry dude, but the limbo you're in no longer has an exit. Best of luck to you.

See how by answering, you effectively changed the question? I'll let you try again if you want. Are you a theist? Yes or no.

I apologize for not fitting nearly in the categories you have reduced yourself to. Apparently reserving judgment means I'm being evasive.

 

[First Name]

No one is assuming unicorns are real since we've mapped out most of the earth.

Underwater unicorns.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

I find the people who are coming in here and essentially saying "fuck the debate, I'm somehow smarter than you" pretty mind numbing.

Whether you are theist, atheist or agnostic, by whatever definition, you may find value in the debate over God's existence. It's the very makeup of our reality. Why wouldn't it be healthy and interesting to investigate and debate?

If you don't want to have the debate, that's fine. You can stay home. But if you think you're oh so smarter for it? Sorry son. You ain't.

Yeah, this drives me crazy. People do it with politics too. "Man, I hate all this Right vs. Left stuff. Why can't they stop bickering and actually do something?" Because they're bickering about what to do! Not having an opinion doesn't put you above the discussion.

I 100% agree with Tyson here. It's why I stopped referring to myself as a black male. People jump to conclusions when I use those labels, so instead of educating people about what the labels really mean, and explaining how their stereotypes are wrong, I'll just pretend like the word no longer applies to me, even if it actually describes me exactly.

If I was gay, I would probably do the same thing, because after all, I'm not an over the top effeminate hairdresser, so the word "gay" obviously wouldn't apply to me.

Ha ha, you still had me after the second sentence. Well done.

 

[GrizzNKev]

I apologize for not fitting nearly in the categories you have reduced yourself to. Apparently reserving judgment means I'm being evasive.

I've reduced nothing. You've created your own definition for words... just like everyone else who thinks agnosticism is some sort of middle ground and not actually a statement of knowledge which functions best as a descriptor attached to other words.

 

[staticneuron]

You are using the terms improperly. If someone asks you if you believe in god, replying "I'm an agnostic" does not answer their question. You've told them what you believe you can know, what knowledge you believe we can have or do have. An agnostic believes we cannot know or simply do not know. It does not offer any answer to a question of belief. You can believe in god and be an agnostic. Again, this would be belief without knowledge, or faith.

It does though. Simply put, being in the position to claim that an existence of a deity is unknown or unknowable as the FIRST response indicates a lack of belief.

Anyone that believes wouldn't be claiming agnosticism first, they would simply say yes they believe. And there is no such thing as belief in a god, without faith. The only other way you can qualify belief in that nature is with evidence. And since we do not have evidence, belief in a deity is faith based.

 

[HK-47]

I 100% agree with Tyson here. It's why I stopped referring to myself as a black male. People jump to conclusions when I use those labels, so instead of educating people about what the labels really mean, and explaining how their stereotypes are wrong, I'll just pretend like the word no longer applies to me, even if it actually describes me exactly.

If I was gay, I would probably do the same thing, because after all, I'm not an over the top effeminate hairdresser, so the word "gay" obviously wouldn't apply to me.

i c wat u did there

 

[Socreges]

He's absolutely right.

As an agnostic myself, I find it incredibly easy to acknowledge that and then move on. Not surprised that this thread exploded.

 

[GrizzNKev]

He's absolutely right.

As an agnostic myself, I find it incredibly easy to acknowledge that and then move on. Not surprised that this thread exploded.

Agnostic... atheist?

 

[onadesertedisland]

He's absolutely right.

As an agnostic myself, I find it incredibly easy to acknowledge that and then move on. Not surprised that this thread exploded.

Are you afraid of the label atheist?

 

[Kettch]

Also, the gay analogy doesn't quite work here, though it's close. It would be more accurate if a significant portion of the population thought that when a guy is gay that it means he hates women.

How many people would still call themselves gay then? And have to constantly correct people that they don't hate women? It would be far easier to simply tell people you're attracted to men instead, which can be clearly understood instead of relying on a label that not everyone agrees on.

 

[triplestation]

I just don't give a fuck. I just analyze and note.

 

[KHarvey16]

It does though. Simply put, being in the position to claim that an existence of a deity is unknown or unknowable as the FIRST response indicates a lack of belief.

Anyone that believes wouldn't be claiming agnosticism first, they would simply say yes they believe. And there is no such thing as belief in a god, without faith. The only other way you can qualify belief in that nature is with evidence. And since we do not have evidence, belief in a deity is faith based.

You're adding a lot to the meanings that aren't there. A person can believe they know god exists and believe in god. They would be a gnostic theist. It doesn't mean they are correct; the word gnostic describes their belief. Saying you are an agnostic says you don't believe we know or perhaps that we can ever know if god exists or does not exist. This attempt to interpret the psychology behind how the person presents this information is entirely unnecessary.

 

[HK-47]

Ha, I was considering using life and death as an example of a binary concept. I am not alive nor dead, I am agnostic. lol

If you dont believe in death, you'll live forever. The Sandman explained all this.

 

[Mario]

Putting this on the new page seeing people don't actually read the thread before posting:

Every page is not enough. I think it is going to have to be every 4 or 5 posts before anybody actually stops and notices.

 

[Fusebox]

I think I've seen one

That's not a unicorn, that's a quadricorn...

 

[Socreges]

Agnostic... atheist?

However it works. I've heard different interpretations of the semantics. Fact is that I subscribe to the exact same explanation that Tyson gave: I don't outright dismiss the existence of God (this can be elaborated on, but it's not necessary to do so).

Are you afraid of the label atheist?

Not at all.

It seems like some people are being a bit obtuse about what Tyson said in the video. He's not saying "I choose to brand myself as something else because I'm afraid of the label." -- He's saying that regarding himself as an agnostic works just fine and also distances him from militant atheists. He's trying to make two points at once and this might have confused people.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Funny how so many people bash obnoxious atheists and complain about how they gather on the internet to hurt people's feeling and convert them, yet GAF has a Christianity |OT| but no such equivalent for atheism. Though the versus thread might count in some kind of way.

 

[Davidion]

To say you are not sure is to say you are without belief, thus atheist.

I am not sure Santa exists, but I am not certain he does not.

This statement means that you do not believe in Santa.

There is no middle ground in the concept of belief. It is sort of like being dead, either you are or you aren't. You either believe or you don't. You can't say you aren't sure if you believe because at that moment you do not, by definition, believe.

I am sure that Santa doesn't exist. Santa is an entirely well defined entity with asserted tangible physical, emotional, even geographical properties that we can be sure does not exist based on the collective body of knowledge we possess and which cannot be challenged short of decimating the very root of our understanding of being including the lexicon from which your statements can't be made without. That's certainty, that's how you not believe in something.

Theism, the school of belief that some, SOME possible deity of any infinite number of properties, has no such limitations, and can thus be completely malleable and amorphous when the veracity of its claims needs defending(which of course, would make its assertion pointless in the same way). The foundation behind agnosticism, explicit or implicit, is the fact that understanding the truth behind the atheist/theist debate is unnecessary and more importantly, completely useless from a metaphysical perspective. Which brings us to...

I don't really understand what you're saying. The word describes a belief about knowledge, atheist describes the state of belief in a deity. If you claim agnosticism is the basis for his non-belief how does that somehow prevent him being an atheist?

A description is not the same as ascribing being, which is an intrinsically important part of that person's qualities. A person is an a-endlessnumberofdifferentthings-ist and yet they do not describe themselves as all of these things; he/she identifies themselves as that which best describes what's important to them and how they want to be seen in the world. If you're going to force a categorization upon someone because that happens to be how our language works, then you probably shouldn't ignore this relatively fundamental truth about how we use language in the first place.

If it makes everyone happier, Tyson can be labeled an atheist. And in the same breath It's merely a useless and insignificant quality of himself that he'll never care to affiliate with. Oh and now in this sense...

Also, the gay analogy doesn't quite work here, though it's close. It would be more accurate if a significant portion of the population thought that when a guy is gay that it means he hates women.
.

...the gay analogy, sarcastic or not, works perfectly: a gay man identifies himself as gay because he's proud to present that as a significant part of his being. Someone like Tyson doesn't identifies himself as an atheist because it's an embarrassment for a scientist of his stature to be associated with such a label. In fact, I think that's exactly what he described in the video.

If that's how you want to identify the significance of atheism, I'm more than willing to converse based on this assertion. Speaking of unicorns and being unable to ascertain their existence, SOMEWHERE, I wonder why you people aren't jumping to label him an aunicornist.

 

[onadesertedisland]

I am sure that Santa doesn't exist. Santa is an entirely well defined entity with asserted tangible physical, emotional, even geographical properties that we can be sure does not exist based on the collective body of knowledge we possess and which cannot be challenged short of decimating the very root of our understanding of being including the lexicon from which your statements can't be made without. That's certainty, that's how you not believe in something.

Theism, the school of belief that some, SOME possible deity of any infinite number of properties, has no such limitations, and can thus be completely malleable and amorphous if you wish to attack its veracity(and of course, debatably pointless in the same way). The foundation behind agnosticism, explicit or implicit, is the fact that understanding the truth behind the atheist/theist debate is unnecessary and more importantly, completely useless from a metaphysical perspective. Which brings us to...



A description is not the same as ascribing being, which is an intrinsically important part of that person's qualities. A person is an a-endlessnumberofdifferentthings-ist and yet they do not describe themselves as all of these things; he/she identifies themselves as that which best describes what's important to them and how they want to be seen in the world. If you're going to force a categorization upon someone because that happens to be how our language works, then you probably shouldn't ignore this relatively fundamental truth about how we use language in the first place.

If it makes everyone happier, Tyson can be labeled an atheist. And in the same breath It's merely a useless and insignificant quality of himself that he'll never care to affiliate with. Oh and now in this sense...



...the gay analogy, sarcastic or not, works perfectly: a gay man identifies himself as gay because he's proud to present that as a significant part of his being. Someone like Tyson doesn't identifies himself as an atheist because it's an embarrassment for a scientist of his stature to be associated with such a label. In fact, I think that's exactly what he described in the video.

If that's how you want to identify the significance of atheism, I'm more than willing to converse based on this assertion. Speaking of unicorns and being unable to ascertain their existence, SOMEWHERE, I wonder why you people aren't jumping to label him an aunicornist.

Santa does exist. Prove me wrong.

 

[GrizzNKev]

However it works. I've heard different interpretations of the semantics. Fact is that I subscribe to the exact same explanation that Tyson gave: I don't outright dismiss the existence of God (this can be elaborated on, but it's not necessary to do so).

Wait, do you not dismiss the existence of god as asserted by theists, or do you not dismiss the possibility of existence of a god? Kind of hard to tell from your wording.

 

[KHarvey16]

A description is not the same as ascribing being, which is an intrinsically important part of that person's qualities. A person is an a-endlessnumberofdifferentthings-ist and yet they do not describe themselves as all of these things; he/she identifies themselves as that which best describes what's important to them and how they want to be seen in the world. If you're going to force a categorization upon someone because that happens to be how our language works, then you probably shouldn't ignore this relatively fundamental truth about how we use language in the first place.

If it makes everyone happier, Tyson can be labeled an atheist. And in the same breath It's merely a useless and insignificant quality of himself that he'll never care to affiliate with. Oh and now in this sense...

What meaning he or anyone else ascribe to the category is beyond the scope of the word itself. A person who lacks a belief in god is an atheist, whether they care about this word or not.

 

[danwarb]

Putting this on the new page seeing people don't actually read the thread before posting:

So I'm agnostic atheist then. Atheist as in not-theist, with agnostic for those who'd otherwise be offended. Can never be 100% sure of anything.

 

[speculawyer]

None. But they constantly publish obnoxious material on Facebook, and invade forums constantly. Maybe it's different because it might be easier to filter, but it's still proselytizing. On the other hand, in my experience, while hard theists resort to other methods (going door to door or stopping you on the street) it seems like the same thing. And again, while hard atheists may be easier to filter, hard theists are a lot friendlier about it. All in all it seems about the same.

Really? You don't think the medium may be the difference? The online atheist postings are hard but the theists at our door are nice thus the atheists are the less friendly ones.

Haven't you ever seen the zillions of "all you gays & atheists can go burn in hell" postings on-line. Go read the comments sections under any Yahoo news story on homosexuals. Well, they often don't have comments sections under those stories because they quickly get filled up with "Burn in hell f@gs!" posts.


I do think a lot of atheists let loose a bit online . . . some are venting because they can't be "out" atheists in their own communities.

 

[Davidion]

Santa does exist. Prove me wrong.

Sure, describe him to me. I want exact locations, specifications, and how everything described of him works. Go for it. It'll be an interesting read.

I'm not going to prove you wrong by the way. Why would I care? I'm right. Prove me wrong.

What meaning he or anyone else ascribe to the category is beyond the scope of the word itself. A person who lacks a belief in god is an atheist, whether they care about this word or not.

It's beyond the scope of the word but certainly not beyond the scope of the language. I'm glad you agree you agree with everything I just said, so Atheism as a belief system isn't important enough for Tyson for him to associate with. He's also an aporklordist; I just learned something new.

 

[speculawyer]

Also, the gay analogy doesn't quite work here, though it's close. It would be more accurate if a significant portion of the population thought that when a guy is gay that it means he hates women.

How many people would still call themselves gay then? And have to constantly correct people that they don't hate women? It would be far easier to simply tell people you're attracted to men instead, which can be clearly understood instead of relying on a label that not everyone agrees on.

Are you implying that atheists hate god? How can you hate something you don't believe exists?

Again . . . this is more of the problem . . . the label of atheist being demonized with something as nonsensical as "hating god".

 

[staticneuron]

You're adding a lot to the meanings that aren't there. A person can believe they know god exists and believe in god.

Believe without proof or evidence is faith. No matter which way you try to cut it. I am not adding anything in that regards.

They would be a gnostic theist. It doesn't mean they are correct; the word gnostic describes their belief. Saying you are an agnostic says you don't believe we know or perhaps that we can ever know if god exists or does not exist. This attempt to interpret the psychology behind how the person presents this information is entirely unnecessary.

But here is where people are adding meanings and trying to use charts to make it more official looking.

A Gnostic is and Adherent of Gnosticism. Gnosticism is NOT THE OPPOSITE OF AGNOSTIC. Gnosticism is an actual set of beliefs and religious practices and does not refer to the truth quotient of any general contemplation of the line between belief and knowledge.

From wiki for Agnostic

Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense

From wiki for Gnosticism

Gnosticism is a modern scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices found among some of the early Christian groups called "gnostic" ("learned") by Irenaeus and other early Christian heresiologists. The term also has reference to parallels and possible pre-Christian influences of the Christian gnostics.

This is not simply some dance of psychology but easily pointing out a contradiction. Theists have a faith based belief, to try to tie that in with agnostic is being contradictory because of the premise that somethings cannot be known or is unknowable. That is the exact opposite of a faith based belief.

Putting this on the new page seeing people don't actually read the thread before posting:

Just for good measure again...

A Gnostic is and Adherent of Gnosticism. Gnosticism is NOT THE OPPOSITE OF AGNOSTIC. Gnosticism is an actual set of beliefs and religious practices and does not refer to the truth quotient of any general contemplation of the line between belief and knowledge.

 

[First Name]

Are you implying that atheists hate god? How can you hate something you don't believe exists?

I think he's implying that a lot of people think that's what atheism means. Unfortunately he's right.

 

[Socreges]

Wait, do you not dismiss the existence of god as asserted by theists, or do you not dismiss the possibility of existence of a god? Kind of hard to tell from your wording.

Why is my stance, to this level of detail, important to you? I could answer your question, but I see this as a waste of time whereby each answer would elicit two more questions. I'm not interested in a debate. I've had enough of those. Conversed and vetted plenty.