Don't dictate beliefs

[Khatru]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Atheists trust in science and believe the theory of evolution is fact. Point to one who doesn't.
Ranting and whining is your expertise.
Did you really think before you wrote this (?):“Scientists NEVER have "faith" in science.”
So they don't believe in their own field of work and knowledge? So they know, as I do, that science and / or the “evidence” is not worthy of faith, confidence, or trust, yet they continue to participate in something which isn't credible? I see. If they have been reading the news stories I've seen, it's little wonder they see it as deeply flawed, therefore not worthy of confidence. Maybe they are catching on.
You have expressed extravagant faith in science. You have expressed your faith that the peer review system catches the errors, in spite of the hundreds, if not thousands of scientific articles which say it does not. I've posted maybe a hundred on this very forum which prove my point.
“Judging by analyses showing that the number of retractions during the past ten years has skyrocketed, it is reasonable to conclude that the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.”
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/846/94/
I have no “fear” of science (unless I was taking some of the new medications on the market produced by fraudulent scientists – in which case I might indeed be afraid) because I do not place my faith and confidence in science, as you do.
Yes, you are indeed pitiful and transparent, as you lamely try and fail to defend your faith.

No theories are fact.

Theories represent our best explanations of facts.

The majority of the world's Christians accept that evolution is a fact.

[Khatru]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
But you just provided us the definition of a religion at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :
<quoted text>
That's exactly the opposite of atheism.
You're not about to tell me that there is more than one definition of religion, are you?

Bam!

Another lying Christian caught out through his contradictions.

[The laughing atheist]

derek4 wrote:

The Religion Of Atheism
“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest "monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.
Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions.
Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.
Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on "separation of church and state."
But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. A few years ago, the car I drove was a big, old Chevrolet, whose color was black. In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.
If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.”
[Poster's insert: Court rules atheism a religion
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/ ]
If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.
But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.”
[Poster's insert: This means atheists are dictating their religious beliefs in our schools.]
“When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.
The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!
When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.

I had to delete some of your post because of the character limitations.

I see why you would want to call atheism a religion, but it simply is not a religion. Period. That's it. No thinking person considers it a religion. The fact that you do, simply takes away from any credibility that you might hope to enjoy in a debate on the subject. Your link that you provided about the court ruling that atheism is a religion did not lead to a page that said anything about the courts, but if you are referring to the supreme court decision that said atheism must be treated like a religion in reference to prisons, it is not the same thing as declaring atheism a religion.

Atheism is not taught in our public schools, so even if it were considered a religion, it would not be an issue. Evolution is accepted as scientific fact(not law), and does not encroach on religious philosophy. If you can provide a link or some proof that evolution as taught in public schools states that there is no god, or that there is no evidence of god, or ever mentions God, I would like to see it.

It appears that you do not like the idea that your religion is not allowed to be taught in public schools. That's too bad for you. The US Constitution is very clear on the matter, but you can always send your kids to a religious school that is not funded with taxpayer money.

[The laughing atheist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Atheists trust in science and believe the theory of evolution is fact. Point to one who doesn't.
Ranting and whining is your expertise.
Did you really think before you wrote this (?):“Scientists NEVER have "faith" in science.”
So they don't believe in their own field of work and knowledge? So they know, as I do, that science and / or the “evidence” is not worthy of faith, confidence, or trust, yet they continue to participate in something which isn't credible? I see. If they have been reading the news stories I've seen, it's little wonder they see it as deeply flawed, therefore not worthy of confidence. Maybe they are catching on.
You have expressed extravagant faith in science. You have expressed your faith that the peer review system catches the errors, in spite of the hundreds, if not thousands of scientific articles which say it does not. I've posted maybe a hundred on this very forum which prove my point.
“Judging by analyses showing that the number of retractions during the past ten years has skyrocketed, it is reasonable to conclude that the self-regulating peer review system suffers from serious underlying defects.”
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/846/94/
I have no “fear” of science (unless I was taking some of the new medications on the market produced by fraudulent scientists – in which case I might indeed be afraid) because I do not place my faith and confidence in science, as you do.
Yes, you are indeed pitiful and transparent, as you lamely try and fail to defend your faith.

There is nothing in the definition of atheism that says that it requires "A belief or "faith" in science" or that an atheist must accept, or even be aware of evolution.

You are building a strawman argument. It's not very convincing.

[The laughing atheist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
To #1 on your list, you omitted and stopped short of definition #4 of religion in the Merriam-Webster link I provided for you:“According to Websters Dictionary online (2012), one of the definitions of ‘religion’ is:“a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”: see #4, here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rel...
Further elaboration was included with my original post where the definition appeared.
There is no need for me to readdress your other points since they were already covered with my original post, which you didn't comprehend.
Enjoy your godless, atheistic religion, but stop trying to dictate your religion -“The Religion Of Atheism.”
As previously posted,“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest "monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe. Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions. Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.”[link for quotes was provided in original post]

"“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural."

Do you believe in astrology? How about ghosts? Magic? I will assume you do not.
Does this mean that your non-belief in those things constitutes a religion?

[The laughing atheist]

derek4 wrote:

From NBC News:
October 1, 2012
“Can you trust what biomedical researchers have to say about your health?
There are plenty of people out there who say no, including anti-vaccinators, mega vitamin proponents, lovers of non-Western medicine and those who see a pharmaceutical company plot behind every drug, device or genetically altered seed. Few of these skeptics have any sound evidence to offer on behalf of their distrust. Often their opposition is based more on ideology or politics than it is solid evidence for doubt.
But, that does not mean that biomedical science should ignore problems that do undermine public trust in what they have to say. One of the most important and disturbing is fraud.
A study published Monday in the very trustworthy journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that fraud is a real problem in scientific publications. This study is both a reason for concern and, ironically, a reason to trust what scientists and doctors say.
The study reviewed 2,047 retracted biomedical and life-science research articles dating back to 1973 and found that the biggest reason for their retraction wasn't honest error but fraud. More than 40 percent of the retractions were due to the discovery of outright fraud and another 23 percent to plagiarism. The rate of retractions of published articles, while a tiny percentage of all papers published in biomedical journals — 2,000 out of tens of millions published in the past four decades -- is growing. The rate has jumped 10 fold in the past 37 years.”
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/01/14...
COMMENTS:
Note this key point from the text:“The study reviewed 2,047 retracted biomedical and life-science research articles dating back to 1973 and found that the biggest reason for their retraction wasn't honest error but fraud.”
The key word there is “fraud.”

I notice that you seem to enjoy posting about bad science, or more accurately, naughty scientists.

Why is this? Does this somehow support your position that there is a God? It seems that you feel, that if you can post a bunch of stuff about scientific fraud, that this somehow weakens the atheist position. Please correct me if I am wong. Please bear in mind that the atheist position has nothing explicitly to do with science, but rather a disbelief or lack of belief in a god. So why would your posts about scientific fraud weaken that?

[Givemeliberty]

Anzu is whispering in his ear keeping the truth away from him! Lol :))

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is that your god is dying in the light of reason. He wasn't crucified. He was mortally wounded in the Garden and has been dying ever since he peeked over the edge of his cloud at Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge, fell to earth, and was impaled by the largest and sharpest branch on that tree.
Did you know that Gehenna was a trash heap? When your god is done twitching, he will be added to the trash heap of forgotten and unloved gods with Odin and Zeus like so much refuse from man's dark past. Nobody alive at that time will mourn him any more than they do Gilgamesh or Marduk today.

[derek4]

The laughing atheist wrote:

<quoted text>
"“A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural."
Do you believe in astrology? How about ghosts? Magic? I will assume you do not.
Does this mean that your non-belief in those things constitutes a religion?

The laughing atheist - or is it the laughable atheist?

You're new here, aren't you?

Thank you for joining our close knit little group.

I guess you'll need to present whatever grievance(s) you have about your religion to the courts, since they've already decided the issue you're unhappy about, lol.(You were overruled....)

[derek4]

Atheism is a Religion Says US Supreme Court
December 01, 2009

“... there was a case adjudicated in 2005 in Wisconsin, Kaufman v. McCaughtry. This case involved an Atheist inmate who filed a grievance as a result of being denied to form a study group for Atheists in his prison on the grounds that his First Amendment rights were thwarted by denial to form the group by the prison authorities.

Continued:

When this atheist plaintiff’s case was presented to the lower court, it was thrown out of court because the prisoner was asking to form a group that was not based on religious beliefs, but was considered by prison officials to be a request to form a non-religious group that was considered to be an activity group. At the time of his request, the prison authorities, defendants in the case, said that no other activity groups were permitted to be formed at that time, so the denial of his request by the prison officials was considered legitimate. The plaintiff himself did not see his atheism as any more than really just an opposition to religion so there had been no violation of either his right to establish the group or to exercise any religious belief.

The atheist was still not satisfied, so he appealed the case. When the case was brought before the higher court, it was further considered, that although the prison officials did not deem atheism a religion, perhaps it should have been considered a religion because it was a group that was "religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The case, therefore, was finally judged by the State Supreme Court as not being in violation of free exercise because the atheist would still be able to practice his atheism whether or not he was allowed to form the group, however, his right to establishment of that group that was religious in nature was denied, and thus a violation of his First Amendment rights. This case sets precedence that atheism is considered a religion by the United States Supreme Court.

This ruling raises a lot of issues and some questions. One of the questions that immediately comes to mind is that if the Supreme Court has declared Atheism to be a religion, then why are atheistic philosophies like Darwinism, whether taught in science class or not, still an atheist philosophy, allowed to be propagated in schools without also the creationist aspect of religion also allowed in the curriculum? It seems to me that atheists are being allowed to establish and practice their religion in their secularist and humanist curriculum in our public schools without allowing either the establishment or free exercise of any other religion but their own. They seem to be able to do this because they claim theirs isn’t a religion, but the Supreme Court has declared that it is. What’s wrong with this picture?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action...

COMMENT:
KEY PRECEDENT WITHIN THE TEXT:“This case sets precedence that atheism is considered a religion by the United States Supreme Court.”

[derek4]

The laughing atheist wrote:

<quoted text>
I notice that you seem to enjoy posting about bad science, or more accurately, naughty scientists.
Why is this? Does this somehow support your position that there is a God? It seems that you feel, that if you can post a bunch of stuff about scientific fraud, that this somehow weakens the atheist position. Please correct me if I am wong. Please bear in mind that the atheist position has nothing explicitly to do with science, but rather a disbelief or lack of belief in a god. So why would your posts about scientific fraud weaken that?

I don't backtrack to explain why I am here to the late bloomers. Nor do I owe you any explanation as to why I am here.

If, like most lazy atheists, you don't want to familiarize yourself with what's been going on to date in the forum, you can remain in the dark, or go back and catch up, or disappear off the planet, lol. The choice is all yours – I couldn't care less what you do. LMAO

[derek4]

“Atheism:[is] a religion”

“Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”

[Poster's insert: Above quote demonstrates the unoriginality of Hedonist's post which made the same statement, plagiarizing the author, since he linked to no source and dishonestly presented it as his own thought.]

text continues:

However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about “religion”. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

Continued; (Conclusion:)

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert,“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labeled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.
http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

COMMENT: THE FOLLOWING, FROM THE ABOVE TEXT, CONCLUDES THAT ATHEISM IS A RELIGION:
“Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.”
[And they are very ardent and devout in their religion.]

[derek4]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
If the god of the Bible meant for his message to be understood then the evidence suggests he's failed.
Otherwise we wouldn't have so many different Christian denominations and sects each claiming to be right at the expense of the others.
Then you have the mixed messages in the Bible itself - sure there are good things in there but it's also full of primitive barbarisms.
Nietzsche questioned the goodness of an omniscient, omnipotent god who doesn't even make sure that his creatures understand his intention. This god who allows doubts to persist for thousands of years. Nietzsche also went on to liken the god of the Bible to a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs and gestures when some sort of danger is present.

Do we throw out the Constitution because there are people who have difficulties understanding it, many of them arriving at different interpretations that must be decided by our courts?

[Being as you're in the UK, you may not know what our Constitution is – if not, ask someone and they will explain it to you.]

“What happened to Nietzsche? What went wrong? When did this all begin? The aim of this inquiry is notwhat caused Nietzsche's madness; it is when his madness began. This is a significant question for philosophy, for if his street collapse was the culmination of a serious mental illness that had been underway for even a few weeks before this event, at least one or two of his six 1888 books must have been written under the spell of madness. If this were indeed the case, the difficult question is precisely how many of these books have been infected by his illness.”
http://www.bu.edu/paideia/existenz/volumes/Vo...

[derek4]

Atheism is a Religion Under the Constitution

“The Supreme Court has held that what makes a belief religious is "whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God." Since most of us live for something or the other, this test would mean that most of us are religious. Including atheists.

The Court even explicitly says so: "[A]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." (US v. Seeger) Essentially, belief in no God and commitment to study the non-existence of God are protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

The relevant part of the 1st Amendment is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So atheism is a protected practice. I agree. Atheism should be treated as a religion under the 1st Amendment. Atheists should be allowed to express their fundamental rights that religious people have. This means,(as it did in Kaufman v. McCaughtry) that atheists may practice their beliefs in jail by studying atheism and promoting it, and that (as in U.S. v. Seeger) secular humanists may be conscientious objectors to war based on their religious beliefs.

But if atheism is a religion for the free-exercise clause, then it must be a religion for the establishment clause. The government must not promote one religion over another.”
http://www.revelife.com/755827097/atheism-is-...

COMMENT: NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING FROM THE ABOVE TEXT CONCLUDES THAT ATHEISM IS A RELIGION:
“... most of us are religious. Including atheists. The Court even explicitly says so: "[A]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." (US v. Seeger) Essentially, belief in no God and commitment to study the non-existence of God are protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.”

[The laughing atheist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
The laughing atheist - or is it the laughable atheist?
You're new here, aren't you?
Thank you for joining our close knit little group.
I guess you'll need to present whatever grievance(s) you have about your religion to the courts, since they've already decided the issue you're unhappy about, lol.(You were overruled....)

As explained, the supreme court decision was about an inmate in a very specific case. The court did not say that atheism is a religion, but rather, in that particular case, it had to be treated the same as religion.

It seems that you don't really care about accuracy.

[The laughing atheist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't backtrack to explain why I am here to the late bloomers. Nor do I owe you any explanation as to why I am here.
If, like most lazy atheists, you don't want to familiarize yourself with what's been going on to date in the forum, you can remain in the dark, or go back and catch up, or disappear off the planet, lol. The choice is all yours – I couldn't care less what you do. LMAO

I took a minute to briefly go back and see what you posted.

Apparently you do not wish to discuss anything, but rather are using this format to stand on a soap box and make false claims while trying to tie atheism to science. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. I attribute it to insecurity, and self-doubt on your part. As it is obvious that you cannot hold up your end in a intelligent discussion, I will leave you to your ranting and raving. I have found others on these forums that are better spoken, and considerably more honest than you appear to be. If you claim to be a christian, you are not helping your cause.
Good luck.

[Givemeliberty]

I mentioned her once you have drooled I've her like two dozen times maybe? Creepy. Like rapist creepy I hope you keep your hands to yourself at the nursing homes.

But since you are so in love with my 82 year old grandma this I can tell you about her. She would look at your behavior on here and how you take delight in attacking others and she would tell you that you know nothing about being a Christian and then she would quote you 20 scriptures showing how you are anything but a Christian and how her theist grandson acts by far more Christian than you.

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
I admire her, if she is what you say. If you didn't want her mentioned, you should have left her out of your posts.
And I already have volunteered in nursing homes. In fact, I do nursing home volunteer work on a regular basis at 2 homes. It's always a blessing to see how most of the aged hold closer to their faith as they near the end of life. There are a few elderly people in the homes who are very bitter against God. They sit alone in their rooms, mad at the world. They want nothing to do with anyone, and no one wants anything to do with them - that's the way you'll be yourself someday.

[Saint Augustine]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

“I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil--you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself.”– Dan Barker
”There is joy in rationality, happiness in clarity of mind. Freethought is thrilling and fulfilling--absolutely essential to mental health and happiness.”– Dan Barker
”For my money, I'll bet on reason and humanistic kindness. Even if I am wrong I will have enjoyed my life, the existence of which is under little dispute.”– Dan Barker
“The longer I have been an atheist, the more amazed I am that I ever believed Christian notions.”– Dan Barker
“Freethinkers reject faith as a valid tool of knowledge. Faith is the opposite of reason because reason imposes very strict limits on what can be true, and faith has no limits at all. A Great Escape into faith is no retreat to safety. It is nothing less than surrender.”– Dan Barker
“There are many gods which Christians reject. I just believe in one less god then they do. The reasons that you might give for your atheism toward the Roman gods are likely the same reasons I would give for not believing in Jesus.”– Dan Barker
”It is wrong for a secular government to promote prayer. We think the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. What if the president declared a National Day of Cursing God because He failed us on September 11? Americans would say, "You've overstepped your authority." That's how we feel when he promotes prayer.”– Dan Barker
”Look at the posture of prayer. It is the posture of slavery, of bowing before your master. We are a proudly rebellious country. We kicked out the master. Now here comes the government telling us to humbly bow again.”– Dan Barker
”Not thinking critically, I assumed that the successful prayers were proof that God answers prayer while the failures were proof that there was something wrong with me.”– Dan Barker
”Prayer never changes the laws of nature.”– Dan Barker
“Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.”– Dan Barker
“Some theists, observing that all 'effects' need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.”– Dan Barker
“Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved.”– Dan Barker
“In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.”– Dan Barker

*This* is IANS.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

[Saint Augustine]

Givemeliberty wrote:

I mentioned her once you have drooled I've her like two dozen times maybe? Creepy. Like rapist creepy I hope you keep your hands to yourself at the nursing homes.
But since you are so in love with my 82 year old grandma this I can tell you about her. She would look at your behavior on here and how you take delight in attacking others and she would tell you that you know nothing about being a Christian and then she would quote you 20 scriptures showing how you are anything but a Christian and how her theist grandson acts by far more Christian than you.
<quoted text>

He wants grams?

Not grams!!!!

[Reason Personified]

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
If your statements were true you would be hunted down and killed. Don't look now but you might be right! Sleep tight.
Ya Ha ha ha!!!!(Evil laugh)

Rabbi Jewsus loves you, huh? Lucky you, you give up your humanity now, for ..... ugh, umm, nothing, nada. You won't even get to be god's hemorrhoid collector, because .... if there was a god it wouldn't be the thing in the bible that is called a god.

But you will be remembered for being a condescending inhumane jerk, so goody for you.

Nobody collects a damned thing after they are dead, except fungus maybe.

[Langoliers]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>Does that mean I'm also a Unicornian and a Leprechauniast too - because I don't think they are real either...

Do you understand the English language? It would appear not.

Religion is not a myth you Dolt!

I often wonder why people believe that nature builds things up when people like you are living proof that humans are slipping further from the perfect that was Adam.