Critique of the book "Why there is no God" by Armin Navabi
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
It's probably just my imagination, but this Fergie character is starting to behave and sound an awful lot like another Catholic nutter we had on these pages...AB..CD...and various other pseudonyms.
Maybe devout Roman Catholicism has that effect on the vulnerable. Or maybe......................
@Old Man Re: Fergie
Heeeeey... Ya know, he really does sound very much like our long-lost AB/DC/FIG/Billy. Wow! How did I miss that??? And they are even about the same age, too. Hmmmm... with similar background stories, if I recall correctly. Good catch! If it is not him, though, I shudder to think there is more than one of them running loose in the world... *cringe*...
Has fergie actually offered anything approaching a critique of the book yet?
His ant atheist disjointed rants remind me of theists who rant against Professor Dawkins's The God Delusion, yet invariably haven't read a single word of the book, and simply rant at the title and author.
@Fergie (aka: AB/DC/FIG/Billy)
...*waving excitedly*.... Hey there, ol' buddy! How the hell ya been? Dude, I feel so bad that I didn't recognize you. Please forgive me. Done something new with your hair? Maybe lost a little weight? Oh, well. Good to see you again, o' buddy, o' chum, o' pal if mine!... *playfully punching shoulder*...
Oh, meanwhile, this one is truly delicious to savour, for reasons I shall come to shortly ...
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
You really are a prize specimen, aren't you?
Not only have thousands of people who attended computer science classes learned about this, they have written their own code to implement this and seen it working.
I can run this program in my web browser RIGHT NOW, take screenshots of the output, and post them here. I can also provide the source code I've written to those who are interested. Even better, I can provide video footage of me using this program if I need to. Indeed, I shall do this prior to posting this, and provide the link for everyone to view ... now that's done, here you go, watch my code in action:
Modular Cellular Automata In Action
You really are a complete and utter tool, Ferguson, if you think the dipshit apologetic fabrications you peddle here are something other than the products of your rectal passage. Watching you toss this shit into the ring and pretend that it constitutes some sort of killer put-down, is like watching a five year old taking a peashooter to an M1 Abrams main battle tank. Your fatuous drivel really does add several new dimensions to the word "pathetic".
The above could actually be implemented as a general function, defined as:
function NewGeneration(cellArray, width, height, lowLimit, highLimit, comeAlive)
No fucking "belief" involved.
Quick Python implementation of the game of life. Written by Keith Randall:
Wow, that has to be the shortest implementation of the algorithm I've seen ...
I've seen several one liners, but not really much shorter; and even harder to read.
Now, if that were translated into BASIC I might know what it actually says.
And the first youngin' who says any smartass remark about BASIC will get a 5¼" floppy slap across the face. >:(
I remember storing files on a Bernoulli disk. ;)
I never heard of those, so I had to look it up.
As soon as I read Iomega I cringed. What I remember most was the Grrrzzzzzzzzzt sound of a Jaz drive that basically translated to, "I hope you have this data backed up because I just died!"
@LostLocke Re: BASIC
Hey, speaking of BASIC, here's a little flashback for you: TRS-80.... *grin*...
The TRS-80 was actually slightly before my time for using computers. My first childhood computer was an IBM PCjr.
@ListLocke Re: "The TRS-80 was actually slightly before my time..."
...*cringe*... Ouch. Gee, thanks. Now I REALLY feel like an old fart... *heavy sigh*...
Well, I see it was released in 1977. So I was technically alive then, just too young to grasp what a computer was. :P
Plus, the fact that people didn't own about 5 computers per person like they do today, so it was rare to actually see a full computer "in the wild".
Plus plus, while computers are dirt cheap today, it seems many people would have had to donate a kidney and 2 pints of blood to afford one then, which I guess also limited seeing many out and about.
My first introduction to the TRS-80 was in the computer programming class during my junior and senior years of high school (1984-1986). I was quite the avid "tech-geek" during those days. Even used the BASIC system to write a program the school used for its student attendance records. My favorite program, though, was a roulette game I created. You started off with an amount of "money" ($200 or something like that, if I remember correctly.), then placed your bet, picked a number (1-10), and hit the "spin" key. The numbers 1-10 were arranged in the middle of the screen in a circle, and the blinking cursor would randomly "shuffle" around the circle for a varied amount of time until it stopped beneath a number. If you picked that number, you won. Wrong number, you lost whatever you bet. Yes, very rudimentary, to say the least. But, damn, I forget how many floppy discs it took to store/operate that game... lol... Yep, I was all set on being a big-time computer whiz. I would even lay awake at night trying to think of ways to make a computer "learn" on its own..... using BASIC!... LMAO... Ambition in the extreme!
Oddly enough, though, I somehow totally lost interest in computers and such after I graduated. Still not sure why. Hell, nowadays I'm so "technologically challenged" I sometimes get all smug and cocky just being able to log onto the site without having to ask for help... *chuckle*...
Fergs, buddy, just one real quick question.
Didn't your old friend God command you to go forth and multiply? You sound like you haven't been doing much multiplying, you unrepentant SINNER.
You are going to HELL Fergie. REPENT, REPENT I say Ferg. You are a confirmed LIAR and based on your lack of a wife, I assume, a unrepentant MASTURBATOR. Hell fires await you Fergie, REPENT, REPENT I say or you will be JUDGED,
Just a friendly reminder. Have a good day.
Fergus, like most fundamental theists is keen on condemning science because it "changes its story" over time which clearly indicates his ignorance of how the scientific method works in the slow and deliberate accumulation of knowledge.
He seems to think science should be as revelatory and inerrant as the word of god which he would insist is constant and unchanging.
But Christianity too, has undergone countless changes since Jesus was allegedly executed.
First he was a very holy man, then the "Messiah", then the adopted son of god, then both mortal and immortal at the same time, then immortal but created in the flesh, then immortal but eternal, then the "Christ", then part of a triumvirate of essences of the one true god and a hundred other interpretations over several hundred years that has been the gist of endless debates and arguments that ended in the deaths of thousands if not millions in conflicts and pogroms. And all that in just the first 500 years.
The identity of god was also hotly disputed as to whether the benevolent fatherly god of Jesus was the same as the nasty violent god of the Jews, leading to many messy deaths.
The Albigensians declared the Roman Church and the world was run by Satan and abandoned the Catholic faith to take up their quest for the one true god that despised the sexual act that entrapped angels Satan had taken hostage, imprisoning them in mortal bodies of babies, to suffer in the temporal world. This obvious misinterpretation of the Catholic reality was punished and the ensuing indiscriminate massacres of entire towns and cities are legendary. "Kill them all, God will know his own." Apparently hundreds of thousands of angels were released from their fleshy prisons.
Then old widowed women living in villages, acting as midwives and herbalists were declared witches to be burned to death along with their pets, but ooops, much too late, no, as you were, they were just ugly old women, blamed for natal diseases no-one could other wise explain, other than as proceeds of witchcraft. Where was the universal and unlimited compassion of Jesus then? Its all the more disturbing to consider the passage "Suffer not a witch to live." from hundreds of years ago could also be translated as "Suffer not a poisoner to live." Infallible translations and interpretations of god's word seems to be a hit and miss proposition. Nothing unchanging there.
Then the greatest backflip of all, Catholicism is wrong and Protestantism is right and vice versa. Again no need to detail the widespread destruction and death here or to determine who was to blame. Everyone was so sincere in their belief. What a shame.
During all this time slavery is considered normal, owning another human being and treating them like personal possessions was perfectly fine as outlined in the bible, that even advised slaves to be contrite, despite the brutality of their masters. But then in 1839 Pope Gregory XVI gallantly decides to criticise it but oh... takes no action. Then at last at the beginning of the 20th century, long after the British Empire and the United States have already outlawed slavery, Pope Leo XIII finally condemns it as a "moral outrage".
The Catholic church has a history of supporting the death sentence, and issued death sentences against people who dared to have independent thoughts, the last being Giordano Bruno, burnt at the stake in 1600 for his radical theories in cosmology and theology.
In 1942 the Vatican commiserated over the unfortunate fate of Bruno but insisted that it was his defiant personality and NOT his theories that got him killed which was a backhanded way of admitting Bruno was right. Ironically he is considered the first martyr of science.
In 2000 Pope John Paul II apologised for the Vatican burning Bruno. It seems the Vatican made something of a mistake despite access to impeachable divine knowledge and wisdom.
I could spent the rest of my day off itemising ideas and beliefs of which all religions, not just christianity, have changed their teachings but I too have a life to live.
You are right Fergus, science and religion are not the same, they do not propose to seek the same things.
Science investigates, makes predictions, experiments, then modifies those predictions, with further observations and eventually formulates theories that are openly subject to change for the sake of reaching accurate interpretations of how the natural world works that will lead to further research for further realities for the improvement of life for mankind.
Religion adopts dogmatic beliefs based on spontaneous revelations, interpreted dreams and signs, unfounded suppositions and guesses, rejecting and condemning all opposition, at all costs, until grudgingly making concessions on the insistence, usually, of common basic human decency.
Tell us what more you have learned from the book you consider too stupid to read. I love the way you approach things with an open mind.
edited for clarity
«Morality stems from God and without God, we could not be good people»
This is a tricky subject for me and I would not face it in the dumb way Armin faces it in the book.
According to Christian religion all good comes from God through His Holy Spirit, a Spirit that blows wherever he wants and so presumably not only on Catholics.
But the Spirit is invisible, so I cannot check where he goes.
Armin does not supply any hard evidence to support his claims, shows complete ignorance when it comes to religion and his analysis is completely irrelevant.
I have been a Christian from the time I have memory and I am positive I never hit anybody, I never slandered anybody. On the contrary, all my life I had to endure evil and hypocrisy both from atheists and self-appointed religious people.
I am 68 now and all my life I travelled here and there living in the places I went to visit.
It was not so bad in the 50's and 60's in Southamerica, but later I had many opportunities to witness the saying «I send you like sheep among wolves».
The world for me has been a very dangerous place, although I only travelled in order to see people's lives. I even risked my life.
I never had trouble with the law, although some people were so damn evil, they tried to get me in trouble with the police.
Six months after I was living in India the pople went to see the Police and accused me of being a CIA agent and the Police called me for interrogation, although fortunately all ended well for me. This is just one example.
That in the Old Testament gory things happened I put it down to the fact that then, that is, so many centuries ago, mankind was part savage and part human. There were human sacrifices and things like that.
I cannot talk about the Quran because I never read it.
The argument that there is supposed to be a god and yet children die from hunger is as stupid as can be and only shows the ignorance of him who appeals to that argument.
It would make no sense that mankind should practice all the kinds of evil that we can easily see , for God to be always on his guard to set things right.
Another stupid argument is that of God being love and yet sending people to hell.
Peoploe go to hell because they choose that option. To me God is the Supreme Chief, he does what he likes, we are his creatures and God has the right to set the rules of life for us and decide to get rid of those who do not follow the rules. Nowhere in the Bible there seems to be the case that God sends people to hell for having done good or for not believing in God.
God , in my opinion, sends to hell those who did not choose to live their lives loving neighbour, those who do not have a tender heart. The Church never said that Hitler went to hell, at least not the official Church, because we believe that one could have done evil all his life and yet at the last moment before dying realize all the evil he has done and repent sincerely. The Cathechism says clearly and anybody can read it, that there is no sinner big enough that through repentance cannot get his sins forgiven.
That the Church is full of sinners is a fact no one can deny, but one thing is God and another thing is his Church. The Church had sinners since its inception: Judas.
In addition, Christian love is not applied to everybody in the same way.
We consider that rebuking someone who is not doing right or advising someone who is ignorant is an act of love.
If God tells the Pharao «Look, you either let the Jews go back to Israel or I shall punish you» is not against love. The Pharao was warned many times.
Today it is difficult to understand that a father has always had the right to punish proportionartely his kids in order to teach them manners.
Armin's conclusion thatmoral standards are social constructs is simply a theory that atheists like. This subject has been discussed for ages by philosophers and I can remember clearly Kant discussing it at length. Armin does not supply evidence, his are simply theoretical rants and I doubt very much our brains are so perfect that they even contain a moral code.
That one can support this idea is simply due to the arrogance rational atheist scientists always show.
I know you will keep going on like that. Every choice has its logic. A thief finds meaning in what he does.
Science can try as hard as it wants: we live in an imperfect world and applied science is very different from theoretical science.
If you don't believe it, do some research: In Germany every year 5,000 people die for taking aspirins normally.
The best laughs ever....
" I can remember clearly Kant discussing it at length.
ITS A MIRACLE!!!! Kant lived 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804: influential German philosopher.
Even Cap-tain Cats whiskers dribbled a bit of cat spit at that one....
Even a normal street copper in darkest Kazakhstan would recognise you for what you are...and that ain't a CIA agent, who have to have graduated and have other qualifications including critical thinking LOL....
Me and CC were just laughing and Meowing uncontrollably at that one....laughed til' the tears ran down me trouser legs....fortunately I wasn't wearing any...
Man this is the best stuff....
Taking a daily low dose aspirin to prevent blood clots can be disabling or even lethal for people aged 75 and over with a history of heart attacks or strokes, scientists claim. Up to ( NOTE UP TO) 3000 deaths may have contributed to vulnerable people early death.
Low dose daily aspirin is not what I consider 'normal' you dingbat. Keerist *wipes tears from floor, cat and workbench...I needed that...a good larf in the morning....
More lies and evasions...you are going to have to have one helluva confession soon Fergie...
I suggest you separate your life story from the critique of Armin Navabi's book. There is so much crap mixed in with the assertions you have proposed, well frankly it is a complete literary mess. But I shall examine just one section of your assertion.
"Armin's conclusion thatmoral standards are social constructs is simply a theory that atheists like. This subject has been discussed for ages by philosophers and I can remember clearly Kant discussing it at length. Armin does not supply evidence, his are simply theoretical rants and I doubt very much our brains are so perfect that they even contain a moral code.
That one can support this idea is simply due to the arrogance rational atheist scientists always show."
This is just the old objective versus subjective moral codes argument.
Is slavery moral, is it moral for anyone to own another human being?
My brain does not have to be perfect to contain a moral code. In fact, my moral code is not an internal set of rules. For example, I was over at a friend's house and VERY drunk. He owned a few guns, and pulled out a beautiful over-under shotgun, and attempted to hand it to me for examination. I told him, no, I will not handle a weapon while I am drunk.
At that moment my brain was definitely not perfect, yet I was able to process the fact that I may not be aware enough to run through all the proper steps and protocols required to handle a weapon without harming another.
p.s. I love the "arrogance rational atheist scientists always show" comment. That simple phrase is a gateway to what your inner mental processes are.
@Fig-... (oops.)... I mean Fergie... *giggle*...
Uh, just a couple of quick things that stand out in that last joobily-goobily mish-mashed post of yours.
Re: "I am 68 now and all my life I travelled here and there living in the places I went to visit.
It was not so bad in the 50's and 60's in Southamerica..."
Well, considering that the very first half of the 50's you were still shitting your diapers and/or eating the boogers from your nose, I imagine you really could not have had much (if any) understanding of what "good or bad" was one way or the other. And even in the later half of the 50's, being a little kid of no more than 7 or 8 years old still doesn't give much insight/understanding of religion and all the baggage associated with it. So, your trying to use the 50's is sketchy, at best. The 60's, though... Eh, okay... Maybe.. To a certain extent. Anyway, just an observation for those who may not have caught it.
Re: "Peoploe go to hell because they choose that option."...... "To me God is the Supreme Chief, he does what he likes..."...... "God , in my opinion, sends to hell those who did not choose to live their lives loving neighbour, those who do not have a tender heart."
One word...... Wow... *raising eyebrows*...
(Edit to add:)
Oh, shit! Almost forgot the best one!
Re: "I never slandered anybody."
ROFLMAO... I do believe I will allow others to make their own assessments of that comment from you... *looking down at crotch*... Aw, hell, I think I just peed a little bit from laughing so hard... *laughter continues*...
You are choosing hell fire with your incessant lying and masturbating Fergie. God loves you, repent and clean the smegma from your hands and lips. Time is running short Fergs.
It's obvious you are not even capable of reading the book you are reviewing. You read the first page of each chapter then go off on a very uninteresting tangent of your worthless life while lying incessantly about everything.
God sees through your deception, Fergmeister. REPENT, honestly REPENT before it is too late Fergs. Save your soul and that box of Kleenex.
Now that's a fucking irony overload, a string of unevidenced claims, then you accuse the author of not evidencing his claims, though again you neglect to quote a single syllable, and since you're a proven liar, well.
Now that's fucking hilarious, an IQ test disavowed their fears I'm guessing. How many semi literate agents are in the employ of the CIA I wonder?
And the hilarity continues, your entire religion is based on celebrating a human sacrifice, the bible revel in it again and again and again, from Abraham being lauded as a faithful servant for being willing to eviscerate his own son and burn the remains as a sacrifice to god, to the countless mass murders encouraged by the biblical deity for it's own glory.
ferguson1951 "Nowhere in the Bible there seems to be the case that God sends people to hell for having done good or for not believing in God."
" John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” You really are clueless, the gift that keeps on giving.
I deny it, I utterly reject the repugnant and moronic and completely unevidenced superstitious concept of sin.
Another unevidenced claim, you're on a roll, and of course you're wrong yet again, morality as an evolved social construct is in fact supported by evidence, for a start all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups have evolved a concept of morality.
What the fuck does that even mean? That's truly hilarious bunkum. Though just as hilarious as the incomprehensible nature of that rant is the fact you spew out yet another claim without even the pretence of either evidence or even a point, you're off your tits sorry. It;s been clear for some time that cogent dialogue with you was impossible, most people are simply pointing and laughing at your posts now, with their mouths open I'd bet.
So, no answers to the rebuttals of his previous canards then, merely the peddling of more canards ...
Let's start with this one:
No, it shows the stupidity of supernaturalists who assert that an infinitely loving magic entity exists, while we have observational data to the effect that said magic entity, if it exists, does NOTHING to alleviate the suffering of those dying children, in direct contradiction to the assertion that this entity is "infinitely loving". What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
Moving on ...
Bullshit. There exists a wealth of scientific research backing up this postulate. I provided an exposition of a small fraction of that research and its associated evidence here. Of course, if you had exercised any diligence before posting your blind assertions, you would have known that this assertion is flatly contradicted by that self-same scientific data I covered in that post, and a lot more besides.
In short, we have hard evidence that organisms forming social groups develop behaviours enhancing the cohesion of those social groups, and that those behaviours are, with only a small number of exceptions, behaviours we routinely consider to be a part of ethical behaviour within our own societies.
Indeed, not only have scientists alighted upon evidence in support of this postulate, but they have also alighted upon evidence that a specific brain region is implicated in the requisite judgements, namely, the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex. Courtesy of the fact that there exist numerous documented cases in the medical literature, where damage to this part of the brain led to the development of increasingly anti-social and ethically retrograde behaviour. Even more interesting, is the finding that damage to this area in childhood, leads to irreparably sociopathic behaviour with no display of remorse, but that damage to this area in adults who have already learned ethical concepts, leads to a different pattern of behaviour - namely, instances of selfish, anti-social behaviour accompanied by subsequent remorse, but with a seeming inability to bring the cycle thereof to a halt.
Once again, we have data, something absent from your rancid and duplicitous rants.
Please explain to us how Kant could possibly have discussed scientific findings that only became available over 200 years after his death?
So, more bullshit from our once-again resident troll.
Please explain to us how Kant could possibly have discussed scientific findings that only became available over 200 years after his death?
Ignorant! I was talking about Kant discussing morals. Ignorant!!!
Doesn't matter what Kant was discussing,you never fucking heard him. Lying twat.
CHAPTER 5: "Belief in God would not be so widespread if God didn't exist"
This statement does not represent me. My belief is that belief in God is widespread because God "wrote" a bit of His will in our hearts and souls". I don't care about talks of logical phallacies and all that university garbage. I will not be drawn into your line of thinking. The problem is not that God wrote something different in the hearts and sould of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Christians. The Protestant religion, for example, was "invented" by Martin Luther, who was so arrogant that, after reading the Bible and after all his widespread theological studies and lectures, decided that we are justified only by faith (and idiots followed suit).
Mohammed said that he received the Quran from an angel, I think. I do not know much about all the religions of the world but certainly you have not even delved superficially into the ocean of spiritual and theological knowledge that the Catholic religion has to offer.
"This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."
As Armin rightly says: the truth is true even if no one believes it. And this holds true also for religion.
Just like it happens with science, also in religion - owing to mankind's fallibility - there has never been one truth that appeared exact truth from the beginning. I suppose we could apply here the THEORY of evolution.
Just like religious beliefs, scientific beliefs have changed enormously through the ages and the scientific community is still deeply divided on every issue so I will not take whole or part of the scientific community as referee when it comes to religion. They have no moral authority to teach nothing.
Just as rational scientific zombies believe that real knowledge one day will be wholly available (just wait until science , with time, reveals all the truths about mankind and the universe), we believe the same thing with religion.
As regards the 16 separate psychological desires identified by the Ohio University, they have not asked me.
I do not identify with any of them. I am a believer because I am sick of this decadent world, I am not going to live my life based on conventions that I know will change after my death, making my life pointless . I am a believer because Christian practice to me is the right thing to do: As the Gospel says: "This is true religion: helping the orphan and the widow" (that is, the weak in society). I am a believer because I do not want to spend the best part of my life behind a desk filling papers with scribbles that interest no one. As the Gospel says:" The truth shall make you free". I prefer suffering for a much better cause. I am a believer because scriptural language captures my imagination and teaches me a lot about life, while scientific language is boring an most of it practically useless.
I am a believer because Christianity is a challenge: "If you want to be my disciple, deny your own plans, take up your cross and follow me". I am a believer because the figure of Christ appeals to me a lot more than any stupid scientist locked up in his laboratory trying hopelessly to defeat cancer or Aids.
Religion may tap into the psychological desires of the ignorant believers, I agree. But to me, having had some form of religious education throughout my life, religion is not the kind of life insurance that the average church-goer thinks it is. Religion proposes a dangerous life, full of setbacks and unexpected circumstances. The apostles all died a violent death except for John, I think, who died of old age in Patmos.
There are many reasons why I am a believer. Like I do not have to worry about money or material possessions. In fact, during my life I lost all my possessions three times, but new ones keep coming back, as primised by the Gospel
"Treasures in Heaven
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy,[c] your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy,[d] your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Do Not Worry
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33BUT SEEK FIRST HIS KINGDOM AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS AND ALL THESE THINGS WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU AS WELL. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
So again, Armin misses his point.
This is simply arrogant preaching now, ferguson1951 is no longer even pretending to be interested in debate.
Find a pulpit champ, no one's interested in listening to your ignorant sermons.