I am an Aatheist
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.
@Jo: The BULLSHIT ARGUMENT you have made on numerous occasions is SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND STRAWMANING. Everyone knows it and everyone sees it. The argument you have been making is manipulative and dishonest.
RE: Hasn’t both of us made a subjective conclusion? "NO!" One of us has made a conclusion and one of us is waiting for facts and evidence. Another attempt at setting up an Atheist Straw Man./ FUCK OFF! ATHEISM: a lack of belief in god or gods.
Your conclusion is pure BS and you have no evidence, facts or information that can withstand critical inquiry to back it up. PURE BULLSHIT FROM THE BOTTOM UP.
On what do you base your feeling of being convinced. It is after all, COMPLETELY unsupported by any measure of empirical facts of evidence. All you are saying is that you believe in god because you want to believe in god. FINE! Now do us all a favor and FUCK OFF.
Agnosticism does not address belief. Most of the atheists on the site are in fact Agnostic Atheists. If you are professing to be an Agnostic Theist, why? If you are agnostic, there is no good reason to assert any kind of belief in a god or gods.
What is the correct conclusion to God exists. Either god exists or it does not exist. Asserting that you do not know and then claiming to be convinced is about as moronic as one can possibly be. If you do not know, obviously there is no support for knowing anything.
MORE FRIGGING BULLSHIT FROM THE ECHO CHAMBERS BETWEEN JO'S EARS.
Atheism is not the assertion no deity exists, it is the absence or lack of the theistic belief a deity exists. Atheism has no burden of proof Jo, you're rehashing the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which despite many months of being explained to you you can't even name correctly, it is an appeal to ignorance or an argument from ignorance fallacy. Which you have used here again, and for some reason think such rank dishonesty is a compelling argument.
Nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational Jo. Thus you have again asserted an irrational claim.
That's a lie Jo, else you'd have demonstrated some, yet have failed to do so. What you lie and call evidence is of course mere vapid rhetoric, unevidenced anecdotal claims, and as we see here again, fallacious irrational arguments.
No Jo, because as you have shown and I have explained again and again, you hold only one belief in the absence of objective evidence, and thus it is biased, atheists here apply the same objective standard to all beliefs. Lying repeatedly about this, is no more compelling than ignoring these facts when I point them out, it just reinforces the fact you lack integrity on this subject.
completely certain about something.
According to your own dishonest rationale Jo, you'd still be left unable to demonstrate evidence for the nonexistence of all the deities you believe don't exist. Something of a hypocritical double standard, and again dishonestly ignoring this is pretty transparent.
Yes Jo, and I am agnostic about all claims that are unfalsifiable, and obviously therefore withhold belief, why on earth would I believe a claim I admit I can know nothing about. You have also just contradicted your claim that you are convinced a dity exists, and are know claiming not to know anything about its existence or its nature, which is the definition of agnosticism Jo, and again this has been explained to you relentlessly.
You remain Jo, a shameless liar I'm afraid. And the dishonesty of this little game of words is utterly transparent. Despite your inability or unwillingness to fully grasp it.
You're simply ignoring the facts, repeating the same lies over and over and over Jo, what is it you hope to achieve?
Jo - "Than isn’t the correct conclusion Agnosticism?"
That deals with whether or not we can know, or think that we can know. But atheism (or whatever the hell you want to call it, honestly) deals with whether or not one believes. I don't believe. I don't care what you want to call that. Call it "unbelief," call me "infidel", etc. - who cares? I don't believe you. Don't believe. That's where we are at. I don't give one flying crap what you want to label it. I don't believe you. Don't believe you. Getting through yet? I don't believe you.
What do you believe and why do you believe it?
Do you have any evidence, or convincing arguments on anything pertaining to the subject.
Other than you don't believe me?
Atheism doesn't assert there is no deity. It is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. No matter how many times you lie about this Jo, this simple epistemological fact won't change.
You are also rehashing the same lie here Jo, as you also disbelieve in all deities, except one version of one deity you believe is real without being able to demonstrate any objective evidence for it.
Of course, as we now know, your dishonesty doesn't end there Jo. As you don't hold any other beliefs outside of your religious beliefs without any objective evidence. So you are being a hypocrite, as well as a liar, by demanding evidence for disbelief, you yourself don't have for many of the things you disbelieve.
Your facile argument might have passed for ignorance once, but that time has long passed, and pretty much everyone now recognises your reperition is utterly dishonest.
I ask again, since you keep dishonestly ignoring the question, do you (Jo), believe invisible unicorns are real? If not could you please demonstrate your objectivecevidence for what you keep asserting is your belief they are not real?
Atheism has nothing to do with Christianity today either. That does not mean the Church does not use the word in conjunction with other words to slander non-believers.
ATHEISM: A lack of belief in Gods. All gods. Pre-Christian Gods as well as modern Gods. How many Christians do you imagine were around in the 5th Century BCE. Careful with your answer here.... there may have been a few. Some evidence suggests that Jesus was worshiped as an Angel in the Old Testament. Of course back then he was not the Christ, so I imagine they were not real Christians. (Reference Richard Carrieer's Lectures)
Same old lying BS Jo. You're a duplicitous theist who has a long reputation of lying and sad attempts at trolling like this one.
Your relentless mendacity is not nearly as impressive as you appear to imagine Jo. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are though, and how your beliefs have produced a petulant closed minded bigot.
Atheism is the absence or lack of theism, get over it Jo. The fact you don't possess the integrity to acknowledge this fact, no more changes the definition of atheism than the fact you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between atheism, atheist, and atheistic. Sadly your execrable grasp of language is on a par with your grasp of rational debate.
I'll give you a clue one more time, why should not believing in a deity need to provide any answers for anything or suggest evidence for the non existence of deities anymore than not believing in unicorns requires such nonsense. You're a dishonest clown Jo.
However do show the objective evidence you have for the non existence of each of the deities you don't believe in. A number just 1 digit less than the number atheists don't believe in, yet you can't produce the very nonsense you're seriously demanding atheists do.
Can you demonstrate evidence for the non existence of unicorns Jo?
Dear oh dear.
Well I've stopped laughing now, so I'll give it a go.
1. Yes it is, it is an answer to the question of whether a person does or does not believe any deity exists.
2. Actually it draws only one, that an atheist does not believe any deity or deities exists, but atheism itself does not draw conclusions, how can it? What conclusions does your disbelief in invisible unicorns draw Jo?
3. Correct, atheism makes no claims. Though of course any atheist is free to do so.
4. Incorrect, it's a statement about a person's position on a single belief. I'd not call that a philosophical statement. Though atheist are again free to make such statements, but atheism does not.
5. Of course not, why on earth would it? Does your disbelief in invisible fairies make claims as to what valid evidence of invisible fairies existence would look like? You are funny Jo.
6. Correct, though again an atheist may hold such opinions, but atheism does not as it is simply the absence of belief.
7. Of course not, why would it? Does your disbelief in flying invisible dragons answer any questions about flying invisible dragons Jo. Funnier and funnier fair play.
8. Correct, though again an atheist would be free to believe this, and some do.
9. Correct, just as your disbelief in garden fairies tells us nothing on it's own about what you believe Jo, why would it?
10. Correct, atheism is by definition a negative statement. As it deal with what is not believed, and nothing else.
11. Atheism is not a claim, though the claim that someone lacks belief in any deities or deity, in that sense at least, it is either true or false, you have clearly made it a false claim about yourself here Jo.
12. Of course not, again why would it Jo? What evidence do you present to disbelieve in invisible leprechauns Jo? Hilarious fair play.
13. Correct, though your point escapes me?
14. See 13.
15. It's not a claim or an assertion of anything, it simply identifies disbelief in the claim a deity or deities exist, so why would it need to be falsifiable? Is your disbelief in unicorns falsifiable Jo? Your hypocrisy is manifest.
16. It's an empirical fact that I'm an atheist, again your reasoning is incomprehensible Jo. Is your disbelief in fairies empirical or falsifiable? Why the double standard Jo? As if we don't know.
17. Again see 16, is your disbelief in unicorns testable or falsifiable Jo? You are a hypocrite and a liar Jo sadly, and your latest duplicitous histrionics merely reinforce this fact.
Your dishonesty is matched only by the sheer petulance of this display Jo. Dear oh dear, how very very sad for you...
This is why i dont relate with most religious theist, they dont undertand that Atheism is a very logical conclusión specially wheb presented with the Dogmatic\Religious ideas of God.
I will have to say that i find Agnostic Atheism one of the most logical postures on the subject while Radical Atheist remind me to much of Religious people.
@Mystical Theist: Most atheists, I feel, would agree. Sheldon does a fine point by point breakdown above while I simply point out that #9 says it all. The issue I see is that "Theists live in a world of "belief" and "faith."
Having belief and faith is like wearing a pair of yellow sunglasses. Everything they see is colored yellow. Everything they see is based on "faith" and "belief." Because of this, they are constantly asserting, "Well the atheists have faith. Atheists have belief. Atheists believe in no god." The theists are incapable of grasping the idea of "non-belief." They are unable to remove the yellow tinted glasses from their little heads.
With that said, some do occasionally manage to rip those puppies away from their eyes. In this case, they become lost. Nothing means anything any more. On what will they base their values? In what can they trust. These folks become lost because they are looking for an external locus of control. Something in the world that they can base their values, beliefs, and opinions upon. Looking internally never occurs to them. Imagining they are the author of their own morality is a complete non-sequitur. After all, if they are the author of their own moral behavior they must look to themselves. They can not longer blame the evil forces in the world, God or Satan. They can no longer claim being influenced. This world without a yellow tint makes no sense to them and they are lost without their glasses.
As a theist is it like looking in a mirror then? I've not really noticed most of the atheists I've met being radical to be honest, quite the opposite. All the theists who come here and in other forums I have been to, are utterly closed minded, and exhibit a shocking bias in favour of their a priori religious beliefs, and yet not once have any of them had the self awareness to comprehend this. The evidence for this of course is in the fact they can't demonstrate any objective evidence for their belief in a deity, yet can't offer a single belief outside of their religious beliefs, that they hold without any objective evidence.
They of course never fail to ignore this closed minded bias, and again the dishonesty of them not even acknowledging this, let alone addressing it, speaks volumes about those beliefs and how closed minded they are.
Mystical, what on earth is a “radical atheist”?
Most "radical atheists" have their heads up their asses and are just angry at religion. We give them the same treatment when they come in here spewing their nonsense. An anti-theist position is taken with care and calculation. It is certainly contingent on a defense of a specific god or a specific assertion about Churches or religions. Assert that morality comes from religion and you will draw out the "anti-theism" from every person on this site.
My actual thoughts on this is that new Atheists, people that were theists just a year or two ago, come in here treating atheism like a belief system, "There is no god. Religion is bad. Christians believe in woo woo." and they are unable to support their opinions with anything but belief and anger. Perhaps they have been on another atheist site where their ignorant assertions were not challenged. Well, they get challenged here. Nothing is as embarrassing as an ignorant atheist spouting nonsense. These people are not "Radical Atheists" they do not understand atheism and are merely ignorant.
Most of your thoughts here are so incoherent, it's hard to even point out what is wrong with them.
So, you don't believe atheists exist? That's the position you want to hang your hat on?
Yes, I am of the position that faith is not a virtue. Faith is not a path to truth. People of all religions use faith to get to their (contradictory and mutually exclusive) theistic beliefs. And you disbelieve in everyone of their faith based beliefs. I do not even know what lack of faith in lack of faith means. Please restate it in a different way.
The hell you are...
I have no problems stating what I do believe. I believe, to a high level of certainty, that throughout history, theists have continued to fail to meet their burden of proof to support their claims that a god or gods exist. I believe that, as long as this failure continues, I will remain unconvinced that a god of gods exist.
Yes, both of these statements are correct. However, there are some atheists who go further and claim to know gods do not exist.
1. Whether atheism is an answer depends on the question.
2. It draws a conclusion as to whether one thinks the case made by theists has met its burden of proof, or the belief in gods is warranted.
3. This is correct. Atheism is a response to a claim, not a claim itself. What's your point?
4. OK. Seems kind of unimportant.
5. Partially true. But this in not unusual. Before the microscope was invented, how would one know what the evidence would be to prove microscopic flora and fauna were the cause of disease?
6. Partially true. Many atheist's position is, that theists have not met their burden of proof to convince us that gods exist. As to whether gods actually exists, may be unknown, or unknowable.
7. Partially true. Atheism is the response to theist's claims about the existence of gods, not about the specifics of said gods. And since gods continue to fail to demonstrate their existence, theist's failed case is all we have to go on.
8. I disbelieve that any god exists. A slightly different statement than yours.
9. I believe plenty of things. With regards to the existence of gods, I disbelieve they exist.
10. Not sure what you mean. Please restate.
11. Since atheism is not being convinced that gods exist, there is no real truth statement involved, so it is not true of false in the way I think you mean. I also disbelieve bigfoot exists, but I am not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that they do not exist. So, there is nothing about my position on bigfoot (ot gods) existence that could be said to be 'true of false'.
12. True. Atheists do not have to present evidence, since we are not the ones making a claim. This is basic logic 101 and not specific to atheism. I do not have to present evidence that bigfoot does not exist, in order to be unconvinced that they do exist.
13. Partially true. Atheism resides in the realm of logic and philosophy. However, the atheist position is supported by the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of gods.
14. Same as above.
15. Atheism is absolutely falsifiable. Demonstrate a god exists, and atheism is falsified.
16. Partially true. But it may be supported by the complete lack of an empirical case made by theists.
17. Again, this is a failure logic 101. The disbelief of theist's claims does not require a testable/falsifiable case.
And I'll bet you know a lot of this already with regards to other existential claims besides your god. I am pretty sure you probably disbelieve at least some of these: bigfoot, alien abductions, Yeti, crystal healing, Loch Ness monster, Jinn, garden fairies, other gods, etc, etc. Did you need to falsify, test and provide an empirical case for the nonexistence of any of these in order to disbelieve? No. The simple fact that those claiming these exist have failed e to meet their burden of proof is probably plenty for you not to believe them.
Now the question that would follow would be, why do you make a special case for your god beliefs?
@ Simon Moon
“So, you don't believe atheists exist?”
No, I have actually met some.
I have empirical evidence to prove they exist. :-)
On a serious note.
I was trying to show the weakness, futility, and meaninglessness of Atheism.
Other than stating what you don’t believe, what does it do?
“And you disbelieve in everyone of their faith based beliefs.”
No, I do not disbelieve in their faith based belief.
I believe there is no god but God.
There is a big difference between stating what you do believe, compared to just stating what you disbelieve.
“Atheism resides in the realm of logic and philosophy. However, the atheist position is supported by the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of gods.”
Is it rational to ask for scientific (natural world) evidence for something that is in the realm of logic and philosophy (God)?
Is there scientific evidence for Atheism? Of course not.
Because it resides in the realm of logic and philosophy.
Just like the belief in God does.
“Atheism is absolutely falsifiable. Demonstrate a god exists, and atheism is falsified.”
Theism is absolutely falsifiable. Demonstrate no God exists and theism is falsified.
Is it sound to say I believe in God because no one has demonstrated he does not exist?
I agree that it is not sound reasoning.
So why is it sound to say I disbelieve in God because no one has demonstrated he exists?
Can something that is in the “realm of logic and philosophy” be falsified?
“And I'll bet you know a lot of this already with regards to other existential claims besides your god. I am pretty sure you probably disbelieve at least some of these: bigfoot, alien abductions, Yeti, crystal healing, Loch Ness monster, Jinn, garden fairies, other gods, etc, etc. Did you need to falsify, test and provide an empirical case for the nonexistence of any of these in order to disbelieve? No. The simple fact that those claiming these exist have failed e to meet their burden of proof is probably plenty for you not to believe them. Now the question that would follow would be, why do you make a special case for your god beliefs?”
I believe Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, crystal healing, aliens, etc. do not exist.
I can provide empirical evidence for some.
I can drain the Loch Ness and show there is no monster.
I could go to the top of Mt. Olympus and show there is no Zeus.
Others are not beliefs about the natural world.
For them, I would provide what I consider evidence, and make an argument.
But I would not say I disbelieve.
I make no “special case for my god”.
However, there is a difference between something that is part of nature, and something that is not.
Philosophical questions, questions about nature, questions about something outside of mature, cannot all be answered with the same tools or techniques.
Just as math is a wonderful thing, but it cannot be used to answer all questions.
If the Loch Ness monster is immortal, invisible, all powerful, all knowing, and the creator of all.
Then draining the Lock Ness would give me a false negative.
Then I must use logic, reasoning, indirect evidence, open mindedness, consider everything, personal experience, no wishful thinking, and no questions that rig the answer.
These are just general guidelines, or ways to approach it. It is not formulaic.
If someone does not want to be convinced of something that is not falsifiable.
Than no one can make any progress towards convincing them.
Shouldn’t we all take responsibility for convincing ourselves, one way or the other?
Instead of putting the responsibility on someone else?
If you have presuppositions, such as the way to address the questions is to disbelieve until someone convinces you.
Then you will probably never answer the question and never get past the starting gate.
Yet all the while feeling confident that you are right, or have addressed it adequately.
To me disbelief is a position of weakness.
It is impotent, empty, meaningless, and useless.
At best it is a good starting point.
But to live there seems to me like hiding, or ignoring.
In the past you have told of your journey from theism to atheism.
You also say you are an Atheist because no theist has been able to convince you.
Those seem like contradictory statements to me.
Your long journey, all your education, experience, and thought, have only given you non-belief?
If it was a retailer, I would say you go ripped off.
You have no beliefs, thoughts, conclusions, convictions, argument, or evidence on the subject?
Wouldn’t you rather say boldly what is and what is not?
Then argue for that belief vigorously with conviction?
Mustering all the evidence and sound reasoning that you can.
I would not be content, nor understand how anyone could be content, just sitting at the starting gate of non-belief.
You are probably familiar with the “man in the arena” adage or quote by Theodore Roosevelt.
I would rather risk being wrong, looking dumb, and making mistakes, than to rely on someone else to convince me, or settle for a non-belief.
Here is a partial quote that says it better than I can.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.”
Is your disbelief in garden fairies futile Jo? Is it meaningless Jo? What does your disbelief in garden fairies do, Jo?
Biased hypocrisy, pure and simple. Yours is a faith based belief Jo, and we all know this by now, else you'd have offered something tangible to justify it, and you have not.
Theism is not falsifiable, though it makes claims that can and have been falsified, like creationism, and a geocentric universe. You even deny those objective facts when they contradict your religion's claims, so please don't make me laugh Jo.
You're lying again Jo, it is sound to disbelieve claims for which no objective evidence, or even rational arguments can be demonstrated, lets not forget that you yourself apply this standard to all your beliefs except your religious beliefs, biased hypocrisy again.
Rubbish Jo, you can't demonstrate empirical evidence for your claims, only offer anecdotal hypothesis, but leaving your lie aside, you're not comparing like for like, if these claims were supernatural entities that left any physical evidence then by definition they would unfalsifiable, exactly as you have repeatedly claimed your deity is.
Also what's with the fucking extra line breaks? I have noticed over the years that many religious apologists who post online do this, it's bizarre, is it some sort of affectation?
No, because unlike theists, atheists generally don't make false claims to knowledge. Atheists are not scared to admit they don't know things. It's why theists love to use appeal to ignorance fallacies, as you have done in almost every post since you got here. You think it is a compelling argument when for the claims your religion makes, when someone who disbelieves it says I don't know, but this is just because you have no grasp of how irrational your claims and arguments are, as we have seen.
This is a common misconception theists make, just because atheism is not a belief or a worldview does not mean it doesn't feed into a worldview. Free of delusional superstition one need not adhere to vile bigoted dogma, or waste time trying to falsely interpret it to mean something else just to try and square bronze age morality with contemporary views.
Which neatly explains why you're so biased and closed minded, but reality doesn't have to make you content. It is either objectively verifiable or it is not.
That's just hilarious, I'd bet a years wages you don't know why was well.
"Shouldn’t we all take responsibility for convincing ourselves, one way or the other?
Instead of putting the responsibility on someone else?"
Imagine you have decided to buy a second-hand car, and go down to the local used car lot. The salesman points out a desirable car ... now what do you do? Do you investigate the car, check whether it is sound and works, or just accept what the salesman is telling you, do not question and throw your money away?
There is the god claim. Almost all atheists are not going to just blindly accept, especially in the face of contradicting evidence.
Jo, you are attempting to sell this god concept in here, and no one has to blindly accept your sales pitch just because you gave a sales pitch.
Convince me by actually selling your god concept to me instead of trying to point out flaws in atheism. News flash, even if one proved that atheism is a fail, that does not prove a god.
@ David Killens
"even if one proved that atheism is a fail, that does not prove a god."
I have tried to "sell" my "god concept" on many occasions.
I would be glad to try again.
Is there something specific I can address?
I am glad to give you the "full sales presentation" :-), but don't want to be redundant.
"I would be glad to try again."
There is no "again", you have never offered any evidence or a valid argument that may sway me to consider a god.
But make it simple and give it your best shot. What evidence or valid argument can you submit that may change my mind, if just a wee bit?
@ David Killens.
"But make it simple and give it your best shot. What evidence or valid argument can you submit that may change my mind, if just a wee bit?"
Will do, but I think it best to start another forum.
This one is about a different subject.
It is also getting so long that it is sometimes confusing to me as to who said what and when.
"Will do, but I think it best to start another forum."
This is an atheist forum, and I have lost count of the number of times it has been requested of you to provide any proof why you believe. You have stalled long enough.
A response should not have to be lengthy, or difficult. The question on your belief has been posed enough times for you to form some basic concept and explanation on why you believe. And it does not have to be lengthy, as Einstein once stated "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
So we already knew from objective evidence that Jo is a relentlessly dishonest poster, and he now proves this unequivocally with his latest petulant trolling thread. Shame on you Jo, and it is sad that you can't see how this latest OP reflects on your beliefs, especially after the lies and BS you have tediously peddled since you first came here.
Shame on you....and so much for christian morality....I'll take secular morality every single day.
I am pretty sure that everyone here as xplained, ad infinitum: the burden of proof and why it lies with the claimant, the basics of epistemology, many logical fallacies which Jo is guilty of using on a continuous basis, the difference between: believing a claim is false and disbelieving a claim is true, the many reasons (backed by valid and sound logic) why we are unconvinced that gods exist, and quite a bit more.
So, either Jo is too dense to understand these pretty basic concepts, or dishonest.
It is probably better to be too dense to understand, than dishonest, at least from an ethical standpoint.
Indeed, though I suspect they are not mutually exclusive, and have been explained to him exhaustively, and he has not even acknowledge this. So whilst his posts evidence his intellectual limitations, he is manifestly dishonest.
Though I must say your post meshed with me in another way, as I am watching my favourite film Cool Hand Luke...
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate" seemed apropos...
I suspect much of the failure is Jo's duplicity, and some of it because he is being dense, how much of that is deliberate I shall let others decide.
Incidentally I love the gospel songs in this film by the late great Harry Dean Stanton, and Kudos to George Kennedy who won an Oscar for best supporting actor, very much deserved.
"I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I've got the plastic Jesus sittin (sic) on the dashboard of my car"
Newman playing the banjo and singing, and crying after he gets the news his mother has died, while the whole chain gang watch in reverent silence. They simply don't make films like this anymore....
Cool Hand Luke....I wasn’t able to eat eggs for months after watching it.
I have never like hard boiled eggs if I'm honest and its fair to say this film didn't change that.
I'm sure I heard recently about some idiots who had a race to see who could eat the most hard boiled eggs the fastest. One of them died unsurprisingly...
Explaining Jo's duplicity in misrepresenting atheism is how I imagine swallowing hard boiled eggs one after the other must feel....
One of my favorite movies too!
Not to be pedantic, but the quote is, "What we have here, is failure to communicate".
I just decided I'm an Aaatheist. I don't believe in Jo's view of atheism.
"I just decided I'm an Aaatheist. I don't believe in Jo's view of "
Is that an atheist who's a recovering alcoholic?
My head hurts now....