Is Religion A Mental Illness?

[The Realm of God]

Actually. He told them not to eat the fruit. They chose to do it anyway. And not everyone burns forever. Only people who don't listen to what he has to say. Please read the Bible before you start trying to quote it.

The Adam and Eve story is complete BS. The Church actually put it in the Bible in order to more easily convert 'vikings', which I will call the Nords because I don't want to be yelled at for mispelling Scand's and such.

The church has stated that you dont have to take genesis seriously and if you want you can just take it as a metiphor for original sin....

[Jormengand]

The church has stated that you dont have to take genesis seriously and if you want you can just take it as a metiphor for original sin....

But that leads to "This bit's a metaphor, that bit isn't, because I say so," which doesn't work.

[Evraim]

Have you ever been to a tribal culture (not Native American)? That is where you will find true racism, sexism, homophobia, everything-phobia. The "Islamic" civilization is so represive because pre-Islamic tribal culture is taught as Islam instead of the Koran.

How much of the "Good Book" have you read? or do you just read quotes. Have you read it in Hebrew? If so then you know the "Written word" was one side of the equation, with a judical tradion being the other. You would also be able to see where politics has corrupted the religous process, and where the truely religious fought aginst corruption.

Sorry, just hard to take you seriously with dat ass dat flag nevermind >.>
Of course politics has played a part. Just look at the fuckin' Church. They attempted to, wait, no they HAD an Empire during the Middle Ages.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Your pointed is noted, though.

[Avenio]

2) What has religon contributed to civilization? Civilization. Religion is responsible for the transition of hunter gather to agricultural societies (sourse National Geographic). It was the extreamly pious sects (not the same as fundimentalism) that were responsible for overcoming slavery, racism, and sexism. Sexism and Racism are ancient mindsets that most major religions have struggled (with partial success) to overcome.

Ehhh, not really. The religious-institution-as-early-state model doesn't fit everywhere (China, for instance), and you run into all sorts of problems with the early historical equivalent of 'the chicken or the egg'; namely that we can't tell which half of the early priest-kings came first. (ie did the kings absorb religious responsibilities, or did the priests absorb governmental responsibilities)

[The Realm of God]

The church has stated that you dont have to take genesis seriously and if you want you can just take it as a metiphor for original sin....

But that leads to "This bit's a metaphor, that bit isn't, because I say so," which doesn't work.

That was Catholic doctrane, the pope said that and to Catholics the pope is infalliable. In Orthodoxy we have a wide spectrum of theology depending on how the prieet was trained.

[AETEN II]

Sorry, just hard to take you seriously with dat ass dat flag nevermind >.>
Of course politics has played a part. Just look at the fuckin' Church. They attempted to, wait, no they HAD an Empire during the Middle Ages.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Your pointed is noted, though.

Not the Holy Roman Empire dude. I mean how the Church owned LARGE amounts of land, and could even sway political decisions in their favor.

I wish I could have seen the look on the Church lead members when Henry effectively told em' to fuck off.

[Tlaceceyaya]

But that leads to "This bit's a metaphor, that bit isn't, because I say so," which doesn't work.

That was Catholic doctrane, the pope said that and to Catholics the pope is infalliable. In Orthodoxy we have a wide spectrum of theology depending on how the prieet was trained.

So if the priest arbitrarily decides to tell you that this part is true and this part is metaphor, you unquestioningly accept what he says?

[Evraim]

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Your pointed is noted, though.

Not the Holy Roman Empire dude. I mean how the Church owned LARGE amounts of land, and could even sway political decisions in their favor.

I wish I could have seen the look on the Church lead members when Henry effectively told em' to fuck off.

That wasn't really much of an empire, especially later on as centralized states emerged. The Church was incredibly influential though with half of Europe occasionally listening to it.

Henry VIII was a jerk, although it would have been interesting to see.

[The Cummunist State]

Religion creates most sexism, racism, slavery, and discrimination in general. It's also been the reason for lots of different wars between countries and cities. Religion didn't make Civilization, it's just been along side it. Humans made civilization.

Most of those claims are questionable. The notion that religion creates most sexism, racism, slavery, and discrimination in general is obviously suspect. After all, it's possible for non-religious people to engage in all manner of discrimination and some proudly do so. Furthermore, religion is not the only factor that affects how an individual treats his or her fellows. Biology and other facets of culture aside from religion are vital to shaping an individual's perception of others. Yes, religion has been utilized to justify discrimination, but it has also been utilized to oppose it as in the case of the abolition of slavery.

The assertion regarding wars is patently false. Most conflicts are caused by politics, a desire for increased wealth, nationalism, and things of a similar nature. Religion rarely factors into the equation. In fact, Crusades and Jihads often have underlying cultural and political motivations. That said, religion can exacerbate the situation as it did during the Crusades (the people's and children's crusades) and today (the Taliban recruits some individual's on the basis of religion certainly). However, let's not over-exaggerate the role religion has in fomenting strife.

You're correct in stating that religion is a part of civilization as opposed to its creator.

There were some. A minority.

Then why do countries like the United States and the United Kingdom no longer permit slavery to be practiced? Apparently, the individuals opposed to those practices- some on the basis of religion- had enough influence to influence government policies.

I should clarify, I don't view religion as a cause of hatred, I find it a great tool for it, and for indoctrinating other people into it.

[Evraim]

Most of those claims are questionable. The notion that religion creates most sexism, racism, slavery, and discrimination in general is obviously suspect. After all, it's possible for non-religious people to engage in all manner of discrimination and some proudly do so. Furthermore, religion is not the only factor that affects how an individual treats his or her fellows. Biology and other facets of culture aside from religion are vital to shaping an individual's perception of others. Yes, religion has been utilized to justify discrimination, but it has also been utilized to oppose it as in the case of the abolition of slavery.

The assertion regarding wars is patently false. Most conflicts are caused by politics, a desire for increased wealth, nationalism, and things of a similar nature. Religion rarely factors into the equation. In fact, Crusades and Jihads often have underlying cultural and political motivations. That said, religion can exacerbate the situation as it did during the Crusades (the people's and children's crusades) and today (the Taliban recruits some individual's on the basis of religion certainly). However, let's not over-exaggerate the role religion has in fomenting strife.

You're correct in stating that religion is a part of civilization as opposed to its creator.


Then why do countries like the United States and the United Kingdom no longer permit slavery to be practiced? Apparently, the individuals opposed to those practices- some on the basis of religion- had enough influence to influence government policies.

I should clarify, I don't view religion as a cause of hatred, I find it a great tool for it, and for indoctrinating other people into it.

It can also be used in a reverse fashion, though. Besides, most sets of ideas can be used to foment or create hatred. Furthermore, the potential consequences do not affect the existence of the religious, and I don't think they ever will. If you believe in G-d, you'll probably continue to do so despite the fact that some people use religion as an excuse to act cruel or hateful.

[The Granadan Republic]

Well religion to us humans is a way where we can believe in a higher power. Religion is mosltly human emotion and sense since our early years of our primitive times, so id have to say no. However since I my self am Agnostic, I believe religion does more harm than good as I view it to be corrupt. Its not common sense.

[The Cummunist State]

I should clarify, I don't view religion as a cause of hatred, I find it a great tool for it, and for indoctrinating other people into it.

It can also be used in a reverse fashion, though. Besides, most sets of ideas can be used to foment or create hatred. Furthermore, the potential consequences do not affect the existence of the religious, and I don't think they ever will. If you believe in G-d, you'll probably continue to do so despite the fact that some people use religion as an excuse to act cruel or hateful.

Religion has a special way of doing it, making people think they'll live forever and that the supreme creator of the universe thinks the EXACT SAME WAY that they do. And of course, I've always held that just because a lot of things are bad, doesn't mean curing one of them is useless.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

I should clarify, I don't view religion as a cause of hatred, I find it a great tool for it, and for indoctrinating other people into it.

It can also be used in a reverse fashion, though. Besides, most sets of ideas can be used to foment or create hatred. Furthermore, the potential consequences do not affect the existence of the religious, and I don't think they ever will. If you believe in G-d, you'll probably continue to do so despite the fact that some people use religion as an excuse to act cruel or hateful.

The question I wonder on my part is why would people believe in invisible, non-existent beings?

I know that religion may have been theoretically originally intended as a means of explaining the world around you, however I am not too certain why in our current age when we should know better, with all those scientific developments, do people still believe in invisible beings.

(I am not a Christian, Roman Catholic, or whichever, I am rather a Shintoist with Buddhist & Confucian ideals de facto, although mostly atheist & Communistic in my practises; meaning I am not too sure how Christians function, other than what one person I did meet who was formally Roman Catholic left his religion then became atheist (due to certain reasons already mentioned, although including the cruelty & hatred inspired, the past reputation of the overall institution, as well as combined with their abuse of the concept); told me about. He told numerous elements of his religion, moreover I did my own research on the different religions of the world giving me some good background knowledge, however what I do not understand is that why are we still worshipping invisible or non-existent beings when proof exists that they never have, or never will exist unless you use a machine to warp them into creation?)

[Evraim]

It can also be used in a reverse fashion, though. Besides, most sets of ideas can be used to foment or create hatred. Furthermore, the potential consequences do not affect the existence of the religious, and I don't think they ever will. If you believe in G-d, you'll probably continue to do so despite the fact that some people use religion as an excuse to act cruel or hateful.

Religion has a special way of doing it, making people think they'll live forever and that the supreme creator of the universe thinks the EXACT SAME WAY that they do. And of course, I've always held that just because a lot of things are bad, doesn't mean curing one of them is useless.

Ideologies and philosophies as diverse as Nationalism, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Fascism, Republicanism, and Monarchism have all contributed to problems as well. I would prefer to maintain an economic system of some type that allows reasonable prosperity, although I do accept that religion is particularly powerful for the reasons cited. That said, we can use religion as a source of good, and it probably isn't possible to "cure it" with reason alone.

[Zyvyty]

-snip-

Actually, I have read the entire bible, as a direct translation by someone I trust, and is Christian. So, don't pull that shit on me. There are philosophers here, you won't get away with that.

My dear Plato, where is your well developed argument?
I am not a Christian nor a Muslim. My arguments are based on history and personal experience:
1) pious people are not bigots
2) tribalism (including redneckism) cannot be mistaken for religion.
3) pious people--Mohandas Gandi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. have made this world a better place.

[Jormengand]

Actually, I have read the entire bible, as a direct translation by someone I trust, and is Christian. So, don't pull that shit on me. There are philosophers here, you won't get away with that.

My dear Plato, where is your well developed argument?
I am not a Christian nor a Muslim. My arguments are based on history and personal experience:
1) pious people are not bigots
2) tribalism (including redneckism) cannot be mistaken for religion.
3) pious people--Mohandas Gandi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. have made this world a better place.

Here, great Aristotle.
1)sweeping statements=bad. Obviously they aren't all bigots, just an annoying proportion of them
2) Actually, some of these are religeous practises. Most, in fact. Sun gods and all.
3) They are in the minority. Still. Hasn't changed since last time I said it.

[Evraim]

It can also be used in a reverse fashion, though. Besides, most sets of ideas can be used to foment or create hatred. Furthermore, the potential consequences do not affect the existence of the religious, and I don't think they ever will. If you believe in G-d, you'll probably continue to do so despite the fact that some people use religion as an excuse to act cruel or hateful.

The question I wonder on my part is why would people believe in invisible, non-existent beings?

I know that religion may have been theoretically originally intended as a means of explaining the world around you, however I am not too certain why in our current age when we should know better, with all those scientific developments, do people still believe in invisible beings.

(I am not a Christian, Roman Catholic, or whichever, I am rather a Shintoist with Buddhist & Confucian ideals de facto, although mostly atheist & Communistic in my practises; meaning I am not too sure how Christians function, other than what one person I did meet who was formally Roman Catholic left his religion then became atheist (due to certain reasons already mentioned, although including the cruelty & hatred inspired, the past reputation of the overall institution, as well as combined with their abuse of the concept); told me about. He told numerous elements of his religion, moreover I did my own research on the different religions of the world giving me some good background knowledge, however what I do not understand is that why are we still worshipping invisible or non-existent beings when proof exists that they never have, or never will exist unless you use a machine to warp them into creation?)

There isn't prove that G-d or g-ds do not exist. It is precisely this lack of empirical evidence that leads some atheists to assume such a position on the existence of deities. Religion, as a number of individuals williningly admit, myself among them, is markedly irrational. Belief must be the product of passions, and once one presumes the existence of G-d based on these sentiments it is difficult to change such an opinion. I've done research. I've utilized reason. I've spent times as an Atheist, and not the nihilistic hopeless kind. Ultimately, it is my feelings that drive me to my conclusion that G-d exists just as it is your feelings that engender in you the conclusion that he does not. It is your passions, values, and beliefs that make you trust in whatever led you to believe that G-d does not exist and to apply those principles to the subject in the first place. The difference between yourself and me is that you've applied science to the question of G-d existence and come to the conclusion that he probably cannot exist- if this is incorrect please feel free to elucidate your views. I have concluded that my passions, my convictions, and the very fact that I exist as I do with certain proclivities and predispositions impell me to take a leap of faith in the absence of scientific evidence conclusively disproving G-d's existence. I do not presume that my beliefs are absolutely correct, and even acknowlege the possibility that I am entirely wrong. That's as simple an explanation as I can provide for my beliefs. I do realize that it is wholly inadequate, but, alas, there it is.

Ideologies and philosophies as diverse as Nationalism, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Fascism, Republicanism, and Monarchism have all contributed to problems as well. I would prefer to maintain an economic system of some type that allows reasonable prosperity, although I do accept that religion is particularly powerful for the reasons cited. That said, we can use religion as a source of good, and it probably isn't possible to "cure it" with reason alone.

By cure it, I meant making people realize they can have it but it doesn't matter that much*
And yeah, sometimes religion can be used for good, but with the examples you used, so can capitalism and communism. We must just find a middleground where it doesn't cause harm.

Exactly. I don't think you'll be able to convince the religious that religion doesn't matter that much.

My dear Plato, where is your well developed argument?
I am not a Christian nor a Muslim. My arguments are based on history and personal experience:
1) pious people are not bigots
2) tribalism (including redneckism) cannot be mistaken for religion.
3) pious people--Mohandas Gandi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. have made this world a better place.

Here, great Aristotle.
1)sweeping statements=bad. Obviously they aren't all bigots, just an annoying proportion of them
2) Actually, some of these are religeous practises. Most, in fact. Sun gods and all.
3) They are in the minority. Still. Hasn't changed since last time I said it.

Sophocles: I should strangle for putting words in my mouth, you self-serving git!

1.) True. Generalization. However, claiming that the majority of [insert group here] is [insert trait here] constitutes a generalization. However, he might define "pious" a certain way...

2.) Tribalism is distinct from religious practices. However, his point was incorrect to begin with. Islam adopted practices from surrounding civilizations that were not tribalistic such as the Byzantines and Sassanids as well as their own history. Islam, more so than other religions, is a complex world view that affects culture and politics because Muhammad served as not only a spirtual leader but also a political and military one.

3.) Source? Also, who says that good people in general aren't a minority?

[The Cummunist State]

Religion has a special way of doing it, making people think they'll live forever and that the supreme creator of the universe thinks the EXACT SAME WAY that they do. And of course, I've always held that just because a lot of things are bad, doesn't mean curing one of them is useless.

Ideologies and philosophies as diverse as Nationalism, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Fascism, Republicanism, and Monarchism have all contributed to problems as well. I would prefer to maintain an economic system of some type that allows reasonable prosperity, although I do accept that religion is particularly powerful for the reasons cited. That said, we can use religion as a source of good, and it probably isn't possible to "cure it" with reason alone.

By cure it, I meant making people realize they can have it but it doesn't matter that much*
And yeah, sometimes religion can be used for good, but with the examples you used, so can capitalism and communism. We must just find a middleground where it doesn't cause harm.

[The Cummunist State]

The question I wonder on my part is why would people believe in invisible, non-existent beings?

I know that religion may have been theoretically originally intended as a means of explaining the world around you, however I am not too certain why in our current age when we should know better, with all those scientific developments, do people still believe in invisible beings.

(I am not a Christian, Roman Catholic, or whichever, I am rather a Shintoist with Buddhist & Confucian ideals de facto, although mostly atheist & Communistic in my practises; meaning I am not too sure how Christians function, other than what one person I did meet who was formally Roman Catholic left his religion then became atheist (due to certain reasons already mentioned, although including the cruelty & hatred inspired, the past reputation of the overall institution, as well as combined with their abuse of the concept); told me about. He told numerous elements of his religion, moreover I did my own research on the different religions of the world giving me some good background knowledge, however what I do not understand is that why are we still worshipping invisible or non-existent beings when proof exists that they never have, or never will exist unless you use a machine to warp them into creation?)

There isn't prove that G-d or g-ds do not exist. It is precisely this lack of empirical evidence that leads some atheists to assume such a position on the existence of deities. Religion, as a number of individuals williningly admit, myself among them, is markedly irrational. Belief must be the product of passions, and once one presumes the existence of G-d based on these sentiments it is difficult to change such an opinion. I've done research. I've utilized reason. I've spent times as an Atheist, and not the nihilistic hopeless kind. Ultimately, it is my feelings that drive me to my conclusion that G-d exists just as it is your feelings that engender in you the conclusion that he does not. It is your passions, values, and beliefs that make you trust in whatever led you to believe that G-d does not exist and to apply those principles to the subject in the first place. The difference between yourself and me is that you've applied science to the question of G-d existence and come to the conclusion that he probably cannot exist- if this is incorrect please feel free to elucidate your views. I have concluded that my passions, my convictions, and the very fact that I exist as I do with certain proclivities and predispositions impell me to take a leap of faith in the absence of scientific evidence conclusively disproving G-d's existence. I do not presume that my beliefs are absolutely correct, and even acknowlege the possibility that I am entirely wrong. That's as simple an explanation as I can provide for my beliefs. I do realize that it is wholly inadequate, but, alas, there it is.

Um, no. My feelings and passions have no effect on the question of whether I believe it or not. And Atheists do not necessarily believe God doesn't exist. We just do not believe he does.

[Evraim]

There isn't prove that G-d or g-ds do not exist. It is precisely this lack of empirical evidence that leads some atheists to assume such a position on the existence of deities. Religion, as a number of individuals williningly admit, myself among them, is markedly irrational. Belief must be the product of passions, and once one presumes the existence of G-d based on these sentiments it is difficult to change such an opinion. I've done research. I've utilized reason. I've spent times as an Atheist, and not the nihilistic hopeless kind. Ultimately, it is my feelings that drive me to my conclusion that G-d exists just as it is your feelings that engender in you the conclusion that he does not. It is your passions, values, and beliefs that make you trust in whatever led you to believe that G-d does not exist and to apply those principles to the subject in the first place. The difference between yourself and me is that you've applied science to the question of G-d existence and come to the conclusion that he probably cannot exist- if this is incorrect please feel free to elucidate your views. I have concluded that my passions, my convictions, and the very fact that I exist as I do with certain proclivities and predispositions impell me to take a leap of faith in the absence of scientific evidence conclusively disproving G-d's existence. I do not presume that my beliefs are absolutely correct, and even acknowlege the possibility that I am entirely wrong. That's as simple an explanation as I can provide for my beliefs. I do realize that it is wholly inadequate, but, alas, there it is.

Um, no. My feelings and passions have no effect on the question of whether I believe it or not. And Atheists do not necessarily believe "g-d" doesn't exist. We just do not believe he does.

Oh, but they do. Your passions and feelings affect nearly everything you believe or do. It's inescapable. Neither reason nor logic stand on their own.

True enough. However, if you have thought about the question, I would assert that you've come the conclusion that G-d doesn't exist or formulated a belief on the subject.

[The Cummunist State]

Um, no. My feelings and passions have no effect on the question of whether I believe it or not. And Atheists do not necessarily believe "g-d" doesn't exist. We just do not believe he does.

Oh, but they do. Your passions and feelings affect nearly everything you believe or do. It's inescapable. Neither reason nor logic stand on their own.

True enough. However, if you have thought about the question, I would assert that you've come the conclusion that G-d doesn't exist or formulated a belief on the subject.

No. The reason I do not believe in god has nothing to do with my feelings. You know what I think is really cool? Gods. You know what I would love to exist? Auras. But there is no reason to believe them. I have not been convinced God exists or does not exist. Do not assert what I believe.

[Evraim]

Oh, but they do. Your passions and feelings affect nearly everything you believe or do. It's inescapable. Neither reason nor logic stand on their own.

True enough. However, if you have thought about the question, I would assert that you've come the conclusion that G-d doesn't exist or formulated a belief on the subject.

No. The reason I do not believe in god has nothing to do with my feelings. You know what I think is really cool? Gods. You know what I would love to exist? Auras. But there is no reason to believe them. I have not been convinced God exists or does not exist. Do not assert what I believe.

Your passions do affect where you place your trust to begin with, and are alot more complex than what you think is "cool". What led you to your conclusions about the existence of lack thereof of G-d? Why do you have or not have a belief in said existence? I think you completely misunderstand what I mean by passions, which is slightly different than the other terms which I shall now refrain from using.

I never mentioned anything about whether you were convinced og G-d's existence or not. I talked about beliefs. I'm not convinced that G-d exists, but I believe he does. The only way to have an absence of belief or opinion in my experience is to no consider the issue. I would presume from this conversation that you have considered the issue, and thus have an opinion of some sort.

[Tlaceceyaya]

No. The reason I do not believe in god has nothing to do with my feelings. You know what I think is really cool? Gods. You know what I would love to exist? Auras. But there is no reason to believe them. I have not been convinced God exists or does not exist. Do not assert what I believe.

Your passions do affect where you place your trust to begin with, and are alot more complex than what you think is "cool". What led you to your conclusions about the existence of lack thereof of G-d? Why do you have or not have a belief in said existence? I think you completely misunderstand what I mean by passions, which is slightly different than the other terms which I shall now refrain from using.

I never mentioned anything about whether you were convinced og G-d's existence or not. I talked about beliefs. I'm not convinced that G-d exists, but I believe he does. The only way to have an absence of belief or opinion in my experience is to no consider the issue. I would presume from this conversation that you have considered the issue, and thus have an opinion of some sort.

You CAN have an absence of belief after considering the issue. I've considered the ancient alien hypothesis, and the aquatic ape hypothesis, and I lack belief in both.

[Evraim]

Your passions do affect where you place your trust to begin with, and are alot more complex than what you think is "cool". What led you to your conclusions about the existence of lack thereof of G-d? Why do you have or not have a belief in said existence? I think you completely misunderstand what I mean by passions, which is slightly different than the other terms which I shall now refrain from using.

I never mentioned anything about whether you were convinced og G-d's existence or not. I talked about beliefs. I'm not convinced that G-d exists, but I believe he does. The only way to have an absence of belief or opinion in my experience is to no consider the issue. I would presume from this conversation that you have considered the issue, and thus have an opinion of some sort.

You CAN have an absence of belief after considering the issue. I've considered the ancient alien hypothesis, and the aquatic ape hypothesis, and I lack belief in both.

I happen to believe that neither has legitimacy, but I certainly have a belief about them.

[The Cummunist State]

No. The reason I do not believe in god has nothing to do with my feelings. You know what I think is really cool? Gods. You know what I would love to exist? Auras. But there is no reason to believe them. I have not been convinced God exists or does not exist. Do not assert what I believe.

Your passions do affect where you place your trust to begin with, and are alot more complex than what you think is "cool". What led you to your conclusions about the existence of lack thereof of G-d? Why do you have or not have a belief in said existence? I think you completely misunderstand what I mean by passions, which is slightly different than the other terms which I shall now refrain from using.

I never mentioned anything about whether you were convinced og G-d's existence or not. I talked about beliefs. I'm not convinced that G-d exists, but I believe he does. The only way to have an absence of belief or opinion in my experience is to no consider the issue. I would presume from this conversation that you have considered the issue, and thus have an opinion of some sort.

You are asserting I believe things. I do not like it. That was what I was getting at. And frankly, I don't give a damn about gods. Nothing has led me to believe "G-d" doesn't exist. It is the default position to not believe he does or does not. I do not believe in him because I am not convinced he exists. I must be convinced something exists to believe it. I do not have any burden of proof. I do not have to have a reason not to believe in the idea. And by the way, lacking belief in something is the default position. As someone said before, babies are not born believing in Ice Cream, nor gods. I was born without belief. I was never convinced a god exists. I am still not. I do not have to prove that I believe he doesn't exist, because I don't.