Theism Vs Atheism

[turnorburn]

The reason you don't believe in God is because you can't, its up to him who he reveals himself,
( Pay attention to verse 15)

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.
14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.
15 Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
16 They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols.
17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

 

[Guest]

Then we agree you are not an "atheist."

What again is your definition of an "atheist"? (with quotes)

My definition of "atheist" is drawn directly from those who are self-proclaimed "atheists." They declare, "An 'atheist' is a person who lacks belief in God." It does not matter which turn of expression you place on the idea (i.e., absence of theism, without theism, lack of theism, a-theist, and so on). They central core idea is a void of belief. If you ask the "atheist," "Does God exist?" Their response is not yes or no. They respond, "Null." That is to say, they have no position, opinion, or perspective on the question.

The "atheist" is distinguishable from the atheist. The "atheist" is without a position, opinion, or perspective. They make no judgments, spoken or unspoken, conscious or unconscious, about the existence and non-existence of God. The atheist, on the other hand, is a position, opinion, or perspective. The atheist makes a judgment, be it strong or weak, about the existence and non-existence of God.

So, if you have any kind of opinion on the existence and non-existence of God, then by deduction you have a belief about the existence and non-existence of God. It can be a belief of agreement (belief) or disagreement (disbelief), and it follows that you would not be an "atheist."

And, as reality would have it, the only "atheists" which exist are those who are ignorant of god-concepts, are delusional, or liars.

 

[Guest]

Am I the original poster you are refering to?

It was a question posed by GojuBrian. Ill-stated, but a valid and reasonable question. He wanted to know what precisely atheists believe.

I believe Brian wanted to understand what atheists believe, so there can be discussion and not this silly game of ring around the rosie. That is, the "atheist" ventures into the stamp collectors convention and continually harasses the stamp collectors by pointing out the perceived flaws in their hobby, but when asked about what their hobby is the "atheist" only declares, "I am not a stamp collector!"

 

[GojuBrian]

[quote="Silver Bullet]

God says this in the Bible. So how did you decide that the Bible is worth believing in the first place?

And how is believing in this God anything other than being gullible?

Of course you are. The 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11 were too, as is virtually every suicide bomber in the middle East. Same with the Mormon's who believe that their underwear will protect them from bullets, and the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny their children life-saving blood transfusions because they are happy to know that they are securing their child eternal life by doing so. I'm sure the people who believe that the holocaust or moon-landing didn't happen are happy to believe what they believe, as are those who still put stock in their horoscope or fortune teller's information.

The bottom line is this: you either have good reasons for believing what you believe, or you don't.

You didn't answer my first question.

SB

Maybe I would be less gullible if I believed the atheist scientist who have more hope for their own glory than salvation so they continue the deception? It's too hard for them to soften their heart.

I've read and researched the Bible. Everything I've read,heard,and researched tells me that the Bible is the infallable repository of redemptive revelation!! Do a research on the book of Daniel. Research when it was written, the prophecies revealed to Daniel by God almighty and when they did infact come true!!

I do have good reasons for believing what I believe. If you are searching for answers to believe, you will find them. If you are searching for reasons not to believe, you are a fool.

 

[GojuBrian]

 

[Silver Bullet]

minnesota,

Since you have made such a big deal out of the distinction between "atheists" and atheists, can you help me to understand why "atheists" are common enough that they are an important issue for theists such as yourself to get all excited about?

I don't think I've ever encountered an "atheist" as you've defined it, certainly not one who called herself an atheist (agnostic, maybe).

On another note, what you wrote:

defining atheism as "without belief in theism" is asinine and non-contributory. Basically, it's a weasel definition employed by atheists, often unknowingly, attempting to avoid their responsibility to the conversation -- which is to support their perspective. The definition has reached the status of myth as atheists now seek to defend it with such topsy turvy reasoning that it bends even the minds of the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalists. It has also become encircled by other fanciful notions like "you can't prove a negative," "atheism is the default position,"

makes Russell's teapot relevant, since it refutes the notion that the burden of proof regarding unfalsifiable claims lies with the skeptic. If you have an effective counter argument, I'd like to hear it.

animal's question to you is valid, given what you wrote. I can't see how your response is.

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Maybe I would be less gullible if I believed the atheist scientist who have more hope for their own glory than salvation so they continue the deception? It's too hard for them to soften their heart.

Do you seriously believe that atheist scientists are involved in a conspiracy to deceive the world for their own "glory"? Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy at all? Is there any reason other than wishful thinking on your part to believe it to be true?

Do a research on the book of Daniel. Research when it was written, the prophecies revealed to Daniel by God almighty and when they did infact come true!!

If indeed the Bible did make infallible predictions that only God could make, I (and I am sure countless others) could be turned. Here's your opportunity to set us all on the path of salvation, and to show us the "good reasons" you have for believing what you believe. Please list 5 such predictions and show us the good historical evidence that they came true (3 would be a good start).

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

The reason you don't believe in God is because you can't, its up to him who he reveals himself,

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that God does not reveal himself to all, and only those that He reveals himself to ought to believe in Him?

SB

 

[GojuBrian]

Do you seriously believe that atheist scientists are involved in a conspiracy to deceive the world for their own "glory"? Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy at all? Is there any reason other than wishful thinking on your part to believe it to be true?

Not a purposeful conspiracy,no.

If indeed the Bible did make infallible predictions that only God could make, I (and I am sure countless others) could be turned. Here's your opportunity to set us all on the path of salvation, and to show us the "good reasons" you have for believing what you believe. Please list 5 such predictions and show us the good historical evidence that they came true (3 would be a good start).

SB

Many are on the path of salvation. It started with an open mind and an open heart,you have neither. You are not seeking salvation. You are seeking to ridicule those who have what you do not. Ain't happenin' brotha. ;)

I tell you to reasearch Daniel, you tell me to spoon feed it to you.

Go to google.com and type in the prophecies of Daniel. Click on some of the links provided and do several hours of reading. :D

 

[Guest]

Since you have made such a big deal out of the distinction between "atheists" and atheists, can you help me to understand why "atheists" are common enough that they are an important issue for theists such as yourself to get all excited about?

"Atheists" are not really all that common. In fact, I would argue they don't even exist outside of those who are completely and utterly ignorant. It's the posers who are common on the Internet. That is, those people who claim to be "atheists" rather than something else. Google lack of belief, without belief, absence of belief, and so on.

makes Russell's teapot relevant, since it refutes the notion that the burden of proof regarding unfalsifiable claims lies with the skeptic. If you have an effective counter argument, I'd like to hear it.

Russell's teapot analogy is not about who has the burden of proof. If Russell were without a burden of proof, then why would he spend an entire article arguing there is no reason to believe? Rather, Russell's teapot analogy is arguing against a logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof). So, either you've been duped by the "atheist" myth machine, or you're accusing me of a logical fallacy. Which is it? And if the latter, I would recommend you support your accusation.

 

[Evointrinsic]

minnesota: Your description of an "Atheist" is identical to an Agnostic. Agnostics think that god or any deity is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Otherwise meaning that they (usually, depending on which form of Agnosticism they are), dont have an opinion on whether a Deity exists or not. Which you've described. We do agree yes? In which case, no I am not Agnostic or rather - how you'd title it - "Atheist".

Which takes me back to your Stamp Analogy. When you state "Do you know i'm not a stamp Collector?" Are you stating that your Agnostic? or "Atheist", in other terms.

 

[Silver Bullet]

"Atheists" are not really all that common. In fact, I would argue they don't even exist outside of those who are completely and utterly ignorant.

Thanks then for wasting all of our time with this preposterous strawman that is in fact a non-issue.

Russell's teapot analogy is not about who has the burden of proof. If Russell were without a burden of proof, then why would he spend an entire article arguing there is no reason to believe? Rather, Russell's teapot analogy is arguing against a logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof). So, either you've been duped by the "atheist" myth machine, or you're accusing me of a logical fallacy. Which is it? And if the latter, I would recommend you support your accusation.

The burden of proof lies with the theist, since the theist is making the unfalsifiable claim. Russell's teapot is a reminder of that. Job number one for the atheist is to remind the theist of that, just as Russell had to. Job number 2 is to critically assess the evidence provided by the theist. If the theist can't produce good reasons to support her beliefs (or if the theist just repeatedly exclaims that she is not a stamp collector), the atheist is completely justified in rejecting them. The theist should reject them too.

Perhaps you can now finally tell us what is topsy-turvy or fanciful about that reasoning, and answer animal's question to you.

SB

 

[Guest]

Your description of an "Atheist" is identical to an Agnostic. Agnostics think that god or any deity is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Otherwise meaning that they (usually, depending on which form of Agnosticism they are), dont have an opinion on whether a Deity exists or not. Which you've described. We do agree yes? In which case, no I am not Agnostic or rather - how you'd title it - "Atheist".

Agnosticism deals with knowledge. It is the belief gods cannot be known or are unknowable, not "unknown" as you remark. Agnosticism exists on a knowledge continuum, whereas atheism, theism, and "atheism" exist on the belief continuum. And again, you have to remember I am only using the definition of atheism provided by "atheists."

Which takes me back to your Stamp Analogy. When you state "Do you know i'm not a stamp Collector?" Are you stating that your Agnostic? or "Atheist", in other terms.

Read my response to Jojo in this thread.

 

[Guest]

"Atheists" are not really all that common. In fact, I would argue they don't even exist outside of those who are completely and utterly ignorant.

Thanks then for wasting all of our time with this ridiculous strawman that is in fact a non-issue.

You cite one part of my post, but neglect to include the most relevant part which describes why it is an issue.

Russell's teapot analogy is not about who has the burden of proof. If Russell were without a burden of proof, then why would he spend an entire article arguing there is no reason to believe? Rather, Russell's teapot analogy is arguing against a logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof). So, either you've been duped by the "atheist" myth machine, or you're accusing me of a logical fallacy. Which is it? And if the latter, I would recommend you support your accusation.

The burden of proof lies with the theist, since the theist is making the unfalsifiable claim. Russell's teapot is a reminder of that.

Are you arguing Russell's analogy reminds you of that? If so, I will not dispute that. Are you arguing the point of Russell's analogy is that? Well, let's review how Russell opens the passage in question.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars...

He is addressing the fallacy, not who is responsible.

Job number one for the atheist is to remind the theist of that, just as Russell had to. Job number 2 is to critically assess the evidence provided by the theist. If the theist can't produce good reasons to support her beliefs, the atheist is completely justified in rejecting them. The theist should reject them too.

You're confused. The skeptic may be an atheist. The atheist may be a skeptic. However, the atheist is not necessarily a skeptic, nor vice versa.

Perhaps you can now finally tell us what is topsy-turvy or fanciful about that reasoning

Done.

and answer animal's question to you.

Yes, I find it annoying when someone refuses to answer my questions too. I find it particularly annoying when the questions posed are relevant to the discussion, and the one I am asking continual answers the question with a non-answer.

So, I would like to repost GojuBrian's question in a modified form. What does the atheist believe?

 

[Evointrinsic]

Agnosticism deals with knowledge. It is the belief gods cannot be known or are unknowable, not "unknown" as you remark. Agnosticism exists on a knowledge continuum, whereas atheism, theism, and "atheism" exist on the belief continuum. And again, you have to remember I am only using the definition of atheism provided by "atheists."

if you take a closer look i actually said "is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove." Just as there is Strong Atheists or Weak Atheists (the strength is their mindset, not litteral), there are Strong Agnostics and Weak Agnostics and so on. You are in fact describing an agnostic...

This definition is not my person opinion - as yours seems to be - it is a Global definition of agnosticism, which you are actually describing perfectly.

And I was referring to the post you made in response to JoJo (i think), could you tell me the time and date it was posted?

 

[Silver Bullet]

So, I would like to repost GojuBrian's question in a modified form. What does the atheist believe?

I'm not going not going to go around and around in this dance with you. You can spend all day creating strawmen and defining atheism in whatever way you like.

The burden of proof is on the theist. You have not supported any reason that it should be otherwise.

SB

 

[Guest]

if you take a closer look i actually said "is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove."

Allow me to correct your statement before responding.

if you take a closer look Wikipedia actually said "is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove."

You see, when someone comes in wielding clichés, it immediately makes me skeptical. Those given to original thought, at least original within themselves, often strive to avoid clichés. Thus, I tend to search out what the individual is saying to check any sources upon which they may be drawing upon. So, upon your repetition I invited my friend Google to help out. And wouldn't you know it? The first hit was from Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the message board's rule on plagiarism, but if you were in my class you just received an F. (As a side note, Silver Bullet's comments on Russell's teapot analogy reek of Wikipedia as well.)

Sadly, you neglected to cite the entire quotation which resulted in my confusion. Let's see what it has to say.

Agnosticism ... is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims ... is unknown or ... inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

This makes the point much clearer, and we can apply this to your following claim.

You are in fact describing an agnostic.

No, in fact, I am not. Why? Because "atheism" is merely the lack of belief. It is not the belief that "certain claims" are "unknown or ... inherently impossible to prove or disprove."

This definition is not my person opinion - as yours seems to be - it is a Global definition of agnosticism, which you are actually describing perfectly.

Actually, my definition of agnostic is used. Again, let's see what your Wikipedia article has to say.

In recent years, use of the word to mean "not knowable" is apparent in scientific literature in psychology and neuroscience, and with a meaning close to "independent", in technical and marketing literature, e.g. "platform agnostic" or "hardware agnostic".

Likewise, it is used by agnostics to describe gods.

And I was referring to the post you made in response to JoJo (i think), could you tell me the time and date it was posted?

Here.

 

[Guest]

You can spend all day creating strawmen and defining atheism in whatever way you like.

It is not the way in which I define atheism. It is, in fact, derived from the way "atheists" define "atheism." To help, I have included a number of quotations from "atheists."

The burden of proof is on the theist. You have not supported any reason that it should be otherwise.

The wizard of accusations levels the charge of strawmen argumentation upon myself, but it is he thus who creates his own. Ironic, no? You see, it seems everyone but yourself and Evoinstrinsic, albeit for different reasons, understood my argument. My argument was never about the burden of proof.

 

[Guest]

What do "atheists" have to say about "atheism?" Well, let's see. (Note, I am limited to ten links. If you are still unconvinced, then Google is your friend. Quotes like these are a dime a dozen.)

Austin Cline, About.com

I've written a number of articles about how religious theists, but especially Christians, try to argue against the broad definition of atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods. This myth explains why this is so important to some theists: if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it's not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves.

Jacqueline Lavache, Examiner.com

We don’t assert that there is no god, like those who would claim innocence, but we don’t think that the evidence shows there is a god, like those who assert “guiltâ€Â.
...
Those who profess a lack of belief and those who assert there is no god both fall under the board umbrella of atheism. However, the distinction is very important when you’re trying to understand atheism and also have a meaningful conversation about belief in God.

vjack, AskTheAtheists.com

Theism makes a positive belief claim in which existence of some sort of god or gods is asserted. An atheist is someone who does not accept this claim. Thus, atheism refers to the absence of theistic belief. That’s it. It doesn’t mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real.

Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods. Note that this is not the same thing as a positive claim that a god or gods do not or cannot exist. While some have described such a positive claim as “strong atheism,†it should not be taken as being synonymous with atheism.

bitbutter, AskTheAtheists.com

Being an atheist simply means you lack belief in gods. The term atheist isn’t really comparable to terms like Christian or Muslim because it doesn’t describe a complete ideology.
...
Many atheists consider themselves ‘weak’ or agnostic atheists. There’s some more information about the nature of agnostic atheism on the teapot page.

Steve Gillman, Webraydian.com

In this case, we look at what atheism actually is. It is clear that atheism isn't a belief, but a lack of belief. The believer is the one who claims a god exists. Atheism simply points to the reality that some people's belief systems don't include a belief in a god.

Some atheists (a small minority) may think they can "prove" the non-existence of gods. This, however, has nothing to do with atheism, anymore than a belief in Vishnu by some god-believers shows that theism is a belief in Vishnu. Atheism is simply the stance that "you have not proved your case, therefore I don't believe in your god."

Wikipedia

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

FreeThoughtPedia

First and foremost, as was mentioned earlier, atheism is a lack of belief, which theists often compare in the same terms as they do their beliefs, which do constitute a World view. The problem is, atheism is not a "world view". It's not a set of rules, regulations, dogma, scripture, beliefs or any other idea that is universally accepted among people. There is no atheist bible. There are no rules which all atheists are expected to follow. The lack of belief is not indicative of a recommended way of living ones' life.

Arizona Atheist

That concludes my attempt to show that just because words change meaning in a society does not mean that the words are used properly, even in philosophical circles. Because of all these facts I argue that atheism is actually a lack of belief. While a person can outright deny god's existence, the theist is still under the obligation to provide evidence for even a person who holds the positive atheism position because the atheist is still justified in denying god due to the lack of evidence, and the poor arguments by theistic apologists. In my opinion, after all, it was the theist who was the first one to make such a "positive" (or strong) claim that there is, in fact, a god or gods and therefore is still the one who must prove that assertion before anyone can take them seriously.

Cliff Walker, PositiveAtheism.com

The definition for atheism that we use, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist). Though we do not recognize any “middle ground,†we do acknowledge the agnostic position, which spans both theism and atheism: a theistic agnostic thinks one or more gods exist but can say no more on the subject than this (is a theist); an atheistic agnostic doesn’t know if any gods exist (lacks a god belief, and is thus an atheist). Noncognitivists think all god-talk is meaningless, and thus lack any god beliefs (are atheists).

This, our working definition for the meaning of the words atheism and atheist, is known as the weak definition for the word atheism. We will cover several aspects of this definition during this discussion.

To assume that atheism involves more than the absence of theism is an error. Atheists are not necessarily Communists (though some are). Atheists are not necessarily immoral or “wicked†(though some are). Atheists do not necessarily assert that “no gods exist†(though some do). Atheism is but one component of an atheist’s larger philosophical outlook and can influence that outlook, but atheism is never itself that primary outlook.

Rational Response Squad

But you still seek some sort of middle ground, right? Something between theism and rejection of theism. Well relax, because the atheism IS your middle ground. "A-theism"' implies everything that a rational doubter means when he declares himself an 'agnostic', for while it's a common misperception that atheism implies a denial or rejection or active disbelief in the very possibility of a god, this is not so. In fact, we require a special term for those those who hold to such beliefs: "Strong Atheism". The rest of us doubters simply don't hold the belief... we're all atheists, whether we are doubters or outright rejectors of theism. So the missing 'middle ground' that you are looking for, rational tentativeness, is already included within the term 'atheism'.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Minnesota: I am not sure how repeating a cliché line leads you to the conclusion that i have nothing relevant to say at all. There is absolutely no logic at all in that thought and all you seem to be doing is just as Silver Bullet has already said which is "going around in circles". Regardless of what you want to believe your definition of Atheism is, it resembles perfectly to Agnosticism. Do you know where Wikipedia got its definition of Agnostic? For a dictionary and from the world views of Agnostics. I also stated that not only was this line "...is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove..." my view of what agnostic means, but a global view. Which for some strange reason is identical to your person definition of "Atheist" (with quotes).

It's strange that you define "Atheism" (with quotes) as without a belief. Because agnostics are without a belief! How peculiar... They do not believe there is a god, nor do they believe there is no god... Once again, this is a global definition of Agnosticism, not a personal one. Now lets take that sentence and see how it fits in with your definition of "Atheism" (with quotes).

Yours...
IThey central core idea is a void of belief. If you ask the "atheist," "Does God exist?" Their response is not yes or no.
Global definition of Agnostic
They do not believe there is a god, nor do they believe there is no god...

How intensely similar...

Now... lets walk away from wikipedia and use another source to define Agnostic shall we?

Dictionary.com
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Agnostic: a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. (ie: Theology)

http://www.merriam-webster.com
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
Agnostic: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something (ie: Theology)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
Agnostic: One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Agnostic: One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. (Ie: Theology)

Hmmm, for some reason i have seen all these definitions before. oh right! it's when you described "Atheist".

Minnesota... I am done talking with you about this. you are in fact the only one in this topic that i have seen that has lead the discussion out of the original view of the topic. I can define "Metal" as wood and name it Wood then go around telling everyone i'm a carpenter and it wouldnt make sense to anyone if i ever described what i did. And thats really what your doing. go ahead and define whatever you want as what ever you want. But if you bring it up in a discussion you better have the intellect to understand little self implied definitions dont work in a situation like this if everyone else goes by what the rest of the world defines what your attempting to define as something else. Maybe its your pride or your ego or whatever that wont allow you to see or admit that both the little arguments you picked up while in this thread between Silver and myself you've lost or had absolutely ridiculous and ineffective rebuttals to. Your hypocritical points of view are most likely going to get you in trouble, and the next time you want to get off topic you might as well do it through personal messages. I am more than willing to continue this if you feel the need to, but you can contact me through a PM. I for one am not going to continue going off course of this topic.

You can say whatever you want to say to this post, but be advised that i am not going to read it nor care about it. If you want to get further off topic then I expect to see that you've posted yet again about this. If you honestly want to convince me of something, then PM me