Does Atheism count as a religious viewpoint?

[Hyena Dandy]

Now, as those who are well acquainted with me know, I'm a huge supporter of the separation of Church and State. I've signed petitions to make sure that religious personalities (Reverends, churches, etc.) aren't endorsed on the sides of state-run buses. Many of my friends agree with me on this one. But recently one of my friends has been trying to get the phrase "God Probably Doesn't Exist, So Just Enjoy Yourself" on the buses.

When I explained I was against this, she said I was going AGAINST separation of church and state. But I say that I'm going for it. I won't make the argument that Atheism counts as a religion (That's a whole different can of worms) but I will say that its at least a religious VIEWPOINT. After all, its making a statement about a religious belief. The fact that its anti-religion instead of pro-religion doesn't change that. And neither does the inclusion of the phrase "Probably" in the adds. Even "Maybe" is a viewpoint on religion.

I feel separation of Church and State means that they have to be SEPARATED. Not that the state needs to be AGAINST religion.

Now, what a private bus company does and doesn't put on their buses is up to them. I'd be perfectly fine if a private company wanted to plaster their buses with religious iconography. Same with the corporate "Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays" dilemma, I think that's up to the store to say, because that's their private decision. But when the government is being represented, I don't feel that they should be making ANY statement on religion, for or against.

[Nyoibo]

God is mentioned, God is a central figure in religion, therefore it is religious.

[Rapscallion]

Define 'religious' first. For me, it means acceptance of a supernatural state of affairs as being the truth. Atheism is the unacceptance of a supernatural state of affairs. I don't consider it religious.

Put it this way, if atheism is counted as a religion, then everyone would be counted as 'religious'.

Rapscallion

[jackfaire]

Yes it does. Religious viewpoint means, "Viewpoint on religions"

No in and of itself it is not a religion. It is a viewpoint on them however. Any opinion about religion is your view point of religion.

[Hyena Dandy]

Raps:

I won't make the argument that Atheism counts as a religion (That's a whole different can of worms) but I will say that its at least a religious VIEWPOINT

I'm not saying its a religion. I'm saying giving any opinion counts against separating church and state. I feel that the government shouldn't endorse ANYTHING, religion or anti-religion.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Athiesm, while not a religion, is a religious or spiritual viewPOINT. It is a personal philosophy regarding a creator spirit. It comes up in religious discussions and context.

Therefore, if saying that God exists is a religious viewpoint and therefore has no place on the sides of state run busses, then your friend is mistaken in her belief that saying that He doesn't does have a place there.

Just because it's something she wants to do does not make it right. If her stance is that personal spiritual beliefs should not be displayed in public places, then displaying hers there is just plain hypocritical.

To the point of being over the top, it's hypocritical.

She can circulate anything she wants, nobody is going to touch this with a ten foot pole. You don't get to run whatever you want just because you pay. You have to find someone who will carry your advert. Nobody will touch that message, it would be a huge can of worms regardless of the bus owners' personal view. It is the sort of thing that would run off OTHER advertisers.


I would submit to you that your friend likes the idea of being contentious and provacative and has a bone to pick. She probably ought to grow up and concern herself more with her own affairs and not with what strangers believe.

[Rapscallion]

My bad - I read the title and went straight in.

So, atheism itself is a lack of belief in a supernatural being(s). However, there are people who describe themselves as atheists because they have very clear cut ideas about how the world is, just as there are religious people who have clear cut ideas. What about the average person in the street who doesn't particularly believe in anything, just goes about his or her business day to day, and doesn't even think about it? Such a person would be an atheist, but not have a religious viewpoint, since it would be something they hadn't really bothered with.

Am I making sense? I'm doing the overly much overtime thing right now.

Rapscallion

[machinest]

I think what you are describing is labeled as an apathist ,no clear thought on whether or not god exists and no real need to form one

[Hyena Dandy]

My bad - I read the title and went straight in.

So, atheism itself is a lack of belief in a supernatural being(s). However, there are people who describe themselves as atheists because they have very clear cut ideas about how the world is, just as there are religious people who have clear cut ideas. What about the average person in the street who doesn't particularly believe in anything, just goes about his or her business day to day, and doesn't even think about it? Such a person would be an atheist, but not have a religious viewpoint, since it would be something they hadn't really bothered with.

Am I making sense? I'm doing the overly much overtime thing right now.

Rapscallion


Yes, while that wasn't the point of the post. The point was does the statement "God probably doesn't exist, so just relax" on a bus count against separation of church and state. I was saying yes, because it endorses a viewpoint.

[Rapscallion]

I can see where you're coming from. State-run busses shouldn't really have any advertisement on at all, save for other state services. I'm thinking things like adult literacy courses etc. (Yes, I've seen this...)

The reason is that relying on advertising from the commercial sector means that even if the intentions are honourable, any approval of a scheme by the people who advertise, or award of a contract to such, is going to be regarded as suspicious. It also means that the advertising organisation is going to hold some sway over supposedly neutral parties.

Does the advertising you mention count as a religious viewpoint? In that actual format, I'd say 'yes'. I'd say that the state shouldn't allow it (even though I agree with it), but only on the same grounds I'd say they shouldn't allow any advertising on state-run busses.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

I can see where you're coming from. State-run busses shouldn't really have any advertisement on at all, save for other state services. I'm thinking things like adult literacy courses etc. (Yes, I've seen this...)

The reason is that relying on advertising from the commercial sector means that even if the intentions are honourable, any approval of a scheme by the people who advertise, or award of a contract to such, is going to be regarded as suspicious. It also means that the advertising organisation is going to hold some sway over supposedly neutral parties.

Does the advertising you mention count as a religious viewpoint? In that actual format, I'd say 'yes'. I'd say that the state shouldn't allow it (even though I agree with it), but only on the same grounds I'd say they shouldn't allow any advertising on state-run busses.

Rapscallion

I'd agree with you there. There's no way that the MBTA will stop advertising on its buses, though, so I at least want to keep the religious statements off of them.

[Slytovhand]

But... if they allow one form of private advertising, are they then in a position to dictate what does and doesn't go on?

[Rapscallion]

But... if they allow one form of private advertising, are they then in a position to dictate what does and doesn't go on?

For me, that's the whole point of the thread. I suppose if they don't put on atheism propoganda, they should make sure that religious propoganda is banned as well, as well as accepting adverts from politicians.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

For me, that's the whole point of the thread. I suppose if they don't put on atheism propoganda, they should make sure that religious propoganda is banned as well, as well as accepting adverts from politicians.

Rapscallion

Exactly. A large part of what I was thinking in this thread is that if you're going to expend a lot of effort making sure they don't put religious propaganda on the buses, you should keep atheist propaganda off as well.

[Ladeeda]

My bad - I read the title and went straight in.

So, atheism itself is a lack of belief in a supernatural being(s). However, there are people who describe themselves as atheists because they have very clear cut ideas about how the world is, just as there are religious people who have clear cut ideas. What about the average person in the street who doesn't particularly believe in anything, just goes about his or her business day to day, and doesn't even think about it? Such a person would be an atheist, but not have a religious viewpoint, since it would be something they hadn't really bothered with.

Am I making sense? I'm doing the overly much overtime thing right now.

Rapscallion

I think that's Agnostic, actually. Someone who doesn't believe or not believe in a Higher Power.

[Nyoibo]

I think that's Agnostic, actually. Someone who doesn't believe or not believe in a Higher Power.

Agnostics don't believe in God, but are open to the idea of a deity.

[Arcade Man D]

Agnostics don't believe in God, but are open to the idea of a deity.

"Oh no! We're being picketed by Agnostics!"


"Say maybe to God!"


Sorry, had to think of Metalocalypse from that.

[Ladeeda]

Agnostics don't believe in God, but are open to the idea of a deity.

Yeah, that sounded like what Rapscallion was describing to me.

[Rapscallion]

Hmm, the definition of agnostic that I've always gone with is unsurity about whether or not there's a higher being to blame. Atheists are those who say there isn't, and theists are those who say there is.

I rather suspect that agnostics, under those criteria, outnumber the other two even if they were added together :p

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

Exactly. A large part of what I was thinking in this thread is that if you're going to expend a lot of effort making sure they don't put religious propaganda on the buses, you should keep atheist propaganda off as well.

or if they don't ban the religious propaganda-just contact the freedom from religion foundation-they are putting up billboards (http://www.ffrf.org/get-involved/bus-billboard-campaign/), and will advertise on buses. Amusingly the only thing their ads have done is make the churches spend more money to advertise. No one has really gotten offended, as the ads are designed to be mostly non-offensive(quotes from founding fathers, that this is not a Christian nation, etc), and the bus company gets more money.

edited to add:
But recently one of my friends has been trying to get the phrase "God Probably Doesn't Exist, So Just Enjoy Yourself" on the buses.

yeah that might be considered copyright infringement-as it's not an original idea-already done by the German Humanists:

By coincidence, FFRF learned, after starting its ballot, that German humanists are doing the same thing. However, in order to vote at the German site, you have to donate! British Humanists, who took the world by storm by placing bus signs saying, "There's Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy your Life," raised more than $200,000 in a short period last fall through an online campaign

From this article (http://ffrf.org/news/releases/sleep_madison/)-they are based in Madison, which coincidentally also has the largest congregation of Unitarian Universalists (http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml)(basicly secular humanists) in the United States

[KabeRinnaul]

Hmm, the definition of agnostic that I've always gone with is unsurity about whether or not there's a higher being to blame. Atheists are those who say there isn't, and theists are those who say there is.

I rather suspect that agnostics, under those criteria, outnumber the other two even if they were added together :p

Rapscallion

The term I've always liked is "Nontheist." That being, a person with no opinion of the existence of God.

It should be pointed out that gnosticism and theism are two separate ideas. "Gnostic" refers to knowing and the capability to know something as fact. "Theist" refers to belief. You can be both, neither, or a combination.

A Gnostic Theist believes in God, and believes that one can prove the reality of God.
An Agnostic Theist believes in God, but believes that God is unknowable and his existence can't be proven.
A Gnostic Atheist rejects the belief of God, but believes that God is demonstratively false.
An Agnostic Atheist rejects the belief of God, and believes that it can't be proved one way or another.

The two things to remember is that Gnostic used to have this specific meaning, but now it's been co-opted to instead mean "I dunno", and that Atheist making a specific religious statement. Atheist doesn't mean "I don't believe in God", it means "I believe in the lack of God".

So, I'd call Atheism a religious viewpoint, though I don't think I could call it a "religion" as to me that implies an organized set of beliefs.

[Ghel]

I think we get too bogged down in labels sometimes. I like KabeRinnaul's post above, but I disagree on a few minor points.

"I don't believe a god exists." This is an atheist, sometimes called a weak or negative atheist.
"I believe no gods exist." This is also an atheist, sometimes called a strong or positive atheist.

I agree that atheism is a viewpoint about religion, but isn't a religion itself. Atheism has no tenets or dogma.

[Hobbs]

I agree that atheism is a viewpoint about religion, but isn't a religion itself. Atheism has no tenets or dogma.

Yes it does. Athiesm, as a whole, promotes science as the only Truth and proponents of athiesm tend to have the same "with us or against us" mentality of many religions. Athiests regularly try to convert believers into their ideology as well, and tend to view themselves as the only ones with knowledge of the "True un-Faith."

[draco664]

So, I'd call Atheism a religious viewpoint

would you call not collecting stamps a hobby?

I'm not being facetious, but I'm genuinely puzzled that some people believe atheism is a religious viewpoint. Atheism is a rejection of religious viewpoints.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Atheists ares to religion as workaholics are to hobbies. In both cases the defining factor on the subject at hand is the lack thereof.

Next up, comparing empty juice bottles to a selection of full juice bottles, and nudism vs fashion.

[KnitShoni]

would you call not collecting stamps a hobby?

I'm not being facetious, but I'm genuinely puzzled that some people believe atheism is a religious viewpoint. Atheism is a rejection of religious viewpoints.

I thought atheism was a rejection of religion itself. That would make it a viewpoint, no?

[draco664]

I thought atheism was a rejection of religion itself. That would make it a viewpoint, no?

Only if you think that darkness is a kind of light. Absence of belief is not a kind of belief.

This is of course my opinion. As an atheist, I don't see myself as religious. It seems to me that theists who claim that lack of belief is a "kind of belief" are trying more to convince themselves that everyone believes in something. Sort of like a security blanket.

[Kheldarson]

But that's still a viewpoint. Your viewpoint on religion is that it's unnecessary for your life. It's still a view.

[KnitShoni]

Only if you think that darkness is a kind of light. Absence of belief is not a kind of belief.

This is of course my opinion. As an atheist, I don't see myself as religious. It seems to me that theists who claim that lack of belief is a "kind of belief" are trying more to convince themselves that everyone believes in something. Sort of like a security blanket.

OK, but, the question wasn't whether atheism is a religion. We know it isn't. The question is can it be considered a viewpoint on religion.

[Ghel]

Atheism can be a viewpoint on religion. An atheist can also be a person who has never been exposed to the concept of god or a person who lacks the mental capacity to understand the concept, such as a young child (as an aside, I think this is what the majority of theists mean when they claim that they used to be atheists).

Those who write books about their atheism tend to encourage a thought-out world view using critical thinking, skepticism, and inquiry. Those authors tend to advocate science as the best tool we have for learning about reality.

[draco664]

OK, but, the question wasn't whether atheism is a religion. We know it isn't. The question is can it be considered a viewpoint on religion.

Ah, I see where I misread you.

I've had many, many people try to convince me that atheism is a religion by claiming that it is a belief, or in this case, a religious viewpoint. I understand your point now.

[Ipecac Drano]

Forgive me if this had been mentioned before (there are four pages of posts!), but how can atheism be considered a religious viewpoint if atheists do not believe in "something up there"? It's not that I firmly believe that there is nothing "up there" but that I hold no belief that there is anything "up there".

There is a difference between "I believe that nothing is up there", and, "I don't believe anything is up there". There is no way that a religion can be based on the latter statement.

[Ghel]

Ipecac, that was discussed, particularly here:

I agree that atheism is a viewpoint about religion, but isn't a religion itself. Atheism has no tenets or dogma.

But it doesn't hurt to say it again. Sometimes saying something in a different way will help get the point across better.

[Hyena Dandy]

I would argue that it does have tenets or dogma.

"There is no God" is a belief. Its a statement of a fact. While we have no scientific proof for God, there is none against Him either. That does not mean I am saying "Because we can't prove God exists, we must believe in God" or "Because we can't prove God exists, you're all fools for saying He doesn't" What I am saying is that the only TRULY rational belief is agnosticism, not atheism or any religious standing. The only thing we can prove is that we can't really prove it, so the only thing we can say with a hundred percent scientific certainty is 'I don't know'.

Personally, I'm a Catholic. But I never called myself rational.

[Ghel]

Let's look at the definitions of the words "atheist" and "agnostic."

The prefix "a-" means "without."

The word "theist" means "one who believes in a god (or gods)."

Therefore, "atheist" means "one without a belief in a god (or gods)."

The word "gnostic" means "one who knows (or claims to know)."

Therefore, "agnostic" means "one without knowledge (or does not claim to know)."

I still like Thomas Henry Huxley's explanation of agnosticism, a term which he coined:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. [emphasis mine]

Wikipedia has very good articles on both atheism and agnosticism.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe any gods exist, but I obviously don't have any evidence of that (since you can't prove a negative). I actually belong to that subset of atheists who believe that no gods exist. It's not something I can prove, nor would I try to convince anybody to agree with me. As with all my beliefs and viewpoints, it is tentative, and could be changed based on further evidence or arguments.

However, I am at this point convinced that no one will ever convince me that a god exists. This doesn't mean I've closed my mind to the possibility. It just means that I have placed the concept of god in the same category as unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, and other fairy-tale creatures. I don't expect to be convinced that a god actually, really exists any more than I expect to be convinced that dragons actually, really exist.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't believe any gods exist, but I obviously don't have any evidence of that (since you can't prove a negative).
You're actually using that term wrong. Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.

What we have here is an argument from ignorance.

I'm not making any comment as regards the OP or anything relate to religion in this post, it's just that this particular phrase being bruited about has bothered me for a long enough that I had to look into it a bit further.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

You're actually using that term wrong. Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.
And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

[Andara Bledin]

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.
I've never argued otherwise (or for, for that matter). I was merely pointing out that the terminology was being misused.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

You're actually using that term wrong.
Which term?

Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.
You're partially right. I stopped my statement too soon. What I should have said is "you can't prove a negative existential claim." As in: you can't prove that a god doesn't exist or you can't prove that unicorns don't exist.

[Ipecac Drano]

I've never argued otherwise (or for, for that matter). I was merely pointing out that the terminology was being misused.
I wasn't accusing you of arguing that; I was just giving an example of where negative proof does not apply.

[the_std]

I wasn't accusing you of arguing that; I was just giving an example of where negative proof does not apply.

At this point, I have to ask - why? We know that negative proof doesn't always apply. But Andara's point was that it is possible, it can exist, which negated what Ghel was saying when she said that negative proof doesn't exist.

So why bring it up?

[Plaidman]

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

I'm really curious now about something.

Is space travel possible?

What about cure for AIDs, HIV, complete pervention of SIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc? I mean, there is no cure yet, so it doesn't exist correct? Does this mean it'll never exist simply because it hasn't been proven yet?

Same with God/s. It hasn't been proven if they exist. We haven't even explored a tiny fraction of the universe, and there is very likely that on other planets there could be creatures that could be considered like gods. (Say for example a planet with a heavy gravity, if those people came here, they'd likely be stronger then an average human), or a planet where people with wings exist simply because of how the creatures turned out there.

Just because something hasn't been proven NOW, does not mean it'll never be proven.

Otherwise we'd all be stuck in the stone age hunting for food and trying to grow veggies while hoping we have enough wood for fire this winter.

Science discovered and learn every day. What was possible now was unheard of hundred years, fifty years, even twenty years ago in some things.

Does this mean God exists? No.
Does this mean God doesn't exist? No.

[Ghel]

What about cure for AIDs, HIV, complete pervention of SIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc? I mean, there is no cure yet, so it doesn't exist correct? Does this mean it'll never exist simply because it hasn't been proven yet?

Same with God/s.

All the current treatments for AIDS are created by humans. Any expected prevention for SIDS or Cerebral Palsy will be created by humans. Are you saying that God will exist in the future when humans create him? That seems to be what you're saying.

[Rapscallion]

Same with God/s. It hasn't been proven if they exist. We haven't even explored a tiny fraction of the universe, and there is very likely that on other planets there could be creatures that could be considered like gods. (Say for example a planet with a heavy gravity, if those people came here, they'd likely be stronger then an average human), or a planet where people with wings exist simply because of how the creatures turned out there.

Just because something hasn't been proven NOW, does not mean it'll never be proven.

I can see where you're coming from, but the gods that have been claimed to exist are ones that have all sorts of awesome powers, or omnipotence and omniscience. We're talking about gods or a god that knows everything and could appear in the form of a burning bush, or seduce a damsel when in the form of a bull, or ...

You get the idea.

The problem isn't that we might find a race that has some or all of the attributes on other planets, but more that such has been declared to exist by those who seek to persuade us as to the rectitude of their utterances. We are exhorted to believe in their tales based on ancient legends, but there's never any proof around these days. The god who lead one group of people out of servitude and was able to sacrifice his own son hasn't done anything really noticeable of similar magnitude of late. There's been a number of claimed miracles, but many are subject to harsh scrutiny. The gods of ancient Greece (one of Zeus's preferences was mentioned above) haven't exactly been voluble.

We're talking about claims about things that are supposed to be current. They're not.

Rapscallion

[Mytical]

Personally the way I see it, is live and let live. I would be classified as agnostic..because I KNOW I don't have the answers. At all. Not even close. Let me explain why..

We live on a tiny spec, in a rather large universe. Our claiming we have ANY answers absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , right..would be like an ant which has never moved from a grain of sand claiming to know how the whole world works.

We see so little, but think we know so much. Does that mean the answers we have now are not right? Look above to the "I KNOW I don't have the answers." so yeah we MIGHT be right, or 1000 years from now we could be looking back and saying "Man how stupid were we."

Either side, religion or atheist that claims "My way is the only right answer." I stop listening to. There is no possible debate there, or chance to learn and grow. Not even worth debating them, and I LOVE a good philosophical debate.

Look at how many things we "KNEW" at one time were proven wrong...

At one time we KNEW man could never fly...
At one time we KNEW that the world was flat...
At one time we KNEW that the universe revolved around Earth...
Think about what we might KNOW tomorrow...

Some have claimed that Agnostics are cowards..refusing to chose a side out of fear. I don't know if that is true or not..but I do 'KNOW' (:D) one thing. I will continue to question everything..until I have found the answers that satisfy me.

Regardless if it is religion, or gravity, or the existence of the paranormal. Once you have closed your mind to any possibility..you may overlook answers because you refuse to see them.

[Ipecac Drano]

We live on a tiny spec, in a rather large universe. Our claiming we have ANY answers absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , right..would be like an ant which has never moved from a grain of sand claiming to know how the whole world works.
No, it wouldn't. Science does know a lot about what we have observed but it doesn't claim to know about what hasn't been observed; which is more than could be said about religion.


We see so little, but think we know so much. Does that mean the answers we have now are not right? Look above to the "I KNOW I don't have the answers." so yeah we MIGHT be right, or 1000 years from now we could be looking back and saying "Man how stupid were we."
Again, science doesn't work that way. If anything, science is self-correcting.


Either side, religion or atheist that claims "My way is the only right answer." I stop listening to. There is no possible debate there, or chance to learn and grow. Not even worth debating them, and I LOVE a good philosophical debate.
You might listen when someone tells you that there is no evidence of something that can't be observed.


Look at how many things we "KNEW" at one time were proven wrong...

At one time we KNEW man could never fly...
At one time we KNEW that the world was flat...
At one time we KNEW that the universe revolved around Earth...
Think about what we might KNOW tomorrow...
And, as mentioned before, science corrects itself. The funny thing is that all of those notions were swept aside centuries, if not millennia, before the Scientific Enlightenment of the 18th Century. Have there been some gaffs since? Sure, but they've been corrected.


Some have claimed that Agnostics are cowards..refusing to chose a side out of fear. I don't know if that is true or not..but I do 'KNOW' (:D) one thing. I will continue to question everything..until I have found the answers that satisfy me.
Some, but not all.


Regardless if it is religion, or gravity, or the existence of the paranormal. Once you have closed your mind to any possibility..you may overlook answers because you refuse to see them.
I've found that those who accuse others of having a close mind have theirs closed even tighter. Being a skeptic, I keep my mind open, but not to the point of gullibility; where unicorns, vampires, the Easter Bunny and other silly notions pop in without a verifiable trail.

[Talon]

Have there been some gaffs since? Sure, but they've been corrected.

Oh but you forgot a goodie. By what mechanism were those gaffes corrected? The scientific method of course! :)

Like the Piltdown Man fraud, oft-touted by creationists as "proof" that evolution was a fraud. It was the application of the scientific method that eventually exposed the fraud.

[Mytical]

Ah the 'Science is just a tool' argument. Won't even get into how much like zealot religion that goes into. You are more then welcome to your own view, live and let live. Peace.

[HYHYBT]

So long as you don't cross the line into declaring that not only are you right (which is of course fine), but that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, all's well.

[Ipecac Drano]

Ah the 'Science is just a tool' argument.
It was never intended to be anything else.


Won't even get into how much like zealot religion that goes into. You are more then welcome to your own view, live and let live. Peace.
If you went into it, would that make you a tool?

So long as you don't cross the line into declaring that not only are you right (which is of course fine), but that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, all's well.
It depends on what's being disagreed. If someone isn't in the mood to believe that 2 + 2 = 4; I have a free pass to laugh at them.