I understand what you're saying, but he's derailing and cluttering up a thread which had until his arrival, been going incredibly well. I wouldn't be so critical of him if he showed some respect and also some VERY basic debate and comprehension skills.

I understand your point too, but insulting them won't end it. Report it to a mod so he or she could speak with them, given them a warning/warning, etc.

Heat of the moment thing. I don't take kindly to someone insulting my beliefs and I think I got a little too heated there. :D

It's fine. Everyone experiences that eventually.

It depends on why you do that. I think there are three possible causes:

1. Bucause you honestly think it's the right thing. That is, due to a sincere own moral conviction.
2. Just because it's an order. A supposed order dictated by a supposed god through a supposed prophet (a goathers-village's local boss, a carpenter's hippie son in the Middle-East, an Arab syphilitic cameller, etc...) in a supposed certain way.
3. A kind of "intermediate way": the neurotic (or hypocrite) way. You actually behave as you want, but using a self-deception as an alibi. That is, you like to think you do things because you follow religious commandments, although deep in your mind you know that's not true. Catholic priests call this way scholastic, but it's actually the same thing with a politically-correct name.

I support the principles of Liberal Democracy (those from Enlightment to the present). Therefore, I defend freedom of cult and freedom of expression. However, if someone ask me what is more desirable or preferable to me, my opinion is: I wouldn't like to live in a society where people just obey orders, as if they were robots, or expected an afterlife reward. Because as Goya said (and painted): The sleep of reason produces monsters. And neither I like hypocrisy.


A priori you're right. But bear in mind that the term atheist is mainly used in cultural contexts where monotheistic religions are predominant and they've been the main source for moral rules for the past 17 centuries.

A backward movement, because Ancient Greeks already said that human moral principles can be established through a rational process. And towards year 60 Seneca enunciated the main guideline of that what we nowadays call secular humanism:

"Man should be sacred to the man"


And, by the way, perhaps afterwards he drank a good glass of wine. After all, it was Seneca who wrote:

"Wine is a perfect cure for heaviness and sorrow" (Epistulae morales ad Lucilium)

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9949/vinum001.jpg


Sadly, this moral philosophy was replaced, three centuries later, by dogmas from Abrahamic religions. As a result, many people do (or don't do) things just because they think they are fulfilling "divine orders" from a supposed god. And by the way, some say God don't want us to drink alcohol. Well, that's their loss.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/1...veritas001.gif

as again, all I have to say is, if you were to offer a complete litmus paper test to see if I'm good or evil, I wouldn't take it, cos I've done both bad and good things in my life

and being a Gnostic Christian, I wouldn't care either way and neither would God - I would just talk to Jesus to intercede so's I can go to Heaven, and my main aim in getting there is not the glorious architecture or the new life or my fellow Christians but the possibility of hearing every single piece of recorded music in the world until the day I die and thereafter

The only one that's relevant is the first one, imo. Although I didn't really get what you're getting at by the third one. Sounds the same as the second.

But that doesn't mean to say it has to be independtly formed. If you read it somewhere, for argument's sake the Bible, you could then say, "This makes sense to me, I believe it's right so I'll apply it"

Because a "carpenter's son" said it does it make it any less applicable? Doesn't matter who says it, what matters is what's said. He's a prophet in my eyes because of the things he said and did. Not the other way around.

Lets see you just insulted Jacob, Jesus and Mohamed, their respective religions and observes of those religions in one fell swoop, and for what? If you don't believe in them - you don't believe in them. Really I don't get your reference of "a goathers-village's local boss," maybe you mean Abraham, but it also could be Jacob who is associated with sheep since he took care of Laban's herd, it isn't as sardonic as the others (maybe it is maybe it isn't), but anyway your knowledge of Judaism (the Bible) is wanting, the two people whom were given the law were Noah and Moses, not Abraham or Jacob.

God isn't "a supposed idea," there are philosophical arguments (outside of divine revelation) that points to God's existence. But if one has a (proper and moderate) understanding of God one would not considered it an order, but an objective truth that "Thou shall not kill" mean one shouldn't take innocent life and respect the dignity of a human being, so 1 depends on 2 - I don't see why you think there is a distinction between the two.

I hate embarking on a discussion of things I can neither prove nor disprove

Thanks, Geddy, for responding. I agree with you that the intent of a religious law and its practice should be bound up together. When people seem to follow a law for its own sake without considering the intent, then I feel worried.

I read the essay you recommended about Judaism and vegetarianism...thank you! It was interesting to read the Rabbi's views on this debate about whether vegetarianism best matches what people within Judaism interpret as the deepest desires of God:

While I realize that the Old Testament does clearly state that God allowed humans to eat other animals after the Fall, I've often felt an argument could be made that the apparent vegetarianism *before* the Fall was what the Judeo-Christian god originally intended and envisioned...so that *would* be the ideal.

I assume a god would not *want* people to sin such that the rules had to be changed for them, allowing meat-eating. Therefore, I would think that trying to fulfill the original vision for humanity would seem the way to most thoroughly follow whatever intent was behind the original dietary law that gave all animals (including humans) "the herbs of the field for their food" and prohibited them from preying on one another.

Trying to figure out what religious rules to observe, and how deeply, can get very tricky since not only are religious laws open to interpretation, but also the intent behind the laws are open to interpretation, too, and some laws come from human traditions separate from any godly mandate. This is one reason your thread question that opened the thread interested me. I'm curious how people who think of themselves as religious think through these issues.

I've been impressed with the tradition of questioning and debate that I think is an important part of the Jewish tradition for many of the Jewish people I've known and loved, most of whom are secular and follow Jewish traditions as part of their heritage and not out of a belief in a deity. It sounds like you appreciate the openness to questioning that you've experienced within Judaism, too. One of the scariest situations to be in among humans, I feel, is when they do not welcome questioning and debate!

there are only kosher/halal laws in the Old Testament

in the New Testament, God revealed to Peter all kinds of beasts, fish and fowls and allowed him/us to eat all that (I forgot the specific passage)

so as a Gnostic Christian, I eat everything - in fact, I'm constantly on the trek for strange food

It's a Jewish belief that you should not, in any aspect of faith, whether it be following a specific mitvot or reciting the daily prayers or anything like this. For this reason Torah readings in the earliest synagogues were often followed by study and the Levites explaining passages to the people publicly. Even now study of Torah law and the reasons for it are encouraged.

Yeah, I understand what you're trying to say.

It's always good to make people think!

One of the things which put me off my old church, and indeed Christianity, was that those people who wished to ask questions or debate matters were often looked down upon or openly criticized. Most of the churches I've attended seemed to want people to learn answers by rote, withiout even really learning or understanding the reasoning behind them.

I'm glad you get what I was trying to say. If a god changes rules only because people sinned against that god, which rules would the god *really* prefer the people to follow: the original ones, or the new ones created in response to people having sinned?

Agreed. :)

I can understand you feeling put off by anyone expecting you to learn answers by rote without trying to understand the reasoning behind them.

Geddy, I'm thinking this isn't a problem with Christianity or any religion as a whole, but rather with the philosophy of some of the practitioners. People in secular organizations can also be resistant to the questioning of rules or organization philosophy.

Speaking of following rules without questioning them, I remember being befriended by truly very nice members of the Boston Church of Christ, considered by some to be a cult, that was led by a (male) pastor who definitely had a strong aura of authority that didn't seem to invite questioning. During one of his sermons, he talked about how he had once sinned by kissing his wife with lust. He admonished the congregation to rid themselves of lust.

I was surprised, since I thought this was a good way to empty a church, and I hadn't realized that he felt the congregation as a whole should avoid lustful feelings. There didn't appear to be any debate over this issue in the Bible studies I attended as a guest. I thought the lack of debate was interesting and a bit disturbing, since I didn't think the Bible ever said lust shouldn't exist as part of love or should be avoided.

Often following religious laws seems to translate into following people's interpretations of religious texts, and so the exact law that a particular church may expect the congregation to follow comes down to which group of people has the most power within a religious organization.

I do think there must be religious organizations that simply offer a philosophy and leave it up to practitioners to decide for themselves how they interpret it and whether or how they want to follow it. I grew up going to a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, which originated from Christian beliefs but is no longer dependent on any creed or faith. The people there always seemed very open-minded. I never actually thought of it as a religion, though. :) UU is more of a group of people who support some basic principles, most of which I do follow because I think they are kind:

Unitarian Universalist Principles: http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml

*The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
*Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
*Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
*A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
*The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
*The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
*Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

That's the thing though, a majority of people go to Church or their respective place of worship and listen to the Sermons for the guidance aspect. They want someone who apparently knows what to do, to tell them what to do. That's a very dangerous thing though, all it takes is one selfish agenda and you've got a room full of wide-eyed believers following a Terrorist.

Definitly guidance is important imo. But people still have to think for themselves, take in the words and lessons and analyse it. You can't be an automaton, a sermon is a place for "input", ideas. It should be bubbling with debate and arguments imo, people trying to separate out what works from what doesnt.

I don't think there's anything wrong with kissing your Wife lustfully. It's a celebration of marriage and love. What two married people do is their own business.


This sounds quite a bit like Sufism, the Islamic counterpart. I was raised Sunni but the Sufi aspect of Islam is something that's always been very interesting to me, something I'm going to study further

Sufism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's some info there. From what I understand of it it's more about the "functionality" of the Universe; of God.

There are actually a fair amount of atheist Unitarian Universalists by the way. Maybe in your studies of Unitarian Universalism you'll discover that atheism isn't a cult or juvenile or whatever other odd negative notions you have of it.

I didn't actually say I was gonna study Unitarian Universalism, I meant Sufism. But yeah I might do, that sounds interesting as well.

Still doesn't change the fact that it's a contradiction of terms. If you're tackling Theological ideas, you can't be an atheist.

Sounds like you need to study more about UU. And atheism for that matter.

a-theism.

the absence of Theology.

Theology hardly refers specificaly to Jesus Christ.


I assumed Unitarian Universalism would tackle the idea of God and Existence also, admitedly I don't know anything about "UU" other than what VEGANGELICA wrote there. If it doesn't, then it's nothing like Sufism, I'll retract my claim.


Also, I thought atheists were only called atheists because they "fell into no other category"? Surely if you follow UU, you'd be a called a Unitarian Universalist.

If you're an atheist Unitarian Universalist then that just proves me earlier point where I was sayign atheism is a group with it's own agendas. Thus it contradicts itself and the name is innacurate and misleading.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Unitarian Universalism doesn't require its followers to believe in the supernatural to be part of the group--their emphasis is much more on the here and now and on community--so there isn't any conflict in being an atheist UU. As I said there are quite a few of them.

Why does it need a name then? This is what I still don't get. To be clear here, I've got nothing against people who don't have any religious belief; I just can't bring myself to respect the word, idea, and group that is atheism.

If someone chooses to not believe in God, or any rendition of God, fine that's up to them. If someone chooses not to even tackle the idea of God in all it's entirety and complexity and just write it off, I lose a bit of respect and I don't advocate it but I don't hold anything against them; it's up to them what they do with their life.

But when people start giving a name to an idea based on nothing, essentially worhsipping the idea of a lack of worship, well I cant stomach that. Still though I can say, it's up to them, they can do what they want.

When those groups start intefering with the rest of the World, that's not something I'm happy about though, thats a step too far and tbh I've not really decided if and what I should do about that, I'm not exactly in a position of power.

Because we live in a world that is dominated by religion in one form or another. Being religious is the norm on this planet and as a result there is a word for people who don't fit into the norm. It's the same reason we have a word for bald. If we lived in a world where no one had hair there'd be no need for the word "bald".


I think what you don't understand is that non-believers are a minority and an invisible minority at that. It's a little like being gay in that if you remain silent people simply assume you're a part of the majority and obliviously push their viewpoint on you. So there is a need to speak up and make people aware that you do exist. But then, because you are a minority, simply speaking up for yourself and others like you is viewed as aggression toward the status quo. It becomes a catch-22 really. You can either keep your mouth shut and endure the antagonism and ignorance or you can say "hey, I'm right here" and contend with the anger that gets directed at any out-group.

People are too defined by all these labels and "norms." You're a Human you're alive, you do what you think is Right and that's all that matters, if people don't like it, screw those people. The whole World could go cannabilistic tommorow, I wouldn't say "I'm part of the anti-cannibal alliance you've got to accept me" I'd say "I don't eat people, the only label I need is Human Being. If you eat people I'm gonna chop your mother****ing head off your shoulders" And if people couldn't respect that, then they're not people I wanna deal with. I would not want to be involved with cannibalistic people.

If I thought the apple was rotten I wouldnt wanna bite it. In my opinion, when anyone gives themself a name or pledges to something, it should be something that represents the base-state of that idea; more important than the actual name though, it should be to an idea which is self-sustaining, self-verifying, and self-motivated.

Let's argue for posterity's sake that there's no more religion tommorow. The word atheist becomes "moot". If that's what some people are aiming for, I'd respect it a lot more if they admit it, rather than think they can mingle amongst the group as a self-confessed enemy to the group. Whether they tell you or not is irrelevant. They're trying to con you into treating them a certain way. Same with gay people as you mentioned - I have no problem with whoever decides to do what behind closed doors so long as it's between consenting adults. I don't like the idea that I have to play this "game" of continual "verification" and acceptance "OH yeah it's fine what you do" I don't think it is, it's not something I'm ever gonna do and I won't pretend like I'm interested. I don't give a crap. Do what you want, I'll treat you like every other person I see on the street. But if you start bothering me with the details of your life, you're inviting critiscm, thats an intellectual right. Same principle with religion - religion is personal. If you make a point of putting it out there, you cant expect everyone to like it. That goes for a lack of religion also. There's no special treatment in my book.

I don't expect everyone to agree, I don't expect everyone to make nice and be friends. I don't like facades; if someone really believes that Religion in all of it's entirety, God in all of His entirety is worthless, they should admit to it instead of trying to fit in around the religious. Then, if we can get along, we get along. If we can't, why should we pretend to?

Generally speaking, they won't though, it's too convenient. It's their "get-out clause". If you have a name or an idea like that, it's very "cosy", very convenient - you can sit in with the group, but you're conveniently not subject to any of the group's responsibilities. Well, either you're in or you're out. Either you're with us or you're not, there's no room for dead weight.

I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't want any part of religion.

If you don't want a part, though, how can you have a say in religious affairs and matters?

Why would you require the verification of anyone religious?

Why would you want to be around those people that are being ignorant or angry and enforcing demands on you? Why would you want to mix with people that say "you have to do this" "you have to do that" etc. and why would you give yourself a name that puts yourself under their heel?

You can't get along with everybody. And you simply can't treat everyone the same. You can have a basic amount of respect for everyone, sure, but you can't treat them the same. Someone who eats a lot versus someone who's full after a few bites, would you force feed them the same amount for the sake of "equality"? No. Equality is about need. The equality is in the table of food you set up. People eat how much they need.


Also this itself is pretty innacurate if you apply it to atheism. The "in" thing thesedays is to be atheist. A lot of people resent me because I'm Muslim, I don't give a ****. I don't make a point of broadcasting it, because I'm not an attention seeking idiot. But I don't by any means hide it at all nor am I ashamed, if anyone asks I tell em "yeah I am" if they make a problem I tell em "it's none of your business man, get back to whatever the **** you was doing". If they ask me questions about my faith I do the best to answer them, I'm hardly a model Muslim though. And then if they're half-decent I get along with them, if they're not, screw them. There's more to me than just my faith. My faith is my groundwork.

There's more to anyone than just their faith, or lack thereof.

To be honest, I have zero interest in exchanging lengthy treatises about whether or not atheists are the horrible and/or stupid people you seem to think they are, I just thought I might get you to open your mind a little, but it looks like that's probably not going to happen. All I'll say is I really think you need to do a little more investigation into these matters before you form such strong opinions about them because it's evident from what you are saying that you have very little understanding of what atheism even means, let alone what its like to be an atheist. And the fact that you think being an atheist is somehow the "in" thing is hilarious.

What are you on about here? If you really mean what you write in your post, why does it make a flying **** of a difference that some atheists want to get together to talk about their lack of belief in a god? And why should you have the right to judge them? I don't see what's wrong with the UUA, or being an atheist and being involved. Is it impossible for you to see that there are genuinely good people out there who want to meet and talk about making the world a better place that don't believe in any higher power? Also, the fact that atheists don't believe in a higher power doesn't mean that some of them might not want to get together to search for a meaning in life. I'm sorry for what I'm about to say because I know you will most likely take it wrong and be offended, but that's really what all religion is about - developing good morals and finding a meaning for the chaos that is life. Some just choose to do the same thing that you and I do with religion without looking to a spiritual being. There's much bigger concerns today with religious groups than there are atheists. We tend to cause quite a lot of big controversies; I don't see much with atheism.

There's no need to apologise for saying that and I agree anyway man. They should admit that that's what they're doing, and not fly about with this false pretense saying that they're not a group or a theology. Because they're definitly a group and they are a theology imo.

atheism is just half-assedness. There's a lot of different answers to the big questions of life out there. All I'm saying is don't develop your own based off some bad experience with religious people in the past or anger at your parents or something.

If you called a Buddhist an atheist because they don't believe in the traditional Abrahamic God, I don't think they'd be too happy. That's not what defines their belief; what defines their belief is the path they follow.

All I'm getting at is, people should stop focusing on what they dont believe and focus on what they do believe. If they believe the answer is nothing, then that's their answer. That's not anti- or a- anything, it's just nothing. I don't think the answer is ever nothing though. So why develop your grounds for questioning life on the antithesis of something existing?

If you dont believe, you dont believe. I'm not a doctor. Thats doesnt make me adoctor or amedical. I'm just simply unqualified to be a doctor.

the idea of atheism represents the aknowledgement of emptiness. And I can't respect that.

Which is something different to not believing. If you dont believe, fine, as I've said 100 times already. But you cant form a frickin philosophy around not believing in something; you form it around believing in something ELSE, or you dont form anything, its as simple as that.

I remember reading one of your posts in another thread where you said you hate strawman arguments. Well all you are doing here is engaging in a strawman argument against atheism. Please do yourself a favor and do some reading on the subject because you're coming off as extremely ill-informed on this topic.

Yeah but the thing is I then actually answered the argument and pointed out why it was a strawman, and what my actual opinion on it was.

What's your resposne to that cos atheism imo is about forming a philosophy around not believing in something. Either I'm ill-formed or I'm right

I already did that and you simply ignored my response and continued with the strawmen.

Heh. You're not ill-formed, you're ill-informed. Atheism isn't a philosophy, all it is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Atheists have a variety of different philosophies, some are even members of religions even though they don't believe in the supernatural components.

all I have to say is that I find atheists basically having a intellectual vacuum, they need to fill it with something - whether it's debating about non-existence of God, having a good time, self-mediation about when they just switch off after they die

not saying that I'm all THAT intellectually fulfilled being a Gnostic Christian - but my own main tenets are that everything's pre-destined anyway since God is omnipresent, omnipotent and moniscient so who cares? I'm in the hands of a perfectly chaotic, impartial, non-judgmental entity - if I suddenly get hit by a bus afterwards and die - that's just the way it is

I don't like to stereotype a whole group of people like that, but I see where you're coming from. Alot of atheists (or at least the ones I know) seem intent on trying to force their beliefs on others, usually for some snarky reason to show how intelligent they think they are. It would be sweet if everyone just did their own thing and didn't care what others were doing.

To Stu: I just wanted to apologize for kind of attacking your agnosticism earlier in this thread. I was incorrect when I said it isn't a middle ground. I thought about it some more, and it can be. I simply skimmed over your earlier response and assumed you were another one of those people that misunderstood "agnostic" to purely mean "I believe in God, but I'm not sure which one".

to everything else in the last 5 pages or so: :eek:

Do you not see the huge logical flaw inherent in what you are saying here? You're basically only acknowledging the existence of atheists who conform to your stereotype of the group. For all you know 90% percent of atheists could be people who don't declare it in any way, but you'd never know they're atheists because they don't actively identify themselves as such.

Your comments are actually a good example of the atheist catch-22 and the problems with being an invisible minority that I was talking about earlier. If atheists remain silent about who they are, people like yourself go around thinking that the handful of atheists you are aware of are representative of the whole. But if they speak up and say "hey, I'm an atheist too" they get accused of being in your face about it.

I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in the US atheists have to contend with mainstream politicians and other figures in the media saying things like this:

Gingrich fears 'atheist country … dominated by radical Islamists' – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

And of course if we say anything about it we're viewed as "snarky" or "trying to force our beliefs on others". Definitely feels like a no-win situation sometimes.

atheists in Malaysia mostly go about doing their own thing

unless you're Malay - you cannot be an atheist (no religious freedom for Malays here - they must be mandatorily Islam)

There's a reason to move...

there are many reasons to move

but i like the food here, people here are nice, life is quite serene, and summer all year round

And you're told what to believe :D.

Gotta love that (...).

I don't believe we've ever had problems like that here!

I'm not picking sides; as an agnostic I never do. I don't like enforcing views on others on both fronts, but it seems that atheism almost never gets a bad rap for it.

I'm not trying to stereotype atheists either. I specified it was from the atheists that I've dealt with. From my experience going to a Catholic high school (even though I'm not Catholic), I found that being snarky (can't believe i used that word) was definitely behind it.

Involving religion in politics is just wrong though. Secularism is the way to go.

Thats irrelevant. If you didn't know what I meant you wouldnt have been able to correct it. Grammar and spelling is not really the issue here.

If they are a part of religion, then they're not atheist. Atheist = a self-proclaimed aversion to religion.

Psychologically, to be asocial is to decide to withdraw from social matters.

Biologically, to be asexual is to have a biological construction which does not require you to have sex in order to reproduce.

and so on.

Theologically, atheism is the decided rejection of theism.

It doesnt mean just not beliving.

It doesnt mean not beliving in the supernatural

It doesn't mean not beliving in God.

It means the rejection and dispute of theism. Atheists believe theism is unneccessary to the Human Condition in absolute.

Furthermore, if you won't accept the possibility of the supposed impossible, if you won't accept that there's more to life than you currently know, then you can't be a part of any religion. Can't is not really the word - I mean it more in the sense that there's no reason for you to be.

If there is no purpose to Humanity then I have no interest in Humanity.


But before you play the "without your religion you'd be a psycho killer" card, allow me to explain.

There is a purpose to Humanity, because we exist. Thus, we maintain that existence, and seek to understand it further. From that, we'll attain further purpose.

If I didn't believe THAT, then yes, I would be a psycho killer. Arguably, though, if it wasn't true I wouldnt exist or be here in the first place, so how would I kill anyone?

But you dont have to be religious to believe that. All I'm saying is religion is a useful component of such an idea.

You could decide to not follow a specific religion, but still assist to maintain Humanity and seek that purpose. All that would be different is the "name" and affiliation though, which is irrelevant in the end, you'd be doing the same things, with the exception of the corrupted religious and non-religious alike. Righteousness is Universal. What works works. What doesnt, doesnt.

But I don't really see how making yourself an enemy of religion helps. Because in essence, if what we're all doing truly works, it wont matter if we learnt it from a book or from experience. All that'll matter is whats done. Why should entire sources of input be written off just because you cant verify where they came from? Why does it matter where they came from? Why does it matter if Christ was sent by God or not? Why does it matter if Moses was physically handed the ten commandments in stone? Why does it matter if Muhammed was led to the mountains by a literal burning bush?

What matters is that we know of Christ and what matters is the message he left behind. What matters is that Moses gave us the ten commandments. What matters is that Muhammed was led to the mountain. God rest their souls.

What matters is what was said and done, because they hold very important messages, regardless of where they came from.

What matters is whatever larger framework we may be a part of.

How can you write off the possibility that they came from a higher power, a greater conciousness?

Why do you doubt the intention of that higher power, when the ten commandments have been shown very clearly to be functional and in the best interests of Humanity?

I'm not saying we shouldnt question, we should always question things.

it justs seems ignorant to me for someone to say "I am atheist, your rules dont apply to me" When we're not talking about rules of society. We're talking about rules of the Unvierse. If you're agravity will it stop affecting you? Religion is about understanding those laws of the Universe and then using our concious minds to maintain and apply them as best as possible to our own manmade social structures.

It doesnt matter who says them, it matters what's said and our understanding of whats said.

It's not who said it. It's what's said.