Atheist Arrogance?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Shadowstar38:

They do apply it. The more moderate ones listen to all the evidence you have to tell them yet still concluded they are still believers. That's not dishonesty.

If one sits on the position of doubt in all other things that have no evidence and yet believes in God (something that also has zero evidence) than they are being intellectually dishonest.

Critical thinking is beautiful, yet Christian sects are silly. Straight up bigotry.

I'd hardly use that as an example of "bigotry". It's likely the average Christian shares the same sentiment towards the petty infighting between Christian denominations.

Besides bigotry isn't something inherently bad that we should avoid. I'd hope you are bigoted against people who are pro-rape, pro-senseless-murder, pro-senseless-torture etc.

Delusion? Nope. Their reality. Because they choice to still believe does not make them any less intelligent.

I have yet to make a comment on their intelligence. Again you distort and misrepresent what I say.

More accurately, while I'm off complaining about the evils of Christianity, Christians are using their ideology for hate and bigotry, to mock, shun and ostracize, to block social changes to withhold rights from others, as justifications for murder, torture, execution and even use it's power/influcence to operaate above the law and destroy the lives of others etc, etc.

Ideology of love and peace. Now you're just trying to make it sound as vile as possible, and its just sort of boring.

No, I am stating things that Christian groups and Christian people are doing today.

If these things seem vile it is only because they are.

The rest of the Christians simply keep their head firmly in the ground for fear of dealing with reality.

Except for the ones that speak out against it. GENERALIZATIONS EVERYWHERE!

I was not speaking in regards towards other Christians are doing.

Oh wow, I'm going to have to explain what the word means.

To bastardize something is to corrupt, perverse or change its original form. When you try to do away with the more unfavourable parts of Christianity and simply keep the parts you like than you're bastardizing it.

As said earlier in this thread, their are different interpetations of the same book.

And here is where I stop.

You have made no attempt to properly discuss the Christian faith, you have raised no new points, you have continually misrepresented my arguments and have continually dismissed any arguments that would require you critically analyze your faith.

You have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest and incapable of any kind of interesting or well thought out debate with all discussion desolving into a petty pissing contest so until you grow beyond that I think I'll simply choose to ignore you.

Milk:
snip.

And...you just said bigotry isn't a bad thing. Yeah, there's nothing more to be done here.

This entire debate has been nothing but you getting aggressive towards an entire group of people for no reason. This dissolved into a pissing contest the second you came into the thread. So I'm thankful this is over.

Later

Reeve:
I don't give a fuck. If you are religious then you are as wrong as a child is to behave well in the hope of getting presents from Santa. i.e. That which is asserted without evidence (e.g. that the Bible or Koran or Torah are factually accurate) can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm not going to take people seriously that claim they know for a fact something which they could not possibly know. The only appropriate response to someone like that is scorn, mockery and derision.

You realize for people to think themselves entitled to be arrogant, not "giving a fuck" and showing no compassion to how that reflects poorly on them (not to mention other Atheists), and to think this thread is about religion bashing Atheists over the head while following with their bashing religion into a concussion with angry rants about ridiculous abuse that has nothing to do with anything....

..is, again, pretty much what this thread is trying to say. You don't have to be bitter, angry and jaded with religion that you move to the opposite extreme and bash the hell out of it and the people; you lose your humanity in the process.

But then, you don't give a fuck, so, ok then. Good example for the class.

Milk:
If one sits on the position of doubt in all other things that have no evidence and yet believes in God (something that also has zero evidence) than they are being intellectually dishonest.

Well, and this isn't a thinly veiled attack on my part, more of a statement, but it's really none of your business what others believe.

I respect the Atheist that rejects religion and goes to work on science, not try to convince religious people they are wrong and break them down. That's sort of what many people don't like about religion in the first place.

Smeatza:
Perhaps I am an arrogant atheist. I make try not to assumptions of someone's character based on their spirituality, I won't shun them or discriminate against them.

I feel sorry for them though. Especially those who follow the religion their family forced on them. It seems to me like a type of brainwashing. And even if they are perfectly happy with their religion, I still pity (what I see as) their wasted potential.

Is that arrogant? I suppose I can't make an accurate judgement.
It comes from a place of concern though, not from a sense of superiority.

All upbringing looks like brainwashing to me...

I really have no idea whose perception of the world is closest to the ultimate truth, then again I sometimes get the feeling that there may be no ultimate truth, not sure why.

Could you explain the "wasted potential" thing please?

Coppernerves:
All upbringing looks like brainwashing to me...

To a degree, I would certainly say that forcing a religion on a child as the "correct" one is closer to brainwashing than allowing them to explore their spirituality on their own.

Coppernerves:
I really have no idea whose perception of the world is closest to the ultimate truth, then again I sometimes get the feeling that there may be no ultimate truth, not sure why.

Which is why I place so much stock in science. Not only for practical reasons, but if our scientific understanding of the universe was 100% complete, would that not be the our ultimate truth? (I'm probably just babbling here).

Coppernerves:
Could you explain the "wasted potential" thing please?

Certainly, well it most obviously applies to those who's interpretation of their religion is literal. For example, all those who believe in Noah's Ark or who try to push Genesis as scientific fact. Their need to affirm their religion has caused them to adopt a flawed and intentionally misleading version of science and reasoning. Who knows what these people could have achieved with their lives if their families allowed them to give real science and logic a chance.
This is especially obvious for religious scholars, PHDs and the like.

I can't speak for all but I have encountered people who have let this slip into other facets of their life. I have never encountered an atheist who believes in conspiracy theories, or ghosts etc.

Less obviously it applies to those who may have been better off with a different religion or form of spirituality than the one their family programmed into them. I wonder about the lost potential for happiness.
This is where my views get a little more convoluted and my skepticism applies more to organised religion than spirituality in general, but there's still plenty to go around.

Shadowstar38:

Milk:
snip.

And...you just said bigotry isn't a bad thing. Yeah, there's nothing more to be done here.

This entire debate has been nothing but you getting aggressive towards an entire group of people for no reason. This dissolved into a pissing contest the second you came into the thread. So I'm thankful this is over.

Later

So you're saying you aren't bigoted towards rapists?

Kaulen Fuhs:

Shadowstar38:

Milk:
snip.

And...you just said bigotry isn't a bad thing. Yeah, there's nothing more to be done here.

This entire debate has been nothing but you getting aggressive towards an entire group of people for no reason. This dissolved into a pissing contest the second you came into the thread. So I'm thankful this is over.

Later

So you're saying you aren't bigoted towards rapists?

The fact your and Milks argument has dissolved into lumping rapists and christians into the same group should pretty much cover why Shadowstar thinks it's pointless to continue...

The fact your suggesting Shadow is pro rape because he's against putting all christians (which i'm betting at least some have contributed more to society than you ever will) into the same section as rapists says a lot.

Demon ID:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Shadowstar38:

And...you just said bigotry isn't a bad thing. Yeah, there's nothing more to be done here.

This entire debate has been nothing but you getting aggressive towards an entire group of people for no reason. This dissolved into a pissing contest the second you came into the thread. So I'm thankful this is over.

Later

So you're saying you aren't bigoted towards rapists?

The fact your and Milks argument has dissolved into lumping rapists and christians into the same group should pretty much cover why Shadowstar thinks it's pointless to continue...

The fact your suggesting Shadow is pro rape because he's against putting all christians (which i'm betting at least some have contributed more to society than you ever will) into the same section as rapists says a lot.

No, they quite clearly aren't lumping rapists into the same group as Christians, that would be retarded.
What they are doing is saying that being a bigot isn't necessarily bad depending on the groups involved.

Demon ID:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Shadowstar38:

And...you just said bigotry isn't a bad thing. Yeah, there's nothing more to be done here.

This entire debate has been nothing but you getting aggressive towards an entire group of people for no reason. This dissolved into a pissing contest the second you came into the thread. So I'm thankful this is over.

Later

So you're saying you aren't bigoted towards rapists?

The fact your and Milks argument has dissolved into lumping rapists and christians into the same group should pretty much cover why Shadowstar thinks it's pointless to continue...

The fact your suggesting Shadow is pro rape because he's against putting all christians (which i'm betting at least some have contributed more to society than you ever will) into the same section as rapists says a lot.

Tone it down, kiddo. I am in no way implying this. I'm simply asking if he truly feels that bigotry towards what one perceives as harmful is ever justified. If he doesn't, than his point stands. If not, it may be time for him to take a step back and cool off.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Tone it down, kiddo. I am in no way implying this. I'm simply asking if he truly feels that bigotry towards what one perceives as harmful is ever justified. If he doesn't, than his point stands. If not, it may be time for him to take a step back and cool off.

I don't need to cool off. The guy I was talking too was just being inflammatory.

And the reason his point doesn't stand is because everyone can agree that rape is harmful. People spreading their beliefs which people can choose to accept or not is far from harmful.

I believe the phrase he used was "spreading the disease" when talking about the Christianity growing. If someone perceives the spread of religion as harmful as he suggests, I just can't respect their position.

AgedGrunt:

Well, and this isn't a thinly veiled attack on my part, more of a statement, but it's really none of your business what others believe.

Thinly veiled attack or no it really matters little to the point I made. You can draw arbitrary lines as to what is people's business and what isn't but all that does is make your position seem weak.

As for everyone else in this thread, the definition of bigotry:

big∑ot∑ry

/ˈbigətrÁ/

- intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

If you aren't tolerant of people who are pro-rape and actively choose to rape than you are by definition a bigot!

Shadowstar38:
I don't need to cool off. The guy I was talking too was just being inflammatory.

And the reason his point doesn't stand is because everyone can agree that rape is harmful. People spreading their beliefs which people can choose to accept or not is far from harmful.

I believe the phrase he used was "spreading the disease" when talking about the Christianity growing. If someone perceives the spread of religion as harmful as he suggests, I just can't respect their position.

Just going to jump in with a quick comment here. Everyone may not agree that spreading ones beliefs are harmful, but in some cases, it can be quite harmful. I would also question how easy it is to accept or reject a position of faith when one is raised in it.

Shadowstar38:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Tone it down, kiddo. I am in no way implying this. I'm simply asking if he truly feels that bigotry towards what one perceives as harmful is ever justified. If he doesn't, than his point stands. If not, it may be time for him to take a step back and cool off.

I don't need to cool off. The guy I was talking too was just being inflammatory.

And the reason his point doesn't stand is because everyone can agree that rape is harmful. People spreading their beliefs which people can choose to accept or not is far from harmful.

I believe the phrase he used was "spreading the disease" when talking about the Christianity growing. If someone perceives the spread of religion as harmful as he suggests, I just can't respect their position.

I understand why you would feel that way, but perhaps instead of shutting the conversation, it would be good to find out why he/she believes the spread of religion to be so harmful. If you can shut down their argument by successfully negating their points, it makes your position look that much stronger. If not, it allows you a chance to examine your own biases. And if, by chance, he/she shows an unwillingness to engage in a reasoned and fair manner, you'd be perfectly justified in refusing to respond further.

My point is, blanket statements like "Bigotry is never okay!" are right up there with "Be tolerant of everyone!" in terms of assertions that can bite you in the ass immediately. I tend towards a "Tolerate those things which do not harm others!", after which can go on about what that might entail.

I also apologize to the other poster, whom I referred to as "kiddo". Such childish declarations demean me, so I take it back entirely (aside from my clarification of my position, and what I assume Milk's to be).

Milk:
Thinly veiled attack or no it really matters little to the point I made. You can draw arbitrary lines as to what is people's business and what isn't but all that does is make your position seem weak.

I don't have a position on it, I have an opinion. But as long as we are going to the dictionary, here's another definition for the thread:

Academic adj.
Excessively concerned with intellectual matters and lacking experience of practical affairs.
Learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.
So scholarly as to be unaware of the outside world; lacking in worldliness.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Shadowstar38:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Tone it down, kiddo. I am in no way implying this. I'm simply asking if he truly feels that bigotry towards what one perceives as harmful is ever justified. If he doesn't, than his point stands. If not, it may be time for him to take a step back and cool off.

I don't need to cool off. The guy I was talking too was just being inflammatory.

And the reason his point doesn't stand is because everyone can agree that rape is harmful. People spreading their beliefs which people can choose to accept or not is far from harmful.

I believe the phrase he used was "spreading the disease" when talking about the Christianity growing. If someone perceives the spread of religion as harmful as he suggests, I just can't respect their position.

I understand why you would feel that way, but perhaps instead of shutting the conversation, it would be good to find out why he/she believes the spread of religion to be so harmful. If you can shut down their argument by successfully negating their points, it makes your position look that much stronger. If not, it allows you a chance to examine your own biases. And if, by chance, he/she shows an unwillingness to engage in a reasoned and fair manner, you'd be perfectly justified in refusing to respond further.

My point is, blanket statements like "Bigotry is never okay!" are right up there with "Be tolerant of everyone!" in terms of assertions that can bite you in the ass immediately. I tend towards a "Tolerate those things which do not harm others!", after which can go on about what that might entail.

I also apologize to the other poster, whom I referred to as "kiddo". Such childish declarations demean me, so I take it back entirely (aside from my clarification of my position, and what I assume Milk's to be).

No offence taken at all at the Kiddo declaration, though it did conjure up the image of you having a walking stick in a dim lit room engulfed in pipe smoke.

I think I can safely say this thread has answered the questions I had in relation to the percieved arrogance of some Atheists, it's lack of discussion and people in general.

AgedGrunt:

Academic adj.
Excessively concerned with intellectual matters and lacking experience of practical affairs.
Learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.
So scholarly as to be unaware of the outside world; lacking in worldliness.

Where'd you get that definition? Nothing at all like that is in either the Oxford or the Collins, and though Dictionary.com does mention the "lack of worldliness or... practicality" in its fourth definition, it's a lot less dismissive.

To be perfectly honest, most of them are entirely reasonable right up until the point where a religious person attempts to use religion as a reason to affect other people's lives.

Circumcision, teaching creationism, gay-bashing, etc.

That's just Christianity. We have some fairly legitimate grievances over what religion does, while simultaneously seeing it as logically improbable, with some, if not most, religious texts contradicting itself. So we want it gone. Most of us won't shove it down your throat, but if there's a discussion -on- religion, you can bet we'll be there to argue our points.

That is my experience as well, OP. It's mainly in people who go out of their way to actually identify themselves as 'atheists' though, using it as a constitutive part of their self-identity rather than merely a social label that some might apply to them. Even taking a stance in those usual terms (theist, atheist, agnostic) lends itself to these kinds of issues, I think.

I am not innocent myself though - there was a time I had the same overly smug, naive attitude. Studying some philosophy of religion and seeing what some of the more subtle thinkers had to say about the relationship between belief and non-belief made me more readily sympathetic to the pious.

It's unfortunate that atheists of the attitude we're describing still see a false dilemma of choice in worldview between a certain crude charicature of the believer and a brutish scientism. Once one sees that the matter is much more complex than this, that intellectual belligerence tends to dissipate.

Nomad of the Stars:
I believe it's because of the view that faith of any kind is a coping mechanism to provide comfort for people that can't live without their being a 'greater meaning' handed to them on a platter, so by that logic anyone who has faith would seem inferior to anyone who isn't.

There's a difference between 'can't' and 'don't want to'. That kind of attitude is exactly what OP is talking about. The immediate flagging beliefs deviant from yours off as a weakness. Not every christian is a creationist atheist-hater.

Speaking as an Atheist I, personally, don't get why people are religious anymore. I don't get why anyone would want that, to just accept answers that are given to you by whatever has given to you. I've spent much time pondering why and I still don't understand. I've probably explained that poorly, but that's not the point.

Don't think that sane christians (hah, I see what I set myself up for there, inb4 'paradox') do not doubt or question what's been written. Maybe it's just difficult to understand that what's written can be meaningful to people. To reflect upon or use as a standard for good living. A lot of our society's laws and morals are based on this also. I also don't understand what you mean by accepting answers. In what way are we deceived and where should we look for all the answers instead? Have all the atheists banded together and found anything substantial? Has anything ever been found to prove us so irreparably wrong?

Milk:
snip

I like how allot of your arguments where that Christianity had to be proven when the same could be said for atheism, religion was the norm for much longer than atheism so why should it have to prove it self when you have as little proof. If yours is the right one then you should be able to come up with proof in seconds. You saying you need proof for it is the same as me saying i need proof that rocks exist and until i get that proof everyone who does believe that rocks exist are dirty liars.

VALOCARAPTOR:

Milk:
snip

I like how allot of your arguments where that Christianity had to be proven when the same could be said for atheism, religion was the norm for much longer than atheism so why should it have to prove it self when you have as little proof. If yours is the right one then you should be able to come up with proof in seconds. You saying you need proof for it is the same as me saying i need proof that rocks exist and until i get that proof everyone who does believe that rocks exist are dirty liars.

You dont prove a negative. Depending on your definition of deities and specific gods, its very simple to prove them false. The attributes ascribed to various deities show how they cannot exist.

OT: id change the last line Milk. Claiming others are living under a bridge is frowned upon.

Forgive my ignorance here, but while it's true a claim has to be backed up by truth, doesn't that go for all claims?

It's absolutely true someone saying god exist has to provide evidence of god. But isn't hard-lining and saying that god does not exist just as much a provable claim as god existing?

Teapot argument. You can say there's a teapot floating in space between earth and mars. "Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.". The religious viewpoint says from the beginning there is god, the hard line atheist says from the beginning there is not good. Both have made an absolute claim, one that God does exist, one that it does not.

One side claims absolutely there is a teapot, the other side claims absolutely that there cannot be a teapot, but only one side has proof demanded on them.

The hypothesis are both unprovable. You cannot prove god nor disprove god. To one side, the fact that you cannot prove god exist is unimportant, god still exist. To the other side, the fact that you cannot prove or disprove god exist isn't important, god cannot exist. Both are fundamentally beliefs, but many people on this forum choose to ignore the fact that it is ultimately a belief that Occams razor is a truth rather then a guideline.

The inability to disprove does not prove, therefore the inverse must be equally true: The inability to prove does not disprove.

And you cannot lump all religions into the same category. The christian god is a CREATION being. According to their beliefs it is in all things and is all things. Creation itself to them is proof of divine intervention.

The roman and greek gods did not create the universe, nor were they universal. They had specific attributes assigned to them, and specific things that they had domain over.

@Bentusi16 Its more a question of influence than mere existance. Does the teapot have any effect or not. If it does it would be easy to prove it exists, if it doesnt does the existance of the teapot even matter?

Semes:
@Bentusi16 Its more a question of influence than mere existance. Does the teapot have any effect or not. If it does it would be easy to prove it exists, if it doesnt does the existance of the teapot even matter?

It does to the people who want it to, doesn't it? Both ways. To some people the mere fact that OTHER PEOPLE believe is absolutely abhorrent and they fight it tooth in nail. To many many many people religion is just something that they are a part of and probably most of them want to be a part of.

But the existence of the christian god does matter to christians.

@Bentusi16 indeed some people feel the mere fact that other people believe something different is abhorrent and a driving force behind spreading religion and defending it tooth and nail. I feel we are now far off topic.

Semes:
@Bentusi16 indeed some people feel the mere fact that other people believe something different is abhorrent and a driving force behind spreading religion and defending it tooth and nail. I feel we are now far off topic.

Actually I was thinking of someone like Richard Dawkins, who essentially says that anyone who isn't an atheist is an idiot.

My circuitous point throughout all this is that both sides tend to be equally bad about it, but the difference is religion has been around a lot longer then anything looking like organized atheism. Give it a few hundred years.

Bentusi16:

Semes:
@Bentusi16 indeed some people feel the mere fact that other people believe something different is abhorrent and a driving force behind spreading religion and defending it tooth and nail. I feel we are now far off topic.

Actually I was thinking of someone like Richard Dawkins, who essentially says that anyone who isn't an atheist is an idiot.

Could you show us what he actually says, rather than your assessment of what he 'essentially' says?

Seanchaidh:

Bentusi16:

Semes:
@Bentusi16 indeed some people feel the mere fact that other people believe something different is abhorrent and a driving force behind spreading religion and defending it tooth and nail. I feel we are now far off topic.

Actually I was thinking of someone like Richard Dawkins, who essentially says that anyone who isn't an atheist is an idiot.

Could you show us what he actually says, rather than your assessment of what he 'essentially' says?

http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248

Sorry, but it really is in that book. The best I can give you is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins unless you go out and read the book as it's cited several times.

Specifically citation #92 on the wikipedia page seems to be relevant.

god delusion:
My fourth consciousness-raiser is atheist pride. Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind. There are many people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are atheists, but dare not admit it to their families or even, in some cases, to themselves. Partly, this is because the very word 'atheist' has been assiduously built up as a terrible and frightening label.

http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/dawkins10.pdf

Page 3 Its the part relevant to citation 92. I disagree with bentsuis assessment

Semes:

god delusion:
My fourth consciousness-raiser is atheist pride. Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind. There are many people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are atheists, but dare not admit it to their families or even, in some cases, to themselves. Partly, this is because the very word 'atheist' has been assiduously built up as a terrible and frightening label.

http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/dawkins10.pdf

Page 3 Its the part relevant to citation 92. I disagree with bentsuis assessment

"for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind."

It may be a bit of an inference but that suggest he believes that religion would be the result of a non-healthy mind?

To be honest it is called 'the god delusion', suggesting that religious belief is at best a delusional situation.

Bentusi16:

Semes:

god delusion:
My fourth consciousness-raiser is atheist pride. Being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind. There are many people who know, in their heart of hearts, that they are atheists, but dare not admit it to their families or even, in some cases, to themselves. Partly, this is because the very word 'atheist' has been assiduously built up as a terrible and frightening label.

http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/dawkins10.pdf

Page 3 Its the part relevant to citation 92. I disagree with bentsuis assessment

"for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind."

It may be a bit of an inference but that suggest he believes that religion would be the result of a non-healthy mind?

That would be denying the antecedent. The statement "if atheism, then healthy independence of mind" does not imply the inverse "if not atheism, then not healthy independence of mind" nor the converse "if healthy independence of mind, then atheism".

To be honest it is called 'the god delusion', suggesting that religious belief is at best a delusional situation.

Having a delusion doesn't mean someone is an idiot. (It is also plausible that the author is not responsible for the title.)

Seanchaidh:

Bentusi16:

Semes:

http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/dawkins10.pdf

Page 3 Its the part relevant to citation 92. I disagree with bentsuis assessment

"for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind."

It may be a bit of an inference but that suggest he believes that religion would be the result of a non-healthy mind?

That would be denying the antecedent. The statement "if atheism, then healthy independence of mind" does not imply the inverse "if not atheism, then not healthy independence of mind" nor the converse "if healthy independence of mind, then atheism".

To be honest it is called 'the god delusion', suggesting that religious belief is at best a delusional situation.

Having a delusion doesn't mean someone is an idiot. (It is also plausible that the author is not responsible for the title.)

Like I said, it is an inference. What is not an inference is Richard Dawkins attitude towards religion.

The whole point of which being, anyone can be an arrogant person, it doesn't matter whether or not their religious or not or an atheist or not.

The most telling thing is that many points I can agree with the man on, but I cannot abide how he goes about preaching his beliefs.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked