Ten oz

There is no proof your Dragon is real but there are "hints". As a first hand account you affirm that your Dragon is real. Theoretically your claim could be sarcasm but the easiest explanation is that it is true. After all I have no "hints" that it is untrue or a working theory for why you'd make it up........

Interesting video. I only watched part one of the eleven. I got the impression they were implying that not only were the stories similar but that Krishna and Jesus were literally the same. That god has come to earth in human form more than once. As an atheist I do not believe that but the idea does make as much sense as any other religious belief. One problem with trying to compare Jesus to Krishna or any other God and or culture is finding people with the right education to do so. Christian Theologians who are considered expert scholars when dicussing Jesus and the Bible are not equally qualified to comment on Krishna and vice versa. That is one of the problems the story of the Exodus runs into; Christian theology crosses into Egyptology. A point Richard Carrier has made regarding theologians who understand the classics only as they apply to Christians. Roman history, Greek history, Jewish history, and etc are far bigger than simply containing accessory works to support Christian theories with. Many biblical scholars do study other fields but are not experts in them. Just as scholars of Hindu may read the Bible but are not experts on Jesus or Christianity. So where is the field of study which encapsulates Chritianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc? Who is qualified to make expert comparisons? I just don't see it happening. Christian theologians study the Bible and western civilization as it applies to Christianity while Hindu theologians do the same for Hinduism.

I view both Buddha and Jesus the exact same way. I said as much in my previous post. So I don't understand what you mean by "more relaxed"?

I would take Democracy over religion any day.

Replace strength for wealth and religion for monetary or asset attainment and your post would just about apply the same way. As we humans became more intelligent we realized more could be accomplished by greater numbers. So rather than the strong ( wolves, lions, gorillas, what have you ) chasing away outsiders humans learned that more people meant more power. Unfortunately the moral compass you referenced did not react to the pole oriented with slavery, torture, rape, or war. Rather than the strong humans merely raping Angelina Jolie they had a free for all with entire societies. People were enslaved and forced to do any number of this. Many of the ancient worlds greatest structures were built this way. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife is a nice saying but Vikings, Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Mayan and scores of other army's raped women and killed people in numbers that would be unimaginable for wolves, lions, gorillas, and what have you.

No doubt. Like I said there is still a long way to go.....

No, I do not expect that evidence will be found. My point was that Moses' story is so extensive that it allows for a lot of cross reference. Jesus' story is more ambigious which allows for less proof to make speculative claims. Anything is possible I guess. If an Ark with stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments inside it is found that would be huge! Certainly make me reconsider the existence of Moses. Or even something less incredible like a something scribed into some ruin in Eygpt mentioning the Exodus.As for Krishna the discovery and dating of Dvaraka is a big piece of evidence for those who believe he was real. Lots of hurdles remain though. Krishna's story is thousands of years older than Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

Most accept Buddha lived with the caveat that no facts are known about his life. Very similar Jesus. It is worth mentioning that accepting and knowing are different things. Nothing is known for sure about either Buddha or Jesus. Their existence are accepted by many but every detail of that existence is surrounded by debate. So in my opinion it is unclear whether or not Buddha was real. I see speculating on the odds of real vs not real pointless. He simply may or may not have lived. Both possibilities remain just as likely in my opinion. There is more written about Krishna and Moses than Jesus. Beyond Hindu writings there are Buddist and Greek writings about Krishna. Locations and timelines of their lives are known as well. Perhaps that is the problem. Too much is written. So much is known about Moses and Krishna there are specific things archeologists and historians would expect to find. Vague references alone aren't enough. There is no indication of who the Muhammad or Hubbard of Christianity was? For starters the point of those examples was to illustrate that entire religions can form from nothing. Just pulledmfrom imagination, pure fictions. As for them having someone who set it up, a Joseph Smith figure to lead followers, those real people aren't always adorned or credited. In the case of Judaism and Hinduism who is their Muhammad? Who set it up. Oh yeah, their Muhammad or Hubbard was a couple of mythical figures you don't feel have a place in this conversation.......Back to Christianity, it was the Catholic church who put together the gospels, carried the religion across Oceans, and over mountains. They fought wars and repressed science to ensure Christianity continued and thrived. Which Pope is given credit for the millions of Christians living in the Americas today? Which Pope is adorned as the one responsible for ensure the continued existence of the faith? As a best explanation for why Christianity did not fall to Islam and why Jesus' has a giant statue in Brazil surely some Pope is responsible right? Yet no one gets credit, just Jesus. Laughably Evangelicals and other Protestant here in the United States argue that Catholics aren't even Christian at all. They pretend that like Mormons Catholics are there own thing with seperate beliefs. Meanwhile the Catholics church is solely responsible for Christianity's presence in current society. Authorship of gospels are in dispute just as which gospels were inspirations for other gospels. It is circular logic to collective use the bible to prove the bible. As a source it is compromised. Other sources are needed but none exist.It is like believers of the Lochness Monster who compare eye witness accounts. They match up ones that are similar and claim that the stories must be at least partially be true because the witnesses did not know each other had similar stories. It doesn't work. You can't add fiction to fiction and end up with the truth.

Things have been done since the 60's and 70's to conserve water. Enviromental protect has also helped protect water sources. We have also come up with more effecient ways to filter and reuse a lot more water than we did in the 60's and 70's. The failure of those claims being fully achieved by 2000 is a good thing and should not be used to view our current state of affairs with doubt. Here is some good information from the USGS showing that water usage per person in the United States peaked in 1975 and has been dropping since. Despite population growth less water is used today. http://www.dce.k-state.edu/conf/waterfuture/docs/evenson-trends-water-use.pdf

I think it is the same with Christianity. The founders of it, those who established the New Testament and bible, did motivate a following. Christianity exists in New Zealand and Austrilia because it was brought there and forced on the aboriginal natives. Same goes for the Americas. Catholics were great motivators. If not for the Catholic church spending a thousand years torturing, killing, and repressing science there might not be Christianity today. Least not outside of Europe. Mormons are Christian much in the same way Christians are Jewish. Christian believe in the same intial scriptures as Judaism but then added a new Testament. Mormon believe in everything Christians believe in but then added the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon chronicles Israelites in the Armericas hundreds of years before Jesus. It also describes Jesus as coming to the Americas. Along with that they have other prophets. So there is a lot of additions that are very different from other forms of Christianity.

excellentOnly in the case of Jesus it would be someone who knew someone else that claimed to have known that you had a Dragon.

@ Eise, Buddha is a good example. If you posted that it were unclear if Buddha had been a real person you'd receive no argument from me. As for the existence of Jesus being the "best explanation" I challange you to apply that line of thinking to Moses or Krishna. Wouldn't the "best explanation" for Moses and the 10 commandment also be that Moses was some "charismatic" preacher? I just don't see the difference, honestly. Most belief systems centered around supernatural nonsense are generally based fully on fiction. The people who right the stories down are the creators. Not the actual gods, saviors, prophets, or messiahs written about. L. Ron Hubert pulled Scientology out of thin air and within decades has grown in membership and notiriaty. Joseph Smith pulled the Book of Mormon out of thin air and in just a couple hundred years has 15 million followers. Muhammad pulled the Quran out of thin air and today there is 1.6 billion Muslims. The propagation of Christianity does not need Jesus to have been real as a "best explanation". Just as the existence of aliens is not the best explanation for the propagation of Scientology. I think simply saying that people believe what they want to believe is a good enough explanation. As for the Bible being one source....it is. The Bible was put together to support a religious belief. Sure different parts have different authors but it was assemble with a purpose and not everything went into it, not all the translation can be trusted, and most of of it is pure fiction. You say once you "strip out the errors, forgeries, miricales, and etc" it fits in but to me that reads more like just picking and choosing the parts you want. It isn't known for sure which parts are forgeries or errors. The translations are often debated amongst various denominations within the religion itself and even more so outside the religion. It is an act of faith to believe truth can be derived from the bible by simply selectively ignoring portions of it. Nope, absolutely not. I do not have first hand experience of ogres, leprechauns, aliens, or ghosts either.

By vision of god I was referencing any numbers of godly impressions people claim to receive. People will claim to have received "signs" from god that help direct their decisions, people pray about things in their lives until they receive an "answer", people claim god "saved" them from or during accidents, and etc, etc, etc. All of that is widely accepted in society as perfectly normal. Seeing UFO's are not. That is not to say everyone believes, it is just to say they accept it as normal. The Bible is not "sources". It is a single source and in my opinion does not contain a single bit of information that is not completely fictious or has been intentional manipulated over time. Outside of that source nothing describes Jesus' life. Tacitus did not describe Jesus' life. He merely described others as being Christian. I do not believe this a viable argument. You are saying that in order for Christianity to have grown and spread Jesus must have been real. If the growth and spread of religions require real messiahs or prophets than by that logic Moses and Krishna must have been real as well. Or for that matter Apollo, Horus, and etc. Nothing? In the story of Moses we know all the locations of his story and they are real places. We know all the groups of people and cultures and they are real as well. Moses is even credited for producing the 10 commandments which too is a real thing. What written work is Jesus credited with having produced? Where is your alternative theory for where the 10 commandments came from? Krishna is written about literary works that go back far as 8th century BC. Beyond the several Hindu works there are Greek and Buddist literary source. Also the discovery of Dvaraka is evidence of that the city where Krishna is said to have lived, which was swallowed by the sea, is a real place. Dating the site even shows it is old enough. Reliability of my sources? What source are you referring? What claims have I made? I am not seeking to prove Jesus was not a real person. I am saying that it is unclear, not known. You are the one making the definitive statements about Jesus. You even describe what he was like calling him "charismatic". How could we possibly know that? .....and yet you have continued to sight arguments by Bart Ehrman:"Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teenager. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and also textual criticism." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman So the historians you sight do not ask others to believe in the supernatural that just believe in the supernatural themselves? A fact you don't think bias' their work?

I do not have a problem with the idea that Jesus may have been a real person. It is not an itch that needs scratching. It is not ultimately that important to me. I started this thread only because I find the certainty in others about it strange. As for the miraculous aspects of Jesus; I have very little faith. So little that if presented a chance to know 100% for sure whether or not there is a god I couldn't be bothered. I don't need to travel into out space to see and finally know 100% that the earth is round just like I don't need to go anywhere to know there was never a man raised from the dead. Based on what? Lots of first hand accounts of Bigfoot, Lochness Monster, and aliens. Lots of pseudo scientific research supporting a variety of physical evidence. I think a lot of people do not follow there own logic out. If I were to tell friends I saw Bigfoot the would laugh at me. If I told the same group I saw a ghost it would start a conversation where a few of them might believe me while others would remain skeptical. If I claimed to have a vision from god most all of them would either be impressed or respectful and not criticize. What is the difference? Why are ghost sightings seen as less crazy than Bigfoot sightings? Why are God visions accepted?

In the context of this discussion I am using it to summarizing Eise's request for proof "it" (Jesus and a new religion) was made up by design. Again, I do not pretend to know/understand the motives behind any of the apostle. Just as I don't know the motives behind people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster, and so on. I don't think understanding those motives are neccessary. If I am to believe in Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster, or etc I need proof they exist. Lack of "positive hints" is not required for me to be doubtful.

@ Eise, your implication that a counter narrative is neccessary feels like an extra requirement you are only applying to Jesus. If I were to say about Krishna what I am about Jesus, that it is not clear he was a real person, I seriously doubt you'd challange by asking for proof that Hinduism was was made up . I have stated several times in this thread that the Exodus and Moses are myths. Not once have you asked for a counter narrative regarding either. It seems that the counter narrative only applies to Jesus. Btw, there is a counter narrative if you want one. I have already provided links. I don't argue it myself because I do not find it neccessary. Why the gospels were written the way they were is a seperate issue from whether or not Jesus was a real person. I only need to know whether or not Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, and etc are accurate. I do not need to understand their motives.

Correct, no evidence either way! That is my point. I am not claiming that Jesus did not exist. I claiming it is unclear. Why would I need an alternative theory? You are the one insisting that Jesus' existence is more likely than not. I am simply saying that it is not clear; that I don't believe the answer to the question about historical Jesus' is known. If you would like an Alternative theory Richard Carrier provides one in the clip I linked in the OP. Since you don't like YT links here a link you can read where Richard Carrier responds directly to Ehrman "Ehrman on Jesus: A failure of facts and logic" http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026 Historians like Ehrman do not claim any of Jesus' miracles to have been true but accepts that truth can be derived from those fictions. A subject matter proved real by extracting what could be true within exaggerated and made up reports. It would be akin to saying that the abduction part of alien abduction is false but all the reports otherwise supports the existence of aliens. The logic just doesn't work. If the abduction part is to fantastic to be believed the interior account is in question. Same logic applies to Jesus'. If a apostle writes about resurrection, virgin birth, water to wine, or etc it puts the interior account into question. Other sources are neccessary yet none are currently known.

The historical criteria being what exactly? The Jesus Seminar is hundreds of scholars who challange the criteria. Only one source describes who Jesus was, the bible. It describes him as the son of god born from a virgin who was resurrected from the dead. The modification of his story to a "charismatic apocalyptic preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the restless time of the Roman occupation of Palestine is not that extraordinary" is a change in context which is made to allow for him to have been real. It is people say assuming the stories were exaggerations rather than total works of fiction. I still do not see how that can be distinguished from the bible alone? IMO Moontanman made an excellent point. There have been many first had accounts of aliens. Very reputable people have come forward claiming to have seen aliens like Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Gov. of Arizona Fife Symington. We have pilot audio recording of sightings as they happen, recorded radar information showing anomilous things, and an understand that both life elsewhere in the universe is possible and that space travel is possible. The historical evidence is huge as well. People throughout history have claimed to have seen UFOs. Christopher Columbus recorded a UFO in his voyage log Oct 11th 1492. Despite all the "evidence" neither of us are sold on aliens. We don't believe the accounts. To Moontanman's point; people choose to believe Jesus was real. They choose to accept the "evidence". However there is no more logical reason for doing so than there would be to accept all the evidence of Aliens. Difference being that we aren't raised to to believe in aliens as a matter of cultural history and self identification. If it were important to who we were as people that aliens in fact were real most people in my opinion would believe in them. There could be aliens. There could've be a charismatic apocalyptic preacher named Jesus. I am not claiming to be able to disprove or prove either. I am saying that I don't know. You are saying that you don't know either but then hedging it by implying that you most likely do know. I think that is a contradiction.

@ Robittybob1, in my opinion the New Testement, like most religious texts, are a collection of works written cryptic and ambiguously enough to lend themselves to any number of ideas. Actually, rather than picking solely picking on religious works I should've phrased that as any fictional work sold as non fiction. For example people are seemingly always finding new meaning in the work of Nostradamus or the readings of Edgar Cayce. In the Bible God both seeks vengeance and promotes a proportional response while at the same time champions forgiveness and turning the other cheek. Jesus (god in human form or at least god's human spokesman) said no man is without sin and was seemingly against the death penalty. Meanwhile god himself killed many humans in Babylon, Egypt, flood the while planet, and etc. So I think people can twist the gospels into meaning or telling whatever story they want. Which is one of the reasons I don't trust them as historically accurate. They (the writings) say whatever to translators and believers want them to say.

I do sweep away with one stroke everything written by Christians because all of it includes the impossible and is written by people who by their own words claim to be talking about god first and a man second. Things written about Thales do not include: vigin birth, resurrection, being the son of god, being the human form of god, the holy ghost, miracles, and etc, etc, etc. All references to Thales could be true. No obvious fiction about Thales. None of the writings about Thales being full of obvious exaggerations or worship. That is the point of mentioning the math, the works credited to Thales are possible. The works credited to Jesus by Christians are impossible. Context matters in literature and the Christian works are religious ones about God and not about true history. Archeology and science has proven written history unreliable time after time. History is often written with an agenda. As I referenced earlier up until the last century the majority of historians accepted the Exodus story or Noah's flood as true. Many historians and Archeologists devoted their careers to finding the proof. Now, after many failed attempts and science firmly indicating no, question marks are finally being put around the Exodus story and a global flood. The lack of physical evidence is overwhelming regardless of what has been written. Yet the belief in these stories are so strong many still insist that they must have been based on smaller more regional events and the search continues while most people are still tought these things as truth. Let's be honest; not only is written history often unreliable but it is very bias. Up until recent times the only history treated with respect by the western world was European and Christian history. Europeans cared little for what the Chinese and Indians in Asia had written or believed. Same goes for how they felt about Natives in the Americas. Who knows how much history went up in flames as Europeans conquered the world. History is written bu the winners after all. European history until recently has been world history and everything else just mysticism and voodoo. Some intelligent folks knew better but fear of imprisonment, ridicule, or worse (depending on the century) kept most in their place. So yes, many history books say that Jesus was real, that Thales and other Greeks were real while often calling none European/Christain history's myths. There is over a thousand years of this bias to dig through. Which is why I sweep away Christian writings about Jesus. I have no reason to believe they are honest. No reason to believe they haven't been changed by purposeful editing or bias mistranslation.

18 for Thales vs 3 for Jesus and that is accepting both of Josephus' are legit. Big difference in my opinion. Plus the mathematical works of Thales are real. As a matter of exaggeration of fiction someone couldn't not have come up with those equations. Nothing in Jesus' story is so definitive. All of it could just be pure fiction.

I am far from a genius and have not been banned yet so I would say this forum is an open one. The General Philosophy, Speculations, and the Lounge allow for all ideas. Only time I have seen people struggle is when they fail to seperate opinion from fact. I personally enjoy the challange. The moderators do a good job keeping posters on topic and indentifying when support for an idea is lacking. Is there something specific you have wanted to dicuss and have not been able to?

@ Robittybob1, I posted the YT video in the OP as a discussion starter and not as a direct representation of how I feel. It made some points I felt were relevant. Richard Carrier is far from the only scholar out there who challanges whether or not here was truly a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar is a group of hundreds of scholars who have done work on this issue. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar I do not believe that any of the gospels are text from which truth can be brought out. There are questions of authorship, obvious bits of fiction, and translation/editing issues. I just don't see how fact can be sorted from the fiction. That doesn't not mean Jesus couldn't have been real. Doesn't mean a real man did not influence the fictionalized bits of the gospel. The problem is there is no other source that chronicles his life. Neither Josephus or Tacitus chronicle his life. You seem to under the impression that for some people no amount of evidence would ever be enough. I do not agree. I have already listed for you various types of evidence I would accept and believe. I can not think of another historical figure for which such little evidence exists that is so universally accept by the general public to have been 100% real. Can you provide examples? Eisen used Thales as an example earlier. However unlike Jesus Thales had several historians write in detail about his life and his works. And unlike Jesus Thales work was mathematical so there is no obvious bits of fictions to discredit any of Thales Biographies. You can review my full to Thales response in post #38. If historians had written Jesus' life story down in the first century I would accept that as proof he was a real man. The gospels were not written by historians. They were written by people he claimed visions of a resurrected God whom they worshiped and seeked salvation in. You post earlier that you found the scholar Richard Carrier to be bias, but what of the apostle? I understand that some information can be crossed referenced. The mention of a city or judge who can be proven real historically. Trouble I have with that is fiction often uses real references. The example I gave earlier was that the inclusion of JFK and Nixon in Forrest Gump doesn't prove Forrest Gump was a real man. Which is why something other than the New Testement is need in my opinion to validate the story. I also believe that evidence may still come some day. Who knows what writings and relics the Catholic church has hidden away. One might assume they would make any evidence of a historical Jesus public but I don't believe that is true if that evidence was at odds with the gospels. Let's not forget that for long stretches of history between now and the assumed life of Jesus refuting Jesus' existence could literally result in ones execution. If work on the topic had been done it may have been hidden away or purposely destoryed.

I think this is an excellent post. I don't believe his existence is the probable view but you explained yourself well and I appriciate that. As stated I don't know if Jesus existed or not. I don't lean either way. Perhaps one day an artifact will be found that definitively reflects Jesus was real. I don't see that as beyond the realm of something that could happen. A hundred years ago many scholars would have argued that parts of, if not most of, the Exodus story were true. Lack of evidence of something so large has changed that view over time. So the acceptance of Jesus by scholars does not strike me as meaningful. Lots of things are accepted until they are not. Lots of histories are not simply not true. Sometimes not even a little. A lot of people here in the United States believe Christopher Columbus discovered the earth was round for example. Some falsehoods are very pervassive and long lasting. Thank you for your response. My threshold for "evidence" isn't really that high. Had either Josephus or Tacitus intentually written about Jesus as a means of biographing his life I would accept that as proof Jesus had most probably been real. Rather both mention Jesus in context used to describe others as Christian. I would also find any contemporary writings very compelling evidence. Rather than people writing that they had visions of a resurrected Jesus if they wrote about first hand interaction with a human Jesus that would be evidence. Any works credited to Jesus himself would be incredible evidence. It seems reasonable to think a teacher traveling the country side ministering to people might have written something down at some point. I also think a relic saved by his followers would be good evidence if it could be dated to a time frame matching the life of Jesus. To summarize: contemporary writings, non Christian attempts to biography his life within the first century after, or relics dated to his supposed time frame of existence. Any of that would work for me. I do not understand this part. What darkness are you referencing? I don't think Nazaareth must have existed during Jesus' life in order for Jesus to have been a real man. Knowing for sure might help clear the water but the two are not inseparable in my opinion. I think it is usual to incorporate real people and real place into fiction. For example they edited in footage of JFK and Nixon into the movie Forrest Gump. That doesn't not make Forrest Gump anymore real.Tacitus was written about Nero blaming Christians for a fire. His reference to Jesus was a description of Christians. It was not an entire meant to chronicle the life of a real man. No I don't think it would change how many believers in Jesus there is. I find that most everyone I know pretty much believes Jesus was a real historical figure. My peers and I were told as much in grade school. As to the faith issue I don't see why it matters. Jesus is said to have performed miracles infront of people. So Jesus was not above proving who he claimed to be. I apologizes for moving the order of these questions. I did so just for my own ease of answering it.

Everything you are saying makes its own sense and very well may be true. I am not sure if Jesus was a real man or not. I have no way to be sure. However I just don't feel that Christianities popularity or growth in Rome during the first century supports the idea that Jesus was a real man. In the cases of Moses and Noah the scale of events described were so massive that the lack of physical archeological evidence to support the stories can not be overlooked. Regardless of what has been written historians must acknowledge that the events did not happen. Once the events are shown to be fiction it becomes clear that the men are most probably fiction as well. Their importance and written record being tied too directly to the archeologically impossible events. Jesus is a different case. His story is regional enough that lack of physical or contemporary archeological evidence can be ignored in favor of literary reference. His scientifically impossible acts dismissed as possible exaggerations or misunderstandings. However, can Jesus the human man be removed from his acts and still be Jesus? You imply he must have been real is so many Romans became Christian in the first century. By that logic he must have done something very special. Since we both know it wasn't walking on water, raising the dead, or turning water into wine what was it? No alternate story based in reality exists providing insight as to whom the real life man Jesus may have been. His stories are attached to Gospels which contain tremendous amounts of fiction and possibly nothing true. Further more many aspects of Jesus' story is often claimed to be plagiarized from other gods. Miraculous birth being a common story in religion. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births The familiar concepts on Christianity that more broadly appealed to individual rebirth and second chances while still fully embracing the traditional beliefs on the Old Testament could easily explain it popularity in the first century. Rather than being something completely new it was just a modification of Judaism centered around a new Messiah for which religious tradition is rich with. There is only one lone Roman reference to Jesus that I am aware of. What "credible accounts of Roman history" are you referencing? "In conjunction with Biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[34] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[34][35]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus As for why I care; the universal acceptance of Jesus amongst the majority of people I know based on such little information confuses me. I accept that Jesus may have been real but I also think that he may not have been. I have found in my life that most people feel more certian about his life than I but seldom have a reason for being so outside of the popularity of the view.