People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

It is interesting to me that Inow for instance is looking for the reasons why we give theists a pass.

I care less about the "why," and more about "how do we get people to stop doing that?" The why question is pretty simple in context of human psychology and sociology. The "how do we get people to stop using double standards and engaging in copious logical fallacies when the subject of religion or belief in god(s) comes up" is less simple.

[music]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/rhode-island-city-enraged-over-school-prayer-lawsuit.html?_r=1

 

Here is a case where some mockery will probably do some good, as the community probably realizes it should be ashamed of itself.

[Iggy]

(...)

People lose their lives for speaking their mind about theism, and the reaction of too many people has been that there is no need to insult the faith of theistic people. Western countries pass laws against blasphemy as if that were the problem. I have friends who grew up where they couldn't insult religion and their psyche was damaged for it.

(...)

This of course has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do in any way with the context in which I was writing. But of course that matters not at all. Who cares whether you're violently misrepresenting someone else's position when you've got an agenda? Intellectual honesty is unimportant in the face of this great crusade!

You didn't just take the out. You drove a mack truck through it

 

Yes, I should admit I have an agenda against people who bomb embassies and throw acid in the faces of unveiled girls because of their religious beliefs. I am truly sorry that agenda felt misplaced in your presence.

 

So, in order to make this point, you repeatedly insinuated that I support religious violence and oppose free speech, initially attempting to preserve just a shred of plausible deniability, but later not even trying, and then got upset that I objected to your vicious misrepresentation of my position.

Of course I understand you are upset because you have this impression. I asked you three or four times to show me where I did this thing and stopped asking when you clearly couldn't. Let's look at the post:

 

You claim some nuance in your post, not insulting people who disagree with you (as if you were merely "discussing a contrary view of their beliefs), insulting only their world views I suppose, and then you conclude that they should "stick their heads back in the ground."

 

What are you proposing? What is your position?

 

A newspaper in Denmark drew satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad making him, and his pathetic ideology, look silly. Muslims everywhere were insulted. They were offended. They marched on western embassies -- burned them -- bombed them -- trying to kill whatever westerner they could find. The cartoonist ended up in a panic room in his house in Denmark while a Muslim militiaman took an axe to the panic room door screaming that the pig is going to die for daring to insult his prophet. Yes, these people are really insulted.

 

So, what do you suggest? Nobody satire Islam? Nobody tell them that they are stupid for thinking they get paid 72 virgins for suicide? If you speak your mind you are going to insult these people. If you tell me I can't speak my mind then you are going to insult me. So, besides telling iNow or Prometheus that they are insulting people (which isn't an argument at all) what is it that you propose?

Our conversation began contentious because you thought I was comparing you to the Danish cartoon protestors. But, I think any fair minded person can look at that post and see that isn't the case at all. You've obviously picked up on my disdain for the axe-wielding maniac and assumed that disdain was pointed at you.

 

My intention was to give an example where a large number of theists were insulted by something that is unavoidable and ask what you propose we do about it. I suspected you would answer that insulting theists is unavoidable when it is unavoidable, and you wouldn't, in that case, have a problem.

 

Perhaps I could have been more clear in separating your comment from their actions, but that connection honestly did not occur to me. I didn't think of you as a theist who was being offended. It did not cross my mind that you might think I was comparing you to them. That connection makes no sense to me even now.

 

To be clear, I did not compare you to the protestors. I did not imply any correlation between your position and their actions. I am saying now that I did not mean to subtly suggest anything like that.

 

It is understandable to be upset if you think someone is comparing you to a murderous crazy person. I get that. Misunderstandings happen, especially with people we don't know, and it is very good we clear them up. To be very clear: if I thought you were comparable in any way to violent protestors I would say so directly and make no apologies for it. I haven't made that comparison because it wouldn't make sense. i realize I very often fail to, but I do always try to make good sense.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Iggy

[MonDie]

A search for the truth of past life regression

 

EDITED after iNow's response:

I stopped reading at, "The existence of reincarnation is not inconsistent with early Christian teachings."

Edited June 26, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

They lost me at, "The existence of reincarnation is not inconsistent with early Christian teachings."

As noted at the start of the page, it's off topic. However, it seems probable they would argue that Jesus came back to life after being dead... was resurrected... ergo, christianity is not inconsistent with reincarnation.

[tar]

Music,

 

Jessica is a brave young lady. And as she says in her own defense against the vile of her classmates, "It's for their own good. I am protecting their constitution, as well".

 

I am not opposed to her stance on principle. But it seems impractical and silly to me, none-the-less.

 

You say it will do some good. Perhaps, but perhaps not.

 

 

You could strike the "Dear Heavenly Father" and the Amen, and call it a school creed.

 

There is no acid being thrown in people's faces here. (Not yet, anyway) And I hope her community does no such thing.

 

She, Jessica, is however "going against" the people that make up her local objective reality. Who or what is she doing it for? Is there an objective truth she knows that the rest of her community is unaware of?

 

I am not so sure her basis is sound. Her logic is not complete. Would it not be better for her to bring it up in a student counsel meeting, and point out how it goes against our constitution, and argue for a change in the wording, than file suit with the civil liberties group? Well perhaps she did. I don't know. But since we have laws against mandatory school prayer, I would have hoped the administration would have taken care of it when the laws were written, and not left it up, intact, in the face of the law. (those laws are still in force, aren't they?)

 

Anyway, its sort of like turning your co-worker in to human resources for raising his eyebrows while looking at a pretty pair of legs that belong to another co-worker. Sure there is actual sexual harassment there. But it is not serious enough to make a big deal about. It would probably not be "good for" anybody concerned, if you did.

 

Reminds me of a situation in the Army, before don't ask, don't tell. I was friends with a lesbian soldier, went to a gay bar with her, visited the same place with my Sergeant (both of us straight) so that the gay community at my post either thought I was gay as well, or at least tolerant. They did not hide their sexual preferences from me (as in break up a behind the building embrace as I walked by) so I knew who was gay. It was against the law, against the military code of conduct, they would be court martialed out of the service if their behavior was brought to the attention of the military authorities. It was my duty to report them.

I gave them a pass.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Should I have reported them? For their own good?

 

A Captain I was on 24 hour duty with, once told me, when I was questioning him on what someone should do (unrelated to the gay issue) when regulations did not cover a complex situation, "when the rules don't apply, use your best judgement".

Edited June 27, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

It's not on-topic, but I suspect people would no longer defend it were it to be a muslim quote instead of a christian one.

[music]

You didn't just take the out. You drove a mack truck through it

 

Yes, I should admit I have an agenda against people who bomb embassies and throw acid in the faces of unveiled girls because of their religious beliefs. I am truly sorry that agenda felt misplaced in your presence.

 

Of course I understand you are upset because you have this impression. I asked you three or four times to show me where I did this thing and stopped asking when you clearly couldn't. Let's look at the post:

 

Our conversation began contentious because you thought I was comparing you to the Danish cartoon protestors. But, I think any fair minded person can look at that post and see that isn't the case at all. You've obviously picked up on my disdain for the axe-wielding maniac and assumed that disdain was pointed at you.

 

My intention was to give an example where a large number of theists were insulted by something that is unavoidable and ask what you propose we do about it. I suspected you would answer that insulting theists is unavoidable when it is unavoidable, and you wouldn't, in that case, have a problem.

 

Perhaps I could have been more clear in separating your comment from their actions, but that connection honestly did not occur to me. I didn't think of you as a theist who was being offended. It did not cross my mind that you might think I was comparing you to them. That connection makes no sense to me even now.

 

To be clear, I did not compare you to the protestors. I did not imply any correlation between your position and their actions. I am saying now that I did not mean to subtly suggest anything like that.

 

It is understandable to be upset if you think someone is comparing you to a murderous crazy person. I get that. Misunderstandings happen, especially with people we don't know, and it is very good we clear them up. To be very clear: if I thought you were comparable in any way to violent protestors I would say so directly and make no apologies for it. I haven't made that comparison because it wouldn't make sense. i realize I very often fail to, but I do always try to make good sense.

 

 

You can't help yourself, or you're doing it on purpose. I've explained myself already and I stand by what I've written before. There is no reason for us to continue this.

 

 

 

 

[MonDie]

I decided to look for any statistics on people who become irreligious. I found this.

http://www.pewforum....th-in-Flux.aspx

There is some relevant information under "Key Findings" "Entering and Leaving the Ranks of the Unaffiliated," but I didn't read the rest.

 

Although I first got the impression that the site was run by a religious organization, that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll have to look into it more. That site only concerns one of the projects run by the Pew Research Center, which studies U.S. trends.

http://en.wikipedia....Research_Center

Edited June 27, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Iggy]

You can't help yourself, or you're doing it on purpose.

I'm oddly comforted at not being accused of both.

 

There is no reason for us to continue this.

Clearly you are correct.

[music]

Sorry, I will continue it to say this:

 

I do not believe that I have misinterpreted Iggy's posts or his intentions, but if I have, I apologize.

 

However, for the record: nothing that I ever posted here (or anywhere else for that matter) implied that I condone acts such as the riots over the Mohammad cartoons, stoning women for adultery, or throwing acid in a girls' face. Applying a statement I made in an unrelated context to those situations, whether to imply that I oppose freedom of speech or in a later instance to imply that I might condone - as by "hoping" that I would not "disparage people who" oppose - such actions, was rhetorical gamesmanship unfair to me, to the words I wrote, and to the ideas I expressed.

 

To reiterate the latter (and bring us back on topic): the world is broken, but people who believe in God are not necessarily broken. They are bad philosophers, but as far as this issue alone goes I find no reason to further condemn religious believers as a whole, nor do I feel the emotional need to do so.

 

And to defend myself against possible misrepresentations of those ideas: When anyone - religious or otherwise - commits horrible acts such as murdering the innocent, torture, physical assault, sexual abuse, or even things like vandalism, bullying, or verbal assault, of course I would do and say more than that they are bad philosophers. Further, I explicitly affirm the right of people to say insulting things to each other, even if or when I don't find it productive or satisfying.

Edited June 27, 2012 by music

[tar]

It's not on-topic, but I suspect people would no longer defend it were it to be a muslim quote instead of a christian one.

 

I suspect you are right. But its not a Christian quote, its the quote of a christian, written by a student 40 or 50 years ago.

If a muslim student had written it in Bagdad it would look all squiggly and it would envoke Allah as the father and Judge, and say stuff about living as Mohammed would have lived, to thusly have the school bring credit upon Allah and his messenger and show that the students would strive to not fall into error, but live a proper life.

 

Rather on topic, if you ask me. It's about belief in God, being a real thing that people do. We can look for the psychological and societal and evolutionary reasons for it to be so, but its still real. Its not broken just because it doesn't fit your requirements for logical consistent thought.

 

And tied with the Pew study Monday's Assignment:Die linked, which shows that many Americans HAVE and do question the teachings of the faith they were brought up on, yet still have ties to religion or are looking for a deeper meaning, suggests to me that "Belief in God" does not equate to a broken, irrational, uneducated, childish, uninspected, unchallenged faith in puff the magic dragon.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 27, 2012 by tar

[Iggy]

I guess what I am saying, is that if you dismiss everything unreal and not evident that was ever said in any religious text about God, and there is something left standing, then THAT is what believers in God, are believing in, and they are not broken to believe in it, because it is true and existant.

Freud had an ok line on that in the Future of an Illusion,

 

Philosophers stretch the meaning of words until they retain scarcely anything of their original sense; by calling "God" some vague abstraction which they have created for themselves, they pose as deists, as believers, before the world; they may even pride themselves on having attained a higher and purer idea of God, although their God is nothing but an insubstantial shadow and no longer the mighty personality of religious doctrine. Critics persist in calling "deeply religious" a person who confesses to a sense of man's insignificance and impotence in the face of the universe, although it is not this feeling that constitutes the essence of religious emotion, but rather the next step, the reaction to it, which seeks a remedy against this feeling. He who goes no further, he who humbly acquiesces in the insignificant part man plays in the universe, is, on the contrary, irreligious in the truest sense of the word.

 

-Freud

 

I think if you dismiss the unreal and inevident parts, like you say, then it will be irreligious like Freud says.

 

I believe Einstein was always willing to call it the other way. If you've ever read Einstein on religion I think you would find a lot of the things you've been getting at...

 

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

 

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it.

 

-Einstein

 

You might like the article there. Originally in the New York Times in the 30's I think.

 

---

 

I do not believe that I have misinterpreted Iggy's posts or his intentions, but if I have, I apologize.

Fair enough.

 

To reiterate the latter (and bring us back on topic): the world is broken, but people who believe in God are not necessarily broken.

I agree, though I phrased it a little differently earlier in the thread. They are "not broken necessarily".

 

Who was that ruggedly handsome fella who said that religion would be ineradicable... normal to our species in a sense... as long as we remained a poorly evolved primate species? I wouldn't have it any other way. It is the struggle that defines us. We are normal for having something to struggle against.

[music]

Fair enough.

 

 

Ok. We'll move on from here.

 

 

[tar]

Iggy,

 

Yeah, I liked the article. This Einstein fellow must have been pretty smart.

 

We know a little more about the cosmos than he did 80 years ago. But probably, we can not know it any better. He seems to have been rather fully conscious of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

[tar]

I care less about the "why," and more about "how do we get people to stop doing that?" The why question is pretty simple in context of human psychology and sociology. The "how do we get people to stop using double standards and engaging in copious logical fallacies when the subject of religion or belief in god(s) comes up" is less simple.

 

Inow,

 

Just watched an episode of the 700 club (Pat Robertson) a few hours ago. I think I finally see your point.

 

It was an episode about a devil worshipper who overcame his "belief in the occult" through accepting Christ as his lord and savior.

Jesus defeated the devil and the devil was powerless against the authority of Christ.

 

It is quite broken in my estimation to believe that what is really happening in ones mind is coming from an outside magical force. When, as you say, it is quite straight forward to explain such struggles and victories in other real ways. A real inner strength, and inner weakness that come from our human rationality and our human frailities.

 

If one should give themselves authority to judge properly, and take responsibility for judging poorly, this would be enough. No Gods and demons need to be summoned to fight the battle. It is enough to simply reach out to each other, for help, and extend a helping hand when the need arises.

 

The "supernatural" powers that are envisioned, would be, in this take, our human powers to judge, misappropriately assigned to a magical non-existent, "supernatural" entity or two. Quite inappropriate to enforce this misappropriation on the rest of the world.

And though difficult, quite important to find a way to "get people to stop doing this".

 

Not stop them from judging properly, but stop them from pretending that their good judgements are guidance from God, and their bad judgements are the work of the devil.

 

I want to apologize for being an apologist for religious thinking. It, religious thinking, really is broken. And we do need to talk people out of it.

 

I am not recanting my arguments, just recognizing that what I am arguing for, is simply using good judgement, and giving other humans the benefit of the doubt. What I am arguing for, is NOT Pat Robertson's delusional beliefs. There are better things to believe in. MUCH better things

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

Just watched an episode of the 700 club (Pat Robertson) a few hours ago.

I just threw up a little bit... In my mouth.

 

I think I finally see your point.

<snip>

It is quite broken in my estimation to believe that what is really happening in ones mind is coming from an outside magical force. When, as you say, it is quite straight forward to explain such struggles and victories in other real ways. A real inner strength, and inner weakness that come from our human rationality and our human frailities.

<snip>

I want to apologize for being an apologist for religious thinking. It, religious thinking, really is broken. And we do need to talk people out of it.

 

I am not recanting my arguments, just recognizing that what I am arguing for, is simply using good judgement, and giving other humans the benefit of the doubt.

No apology needed. Thanks, though. Glad you've benefited from the exchange.

[MonDie]

I came across this video, which gives good social psychological insight into religion's relationship to prejudice.

http://thesciencenet...-nick-southwood

 

Here is my summary/spoiler:

Highlight the text to view it.

Although religious people are also vulnerable to mortality salience's affects on out-group/in-group prejudice, their religion actually provides a buffer against these effects. This is most likely because religion teaches that there is an afterlife. However, the guy in the yellow shirt asks a good question. How often are people mortality salient? Also, the speaker mentioned the idea of living on symbolically. Although this wasn't considered in the experiment, such an idea might provide a irreligious defence against the effects of mortality salience.

However, religion can also indoctrinate prejudices, and these prejudices are always present in the religious followers. But once again, relative to the non-affiliated, mortality salience only slightly strengthens the negative prejudice of the affiliated individuals.

But the experiment still shows the Social Dominance Orientation (defined in the video) is a strong predictor of prejudice for the affiliated and non-affiliated alike. It also strengthens older correlations between certain types of religiosity and levels of prejudice, reminding us that there a many dimensions to keep in mind.

I think I won't be back on for a while again. I just thought this would be something interesting to share.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

People who believe in god are broken. Still sounds about right, doesn't it?

[Ophiolite]

Come on, you know what I'm going to say. So, I won't say it.

[Villain]

People who believe in god are broken. Still sounds about right, doesn't it?

 

Did we ever define 'god' in this thread?

[Ophiolite]

Did we ever define 'god' in this thread?

Of course not. That would make too much sense and would inhibit further disagreement.

[jp255]

Some of the best posts were on the first page.

 

I would rather say that they are directed by a combination of genetic and cultural influences towards a pattern of behaviour that has often been highly productive in the development and maintenance of civilisation. As with all such behavioural expressions resulting from nature and nurture the results are not always highly productive.

 

There's also the poverty correlation, the details of which are discussed elsewhere, and that also comes with a poverty correlation with poor education.

These posts are great. There are various factors that can contribute to the behavior of belief, and the poverty correlation suggests poverty is an example of such a factor that can, at least in part, influence the process in which an individual adopts his/her beliefs. There are probably many other factors, genetic and environmental, that we have no knowledge of which also influence belief.

 

Many people have criticised the use of the term broken already, so I won't comment much on it. I wonder what labelling religious people as broken even achieves or allows for, and so I think it is unneccessary. I liked Zapatos' quote about the cars (I think it was Zapatos, not going to mine the thread for it), which when applied to this consideration says that you might think of religious people as broken and they might think of you as broken. Who is right and what is the point of this label?

 

Furthermore there has been a recent thread about belief and whether or not it is a choice. The conclusion that most reached was that it seems that there might not be choice in what you believe. If this is true, then again the label would merely seek to attach a negative description to a behavioral trait which can't be avoided (if it even needs to be avoided)? How would this help? Assigning the term broken to collection of people who adopt religious beliefs isn't very helpful.

 

 

 

Perhaps, but it may be a valid assertion all the same. I ask, why should we treat their belief in god(s) any differently than we would treat their belief in Puff the Magic Dragon being the reason why watermelons grow? We'd likely accept the latter as "broken, mentally ill, childish, or at least silly," so why the special deference for belief in a deity? What is the relevant distinction that second belief has earned that should result in all of us treating it differently than belief that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns?

 

I'm genuinely curious.

 

Many more people care about the belief of a deity than the beliefs such as the one you described. Why these memes are successful is more complicated but that is a simple answer that you knew already.

 

I think that religious belief and/or belief of a deity is influenced and potentially explained by genetic and environmental factors, and that there is perhaps no individual choice of which beliefs are adopted. I do agree that various aspects of some religious beliefs are a little extreme when they cause harm to others, but not all deity believers support them. I would agree on describing individuals who support the extreme aspects of deity beliefs as broken, but I don't think it is a useful term and I don't know how to define such individuals. If we could fix the broken extreme beliefs, then maybe it would be useful.

 

This seems like something that would be difficult to fix (if it needs to be fixed). Do we have much control over how the prevalence of these memes change? What solution would you propose to fix the broken people? Remove their vote?

 

 

 

 

[tar]

Some of the best posts were on the first page.

 

 

 

 

These posts are great. There are various factors that can contribute to the behavior of belief, and the poverty correlation suggests poverty is an example of such a factor that can, at least in part, influence the process in which an individual adopts his/her beliefs. There are probably many other factors, genetic and environmental, that we have no knowledge of which also influence belief.

 

Many people have criticised the use of the term broken already, so I won't comment much on it. I wonder what labelling religious people as broken even achieves or allows for, and so I think it is unneccessary. I liked Zapatos' quote about the cars (I think it was Zapatos, not going to mine the thread for it), which when applied to this consideration says that you might think of religious people as broken and they might think of you as broken. Who is right and what is the point of this label?

 

Furthermore there has been a recent thread about belief and whether or not it is a choice. The conclusion that most reached was that it seems that there might not be choice in what you believe. If this is true, then again the label would merely seek to attach a negative description to a behavioral trait which can't be avoided (if it even needs to be avoided)? How would this help? Assigning the term broken to collection of people who adopt religious beliefs isn't very helpful.

 

 

 

 

Many more people care about the belief of a deity than the beliefs such as the one you described. Why these memes are successful is more complicated but that is a simple answer that you knew already.

 

I think that religious belief and/or belief of a deity is influenced and potentially explained by genetic and environmental factors, and that there is perhaps no individual choice of which beliefs are adopted. I do agree that various aspects of some religious beliefs are a little extreme when they cause harm to others, but not all deity believers support them. I would agree on describing individuals who support the extreme aspects of deity beliefs as broken, but I don't think it is a useful term and I don't know how to define such individuals. If we could fix the broken extreme beliefs, then maybe it would be useful.

 

This seems like something that would be difficult to fix (if it needs to be fixed). Do we have much control over how the prevalence of these memes change? What solution would you propose to fix the broken people? Remove their vote?

 

jp255,

 

Interesting to me is the lack of specific "replacement" in the eyes and minds of "nonbelievers" for God. It always seems to be, "well its just reality", or its "all just chance interactions of energy and matter"... like that really is answering the primary question.

 

If people that believe in God need to be fixed, then I would suggest that people that believe in reality also need to be fixed. And then of course, the question would be "what is the alternative to reality?" It seems rather obvious that reality is equally real to all of us. And interestingly, it is the SAME reality that we all seem to be involved in. When I do something in "my" reality, it is done in yours, as well. And vice-a-versa.

 

Where the objection to "God" seems to be, is in whether or not there is a consciousness that is in control of reality, that keeps us in mind, in one way or another, for good or for ill. This gets complicated and confusing, when one clearly understands that there are indeed "other" consciousnesses that have great bearing on our personal existence, and that when taken together, really do "control" a great deal of our reality. But who, even when taken together, do not seem to control hurricanes, earthquakes, meteors, or even the growth of brain cell connections in a developing fetus.

 

There is great power and control of reality that the constituents of reality have over it. Conscious or not.

 

I personally do not know how to metabolize the food I eat. I don't pay any attention to it. I do not focus on it, or have to think about it, to have it happen. It is crucial to my existence, and "I" seem to be able to do it, completely unaware of it happening. So who is "controlling" this metabolism? Is it me? Or not? It is not science, it is not Thor, it is not Allah. But the thing that IS controlling my metabolism is real and worthy of consideration greater than considering it just an accident. I am very much metabolizing on purpose.

 

Such with the world, and the universe and reality. We may not be in control of it. It may not be doing anything consciously. But it most certainly is doing what it does, on its own. And since I am 100% of it, and in it, I am certainly alllowed to take responsibilty for it, and assign it, with the responsibility for me.

 

There really is no other source for me, and no other destination.

 

So, since we have not "defined" God, I think it important, in deciding who is broken and who is not, to give the person of beliefs that "differ" from yours, the benefit of the doubt, and think first of what exactly they may be referring to, that is something you already know, by a different name, and simply make the translation from their language to your own, before condemnation of their "beliefs".

 

Regards, Tom Roth aka TAR2

Edited November 27, 2012 by tar

[A Tripolation]

People who believe in god are broken. Still sounds about right, doesn't it?

 

I believe in God.

I do not think I am broken in any sense of the word. I didn't think it on the first or second page and I do not think that now.

Therefore, your statement cannot possibly be true.