Stan Nelson, news editor of the Pueblo Chieftain, writes:
Christians always should pay attention when atheists speak, and especially when they take the lectern in the public square. They bring up a lot of important points that believers should think about.
For one example, Dawkins' strong suit is his argument against the rationality of belief in God.
Unfortunately, not everything he writes is as fair or as accurate:
The truth is that atheism and religion stand on the same, blood-soaked level, one as culpable as the other. But the reason for that is atheism and religion are not strict opposites. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but of faith, specifically in God or, for that matter, any god or gods. Religion is the demonstration of faith, defined in prosaic terms in James' epistle: "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
Faith is the basic idea of belief - "the substance of things hoped for," as the writer of Hebrews put it. Does faith kill? Well, we can say that people have been killed because of their faith. Often, those people accepted their beliefs despite the threat of death....
So we're left with the dismal fact that religion and atheism can kill, because as practical belief systems, they allow such abuse, even if they should not. Investigation and experience tell us, however, that faith can and does save life, sometimes in a quite practical sense, in too many examples to list here.
Does atheism do that?
Stan Nelson comes so close to saying the right and accurate things, but then at the last minute falls short. Because of this, I decided that instead of immediately writing a critical blog post, I thought I would write directly to Stan Nelson. I thought that it would be more productive and might even lead to real progress.
Oh, how wrong I was. Here is my first email:
You came so close to saying so many correct things about atheism, but then at the last moments fell so far short, that your column was actually more disappointing that the vast majority of pieces which completely misrepresent atheism from beginning to end.
This was true, almost: "Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but of faith, specifically in God or, for that matter, any god or gods."
It would be more accurate to say that atheism is not the opposite of religion, but the opposite of theism - or, more accurately, the lack of theism. A theist is a person who believes in at least one god of some sort, but they don't necessarily have "faith" in the traditional Christian sense. An atheist is a person without theism, not simply without a traditional Christian sort of theism.
Here, however, you go very wrong: "So we're left with the dismal fact that religion and atheism can kill, because as practical belief systems, they allow such abuse, even if they should not."
This is an error that many make. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
All this is why your final comment goes so far wrong: "Investigation and experience tell us, however, that faith can and does save life, sometimes in a quite practical sense, in too many examples to list here. Does atheism do that?"
You're comparing apples and oranges here: specific types of theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) against a mere data point that is part of various belief systems (atheism). Does the absence of belief in angels save a life? Does the absence of belief in aliens save a life? Those are nonsensical questions. It would also be nonsensical to ask if the mere presence of such beliefs save life. The same is true about the presence or absence of belief in gods. Such questions only make sense about coherent belief systems which are capable of inspiring or motivating people to action, not data points which by themselves are unable or at least highly unlikely to motivate anyone in any direction.
What you need to compare is theistic belief systems against atheistic belief systems, not theism against atheistic belief systems or atheism against theistic belief systems. Compare theistic Christianity to atheistic Buddhism, or theistic Islam to atheistic Humanism. Those are just comparisons. Mere atheism and theism, with nothing added, don't motivate anyone to do anything. Theistic and atheistic belief systems, which incorporate a great deal more than the mere presence or absence of belief in any gods, may motivate people to do good or ill.
Stan Nelson's response: "The argument that atheism is not a belief system is just too illogical."
That's pretty disappointing — especially in how quickly dismissive the response was. There is no effort to either directly reject anything I wrote or to substantively support the opposite. I would have expected a newspaper's editor to care about learning something new and gaining information about the world. However, I tried to persevere by explaining what the definition of atheism is. I included:
When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you. If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?
After a couple of minutes, you'll find that you can't point to any such thing. There is no "belief system" shared by all those atheists. Some, like the Objectivists and communists, are practically at each other's throats they disagree on so much. These are all very different and incompatible belief systems that atheists hold, just as theists all hold different, varying, and incompatible belief systems. If you tell me you're a theist, there is nothing I can assume about any of your other beliefs. When I tell you I'm an atheist, there is nothing you can assume about any of my other beliefs.
That's to be expected if theism and atheism aren't belief systems.
Unfortunately, Stan Nelson basically ignored everything I wrote and continued to insist that it's "illogical" for atheism to be a belief system, saying in part:
The irony of unbelief is that is stands as a belief. Therefore, no belief system - even if it's a belief in nothing - is based on unbelief. And therefore, atheism supports a belief system, and therefore, stands as a belief system.
Pretty sad that someone who doesn't understand that is a source author for about.com - and apparently has spent a great deal of energy in support of an argument (which it still is) that doesn't hold water.
Even if we define atheism very narrowly as the denial of the existence of any gods, Stan Nelson never explains how that can be a belief system. I have spent a fair amount of time writing out explanations about this. For some reason, there are quite a few religious theists — mostly Christians — who can't wrap their minds around the idea that an absence of belief in gods is not and cannot, by definition, be a belief system. People have no trouble recognizing that an absence of belief in elves is not a belief system, that a denial of the existence of Bigfoot is not a belief system, and that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
When the word "god" enters the conversation, though, all that common sense suddenly evaporates. I've never been able to figure out why, but I thought it a good idea to have multiple lines of explanation available for those who have trouble understanding the basics. Unfortunately, it seems that I have failed. Despite how simple the definition is, I have been unable to make it comprehensible to Stan Nelson.
In cases like Stan Nelson's, though, it's hard not to describe the situation as anything less than sheer arrogance: despite apparently knowing absolutely nothing about atheism or atheists, he still feels qualified to assert that he has a better understanding about the "real nature" of atheism than atheists themselves. In fact, he appears to be so convinced of his position that he doesn't feel any need to justify, explain, or support it — it appears that he considers it sufficient to just keep repeating it over and over. He doesn't need to explain why so many others are wrong nor does he need to explain why his position is correct; instead, he just needs to say it and that should settle matters.
Perhaps others can do better? If you have an idea about how better explain why atheism alone cannot be an entire belief system, you can contact Stan Nelson via his newspaper email address. You can also write a Letter to the Editor (also: email) to complain about a news editor who misrepresents the topic of his editorial, or even just write to the managing editor if you really want (though I'm not sure what that would accomplish). If you do write anything, please post your messages here so we can all learn more.
in other words, the question is: is not beieving something a belief system?
If I say “I do not believe so,” would Stan Nelson tell me that this is another belief system I have?
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.
In his defense, Stan Nelson does seem to provide this line of reasoning:
– Unbelief stands as a belief. This goes against the plain meaning of unbelief.
– Therefore, no belief system is based on unbelief. This appears to support Austin if we identify atheism as an unbelief.
– Therefore, atheism supports a belief system. A non-sequitur.
– Therefore, atheism stands as a belief system. Another non-sequitur.
With that kind of logic, Nelson may have solved many of the world’s problems in one swoop. We can now say the unemployed are hard at work with not having a job, the impoverished are well invested in having no money, the homeless are dwelling in their spectacular no homes and the hungry are gorging themselves on no food. I think Nelson deserves a Noble Prize for his work here.
You make an excellent point comparing atheism to theism itself.
Nelson’s comments to you were incredibly condescending. After the article I didn’t think he could go much lower in my books, but that’s done it.
If anyone’s interested, I’ve written my response to the article here.
Atheism does have an intellectual tradition and a set of starting assumptions like “religion is hokum”. If it ever did have a belief system, there would be an “atheist” standing outside and shooting at it.
John Hanks wrote: Atheism does have an intellectual tradition and a set of starting assumptions like “religion is hokum”.
I’m more inclined to say that the “religion is hokum” is a conclusion of atheism, rather than a defining assumption. One can easily be an atheist and a religionist (although obviously not a theist).
Stan Nelson must be an idiot.
>“religion is hokum”
There are secular Buddhists. I assume they approve of the Buddist religion, even though they’re atheists. Also, I don’t recall that Taoism requires a belief in god, either. I doubt those are the only two religions that might apply to atheists–but they’re two that come immediately to my mind.
Proving that god or gods do not exist and never have existed is a daunting task, in so far as proving anything does not exist somewhere is more or less impossible. At very least “god” does exist as a concept, the same way “freedom” and “justice” exist. Whether or not god exists as 1 or more entities is another matter. The aetheist believes god exists as zero entities. Whether this is a belief or a system of belief is a trivial semantic issue. I believe in disbelief. But I would leave room for the possibility that many things that exist are not apparent to our senses.
Proof is a mathematical concept.
Hard to believe that the newspapers are all sinking, with thought-leaders such as Stan at their helms.
I disagree with those who say it is impossible to prove that there is NO God.
Th easiest way is to find verifiable evidence for the EXISTENCE of any God. I have searched for over seven decades. So far not one piece of evidence. Ergo God does not exist.
For such a rationalist, you seem to have forgotten a basic principle: The existence of evidence proves existence; however, the absence of such does not prove non-existence. It’s part of the scientific method and allows for further inquiry. Imagine if Newton’s laws were finite and disproved the existence of any other parallel theories. Where would Einstein be? Heisenberg? Planck? Fresnel? Curie? This is why I am agnostic. If a computer whose A.I. programming was based off a rationalistic point-of-view was asked the same question, he would say the same thing: there is no way to empirically disprove the existence of a higher-power. If said power manifested itself and shook your hand and had a beer with you, then there wouldn’t be a doubt of his existence. Am I right, or am I right?
No one claims that an absence of evidence is proof of absence; what is claimed is that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence – and that’s true.
If Newton’s laws disproved any other theories, then Newton’s laws would be complete and we wouldn’t need any other theories.
Do you even know what atheism is?
And why not?
Great work Austin. I followed the links you provided.
> … all that common sense suddenly evaporates. I’ve never been able to figure out why, …
Human beings almost universally wear clothes in public, and we have been doing so since the beginning of recorded history. “Not wearing clothes in public” – nudism – can arguably be described as a hobby.
It’s because almost every human being who has ever lived has been born into, lived, and died theism that theism is today the “default state” of any given individual. Removing that belief is like removing one’s clothes at the mall. It’s not really hurting anyone, but people are sure going to look at you like you’re crazy.
@Nougat
No, NUDISM is a “hobby”, you twat.
Not wearing clothes isn’t a hobby. Nudism is a “hobby”, as it creates a hobby out of no wearing clothes. Not wearing clothes by itself is NOT a hobby.
It’s not a hobby when you take your clothes off to have a shower. It’s just the lack of clothes.
It is nobodies fault but their own if someone cannot figure out that difference, especially in relation to atheism.
Could you provide the source for your claim that, “almost every human being who has ever lived has been born into, lived, and died theism”? I ask because I am a father, and neither I nor my son seem to have been born with your theistic “default state”, nor for that matter has anyone I’ve ever met. I wouldn’t want to put personally subjective evidence over well thought out, researched, and substantiated facts, so if you could please provide your source material…
He doesn’t say “born with” he says “born into” – I think he’s talking about society, and thus the “default state” is the one created by society for us. None of us are “born with” clothing, but we are “born into” a society of clothing and wearing clothing is indeed a “default state” of society today.
Basically, the two points under discussion can be stated as: “I do not believe in god” (atheism) or “I believe there is no god” (antitheism). Antitheism is actually a belief, where atheism is not.
This entire argument is really quite silly, and yet another example of “Cultural Warfare by Semantics” that has been practiced time and time again. I believe there’s a word for that, also: “Propaganda”.
Simply not believing in elves is not much of a belief system.
But, not believing in elves so far as to actively try to disprove elves, blog that elves don’t exist, spend money advertising that elves don’t exist, and take the time and effort and resources to ridicule elf believers (i.e. Celts), then it most definately turns into a belief system.
I do subscribe that proactive Atheism is indeed a belief system. Atheism has leaders, has agendas, has literature and arguments, has followers. It’s organized, though different from a church or Moose Lodge. And it, too, is deadly — see human rights violations, espicially those of China and early to mid Soviet Union. You can’t tell me the Dalai Lama and Buddhists started the violence, death, destruction, and torture, between them and Red China. Though, you will try…
Or that the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Gypsies, and other religeous groups started the conflicts between them and their murderous governments. Though you will try…
And you wonder why Israelies are armed to the teeth – simply to never let the autrocities against them happen again. Violence brought upon them by wicked men. Yeah, yeah, you’ll say Hitler used Christianity as a tool, but Christians and Gypsies were imprisoned and killed, too. And the Catholic Church helped thousands of Jews escape the brutality. Though, I’m sure you’ll tell me otherwise…
Definately, atheism has it’s leaders and followers.
when someone tells you a story and then asks if you believe the story and you say ” no I don’t believe the story”!
This is your definition of a belief system Petie!
A CONCLUSION is NOT a belief, it is a CONCLUSION!
When you have actually learned English beyond the 5th grade level you might actually be able to understand what you read!
The people who promote the position that atheism is a belief system are no doubt confused between humanism and atheism or they lack fine control over their gunsights. Not all atheists are humanists, but probably the majority would majorly agree with the various humanist manifestos that are extant around the world. It is secular humanism that the theists are getting their wigs displaced over because that is a genuine world view that is anti-theist, organized, and humanists speak out. Humanists are thoughtful and kind and do leave room for freedom of consciousness as all thinking people must. They just want religion to go back to being a private matter, like masturbation, gluttony, nudity and other self-gratifications that are best not paraded in public.
Fine, atheism is not a “belief system”, but rather it’s an “unbelief system”. That is to say that, at it’s core, atheism is nothing more that a PRACTICE of unbelief. So while atheism may NOT be a belief system, there is no denying that atheism IS a practice ( or system) of one’s unbelief.
… and to think, it took you a whole article just to point that out… simply, UNbelievable.
No, it’s not a system. It’s just the absence of belief in gods.
How does one “practice” unbelief?
Sure there is. I don’t “practice” anything at all.
And to think, I didn’t say any such thing in the article because it’s false.
I believe when I turn on a light switch a light will go on. I believe when I turn on the key in my 2005 Corolla it will start. Belief is from a series of events occurring for us to draw logical conclusions. Flipping the switch so many times and achieving the same result forces me to draw a conclusion based on the evidence. My belief won’t change until the result changes. If the light switch fails a few times I have to wonder is my belief wrong or is the light broken. Everyone has a belief in the simplest things like turning on a light to the more complex such as believing in god. To not to believe in god is a belief just as turning a light switch is a belief. The question is if the light doesn’t work is the belief wrong or is something wrong? If one doesn’t believe in god is the belief that there is no god correct or is there something broken?
To rick copen. Going by your logic choosing not do something qualifies as a “belief.” Such as not buying a house or choose not to have a pool built. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying silence is a sound.
The common atheist belief is obviously the belief that everything make sense, all thou this is a non proven assumption.
All logic is in the end based on belief.
OK, prove it.
Ok. You have this. I can’t prove that every atheist believe that everything make sense.
But there is a problem with definitions. Who has the right to call themselves an atheist, if there is no valid definition of atheism.
If atheism is absences of belief, an atheist must prove absolute absences of belief, in every sense, to fit the definition of and atheist.
There is a valid definition of atheism: the absence of belief in gods.
No, atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If a person lacks belief in gods, they are an atheist. If they believe in at least one god of some sort, they are a theist. A person doesn’t need to “prove” anything in this respect unless someone challenges their self-description as atheist or theist.
This makes it all a lot simpler.
From my point of view an atheist does not have to prove any statement stating the position “not believe in any god” it is a non questionable statement.
In the same way that just about any report about the state of your mind is “non-questionable.” We normally take such reports at face value except in the presence of strong counter-evidence.
Ok. light me up.
The statement “atheist is a person that don’t believe in Gods” is not valid? According to you, this is the definition of atheism? Is there more? A person can only call himself an atheist if he can hold strong counter evidence that this is his true belief?
I give you a hint. You will never be able to prove anything. An atheist is in the end bounded by exactly the same definitions that a theist. It is the same logic
No, that’s a true statement.
According to the dictionary.
No.
I can’t make any sense out of that.
Speak for yourself.
Feel free to show how.
I do not have a religion but atheism is clearly a system of beliefs.They believe in the non existence of something and that is so simple to see.They believe an idea is true and they pass their vision to others through the repetition of this idea by words and images.Plain comunication of a subjective vision and story.
Since atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods, it cannot be a system of beliefs.
Even if what you say were true, that would be a single belief. Guess what? A single belief cannot be a system of beliefs. So not only are you making two errors, you are making two contradictory errors.
This leads me to believe that it’s not so much a simple error but rather a directed error — that is to say, the errors at not so much mistakes by rather exist to serve some larger purpose. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish or rationalize by misrepresenting atheism?
The athiests are not monolithic. Some are mean, some are nice. What a person wants to believe in is a matter of personal business. So, to be an athiest, is a matter of personal business. Great Day!
Stan Nelson is the news editor of the Pueblo Chieftain and H.L. Menken was an editor and critic. If I were given the task of defining the word “journalism” based on such of their writings as I am familiar, I would really be in trouble. Quite plainly, to me it seems, H.L. Menken would have been a terrible McDonalds manager.
Grandpa
when a group of people share an opinion, be it political, social, intellectual, or religious…the word belief describes the shared opinion. Wouldn’t you say that Atheists share the opinion that god does not exist? That is their belief.
religion: a set of opinions concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Atheists have a set of opinions. 1. god does not exist 2. theists are wrong. 3. the universe has no purpose 4. the universe was not created …
Sure looks like a set of beliefs about our origins to me.
Atheism might not have rites, rituals, creeds, or doctrines… it might not be an organized or corporate institution, but it most clearly is a set of beliefs about the origin of the universe. If you did not have opinions(beliefs) about it…you would have nothing to say, and since it can be demonstrated that a SET of common beliefs(opinions) is shared by atheists, atheism is a religion.
No. That’s not the definition of atheism.
So, that’s all religion is? It has nothing to do with salvation, gods, or anything else?
The first is wrong. The second is simply saying that they aren’t theists. The third is wrong. The fourth is also wrong.
Only if you have no idea what atheism is.
You mean, it lacks all those things normally used to characterize religion. But, it’s somehow still a religion?
The fact that atheists have opinions doesn’t mean atheism is a belief or belief system. Tall people have opinions, but is tallness a belief or belief system? A religion?
try to read all the words please. and read your dictionary.
I am atheist. The condensed points I made apply to all my atheist friends. We do indeed share opinions about the origin of the universe, namely that god exists only as concept, that if the universe was created, it’s creator is not a god, that needing an invisible friend is silly….we can indeed trace a set of opinions to atheists. Of course, there’s atheists who believe in spontaneous origin, and others who believe in causality , so atheism has it’s sects, or cults, just like religions do. In the strictest sense, no matter how much it brings bile to the back of our mouth, a SET of opinions SHARED by a GROUP is a religion. Don’t blame me, I didn’t write the dictionary.
Frank, you said that “If you did not have opinions(beliefs) about it [atheism]…you would have nothing to say,”
Well, you, yourself, were born without opinions or beliefs, therefore you were born an atheist, right? When did you change into a theist? Certainly such a glorious happening would be remembered. Or, more likely, you were indoctrinated slowly even before your brain (mind) had become anywhere near full development (and you don’t remember) and now you cannot help but “believe.” Is that true?
The only reason I have anything to say to you is because you go so far out of your way to provoke response. This is an atheist Website! Why is that, Frank? Why are you, obviously, so troubled by those who do not share YOUR opinions (beliefs)? If you didn’t blabber your opinions (beliefs), no atheist would have anything to say to you, now would they?
Thanks, in advance, for your response.
Grandpa
heh… why do you jump to the conclusion that i’m a theist. I’m not. I happen to believe all gods of religion are manmade, I just pointed out that by the dictionary definition of religion…atheism fits as well as any of them. I don’t provoke anything. merely reciting the dictionary. It’s true, when we’re born, we have zero beliefs…but not knowing about a “god” of theology, like an infant, is not atheism… it’s just not knowing. You have to know about god, in order to choose not to believe in it, but you better have your own opinions about the origin of the universe, not shared by others, or you’re subject to the dictionary definition of religion.
Well said Grandpa.
The theists like Frank, who peer out at the World from the bunker they have constructed from holy scripture, cannot seem to understand that atheists don’t share their need for a sheltered retreat, where they can huddle together and reassure each other with their common dogmatic beliefs.
On the contrary atheists tend to be very individualistic which is why we get expressions like – “As hard as trying to herd atheists”. The only common goal of atheists is that we want to rid ourselves, and society, of the oppressive yoke of religion.
Religion that persecutes homosexuals.
Religion that subjugates women and stops them from having control over their own bodies.
Religion that stops scientific achievement – particularly in medicine.
Religion that seeks to keep our children stupid.
Religion that causes wars.
Etc.
The list is seemingly endless.
My humble apologies Frank for calling you a theist if you are indeed an atheist. You do make some funny noises for an atheist however, which just goes to show that you don’t have to be religious to be silly – although it helps.
At the risk of sounding trite the point has been made repeatedly by many, including Austin above, that not believing something is not a belief system and is not a religion. We don’t have special words to label people that don’t believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. If we were to invent a word that labeled these people – afairiests perhaps – would it then follow that we could assert that this constituted a religion?
Tom Edgar said:
“I disagree with those who say it is impossible to prove that there is NO God.
Th easiest way is to find verifiable evidence for the EXISTENCE of any God. I have searched for over seven decades. So far not one piece of evidence. Ergo God does not exist.”
If you have ever taken any logic classes you would know that lack of evidence does not prove anything. The continued search for some evidence simply makes what you are trying to prove more unlikely. The chance of an entity existing as “God” will never be 0% due to lack of proof. It can just get pretty dang close.
I also understand the concept that the unbelief in something is still a belief even if it is in nothing. It is the same as standing there and someone asks “what are you doing”? to which you respond “nothing”. while you are not conciously doing anything, you are still standing there, breathing, thinking, etc… By definition, when you have no proof for something you believe to be true, it is a belief. Atheism is not the lack of belief, but a belief that there is no god. Since it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, everything that is thought to not exist is BELIEVED to not exist. In short, everything that can be said to be believed in can have someone say “I believe the opposite to be true”.
If you have ever taken any science classes, you would know that a lack of evidence can be taken as strong evidence in certain cases.
Claiming that you “understand” something which is patently false does not give you much credibility.
No, it’s not, because belief is not an action.
By definition? Funny how you can’t cite any such definition – you just assert a falsehood and expect people to defer to you because you say it’s a “definition”.
And that’s simply a lie. You should invest a little time learning about atheism before saying such ridiculously false things about it.
That’s a lie, too. Before I encountered your post, I lacked belief in your intelligent. I didn’t believe you were unintelligent – I couldn’t, because I had no knowledge or information on which to base such a conclusion. I also didn’t believe you were intelligent for the same reasons, lack of information.
So I simply lacked any belief in the existence of your intelligence.
Now I’m better informed, though, and I no longer merel lack belief.
Frank says he is not a theist and he tells us to read the dictionary.
Why, Frank? Don’t you think that reading the dictionary to prove there is a “God” is pretty stupid, to say the least.
I have a Marriam-Webster dictionary that says “atheist: one who denies the existence of God.”
If you write a dictionary that witnesses for the existance of “G”od, then you are a theist.
If you direct people to such a dictionary for its definition of atheist, you, also, are also a witness for “God.” A theist.
Why can’t the Frank of this Blog understand that he is a theist?
Or just plain skrewed up.
Grandpa