Obi1kenobi:


And the common benchmark of all atheists is a lack of belief in supreme deities: whether strong, weak or whatever. Everyone that is atheist has no belief in the supernatural. It's not that complex at all. And I'm not sure why you're making it sound like atheism should have some kind of codified tenets or something. That is for religious people. We don't get to rehearse our beliefs or unbeliefs to get them to rhyme in perfect symphony.

false, There are several rather distinct subgroups of atheists. Buddhists, for example, are very different from western atheist. Making this atheism even more harder to demonstrate. Not all religious follow a codify law, there are both structured and unstructured religion. I am a pagan and my religion is unstructured. These are just some few example..

vaxx:
false, There are several rather distinct subgroups of atheists. Buddhists, for example, are very different from western atheist. Making this atheism even more harder to demonstrate. Not all religious follow a codify law, there are both structured and unstructured religion. I am a pagan and my religion is unstructured. These are just some few example..

How the hell is it false? You can be atheist and a Buddhist. They are not mutually exclusive. I can't see the point you're making. Pointing out that atheists don't all have the same belief is like saying not all liberals or conservatives or christians or communists believe the same thing. It's just a pointless assertion really. Of course many atheists differ in how they think because we're humans and not programmed robots. What exactly is your point?

Obi1kenobi:


I'm agnostic and I'm more than happy to identify as atheist too. Atheism is broadly defined in the English lexicon as a lack of belief, or disbelief in the existence of deities: a broad definition that includes agnosticism. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Agnosticism itself also has broad definitions including those who believe deities to be unknown and those who believe deities to be unknowable. It's all quibbling over semantics and trifles and is not a substantive argument.

Being mutually exclusive is not the real point but that one is valid while the other is not.
Belief, doubt and disbelief are all related but entirely different concepts depending on the contexts in which they are being used. In this case each one is totally different from the other but it's also possible to hold all the three or two of these concepts at the same time but that doesn't make all or any of them valid.
Then theism or atheism may be substantive or insubstantive depending on the one involved. For example, some theists based their beliefs on facts or personal substantial evidence while some just hold their belief either by mere feelings or some logically theories, same thing applies to atheists. Now, either by substance or mere belief, to hold that there is no God is impossible or false. There can never be any logic or proofs for believing or claiming that there is no God. The worst valid side anyone can be on is to doubt the existence or God, maybe or maybe not God exists which is agnosticism.

Obi1kenobi:


How the hell is it false? You can be atheist and a Buddhist. They are not mutually exclusive. I can't see the point you're making. Pointing out that atheists don't all have the same belief is like saying not all liberals or conservatives or christians or communists believe the same thing. It's just a pointless assertion really. Of course many atheists differ in how they think because we're humans and not programmed robots. What exactly is your point?

You are now denying that Buddhism can't go along with atheism. Of course I am expecting this, even when the philosophy and thought of Buddhism is synonymous to atheism, more resources out there are pointing that buddism is an atheistic concept, you denying it does not invalidate that decision.


My point is, the philosophy that hold atheism is irrational in all standard and I have gave reasons as regards to that. There's nothing to make sense of. Atheism . It is not a "thing nor believe as some claim . Atheism is a lack of faith in any gods, so if it is anything, it's a lack of a "thing".so how does that sound rational?

vaxx:
You are now denying that Buddhism can't go along with atheism. Of course I am expecting this, even when the philosophy and thought of Buddhism is synonymous to atheism, more resources out there are pointing that buddism is an atheistic concept, you denying it does not invalidate that decision.


My point is, the philosophy that hold atheism is irrational in all standard and I have gave reasons as regards to that. There's nothing to make sense of. Atheism . It is not a "thing nor believe as some claim . Atheism is a lack of faith in any gods, so if it is anything, it's a lack of a "thing".so how does that sound rational?

Lack of something is not rational?

On what ground is rationalism based as regards lack or possession of something?

vaxx:
Buddhism is synonymous to atheism.

No it isn't! Perhaps you don't know the meaning of synonymous!

While the contemplative elite may deny the real existence of gods and demons together with the rest of phenomenal existence, the majority of Buddhists from the earliest times in India, and in other countries where Buddhism has spread, have never neglected indigenous religious beliefs.

johnydon22:


Lack of something is not rational?

On what ground is rationalism based as regards lack or possession of something?

things in this case can be knowledge, belief and faith. And if the branch of philosophy you subscribe to is lacking all these. Will it not make sense to call it ignorance or irrational?

vaxx:
You are now denying that Buddhism can't go along with atheism. Of course I am expecting this, even when the philosophy and thought of Buddhism is synonymous to atheism, more resources out there are pointing that buddism is an atheistic concept, you denying it does not invalidate that decision.

Buddhism is not a theistic religion. Being a Buddhist is not incompatible with being an atheist. What am I denying. I can't make head or tail of what you're saying so maybe you need to provide clarity.

My point is, the philosophy that hold atheism is irrational in all standard and I have gave reasons as regards to that. There's nothing to make sense of. Atheism . It is not a "thing nor believe as some claim . Atheism is a lack of faith in any gods, so if it is anything, it's a lack of a "thing".so how does that sound rational?

Of course it's irrational to people who have spent their entire lives in irrationality. There is nothing rational about committing oneself to deities you have no personal relationship with. Whether you're a pagan or Christian or whatever, same applies. A lack of belief in gods is no different from a lack of beliefs in fairies and unicorns. Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship. A Christian doesn't believe in Thor or Jupiter or Sango. I guess his lack of belief in those things is irrational, right?

budaatum:

No it isn't! Perhaps you don't know the meaning of synonymous!

While the contemplative elite may deny the real existence of gods and demons together with the rest of phenomenal existence, the majority of Buddhists from the earliest times in India, and in other countries where Buddhism has spread, have never neglected indigenous religious beliefs.

You are committing etymological fallacy...

Gods are irrelevant in Buddhism, although some Hindu deities appear in Buddhist scriptures. They are there as frauds in some cases, as ignorant beings subject to the same law of karma as humans, and i am suprised that you being a students and defenders of Buddhism. Still believe in such crap. This tales of religious ritual are later additions to scripture composed in the spirit of upaya, Skill in Means, for the benefit of those still mired in superstition.

Gratefulheart1:

Being mutually exclusive is not the real point but that one is valid while the other is not.
Belief, doubt and disbelief are all related but entirely different concepts depending on the contexts in which they are being used. In this case each one is totally different from the other but it's also possible to hold all the three or two of these concepts at the same time but that doesn't make all or any of them valid.
Then theism or atheism may be substantive or insubstantive depending on the one involved. For example, some theists based their beliefs on facts or personal substantial evidence while some just hold their belief either by mere feelings or some logically theories, same thing applies to atheists. Now, either by substance or mere belief, to hold that there is no God is impossible or false. There can never be any logic or proofs for believing or claiming that there is no God. The worst valid side anyone can be on is to doubt the existence or God, maybe or maybe not God exists which is agnosticism.

No theist bases their belief on any empirical or evident fact. The theist definition of fact is "XYZ exists. I can't explain how XYZ came to exist, so there must be something supernatural explaining XYZ's existence". That is not a fact.
And not many atheists in this world spend any time thinking about proving that God does not exist. To me, it's a strawman raised by religious people. They're usually more concerned with proving the religious beliefs of people are myths. Talking about proving whether divine deities exist to many atheists is no different to telling them to prove that there are no fairies flying around in their garden. They're more than happy to appreciate the beauty and tranquility of their garden without inventing mythical beings to add to the wonder of the garden.

Obi1kenobi:


Buddhism is not a theistic religion. Being a Buddhist is not incompatible with being an atheist. What am I denying. I can't make head or tail of what you're saying so maybe you need to provide clarity

You are denying the philosophical backbone of Buddhism, and you denying it does not invalidate those resources written in support of it..

Of course it's irrational to people who have spent their entire lives in irrationality. There is nothing rational about committing oneself to deities you have no personal relationship with.

yes it is irrational for people of higher esteem like Carl saga, Albert Einstein and john lennux ( professor of mathemathics at oxford university)The inability of those who deem it not irrational are those who failed to acknowledge it is not comparable with reasons.

Whether you're a pagan or Christian or whatever, same applies. A lack of belief in gods is no different from a lack of beliefs in fairies and unicorns. Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship. A Christian doesn't believe in Thor or Jupiter or Sango. I guess his lack of belief in those things is irrational, right?

Non sequitur fallacy, a worshiper of jupiter is not invalidating the non existence of Sango, he is only invalidating the non authorship of sango. So it depends on the characteristic of what make that faith.

Even of at all, theistic God are the same according to Aquinas. because

1. logically prior to multitude there is unity

2. every composition admits of multitude

3. God is logically prior to all things

4. there is no composition in God

vaxx:
You are committing etymological fallacy...

Gods are irrelevant in Buddhism, although some Hindu deities appear in Buddhist scriptures. They are there as frauds in some cases, as ignorant beings subject to the same law of karma as humans, and i am suprised that you being a students and defenders of Buddhism. Still believe in such crap. This tales of religious ritual are later additions to scripture composed in the spirit of upaya, Skill in Means, for the benefit of those still mired in superstition.

I would agree if you called it a "reality fallacy". There are sects in Buddhism that acknowledge the existence of deities, and the majority of Buddhists worship those deities even if by doing so they have misunderstood the teachings of the Buddha himself.

A similar misunderstanding occurs when some Christians say God approves of the killing of sinners. A false doctrine I'd say, but one held all the same.

budaatum:

I would agree if you called it a "reality fallacy". There are sects in Buddhism that acknowledge the existence of deities, and the majority of Buddhists worship those deities even if by doing so they have misunderstood the teachings of the Buddha himself.

A similar misunderstanding occurs when some Christians say God approves of the killing of sinners. A false doctrine I'd say, but one held all the same.

And that change the status quo of the concept of Buddhism, which elites folk has describe to akin with atheism.

vaxx:
You are denying the philosophical backbone of Buddhism, and you denying it does not invalidate those resources written in support of it..

I still have made no head or tail from this. Fact 1: Buddhism is not a theistic religion. Fact 2: Being Buddhist is not mutually exclusive from being atheist. What is the "it" that I am denying? What am I denying?

yes it is irrational for people of higher esteem like Carl saga, Albert Einstein and john lennux ( professor of mathemathics at oxford university)The ability flor those who deem it not irrational are those who failed to acknnkedge it is comparable with reasons.

Einstein a few times in his life when lost in poetry expressed pantheistic thoughts. But was quoted calling himself atheist. And another time calling himself agnostic. I'm pretty certain he found nothing rational about theistic belief.

Non sequitur fallacy, a worshiper of jupiter is not invalidating the non existence of Sango, he is only invalidating the non authorship of sango. So it depends on the characteristic of what make that faith.

Even of at all, theistic God are the same according to Aquinas. because

1. logically prior to multitude there is unity

2. every composition admits of multitude

3. God is logically prior to all things

4. there is no composition in God

Says who? Is that what the Jupiter worshiper told you? I've been a Christian all my life, enough to know how Christians think and get a grasp too of how theists think. Stop kidding yourself.

Thomas Aquinas is one of history's finest sophists. Great prose though, does not necessarily make for great logic.

Obi1kenobi:

I still have made no head or tail from this.Fact 1: Buddhism is not a theistic religion. Fact 2: Being Buddhist is not mutually exclusive from being atheist. What is the "it" that I am denying? What am I denying?

it begins to sound like rhymes now, your inability not to make head or tail from it isn't a force on me to make it so. And I will not be doing myself any good repeating this rymes again.

Einstein a few times in his life when lost in poetry expressed pantheistic thoughts. But was quoted calling himself atheist. And another time calling himself agnostic. I'm pretty certain he found nothing rational about theistic belief.

just like it portray the rationality behind atheism absurd. I am sure to Venus, if Einesten were to be given the chance of choosing between theism and atheism, he will choose theism handsdown. He is so much convinced that atheism world veiw is irrational and yes he had being quoted in many interview agreeing with theistic ideology.

Says who? Is that what the Jupiter worshiper told you? I've been a Christian all my life, enough to know how Christians think and get a grasp too of how theists think. Stop kidding yourself

saying it does not make it true as not make it false. we can do the survey here.....no nairaland christain will tell you allah is non existence or sango is not real, they can only come with excuses that he is satanic or not powerful enough..

Thomas Aquinas is one of history's finest sophists. Great prose though, does not necessarily make for great logic.

it will make sense calling him a theologian and a scholastic philosopher rather than just a disguise insult (sophist ) Aquinas had made wonderful contribution to theology and the study of his work is essential for anyone seeking to become a great christain theologian today.

Obi1kenobi:


No theist bases their belief on any empirical or evident fact. The theist definition of fact is "XYZ exists. I can't explain how XYZ came to exist, so there must be something supernatural explaining XYZ's existence". That is not a fact.
And not many atheists in this world spend any time thinking about proving that God does not exist. To me, it's a strawman raised by religious people. They're usually more concerned with proving the religious beliefs of people are myths. Talking about proving whether divine deities exist to many atheists is no different to telling them to prove that there are no fairies flying around in their garden. They're more than happy to appreciate the beauty and tranquility of their garden without inventing mythical beings to add to the wonder of the garden.

If XYZ exists, there may be scientific ways to prove it while proving it may also be beyond the ability of scientific proves. Some scientific proves are based on real empirical evidences, some are based on theories rather than real experienced confirmation while some are conspiracy and made-up stories while some things still remain unproved. On the other hand many religious people resort to myths when they cant explain something. That's wrong.
But when it comes to existence of God, a theist can have a logical conclusion from theoretical deductions from life to base his belief on or personal supernatural experience and evidence to back his belief which cannot be shown others in a physical way or visible supernatural occurrences that everyone can see.
Like you said, many atheists are usually more concerned with proving that religious beliefs are myths. some myths have been disproved by scientists, some are misunderstood by the excesses of some atheists just to disprove supernatural beliefs by all means. All the same, debunking some myths falsely held by religious people still doesn't negate existence of God or gives atheists basis for the non-existence of God.

vaxx:
it begins to sound like rhymes now, your inability not to make head or tail from it isn't a force on me to make it so. And I will not be doing myself any good repeating this rymes again.


just like it portray the rationality behind atheism absurd. I am sure to Venus, if Einesten were to be given the chance of choosing between theism and atheism, he will choose theism handsdown. He is so much convinced that atheism world veiw is irrational and yes he had being quoted in many interview agreeing with theistic ideology.

You can be "sure" of whatever you please. Doesn't make it true. It's nothing but conjecturing. Einstein openly mocked several religious beliefs, from the concept of a personal god, to the scriptures, to belief in life after death etc, so the notion he agreed with theistic ideology is a patently false claim. As I said, at best, he made pantheistic abstractions about a metaphorical god. He was never close to being a theist in any way.

saying it does not make it true as not make it false. we can do the survey here.....no nairaland christain will tell you allah is non existence or sango is not real, they can only come with excuses that he is satanic or not powerful enough..

it will make sense calling him a theologian and a scholastic philosopher rather than just a disguise insult (sophist ) Aquinas had made wonderful contribution to theology and the study of his work is essential for anyone seeking to become a great christain theologian today.

Allah is supposed to be the same Abrahamic God that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in, so no one said anything about Christians not believing in Allah's existence. You can do any survey you want here. No Christian really believes that a Thor, or a Zeus, or an Isis exists.

Christian theology is sophistry as far as I'm concerned. It's your prerogative to attach any importance you want to it.

vaxx:
And that change the status quo of the concept of Buddhism, which elites folk has describe to akin with atheism.

Which elite folk describe Buddhism as akin to atheism?

Obi1kenobi:


You can be "sure" of whatever you please. Doesn't make it true. It's nothing but conjecturing. Einstein openly mocked several religious beliefs, from the concept of a personal god, to the scriptures, to belief in life after death etc, so the notion he agreed with theistic ideology is a patently false claim. As I said, at best, he made pantheistic abstractions about a metaphorical god. He was never close to being a theist in any way.

from the hourse mouth himself, ""manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuits of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.” You may really want to know where I get these quote ""I got from his book. ""The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your success""

Einesten had been quoted in several interveiw rejecting atheism. Yes Einesten kind of believe is a kind of Spinoza but yes he has been seeing validating the concept of theistic God . It not a must you believe. Evidence are available if you must know.

Allah is supposed to be the same Abrahamic God that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in, so no one said anything about Christians not believing in Allah's existence. You can do any survey you want here. No Christian really believes that a Thor, or a Zeus, or an Isis exists.

A christain who has the knowledge of Zeus will never reject its non existence, he will only invalidate its authorship. And why are you cherry picking? Most white are novice of sango, it make sense to reject what you have no prior knowledge about. But having the knowledge and rejecting it is pure ignorance, you can only be skeptical about it.

Christian theology is sophistry as far as I'm concerned. It's your prerogative to attach any importance you want to itT

This is your opinion and it does not count as many people of great mind consider it ignorance.

budaatum:

Which elite folk describe Buddhism as akin to atheism?

Get a book and read budah

Obi1kenobi:
Buddhism is not a theistic religion.
Being a Buddhist is not incompatible with being an atheist.
What am I denying. I can't make head or tail of what you're saying so maybe you need to provide clarity.

Of course it's irrational to people who have spent their entire lives in irrationality.
There is nothing rational about committing oneself to deities you have no personal relationship with.
Whether you're a pagan or Christian or whatever, same applies.
A lack of belief in gods is no different from a lack of beliefs in fairies and unicorns.

Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
A Christian doesn't believe in Thor or Jupiter or Sango.
I guess his lack of belief in those things is irrational, right?

"For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but it is the LORD who made the heavens."
- Psalm 96:5

"¹⁵The gods of the nations are made of silver and gold;
they are formed by human hands.
¹⁶They have mouths, but cannot speak,
and eyes, but cannot see.
¹⁷They have ears, but cannot hear;
they are not even able to breathe.
¹⁸May all who made them and who trust in them
become like the idols they have made!"
- Psalm 135:15-18

"³For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
⁴They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter (i.e. so it won't fall over)
⁵Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried because they cannot walk."
- Jeremiah 10:3-5

Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God

vaxx:
things in this case can be knowledge, belief and faith. And if the branch of philosophy you subscribe to is lacking all these. Will it not make sense to call it ignorance or irrational?

Interesting.

So far, this reply doesn't help anymore than the previous. It asserts a claim that lack of faith is irrational or ignorance but doesn't really show how lack of faith can be driven to connote that assumed conclusion.

So, the question still stands; On what ground is lack of faith ignorance?

So far, it seems it is only a comment based on a preconceived belief.

2nd: Assuming i want to dance with you a bit and say lack of faith equals ignorance or irrationality. The question it begs are:

Does this lack of faith only apply to lack of faith in God or does it apply lack of faith in something else or is it simply, lack of faith?

If someone lacks faith in God but has some form of faith for some other thing, is this person irrational?

If someone has faith in God but lacks faith for some other thing (no matter what that thing is) is this also irrational?

I stopped reading halfway. A failed attempt at countering my claim. You presented you own wack definition(a definition peculiar to you) of who strong and weak atheists are and laid no argument or illustration of any importance --- to philosophy other real world issues like religious and political discourse. Christians like you behave stupidly but when atheists call you stupid, you get offended. Does atheism have a book that dictates a man's morality? So without god, one can't know that murder is bad? What shall you say of people who are themselves christians but are fraudsters and human traffickers? Some are good, some are bad.

Atheism is simply the disbelief in any creator deity. It's as simple as that, nothing more, nothing less. It's left for people to be morally upright. Your argument would have been valid if indeed atheism makes people wicked but that's not the case. How come atheist countries have lower crime rates?

johnydon22:


Interesting.

So far, this reply doesn't help anymore than the previous. It asserts a claim that lack of faith is irrational or ignorance but doesn't really show how lack of faith can be driven to connote that assumed conclusion

if you don't have proof for either side and you have no bias, wouldn't the most rational opinion be ambivalence And if you are ambivalence, Will it not be rational to cure it, since it is caused by a simple “LACK OF CLARITY”.You can get rid of it by “GETTING CLARITY”.that’s all.

So, the question still stands; On what ground is lack of faith ignorance?

simple, because faith is all that it needs to have knowledge of God.

Athiest claim there is no God because there is no compeling evidence.. But for you to be bold to reject this claim, you must be speaking from knowledge which means the said athiest must have known everything since the beginning of time, must have checked every nook and corner of the vast (infinite) universe, must known everything that exists, must have studied every bit evidence that has been produced or will ever be produced, to unambiguously reached the absolutely correct conclusion: there is no God. But as for theist , he needs not to know but a leap of faith.

But even if that is the case for atheist - doesn't that imply that the atheist who made this superb claim is himself/herself God? Thereby contradicting the basic premise of atheism (There is no God) which is base on ignorance.

2nd: Assuming i want to dance with you a bit and say lack of faith equals ignorance or irrationality. The question it begs are:

Does this lack of faith only apply to lack of faith in God or does it apply lack of faith in something else or is it simply, lack of faith?

The bone of argument here is atheism lack faith in the existence of God , anything you are bringing to it is a mere conjecture

if someone lacks faith in God but has some form of faith for some other thing, is this person irrational?

If someone has faith in God but lacks faith for some other thing (no matter what that thing is) is this also irrational?

The lack of faith here is limited to God, atheism does not mean lack of faith in the existence of everything but God. The faith we are talking here is limited to God.

vaxx:
Get a book and read budah

You really must think I'm Internet age like you.
You are funny.

budaatum:

You really must think I'm Internet age like you.
You are funny.

what is that suppose to mean?

A classic show of irrational unreasoning!

vaxx:
if you don't have proof for either side and you have no bias, wouldn't the most rational opinion be ambivalence And if you are ambivalence, Will it not be rational to cure it, since it is caused by a simple “LACK OF CLARITY”.You can get rid of it by “GETTING CLARITY”.that’s all.

simple, because faith is all that it needs to have knowledge of God.

Athiest claim there is no God because there is no compeling evidence.. But for you to be bold to reject this claim, you must speaking from knowledge which means the athiest must have known everything since the beginning of time, must have checked every nook and corner of the vast (infinite) universe, must known everything that exists, must have studied every bit evidence that has been produced or will ever be produced, to unambiguously reached the absolutely correct conclusion: there is no God. But as for theist , he needs not know but a leap of faith.

But even if that is the case for atheist - doesn't that imply that the atheist who made this superb claim is himself/herself God? Thereby contradicting the basic premise of atheism (There is no God) which is base on ignorance.

The bone of argument here is atheism lack faith in the existence of God , anything you are bringing to it is a mere conjecture

The lack of faith here is limited to God, atheism does not mean lack of faith in the existence of everything but God. The faith we are talking here is limited to God.

You do it a lot vaxx! Maybe its innate in you.

MuttleyLaff:
"For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but it is the LORD who made the heavens."
- Psalm 96:5

"¹⁵The gods of the nations are made of silver and gold;
they are formed by human hands.
¹⁶They have mouths, but cannot speak,
and eyes, but cannot see.
¹⁷They have ears, but cannot hear;
they are not even able to breathe.
¹⁸May all who made them and who trust in them
become like the idols they have made!"
- Psalm 135:15-18

"³For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
⁴They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter (i.e. so it won't fall over)
⁵Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried because they cannot walk."
- Jeremiah 10:3-5

Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God

The very passages you quote pretty much makes it out that idols are inanimate useless objects. It doesn't lend any validity to the divinity of the man-made idols. Maybe read it again.

budaatum:
A classic show of irrational unreasoning!

You do it a lot vaxx! Maybe its innate in you.

Your opinion Buddha,

vaxx:
Your opinion Buddha,

Of course. As is everyones', except when they speak objectively.

budaatum:

Of course. As is everyones', except when they speak objectively.

i am reluctant to flap your ass tonight....maybe you will not go Scot free next you do it..

vaxx:
i am reluctant to flap your ass tonight....maybe you will not go Scot free next you do it..

I am afraid. I am very very afraid!