lovely, shango the one minute man

You are the one with the ego problem, as since I called you on your scientific ignorance, you've been following me around like a duckling, accusing me of things I never said.
When will you actually address my points instead of continuing your ad hominem slurfest.

Look at what started of this merry go round (I underlined the factually incorrect statements):

shango:

the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. like all scientific thoeries that are not laws it has holes. i never said theories where not held in high esteem by scientists, learn to read. And laws are held in higher regard to theories. Go read any introductory science book. The thoery of evolution does seek to explain the origin of species. read darwins work of the same name. people try to reply to my facts by posting bs and irrelevant nonsense. the evolution thoery contains alot of facts like genetic mutations (which supports the idea that organisms might infact evolve, so does dna and genes and genetic processes) it does not state for a fact that evolution does occur hence it is still a THEORY. When such physical proof is shown it will become a LAW

shango:

basic scientific methods illeterates

And there came the first slur

shango:

and capitalistic society as we know it has huge problems and flaws. making money has inherent evils and is not neccessarily better than the barter system for example. the single minded viewpoints of post-colonial drones never ceases to amaze me.

And here we actually agree

oyb:

or should the atheists in the houise come and tell us why they left christianity?

I never left Christianity, I was never a Christian even though I grew up in a nominally Christian culture. Both religions are equally irrational and anyone saying that he or she has got a rational foundation for his or her religion is self delusional. There is no rationality in submission and faith.

Maybe you should all ponder on the fact that people are leaving your religions in large numbers while hardly any atheist ever converts to a form of theism.

shango:

YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural. the books by Dawkins and others that you've been reading have, rather than enlighten, made you more ignorant of realities that are beyond your scope (because all you do is reject anything that is beyond your scope)

Beautifully put, it is what I have been trying to drill into nferyn's head with my multiple posts, but I suck when it comes to expressing my thoughts into words.

Ah shango, welcome. Always nice to see that my favourite stalker pays me a visit
Unfortunately, and I regret to bring this up, you have been a little liberal with the truth in the matter.
1. Our discussions have been about me voicing my conviction that you lack a basic insight in the scientific method and your reactions to me voicing that opinion.
2. I have never claimed that science explains everything, only that where science cannot explain something, religion is even a worse candidate at explanation.
3. Drilling into my head is indeed a fair characterisation of you incessant attempts at stalking, after our first encounter, you've been following me around almost every thread you can find to voice your disagreement with my points of view, even though your objections are often times quite irrelevant to the discussion.

shango:

Nferyn thinks Science is the end all and be all in explaining the world's infinite complexity.

Not quite. It is the best tool we currently have, though, and the only reliable one at that. It is still rather limited though due to it's rigour and methodological restrictions.

shango:

Its so naive it borders on insanity.

Here we go again. Entering the land of slurs, ad homs and character assassinations. Not to forget the straw men you like to put up that should represent my opinions.

shango:

Even Einstein believed in a higher being, or unexplained forces, and he was way smarter than any of us.

Another argument from authority. You should know by now that this is a logical phalacy. By the way, you are also putting up a straw man of Einstein's positions, as he neither believed in a higher being, nor in unexplained forces (unless you call unexplained force a deep awe in the face of the beauty and magnificence of the universe)

shango:

There are many things science doesnt explain and WILL NEVER EXPLAIN because it cannot. It has its limitations.

And where, my dear shango, did I say otherwise? The problem is that, when faced with something science doesn't yet or cannot in principle explain, some people automatically assume that religion is a better explanatory factor, while it usually is a far poorer candidate than science ever would be.

shango:

To have such blind faith in a man made construct to the point of fanaticism is no different than religious fanatics really in my mind.

Straw men galore. Your mind really is limited if you have to use such piss poor argumentation.
1. Where did I show blind faith? Kindly show me those instances where I exhibit blind faith.
2. Man made construct: Is the emotional baggage of those words supposed to discredit the value of the man made construct that science is or is it just another rhetorical trick?
3. What religious fanatics are you talking about? Those that fly planes into tall buildings, stone adulterous women or bomb abortion clinics? Do you really want to put me in the same category as those fanatics or is this sentence yet again a rhetorical device to discredit my opinions?

shango:

The differenc eis Science for the most part benefits humanity and furthers our understanding of the world around us albeit to a limited degree.

Your point? Or is this, once again, another pre emptive defensive move from your side?

There are two possible solutions to this problem:
1. either the man must run around naked on the village square for at least 4 hours, that way his issues will quickly become part of the public discourse
2. or [size=4pt]_{dot dot dot}[/size] the other solution is actually only a variation on the first one - only one possible solution

dakmanzero:

@nferyn

It is remarkable how I never find it easy to disagree with anything that you post. Understand that I am present in many of the threads that you participate in, but keep my mouth shut , because you usually end up saying exactly what I was thinking, but with much superior articulation.

Superior articulation my foot (sorry babyosisi, I just had to use it ). It's only because English isn't my mother tongue that I have to retort to the most elaborate grammatical constructs possible. I just mask my lack of fluency in big grammar

worldismy:

this is africa and we must behave like one, polygamy is allowed if u can afford it anyway it is not a new thing

Is this supposed to pass for an argument nowadays. I guess you consider women to be property of their fathers and marriage to be a simple property transaction.

dakmanzero:

[SNIP]
This means a man with a lack of self control will be under mounting pressure to violate the terms of his marriage (ie screw around). There are three solutions to this:

(a) legitimise the acquisition of a kept woman/mistress. Also called polygamy
(b) divorce the first wife and acquire a new one
(c) Understand that your sacrifice of fidelity (and it IS a sacrifice) is a much better option than imposing the sacrifice of shared paternity upon your children, born and unborn

Dakmanzero, as usual, you captured the problem pretty well and put the issue/responsibility exactly where it is supposed to be put. Although there are actually more options (such as screwing on the side), those are indeed the main ones.
I do feel though that you slightly mischaracterised option (b)

dakmanzero:

[SNIP]
The west prefers

(b). Unfortunately this option is in my opinion, worse than (a) because it is simply a repeat of that option but with the man able to divest himself of responsibility for the children- thus complicating their problem. Arguably it mitigates conflict by ensuring the women are not placed in direct contact with each other, and in principle it allows the woman to re-marry. If the wife is young and/or childless, this may actually be the desired option. In cases where the husband retains custody of the children, they may suffer even more.

1. Divorce is just as much - if not more - initiated by the woman
2. When divorcing, the man usually does not have the option to divest himself from responsibility for the children:
* He is legally bound to financially provide for them and for his ex-wife if she is without a source of income
* He usually still has a - if sometimes more limited - stake in the education of the children (there's also the option of shared custody)
Moreover, in many cases, precisely because it is assumed by society that the man is the guilty party in marital conflicts, the man very regularly gets the raw end of the deal:
* no longer access to his children (when an ex-wife, who has custody, does not allow the ex-husband visiting right, it is very rarely prosecuted, en if prosecuted, the decision is rarely enforced)

TayoD:

@nferyn,

It's not about using false analogy, rather it is about your analogy not making sense. A false analogy is different from a senseless analogy. You only talk about percentiles when you have so many subjects to a particular action. In your case, you talked only about the pond in your backyard. Where are the other subjects. You are proving too smart even for yourself.

Lol, your nitpicking is really off base and irrelevant to the point I tried to make. My unjustified omission of "accurate to" the 10th percentile really invalidates my argument doesn't it?

mrpataki:

I'm not smart enough for physics, so it must suck. There are some other people here though that have an understanding of physics that is far more profound than either you or me Grin Grin Grin Can't you see, it's obvious that those lacking the capacity to discern a creator when being confronted with a creation are incapable of understanding anyway. QED

Kai!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

What a misguided thought pattern you have here

Oh what I have I done to be continuously confronted with the ironically challenged?
Poor me

TayoD:

It is funny how science admits it's finite knowledge and yet doesn't give room to the possibility that there is indeed a God somewhere.

That's not true. You can put in that possibility anywhere you choose, but to enter it as an explanatory entity in a scientific context it needs to be falsifiable in principle. If it isn't falsifiable, then it can't be science.

TayoD:

@nferyn,

Well you're an atheist. Please explain to me the precise impact of the gravitational pull of the moon on the pond in my back yard up to the 10th percentile. You can't ? How shallow of you. You can't be a real atheist. Relevance?

What you are saying makes no sense. Did you use the word 'percentile' in error? In any case, you have not made any pint here.

Of course it didn't make sense. The whole point was to use a false analogy to make a point that doesn't follow from it's premisses. Seems you can't see an imitation when it stares you in the face.

TayoD:

I'll get back to your butchering of science later this evening.

I can't wait!!

I bet

KAG:

Baryogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis Physics sucks anyway.

I'm not smart enough for physics, so it must suck. There are some other people here though that have an understanding of physics that is far more profound than either you or me Can't you see, it's obvious that those lacking the capacity to discern a creator when being confronted with a creation are incapable of understanding anyway. QED

TayoD:

@Seun,

How shallow!

Why?

TayoD:

So who are the parents of the first life-form on earth? Was it inanimate tango-ing with inanimate to create animate?

Well you're an atheist. Please explain to me the precise impact of the gravitational pull of the moon on the pond in my back yard up to the 10th percentile. You can't ? How shallow of you. You can't be a real atheist.
Relevance?

TayoD:

Or putting it in context of the law of conservation of mass, how could matter be created without a prior matter? Kindly explain without a violation of that law!

I'll get back to your butchering of science later this evening.

mrpataki:

That your parents could perform coitus and bring forth a you, shows that God trily exist!

If that's supposed to be an argument, then anything goes. No wonder you're trying to hide under a rock.

mrpataki:

In their own world of madness, they believe they exist because they choose to exist.

Really, what a fantastic world this must be that is populated by your straw men atheists. Ever met one atheist that claims he exists because he chooses to? Oh I forgot that theists know better what atheism is than atheist themselves, because everybody knows that atheism is the active denial of God and let no atheist sway you from that position.

Anyway,

mrpataki:

Arguing with an atheist is equivalent to trying to hold a conversation with a piece of rock.

, completely immobile an impervious to reason.

zuluman:

@ nferyn

Believe that God would renew everyone and our World. Whatever hardship you or anyone is going through, believe that God would remove that hardship. Amen. I pray for God's glory to be revealed in your life. Amen.

I'm not going through much hardship, but thanks for the concern anyway.

zuluman:

Don't forget to tell me when God's glory is revealed in your life. I've heard many testimonies about people who don't believe in God because of one thing or the other, but God, through his mercy, revealed his glory on them and people began to testify to God's glory.

When I don't believe in God, it is not for one thing or another, the only reason is that there is absolutely no reason to believe in God.

zuluman:

So nferyn, I'd be expecting your testimony too.

Don't count on it. There are far more people deconverting and becoming atheists than there are atheists becoming theists. I'm actually a rare exception among atheists in never having been a theist. I know of no genuine conversion cases. Apologists like CS Lewis are usually just lying about he fact that 'they were once atheists'.

freelance:

I believe it's not just normal for a creation too to believe that there is no God

Assuming the consequent. First establish that there is such a thing as a creation.

freelance:

Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless
------Bertrand Russell, athesist

The universe doesn't owe you meaning ---- Richard Dawkins, atheist.

By the way, that's an argument from adverse consequences. Another logical phalacy.

freelance:

Colossians 1:16 (New International Version)

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

I pray you believe before it's too late

Could you bring some evidence for that assertion?

TayoD:

@nferyn,

Because it takes some degree of madness to see a creation and insists there is no Creator.

I see. You are wrong on three counts.
1. premisse 1: You see a creation. I see no such thing. What I see is wonderfully complex natural world that can easily be explained through natural processes. We no longer live in Paley's time where there is no naturalistic explanation for biological complexity.
2. conclusion: madness, based on premisse 1, logically sound, but factually untenable
3. you personally see no method by which the appearance of design in the natural world can come into being. that is an argument from personal incredulity, one of the many logical phalacies.

zuluman:

@ nferyn

Why did you stop believing in God's existence?

I never believed in God, so I never stopped believing in God. Belief in God is thoroughly bewildering to me.

zuluman:

Did someone do something bad to you? Or is it what you are seeing going on in the World today? Or is it any bad situation you are in?

Nothing of that sort. All is going pretty well. Good job, happily married, great children, ,
Why do you assume that something is wrong with me?

zuluman:

OK, I have read the Bible completely (although it's been a while) and I have hardly ever read such a hermetic contradictory piece of literature. I'm really not into badly written fiction. What exactly do you plan to tutor?

Sadly, you don't seem to understand the bible yet.

Now that's an easy cop out if you can find one. I don't agree with your point of view so it must be because I don't understand what you're saying. Could you consider the possibility that your point of view is nonsensical and thus any level of understanding would be mute.

zuluman:

Remember I said that it is God that gives people the priviledge to UNDERSTAND his Word in the bible.

The only thing that would satisfy your criterion of understanding is me accepting the validity of your point of view. It's hard to get more circular in your reasoning.

zuluman:

I really don't blame you for doubting God's existence - Even Thomas (a disciple of Jesus Christ) doubted, but Jesus revealed himself in full. My prayer for you, is that God should reveal himself to you.

Personal revelation has zero impact on a truth claim. Countless people have had a personal revelation that they were Napoleon reincarnated, but that doesn't make them Napoleon at all; You need external evidence for validation. As far as the Bible is concerned, there exists no external evidence at all. The only thing you can do is point to the Bible (or some exegesis thereof) to prove the Bible.

zuluman:

Then you would be challenging anyone that says God doesn't exist, just like I am challenging you and praying for you.

I probably would, ond I would be very deluded indeed.

zuluman:

In the bible, it is mentioned that "it is not by power or by might, but by the spirit sayeth the Lord" Using your power to read the bible doesn't guarantee that you would understand the bible. When I say "power" here, I mean the power you have, relating to your ability to speak English or any other language fluently and your ability to understand a piece of information. You may be a graduate of Havard University or any other reputable institution BUT that doesn't give you the edge to understand God's Word. In the bible, it is mentioned that God's Word sounds like the word of a mad man to the children of perdition.

Another piece of circular reasoning.

zuluman:

You mean all the babies and young children that suffer really are the choice of God? What a wicked character that God must be to make newborn babies suffer such horrible faiths.

In the bible, Genesis 25:23, Exodus 9:16, Romans 9:12-23, God said that he choses whom he would have mercy on. (For those of you with bible please refer to the bible). The text I bolded, should answer your question!

Yes it does. The answer is that God is a wicked character.

zuluman:

Obviously clay has got free will that enables it to choose another path in life as to avoid a horrible faith or hasn't it? But that would defeat your argument now, wouldn't it? Or maybe humans don't have any free will at all.

Can you tell me the other part in life that a clay has? I am not arguing with you. I am telling you the truth.

Yes, and I know you tell me the truth because you tell me so. Very convenient.

zuluman:

I'm going to decompose after the doctors have harvested all still useful organs from my body. Basically, I'm not going anywhere, as I, as an entity, will have ceased to exist.

Of course you are going somewhere, don't decieve yourself. I don't know which of the two you would end up. There is no free zone. You either end up in Heaven or Hell. What you need to do to get to Heaven is to believe in Jesus Christ. John 3:16.

Ah, using the Bible to validate the content of the Bible, now that's the way to go. Please, pray tell me, where do I find any evidence for the existence of heaven and hell?

zuluman:

Fear, the ultimate weapon in the apologetic's arsenal. Your mental abuse doesn't stick to us well grounded adults. Unfortunately, hardly anybody stops you people to strike fear in the hearts of the innocent children. If the same tactics were used for anything else but religious indoctrination, we would label it child abuse. Sadly enough few people see religious indoctrination for what it really is.

I'm happy you have no fear. I like people that do not fear anything BUT God (I pray you fear God).

There are lots of things I fear, but my faith after death and God are not among those things.

zuluman:

I'm not trying to scare you by describing hell. The description of Hell is a warning. Assume you have a child, and that child is walking towards a pit filled with snakes. What would you do? Would you keep quiet and let the child walk towards the pit and eventually fall into the pit BECAUSE you don't want to tell the child to stop walking in the path of total destruction.

Fear of imaginary entities is unjustified. Giving children anxiety, nightmares and feelings of guilt, just in case your fairy tale may turn out to be true is unjustified. Teaching children about hell as if it's real is child abuse.

zuluman:

Would you also keep quiet because, if you tell the child not to walk towards the pit, he/she may demand a reason, and because you don't want to "mentally abuse" the kid, you just remain silent, insisting that the kid doesnt need to know that the pit is filled with snakes. Of course, there are some anxious kids that if you don't tell them the consequences of their actions they may end up doing it.

I wouldn't want you anywhere near my children with that attitude. Your pit of snakes does not exist. There is no evidence for your pit of snakes.

zuluman:

Why do governments mention the consequences of committing murder? Why do they tell the world what they do to murderers.

Because murder, does have objective negative consequences that can be investigated and evidenced. This is very different from your hell and heaven.

zuluman:

If you have a bank account, why does your bank tell you what they would do if you overdraw money than you have, from your bank account (You may be a comfortable billionaire, I don't know your status). Even if you are Bill Gates, If you open a bank account, some banks would still give you some documents showing what they would do, if you overdraw money. Why do you think banks mention this It is to warn you because they love you as their customer and they don't want you to suffer!

those consequences, contrary to yours, are real.

zuluman:

You may as well campaign against this "mental abuse" that our banks are doing to us eh,

I have seen the consequences of instilling good old 'fear of God' in children. There is no justification for that.

zuluman:

You may as well campaign against governments for telling us about the punishment if we do certain things! Isn't that "mental abuse" according to what you have said. It is just a warning for those over anxious humans. Are you in the United Kingdom? In the United Kingdom, at car parks, there are notice boards which warns drivers about the consequences of not buying a parking permit! There may be some in Nigeria too.

Hey wonderful, what a nice range of analogies: comparing hell to the consequences of overdrafts or not buying a parking ticket. Eternal torment is really comparable to being fined for not buying a parking ticket, isn't it.

zuluman:

Has anyone ever detected that famous hell? Any evidence for it's existence?

Those who have personal communication with God knows there is a Hell and Heaven. Pray for God to bless you with the Holy Spirit.

I fear all those with the arrogance and self-centredness of having been in personal communication with God.

zuluman:

Would I even want to worship such an unpleasant, mysogenic, capricious and cruel character? Maybe you could, I definitely wouldn't

In the bible, God hardened pharaoh's heart so that he wouldn't listen to what Moses was saying. At the end pharaoh perished. And Yes it was God that hardened pharaoh's heart!

Such a loving, caring, compassionate character he is, that God of yours. He is totally unworthy of my respect, let alone my worship.

zuluman:

Can you explain to me the concept of sin? I just don't understand

Sin = Not believing in Jesus Christ.

I'm quite certain the majority of theologians would agree with you on that one

zuluman:

@ All who doubt the existence of God or assert that there is no God

First off, please read & UNDERSTAND the bible from the first page to the last page before you make conclusions. If you have read the bible completely, and you still assert that there is no God - then I am willing to help in explaining the bible to you so that you can UNDERSTAND that God truly exists and he is on the throne. Because I know from experience that some people need good tuition from a good tutor before they can understand - BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND it's only GOD that gives people the priviledge to understand his word in the bible.

OK, I have read the Bible completely (although it's been a while) and I have hardly ever read such a hermetic contradictory piece of literature. I'm really not into badly written fiction. What exactly do you plan to tutor?

zuluman:

Secondly, many people claim that there is no God because of the pains of this world, such as sickness, suicides etc,
BUT I want you to understand one thing I'm about to point out:
In the bible, Genesis 25:23, Exodus 9:16, Romans 9:12-23, God said that he choses whom he would have mercy on. (For those of you with bible please refer to the bible).

You mean all the babies and young children that suffer really are the choice of God? What a wicked character that God must be to make newborn babies suffer such horrible faiths.

zuluman:

It is just like the case of a potter who molds clay pots. The potter can CHOSE to make one clay pot to be very good and he can CHOSE to make another pot scrappy. The clay pot has no power to protest its design against its creator! That is the analogy for humans versus God.

Obviously clay has got free will that enables it to choose another path in life as to avoid a horrible faith or hasn't it? But that would defeat your argument now, wouldn't it? Or maybe humans don't have any free will at all.

zuluman:

Likewise, we humans are like clay pots and God is like the potter! This analogy was pointed out by Malachi who is a prophet of God. This settles those who claim God's non-existence becuase of irregularites in life.

Assuming the consequent. A very nice logical phalacy. You may want to [i]choose [/i]to look it up.

zuluman:

Thirdly, God has the power to destroy the body and the soul.

Really, and what makes you think such a thing as should exists?

zuluman:

All you that say God doesn't exist, when you have finished your time on earth, where do you think you are going?

I'm going to decompose after the doctors have harvested all still useful organs from my body. Basically, I'm not going anywhere, as I, as an entity, will have ceased to exist.

zuluman:

I would love to hear your reply please. You should really be scared o. After your time on earth where do you think you are going? Please ask yourself! Isn't it scary?

No actually, it isn't scary at all.

zuluman:

You better believe in God. there is a heaven for those who believe in God and there is a hell for the children of perdition. Hell is not a place I would like anyone from this forum to be. Hell is nasty.

Has anyone ever detected that famous hell? Any evidence for it's existence?

zuluman:

In the book of Mark (New testament) it was mentioned that in hell, the fire never burns out and the worms there never die. Isn't that scary enough to make you believe in God? Please change your life by accepting God's existence and ask for forgiveness.

Fear, the ultimate weapon in the apologetic's arsenal. Your mental abuse doesn't stick to us well grounded adults. Unfortunately, hardly anybody stops you people to strike fear in the hearts of the innocent children. If the same tactics were used for anything else but religious indoctrination, we would label it child abuse. Sadly enough few people see religious indoctrination for what it really is.

zuluman:

Finally, God is perfect! No arguments please.

The sky is purple because I say so. Or something similar.

zuluman:

If you are questioning the perfection of God based on the fact that people are born with illness and all deformations then read my second paragraph. Also bear in mind that God also mentioned that he punishes the sins of people up until the 3rd and 4th generations of the actual sinner! God said that he is the "I am" - God choses whom to have mercy on. A person that choses to do something cannot be labelled as imperfect can they?

Such a person can only be described as perfectly evil. Punishing the innocent for the sins of their fathers. What a wicked character.

zuluman:

I know life may be crazy but God sees everything. If there is something you are going through, you can email me on stongzulu@yahoo.com, I would join you in prayer for a divine miracle in your life. God is able to do much more than you can ever ask for, please bear this in mind.

Would I even want to worship such an unpleasant, mysogenic, capricious and cruel character? Maybe you could, I definitely wouldn't

zuluman:

Say this prayer:

God, I have come to you today, please forgive me of my sins. Let your glory shine in my life. Amen.

Can you explain to me the concept of sin? I just don't understand

ricadelide:

I asked you someplace else what your reasons for the 'logical impossibility' of Yahweh are, and you've not responded. I'd be willing to address the issues you raise later on. So do holla.
Cheers.

I'm getting mired up in several threads at the same time, sometimes I don't know what to respond to first. Here I just copy my contribution from another thread:

1. Falsification on logical grounds:
The omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God is self contradictory: omnipotence and omniscience contradict the fact that God, in his holy books, has needs, wants and desires: an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot have needs and wants because reality cannot be anything but the emmanation of God's mere being. As reality is not the emmanation of God's wants (God having negative feelings about his creation: sorrow, sadness, anger, etc), he cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.
Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and the problem of evil in the world: with an omnimax God evil cannot exist in this world, because everything God wants, just is. If God doesn't want evil to exist, it wouldn't, as God is omnipotent and omniscient. Evil exists, thus God is either not omnibenevolent or he isn't omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. The classical apologetical anwser to this contradiction is the existence of free will, but that's only a weak defense, as free will logically implies choice, choice implies an indeterminate future, an indeterminate future contradicts God's omniscience. Even if you would assume that intentional evil (as being carried out by independent agents, such as humans) could be explained away by waving the free will card - which it can't on logical grounds - the problem of natural evil (earthquakes, droughts, tsunami's, etc) still remains

@ stimulus,

You're right about that

cheers

stimulus:

Excuse me, where did I say I [b]accept[/b]ed it?

I'm sorry if I implied it from your response. So, if I'm not mistaken, you also oppose the dominionists in the US and the havoc they create (e.g. terrorist attacks on abortion clinics)?