Why Fyrestar, what did you think winning was? Whoever YOU agree with more? People used to think that world was flat.
Also, for whomever answered my question about objectivity....I DO have evidence, I just don't exactly have some measured, and controlled, and sterile environment to document it. Getting to know Jesus isn't an "experiment". But I tell you what, nothing, and I mean nothing, can change a person's heart and life like He can. Being "born again" is not just a saying, and it's not an "effort" that is made by a professing Christian. It's an actual change. My family and close friends can see Him in me. I can hear his voice talking to me. THAT IS OBJECTIVE, it's just not "shareable". So, you just have to believe me. When I say that it is objective, what I mean is that if they too were to pray to God, and hear Him talking to them, then THEY would have their "measurable and observable" answer. I hope that clarifies. Anyway, if it's not in a textbook somewhere, Boris doesn't think it's objective. And apparently everything that is published in a textbook, he does. His education is his faith and his textbooks are his Bible. Whatever. *shrug*
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Also, for whomever answered my question about objectivity....I DO have evidence, I just don't exactly have some measured, and controlled, and sterile environment to document it. Getting to know Jesus isn't an "experiment". But I tell you what, nothing, and I mean nothing, can change a person's heart and life like He can. Being "born again" is not just a saying, and it's not an "effort" that is made by a professing Christian. It's an actual change. My family and close friends can see Him in me. I can hear his voice talking to me. THAT IS OBJECTIVE, it's just not "shareable". So, you just have to believe me. When I say that it is objective, what I mean is that if they too were to pray to God, and hear Him talking to them, then THEY would have their "measurable and observable" answer. I hope that clarifies. Anyway, if it's not in a textbook somewhere, Boris doesn't think it's objective. And apparently everything that is published in a textbook, he does. His education is his faith and his textbooks are his Bible. Whatever. *shrug*
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori,
How many times do I have to tell you that <u>I don't have any kind of faith</u>? And no, I don't have a Bible either. I don't worship knowledge, I use it. Which is more than can be said of you.
Whatever indeed.
Lori, here is what we mean by "objective" (excerpts from a dictionary definition):
<UL>
[*] of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
[*] perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare to SUBJECTIVE
[*] involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
[*] expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
[*] limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
[/list]
Now, whether you like it or not, your "personal relationship with Jesus" does not fit under any of the above meanings.
Also note that nowhere in the above definition is the concept of a textbook mentioned even once.
Yes indeed Lori, that's the proper definition of victory in the modern world. Among theories, the one that wins is not the one that is absolutely correct, but the one that is the most correct of the bunch. Similarly, in debates the issues rarely if ever resolve into black and white. This is a gray world, and absolutist thinking is passe, besides being yesterday's news. If you investigated as seriously as you claim to have had, then you should have delved into epistemology (a branch of philosophy dealing with the origins, nature, and mechanisms of knowledge.) Your absolutist ideas are way beyond defeated and obsolete, and had been long since buried under many and weighty a philosophical argument.
Yeah. Those were the same people who used to think that God made it all.
A psychological change in you does not testify to existence of God. It simply says that you decided to change, put some effort into it, and changed. There's nothing supernatural about it.
Amusing. Seeing as to how that particular thread actually ended on a post by me!
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
How many times do I have to tell you that <u>I don't have any kind of faith</u>? And no, I don't have a Bible either. I don't worship knowledge, I use it. Which is more than can be said of you.
Whatever indeed.
Lori, here is what we mean by "objective" (excerpts from a dictionary definition):
<UL>
[*] of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
[*] perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare to SUBJECTIVE
[*] involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
[*] expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
[*] limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
[/list]
Now, whether you like it or not, your "personal relationship with Jesus" does not fit under any of the above meanings.
Also note that nowhere in the above definition is the concept of a textbook mentioned even once.
Yes indeed Lori, that's the proper definition of victory in the modern world. Among theories, the one that wins is not the one that is absolutely correct, but the one that is the most correct of the bunch. Similarly, in debates the issues rarely if ever resolve into black and white. This is a gray world, and absolutist thinking is passe, besides being yesterday's news. If you investigated as seriously as you claim to have had, then you should have delved into epistemology (a branch of philosophy dealing with the origins, nature, and mechanisms of knowledge.) Your absolutist ideas are way beyond defeated and obsolete, and had been long since buried under many and weighty a philosophical argument.
Yeah. Those were the same people who used to think that God made it all.
A psychological change in you does not testify to existence of God. It simply says that you decided to change, put some effort into it, and changed. There's nothing supernatural about it.
Amusing. Seeing as to how that particular thread actually ended on a post by me!
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Lori -
Quote from Lori:
"I DO have evidence, I just don't exactly have some measured, and controlled, and sterile environment to document it."
So in other words, your objective evidence is entirely subjective.
By the way, your references to textbooks are both childish and incorrect. A textbook will tell you 'This is what we think is true. Here is why. .......' and will proceed to support its claims. The bible, and other such works, on the other hand will tend to tell you, 'This is absolute truth. Believe it, or spend the rest of eternity painfully suffering in the seventh circle of Dante's Easy-Bake.' Perhaps you should tell us what your fear of textbooks is based in..??
Another word about the winning thing..
So basically you think that the degeneration into an 'is not', 'is too' style of debate is actually relevent. What grade are you in?
Dissonantly,
FyreStar
Quote from Lori:
"I DO have evidence, I just don't exactly have some measured, and controlled, and sterile environment to document it."
So in other words, your objective evidence is entirely subjective.
By the way, your references to textbooks are both childish and incorrect. A textbook will tell you 'This is what we think is true. Here is why. .......' and will proceed to support its claims. The bible, and other such works, on the other hand will tend to tell you, 'This is absolute truth. Believe it, or spend the rest of eternity painfully suffering in the seventh circle of Dante's Easy-Bake.' Perhaps you should tell us what your fear of textbooks is based in..??
Another word about the winning thing..
So basically you think that the degeneration into an 'is not', 'is too' style of debate is actually relevent. What grade are you in?
Dissonantly,
FyreStar
Unfortunately, there's nothing easy about getting baked with Dante. The man can suck hashish like it's going out of style.
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Are we still arguing about winning and losing? Or did someone win that one?
The question gave me heebie-jeebies, but here's the only commentary I could put together:
If we start from tabula rasa and proceed with disparate ideas, the one that usually "wins" is the one that provides the best (quantitatively, and according to quality of support) evidence and ties said evidence into a grander picture (being the context of the question).
Regardless of who's arguing ... it's hard to "prove" something like the Christian sentiment for God, since that something, according to the conditions of its proof, should not be proven. Now, maybe this is just people afraid to suspend dogma for a second, but it advances any idea none to have nothing to share and everything to gain.
At this forum, though, when I pick a "winner" to a certain debate, it usually has something to do with the fact that at least one of the participants is standing on their original thesis with only that thesis as evidence of itself.
But victory comes with harmony, and I'll stop here before I get too goody-goody.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
The question gave me heebie-jeebies, but here's the only commentary I could put together:
If we start from tabula rasa and proceed with disparate ideas, the one that usually "wins" is the one that provides the best (quantitatively, and according to quality of support) evidence and ties said evidence into a grander picture (being the context of the question).
Regardless of who's arguing ... it's hard to "prove" something like the Christian sentiment for God, since that something, according to the conditions of its proof, should not be proven. Now, maybe this is just people afraid to suspend dogma for a second, but it advances any idea none to have nothing to share and everything to gain.
At this forum, though, when I pick a "winner" to a certain debate, it usually has something to do with the fact that at least one of the participants is standing on their original thesis with only that thesis as evidence of itself.
But victory comes with harmony, and I'll stop here before I get too goody-goody.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Yes he was human. But what about all the things he did and said? He said their was a God. This dosn't have to do with Evolution, but it has to do with God, something you say dosn't exist. Any human could do what he did, the only reason why he was so powerful was because he remembered his life when he was just a Soul. God created souls, Souls(we) created the Dinosaurs, then destroyed them, and came to earth into human form. The first humans lived on Atlantis. When you die you go back to your Soul form where you
can either decide to stay in your Soul form, or come back as a human form.
The people on Atlantis remembered their life as the soul form, and knew how to use their power. You think im on crack?!
Unicron,
Glad you can do the math.
<hr>
With respect to your second message...
There ain't such a thing as a soul. As for Atlantis and the dinosaurs... Crack? I don't know, but you definitely do sound like you are on something or other. (Hint-hint, recall the title of this thread.)
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 10, 2000).]
Glad you can do the math.
<hr>
With respect to your second message...
There ain't such a thing as a soul. As for Atlantis and the dinosaurs... Crack? I don't know, but you definitely do sound like you are on something or other. (Hint-hint, recall the title of this thread.)
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 10, 2000).]
Boris hon, the whole point about that debate is this...until you can find "evidence" of a "sexuality" gene, you CAN'T win that debate. Not in the way you are trying to anyway. There is no proof for your arguement, and there is a BEVY of proof for mine. I absolutely REFUSE to believe, as I would have to have blind faith to believe, that there is said gene that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a person to have a fulfilling sexual relationship with EITHER gender. It's absolute hogwash. God gave us our sex, God gave us love, and God gave us each other. But God did NOT give us "sexuality". The very DEFINITION of said sexuality is based upon physical attraction which is nothing but lust, which would NOT EXIST in my ideology, not in REALITY, but in ideology. In reality, we are ALL lustful, because we are ALL sinners. See, I don't have a problem with a girl being attracted to a girl or a man to a man. I have a problem with a man or a woman saying that they CAN NOT be attracted to a person of either sex. That is nothing but a mental paradigm, and nothing but discrimination. There is more of a variation WITHIN a gender than there is BETWEEN the genders. I also know that the GREATEST influence upon WHO it is that we choose to be attracted to is physical proximity and convenience. Listen, you offer up SOME evidence, and I may just change my mind????? Until then, I won.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori,
Although this sexuality tidbit is totally out of place on this thread, I will point out that 1) it is not necessary for there to be a "sexuality gene" in order for sexuality to exist, and 2) I've already offered "some" evidence. But if you disagree maybe we should return back to that thread to discuss it.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Although this sexuality tidbit is totally out of place on this thread, I will point out that 1) it is not necessary for there to be a "sexuality gene" in order for sexuality to exist, and 2) I've already offered "some" evidence. But if you disagree maybe we should return back to that thread to discuss it.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Sigh,
I'm only responding to this because you're the only person here who I actually know and care about. I'm not going to argue with anyone else anymore. You've made up your minds and you're not going to change them no matter what.
FyreStar,
You know me personally. Do you really see all of this happening to me since I became a Christian? Am I now that close minded? Being close-minded is not a symptom of religion, but of an insecure person. My belief in God does not mean that anything else I think about has changed. Besides, if I am close-minded, it's only on this one religious topic, and I don't see you puting in a religious argument contrary to what mine is, other than that there should be no religion. If I'm going to appear close minded on this point to anyone it will be people of different religious faiths from mine, and you should care about that because you think the whole lot of us are imbeciles. I'd also like to remind you that there are many people outside of the Christian or other religious faiths that are extremely close-minded.
I don't know why you're all of a sudden claiming that all Christians are close-minded and delusional. Personally, I've noticed that as a group Christians tend to welcome and help anyone they meet immediately. Those who don't haven't understood the message of the Bible. I can't think of any other group which is so welcoming and helpful to anyone they meet. I would tend to say that is open-minded, wouldn't you? I know that some of your closest friends and favorite teachers and acquaintances are Christians. Do you always choose to associate yourself with those you find to be inane?
You also talk about the possibility of my chasing whisps. If I am, what do you care? It doesn't affect you, and it's my choice to make.
Loss of individuality: Do I seem like such a drone to you now? I believe the same things as a lot of people, but we still have our differences, and are by no means the same people. Those who believe the same things about any topic would be at the same risk as you are applying to those of religious faith.
From my point of view, there are many benefits to being Christian. You obviously will not understand these since you are not Christian. Besides the heaven/hell thing, there are many other personal benefits which even those who are not Christians can see. Out of all of the people I've met in my life, the majority of those who behave morally and have good ethics have been Christian. This is not to exempt you and some of my other non-Christian friends from this group. I've heard so many stories of people who have been criminals, drug addicts, etc. who completely changed and started trying to live good lives, helping people, and trying make themselves better people. Even if you think Christianity is a joke, can't you see the benefit in this? I even met one man who was once a drug addict and whose children brought him to Christianity. He is now a pastor in Philadelphia. Things like this, even negating spiritual aspects, help people to make there lives better. I doubt you see too many people coming out of the slums and reforming themselves after someone told them they were acting against logic.
Ok, I'm done with this forum. Nobody here is actually interested in hearing other peoples' opinions, so there is no point in sharing them. Jeff, if you want to respond to me, do it in person so you can tell me personally that I'm deluding myself.
I hope to see you all in heaven someday,
Vanden
Vanden,
Stop being such a cry-baby. Oh, they won't agree with me, waa-waa-waa. Oh, they don't share my beliefs, waa-waa-waa.
Any one on this forum has no more made up their mind than did you. Heck, if all of us were 100% ambivalent, there would be no point in discussing anything. Speaker1: blah-blah. Everyone: oh yes, sure, definitely could be, why not. Speaker2: but blah-blah-blah. Everyone: oh sure, why not, everything's possible. Speaker3: or, what if blah-blah-blah? Everyone: hey, there's an idea, wow, and what if? Do you see a point in an "exchage" like that? I sure don't! All I see is a lot of time and breath wasted on nothing.
We all come here with opinions. As far as I can judge, the point of meeting and discussing our ideas is to weigh them against each other, and determine which have more merit. That indeed entails comparisons of my-theory-vs.-your-theory, and eventually leads to claims such as my-theory-rules-over-your-theory. And if your belief framework does not enable you to adequately defend it aganst such attacks, then such weakness only speaks to the lack of veracity in your framework, and is a hint toward the conclusion that your framework might not be correct. Whether you will arrive upon such a conclusion, or choose to deny it -- is up to you. But at least you can't say that you didn't have a choice.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Stop being such a cry-baby. Oh, they won't agree with me, waa-waa-waa. Oh, they don't share my beliefs, waa-waa-waa.
Any one on this forum has no more made up their mind than did you. Heck, if all of us were 100% ambivalent, there would be no point in discussing anything. Speaker1: blah-blah. Everyone: oh yes, sure, definitely could be, why not. Speaker2: but blah-blah-blah. Everyone: oh sure, why not, everything's possible. Speaker3: or, what if blah-blah-blah? Everyone: hey, there's an idea, wow, and what if? Do you see a point in an "exchage" like that? I sure don't! All I see is a lot of time and breath wasted on nothing.
We all come here with opinions. As far as I can judge, the point of meeting and discussing our ideas is to weigh them against each other, and determine which have more merit. That indeed entails comparisons of my-theory-vs.-your-theory, and eventually leads to claims such as my-theory-rules-over-your-theory. And if your belief framework does not enable you to adequately defend it aganst such attacks, then such weakness only speaks to the lack of veracity in your framework, and is a hint toward the conclusion that your framework might not be correct. Whether you will arrive upon such a conclusion, or choose to deny it -- is up to you. But at least you can't say that you didn't have a choice.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
God: A product of evolution and the Human Frontal Lobe.
Lori has based her argument for creationism on the question of why. I have my own explanation of why and I would be very interested in some feed back on it.
OK here I go, The human brain is capable of pondering future events, this is facilitated in the Frontal Lobe of our brain. It is my belief that all religion is based in a fear of mortality. As far as I can tell all religion holds on to a concept of continuing after death. Therefore with evolution came our Frontal lobe, we became aware of mortality in a different light. We had conscience ideas about our own death....all life shares the need to continue, every animal will fight to survive. I believe that it is this instinct (selected directly via evolution) coupled with our awarness of our mortality has bred a need for afterlife, and hence evolved into idea's about god/s. Now the question of creationism and why, well what are the fundamental laws that govern the universe....it comes down to basic natural forces i.e. Gravity, EMF, Nuclear forces. Anyway those forces are responsible for the evolution of our universe entirley, it is their interaction that manipulates matter, creates if you like....evolution took care of the rest including our dreams of afterlife and God. So on a purley scientific platform god or the creator of the universe is the 3 forces of nature....why? because its the most stable product of the 3 forces interaction with matter. I guess I will be asked who designed the 3 forces of nature....well they're fundamental enough to say nothing did, chance did, a random turn of events....It certainly does not need a devine plan or design. So I guess if you reduce it down to fundamentals its not as incredible as it seems. Now with all that said, I still can't shake the need to believe in a god....just not a god that cares to be a part of my life.
------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.
[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited March 13, 2000).]
Lori has based her argument for creationism on the question of why. I have my own explanation of why and I would be very interested in some feed back on it.
OK here I go, The human brain is capable of pondering future events, this is facilitated in the Frontal Lobe of our brain. It is my belief that all religion is based in a fear of mortality. As far as I can tell all religion holds on to a concept of continuing after death. Therefore with evolution came our Frontal lobe, we became aware of mortality in a different light. We had conscience ideas about our own death....all life shares the need to continue, every animal will fight to survive. I believe that it is this instinct (selected directly via evolution) coupled with our awarness of our mortality has bred a need for afterlife, and hence evolved into idea's about god/s. Now the question of creationism and why, well what are the fundamental laws that govern the universe....it comes down to basic natural forces i.e. Gravity, EMF, Nuclear forces. Anyway those forces are responsible for the evolution of our universe entirley, it is their interaction that manipulates matter, creates if you like....evolution took care of the rest including our dreams of afterlife and God. So on a purley scientific platform god or the creator of the universe is the 3 forces of nature....why? because its the most stable product of the 3 forces interaction with matter. I guess I will be asked who designed the 3 forces of nature....well they're fundamental enough to say nothing did, chance did, a random turn of events....It certainly does not need a devine plan or design. So I guess if you reduce it down to fundamentals its not as incredible as it seems. Now with all that said, I still can't shake the need to believe in a god....just not a god that cares to be a part of my life.
------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.
[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited March 13, 2000).]
I would even broaden the concept and claim that god or religion in general is our way of getting grips with the unknown...
You see there is a parallel between the evolution of the brain and the ideas within it. If I dare to use the cursed computer comparisan again it would be the parallel between the hardware evolution and the software evolution.
However the evolution of our ideas is far more faster then the biological evolution of our brain, does this mean there will be a time that we won't be able to understand our own ideas anymore ? Yes, that time has begone several thousand years ago from the moment we first wrote something down. We began to use a different medium to record our thoughts. The computer is simply an other step in this process. I think it is a natural step that man and machine will merge and become something more. All the Frankenstein fears of machines turning against their creators are based on nothing. Cyberman is simply the next step in our evolution and yes humankind will become one because of the web connecting them.
------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton
You see there is a parallel between the evolution of the brain and the ideas within it. If I dare to use the cursed computer comparisan again it would be the parallel between the hardware evolution and the software evolution.
However the evolution of our ideas is far more faster then the biological evolution of our brain, does this mean there will be a time that we won't be able to understand our own ideas anymore ? Yes, that time has begone several thousand years ago from the moment we first wrote something down. We began to use a different medium to record our thoughts. The computer is simply an other step in this process. I think it is a natural step that man and machine will merge and become something more. All the Frankenstein fears of machines turning against their creators are based on nothing. Cyberman is simply the next step in our evolution and yes humankind will become one because of the web connecting them.
------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton
One assumption that is mistaken.....I can only speak for myself, but MY faith in Christ is not drawn from a fear of death. It's due to true belief in the fact that He really exists, and He really is who He says He is. If I didn't have the personal "proof" in my life and my heart, there is no way that I could believe what I do. Know what I know. You guys are leaving out a HUGE part of the faith when making out your assumptions. Jesus Christ is REAL. He really speaks to people. The Holy Spirit is REAL. Just as real as the aliens that many have seen, as real as Eric's "friends" that visit him. It is REAL, and inside ME it IS tangible. I mean, I can't pick it up and hold it, but anything that has such an affect, certainly has a cause.
Also, is this where we're talking about brains? Schizphrenia? Boris and many believe that chemical reactions or physical manifestations in the brain would CAUSE a person to be delusional, hear voices, whatever. I think that it's the other way around. Spirits don't "magically" affect us, they affect us through our bodies. I would venture to say that if someone were to hook me up to electrodes and monitor my brain activity during prayer, that you would see the activity and physical response from it. Once when I was praying, I got so hot that I had to go and open the window. It wasn't hot in my house or in my room. I wasn't hot before, and I'm too young to be gettin' hot flashes. Did you know that God can heal people? If the scenario isn't like I said, then how could God possible heal people? Your body reacts to it's spiritual influence. That's what the soul is for; it connects the two.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Also, is this where we're talking about brains? Schizphrenia? Boris and many believe that chemical reactions or physical manifestations in the brain would CAUSE a person to be delusional, hear voices, whatever. I think that it's the other way around. Spirits don't "magically" affect us, they affect us through our bodies. I would venture to say that if someone were to hook me up to electrodes and monitor my brain activity during prayer, that you would see the activity and physical response from it. Once when I was praying, I got so hot that I had to go and open the window. It wasn't hot in my house or in my room. I wasn't hot before, and I'm too young to be gettin' hot flashes. Did you know that God can heal people? If the scenario isn't like I said, then how could God possible heal people? Your body reacts to it's spiritual influence. That's what the soul is for; it connects the two.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori,
1) The Native American tribes virtually all believed that all objects in the world were inhabited by spirits. As a result, many of them would argue just as fervently that their respective animal guide really does speak to them. And quite a few of them will swear up and down that the crow (or something) spoke to them the other day on that hilltop (or somewhere) in human voice, and imparted the wisdom of the elders. Go figure.
2) Delusions are not caused by abnormal brain activity. They <u>are</u> abnormal brain activity. The brain doesn't separate the hardware from the software, it is simultaneously both.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
1) The Native American tribes virtually all believed that all objects in the world were inhabited by spirits. As a result, many of them would argue just as fervently that their respective animal guide really does speak to them. And quite a few of them will swear up and down that the crow (or something) spoke to them the other day on that hilltop (or somewhere) in human voice, and imparted the wisdom of the elders. Go figure.
2) Delusions are not caused by abnormal brain activity. They <u>are</u> abnormal brain activity. The brain doesn't separate the hardware from the software, it is simultaneously both.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.