We Need Another Christianity Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

The very idea of scientific inquiry is moot if you can immediately say “God done it that way”. [/quote]

QFT.

This is why you cannot teach a non-testable theory in a science classroom:…
[/quote]

If you were to faithfully adhere to that position macro-evolution should not be taught in a science classroom.

(Don’t quote stuff about speciation. I have always supported the idea that speciation occurs. And talkorigins is such a lame go-to site for ya’ll. Try somewhere else once in awhile)

Again…I was discussing how we all have opinions that “affect others.” THAT was the point that you, Pat, Rajraj and various others insist on ignoring.[/quote]

How is macro evolution not testable?

Speciation IS macroevolution! It’s the definition of macro evolution:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population

You CANNOT talk about evolution as separate from speciation. By definition, they are the very same thing.

You just admitted that you “believe” in evolution![/quote]

Google the other threads where I have posted on this subject. You’ll get it eventually.

Adios, sugar.[/quote]

No, she wont.

Your position makes no sense.

Next, will we argue what the definition of the word “is” is?

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

You are welcome.

242

Lemme be scientific here:

Why does the moon revolve around the earth?

God did it.

Why is helium lighter than air?

God did it.

Magnets, how do they fucking work?

God did it.

Wow, those are wicked testable hypothesis and infinitely more fruitful than those shenanigans of those coat wearing eggheads.

243

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Absolute certainty is only possible for a being who absolutely controls absolutely everything.
[/quote]

Did you believe this same thing before you were elected?

It makes perfect sense that the Westminster assembly described a God which is the same one described in their religious texts? Well, yes… yes it would.

However, that’s…hardly a miracle.

244

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

I see Atheism as the Lack of Theism. More along the lines of taking the position that there are no “dieties”. Labeling “something” as God is rather naive, and intellectually lazy at best. (My opinion, of course).

God can’t be proven or disproven. But the justifications for the lack of proof are rather humorous.[/quote]

Really? You didn’t you your home work you naughty boy…Now you sound stupid. Shame.

245

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You have no better reason to believe anything about Pluto. Everything you know about Pluto is hearsay and you can’t prove you weren’t lied to. You can’t even really know it exists, muchless know anything about it.
[/quote]

To clarify, you generally reject facts accepted in the scientific world if that cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty?
[/quote]
Absolutely not. I love science, I respect the discipline greatly, but I also understand it for what it is. Science uses an inductive reasoning. In a nut shell it establishes implied causation based on observed correlation. It’s a very important difference that deductive reasoning. Science gives us likely possibilities, deductive reasoning deals in absolutes. It’s a big difference. When you put your faith in something, you need to know it’s reality. Science infers things based on observation. As a result, historically, it has spent most it’s time being wrong. Just look at the history of science to know this to be true.

Now let me stop you before you go there. I love science. I am greatly interested in the stuff of science and it’s discoveries. I am not a biblical literalness. I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, this current universe is between 13.5 and 15 billion years old. I believe that in 5 billion years the Andromeda galaxy will slam in to the Milky Way sending most of the stars in the outer bands (where we are) flying in to space so if we haven’t ended by then, that will certainly do it. I believe evolution is good solid science. I believe science and religion are completely different disciplines that intersect. All disciplines intersect at some point if you follow them to the bitter end.

Yes and no, yes in that you are believing it to be true based on pure hearsay. There is a consesus among people who agree to this fact is a fact. You read or heard about this fact and there for believed it with out being able to experience it for yourself.
No in that science as stated above is a different discipline. It’s studies the physical world. The stuff of relgion is concerned with God, a question science really doesn’t even attempt to answer. So science is truly atheist in that it doesn’t attempt the question. Humans have no choice they have to answer the question of whether or not God exists. You can say you can’t be bothered with it, but you’ll be lying.

246

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Absolute certainty is only possible for a being who absolutely controls absolutely everything.
[/quote]

Did you believe this same thing before you were elected?

It makes perfect sense that the Westminster assembly described a God which is the same one described in their religious texts? Well, yes… yes it would.

However, that’s…hardly a miracle.
[/quote]

:slight_smile:

247

Greg,

I actually have a question for you.

Have you ever had a dream where you suddenly realize that you are dreaming?

248

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh no, athiesm isn’t a lack of belief it’s a belief that nothing rather than something is ‘responsible’ for existence.
And if atheism was a lack of belief literally, you couldn’t even discuss it because you cannot discuss that which does not exist. The second you start discussing ‘it’ you start assigning properties and said ‘nothing’ suddenly becomes something.
[/quote]

Huh?

I’ve never discussed what I think is ‘responsible’ for existence.

to the second part: So wait, I can’t discuss the fact I do not believe in any supernatural claims?

I haven’t assigned any properties just what I wrote above. [/quote]

I think you missed the point. Basically, you can have only one of two stances on ‘existence’ itself. That ‘existence’ is dependent on something for it’s existence, or nothing. You cannot say ‘neither’ because that becomes circular reasoning. A ‘thing’ cannot be the reason for it’s own existence.
It hearkens back to the cosmological form and the priciple of causation on which it is based.
If you take the literal definition of ‘nothing’, a complete absence of everything, then you can’t comment on it, because there is nothing to comment on.

All I was saying really is that ‘atheism’ itself is a belief, not a non-belief. It’s a belief based on a lack of expected conditions.[/quote]

My answer is: I don’t know.

But I’m not going to insert a god simply because I don’t know.

I don’t buy the cosmological based on the standard arguments I’ve read. I’ve seen you discuss it with BG, not going to bother to rehash it.
[/quote]

Yeah, that really wasn’t a good conversation to watch. It was all about deflecting personal blows, returning in kind and trying to insert logic in the mean time. If you call me stupid, I am going to say your stupider, but there is a point where it get absurd and irreconcilable, so I put as well as tirib on my ignore list. Though some how, some way I figure I am going to end up sparing with him indirectly.
Better conversations to watch would have been with ephrem, pookie or forlife…The latter being the most interesting to converse with.

You don’t have to rehash, I really don’t want to either, but it’s important to understand the argument so that you understand where I am coming from.

249

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I am not so clever as to have made up the word ‘faith’ and give it, it’s meaning. The word faith is what it is, and means what it means, this fact allows me to use it they way I did. The point is that what you understand what faith really means, you realize that everybody lives on faith because nobody can know very much with certainty. Especially physical matter.
I don’t believe in ‘religions’ therefore, certainly don’t have a reason to believe in them. I don’t believe in ‘religion’. Religion is means, not an end. Think about it like this.
Personal faith is like a cell phone and religion is like a cell phone provider. I make my connections to God through my provider, but the faith is mine and the relationship I have on the other side is personal. The religion is a vehicle to make that connection. If you count on religion to do shit for you, your faith is shit.

[/quote]

There are several definitions of faith, check your dictionary. The one you used makes it seem like believing in something with a scientific basis is equally as rationale as believing in supernatural claims. They really aren’t the same thing
[/quote]

It is. That’s the point. If you can’t experience it for yourself, you cannot ‘know’ it.[/quote]

I’m not interested in absolute certainty. I care about the relative world, things relative to us.
[/quote]

Fair enough, but you have no basis to say people are wrong or right and you have damn sure have no right to poke fun at anybody since is may be you who is wrong.

250

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:
…like the ass needs another hole.

I’m sorry. Continue.[/quote]

I seem to notice Christine, you’ll drop some vitriol and hatred, but when the conversation gets serious, you run away. Why are you afraid to stand up for your beliefs?[/quote]

Ha! Sorry, I just meant that this argument had been done to death and never goes anywhere.

I didn’t think that was hating.

Whatever ya’ll believe is cool with me. Faith requires no proof, so what is the point of arguing it?
[/quote]
Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.

If you take a stance on an issue, I think you should know about your stance, why it’s your stance and have stuff that defends that stance otherwise how do you know if you’re right? I am not satisfied with a guess are you?

If that’s the worst thing you have to fear, your life is awesome.[/quote]

One of the definitions of faith is the belief in something without any proof. I’m not attempting to insult anyone with this statement.
[/quote]

That is one definition, but there is many more definitions are available too. More generically and more accurately describing religious faith is trust in someone or something. For instance, I look I the scriptures, I take it on faith that God does or will do what he says he does. It’s less applied to existence and more applied to the man-God relationship.

I didn’t think I was being defensive, I merely asked why you ridiculed the belief system. I have read the other things you have said to. You cannot claim to have been neutral or benign in your statements.
My main point is why do you mock, but never really carry the argument out to the end and defend it. You’ve done this several times, I think is a fair thing to ask. Do you believe in God and just hate religion or are you an atheist and hate religion too?[/quote]

You have trust in it. No problem. Proof is not a necessary part of faith. You may think that you have some proof, but I am simply skeptical of your proof.
[/quote]
At some point, what you have faith in has to bear some kind of fruit or your faith will cease. It’s simple opperant conditioning. There has to be a basis or foundation for faith to be maintained. You can believe in anything for a little while, but on going faith or trust is built on the basis of things.
I sense that non-believers have this notion that religion particularly Christianity is full of ‘abracadabra’ and ‘hocus pocus’, I see none of that and no need for that. It’s a very natural, not super natural thing.
I would figure you’d be skeptical of religion otherwise you’d be religious.

But you’re ridiculing things you don’t understand.
They do lead to some interesting places at times. It’s not futility, it’s about discourse. Perhaps if understood my positions, you would not find them ridiculous.

That’s a curious statement, what do you find interesting about them?[/quote]

I think that all religions, including Christianity have lots of elements of supernatural. Let’s start with Jesus rising from the dead.

Of course I will never understand it. I would have to be a Christian (insert any other religion) to fully understand it. It doesn’t matter how much I know or don’t know about Christianity, I will always be observing it from an outsider’s point of view.

I find the overall mythology and ceremonies surrounding religions to be fun to learn about. For instance, Semana Santa in Antigua, Guatemala in an interesting event to observe. I spent several months there living with a family (even went to church with them… and didn’t spontaneously combust). I also learned quite a bit about Mayans and their religion.

Why not be interested in learning a bit about religions?

[/quote]

What makes you think I haven’t? I have been to a worship service in a Mosque for Friday prayers. Been to various denominations of Christians, discussed faith in worship with Hindus.

You make the same mistake all other non-believers make in that you think we’re all the same and we all do the same things.

For instance, you can easily see tirib and I a light years apart. I have more in common with yall than I do with him. Ironically, he shares many of the same logical beliefs as yall. He just subscribes to the fallacy of ‘God of gaps’…Something thing I thought we did away with thousands of years ago. You people accuse us of it, he actually fulfills your stereotype.

251

[quote]williams843 wrote:
To the Christians in here:

You cannot tell a blind man to see simply by asking him to open his eyes.

Apart from God intervening, that mans remains that way.

Pray, Be informed via scripture, Evangelize[/quote]

If you going to make an ass-hat comment about what’s being said in the thread, actually read it so you comment accurately.

252

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
For some reason God chose to reveal himself to Man vs. all his other creatures. This ‘creator’ decided to have a relationship with us. Where as all other life, all other things he was content to set in motion.
If you look historically God has been very consistent with the fact that he revealed him self to the lowliest of low creatures. So he chose the Hebrews. These people didn’t have the good sense to know that fucking your sheep or goats isn’t to be done. He had to tell them several times in the OT to knock that shit off. He could have chosen the Egyptains, they were smart, educated, and civilized…Nope he picked the Hebrews. Then later He decided to step in to the world as a poor ass carpenter. This lowly carpender changed the entire world and the way it works. And how did he do it? By being humiliated in death by dying a criminal’s death.

Why Christianity? Because it’s the best way I know to communicate and relate to God himself.

St. Paul stated God has dealt with those with whom he didn’t reveal themselves accordingly to their own measure and that indeed, knowledge of God cane come from simply observing the world around you and in nature. To whom he has showed Christianity, are those who are to have the most intimate and compelling relationship.
Why Christianity? Because it works. If you put the sayings and tenets expressed in the NT to practice, they work exactly as the book says they do. I mean exactly. And whether you know it or not as a non-believer, you act according to the script as it is written in the scriptures, particularly the NT. It really is uncanny.
The way unbelievers act and interact with Christians is exactly as Jesus and the apostles said they would…

I could actually write a dissertation on this question, but I tried to keep it as taut as possible.

[/quote]
Ok. So you feel the biggest connection to God through Christianity. Thanks. I’m done.[/quote]

Done with what? The application ignorance and bigotry solves nothing?

253

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

I see Atheism as the Lack of Theism. More along the lines of taking the position that there are no “dieties”. Labeling “something” as God is rather naive, and intellectually lazy at best. (My opinion, of course).

God can’t be proven or disproven. But the justifications for the lack of proof are rather humorous.[/quote]

Really? You didn’t you your home work you naughty boy…Now you sound stupid. Shame.[/quote]

As most here that are debating, lacking in credibility…despite apparent study.

254

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

I see Atheism as the Lack of Theism. More along the lines of taking the position that there are no “dieties”. Labeling “something” as God is rather naive, and intellectually lazy at best. (My opinion, of course).

God can’t be proven or disproven. But the justifications for the lack of proof are rather humorous.[/quote]

Really? You didn’t you your home work you naughty boy…Now you sound stupid. Shame.[/quote]

As most here that are debating, lacking in credibility…despite apparent study.
[/quote]

Prove me wrong.

255

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
NOT to bogard this thread but you do realize that christians pray to a BASTARD son as mary and “god” where not married and chances are Mary was RAPED ! So that left Joseph an idiot for standing around and not protecting his better half. This is what you want to believe in ? On top of that christianity is for people with little cognative functioning as I am wondering what was wrong with this article of fiction called the TORAH ! /was it just a little to hardcore on your sorry asses to be followed with any certainty ?

By the way, for the record I am a BORN AGAIN PAGAN ATHEIST !

One last thing: it IS upon the person perpetuating the myth to provide the evidence : )

Go BEN ![/quote]

No, you’re just a sorry dick trying to insult people and make them feel small by being an asshole. It’s nothing to be proud of.

256

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

I see Atheism as the Lack of Theism. More along the lines of taking the position that there are no “dieties”. Labeling “something” as God is rather naive, and intellectually lazy at best. (My opinion, of course).

God can’t be proven or disproven. But the justifications for the lack of proof are rather humorous.[/quote]

Really? You didn’t you your home work you naughty boy…Now you sound stupid. Shame.[/quote]

As most here that are debating, lacking in credibility…despite apparent study.
[/quote]

Prove me wrong.[/quote]

On the definition that Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity?

257

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
2+2 is indeed 4 and there is no way we can theorize around that fact. 2+2 will never be 5 however much we would wish it to be.
[/quote]
Excellent. I use the 2+2 analogy a lot. Mathematics are fantastic abstract objects.

The bible doesn’t speak very fondly of homosexuality from cover to cover. The distinction is that it doesn’t really speak about the people doing it but that the act is forbidden and sinful. It’s not the only thing that is. The passage your thinking of is likely in Corinthians. Romans only mentions it in passing along with other things. It condemns acts and not people, but it also doesn’t say you can do what ever you want to either. Adultry, theft and murder is also frowned upon, but I am guessing you’re ok with that.

And you won’t see me quote scripture. Handing scripture to an atheist who hates religion is like giving a guy a diamond to wipe his ass with. I can understand you have no personal relationship with God. My point is simply that I can apply logic and result in a necessary being. I don’t need to know anything about religion or the bible or the koran or what ever, to prove and believe in God. Aristotle did this first. He had no basis to believe in God, but logic led him to the conclusion of an Uncaused-cause. He never heard of monotheism. If he heard of Israel it was in passing and likely political, yet by logic alone he was able to draw that conclusion.
I don’t don’t believe simply because a book says I should. If that were the case I would believe in wizards since JK Rowling was an epic story teller. But that’s not the case.

I know what tirib would say, I here to tell you I ain’t that, Christianity ain’t that. Besides scripture there is a rich history and sound logic behind many thing of faith. I am no bible thumper and I don’t need to be.

258

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Why your argument is not practical:

To summarize, if you have to teach Christianity, you also have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s only fair.

BTW, this letter successfully prevented the Kansas school board from incorporating intelligent design into their curriculum.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR, I do believe:

Evolution should be taught in schools as well as creation.

DA/DT should not have been repealed.

But again that is beside the point.[/quote]

I am fine with creation being taught in schools as either history, religion or literature. The creation account is not scientific.[/quote]

And that is your opinion. I have mine. The next guy has his.

And THAT my friend was my original point.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh goody, another link to atheist propaganda making a dumb argument.

259

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Why your argument is not practical:

To summarize, if you have to teach Christianity, you also have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s only fair.

[/quote]

And that is your opinion. I have mine. The next guy has his.

To summarize, you have no inherent superiority to somehow be the designated arbiter of fairness. I don’t say this to be condescending, it’s just a simple fact.[/quote]

So you would be okay with schools teaching this? (you skipped that link huh?)

"Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that Iâ??m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. Iâ??m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people donâ??t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

Iâ??m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we donâ??t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures."

[/quote]

Are you trying to prove atheism is intellectually lazy? You don’t really need to throw around strawman and red herring to prove it, I believe that none of you thought it through. There is only one atheist here who has. And he would find the above ^^ as ridiculous as I do. You cannot derive a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ deductively. Or do you prefer, ‘sky fairy’ I have heard them all.

260

Sexmachine,

Many words have been used to describe me, but “clever” is not one of them.

My post is inspired by my opinion that Christian faith is symptomatic of a masochistic need to be punished, to be continuously observed and so on. You all tell me I don’t have a firm grasp of the scriptures and fair enough, I accept that.

However, it doesn’t take more than perusing the NT to see that Jesus would convict us of thought crime, for example. And lest ye forget, I can see how Christians act and speak, how their minds work (no they are not all the same I’m not saying that).

Pat,

I appreciate what your saying, but coming to the logical conclusion of there being an ultimate, omnipresent, omnipotent being doesn’t validate the belief you have in the life and teachings of Jesus. My own father tells me he believes in God because he believes in Jesus. Well… I don’t. See, it doesn’t matter if Aristotle and Socrates ever lived, because their logic and methods stand on their own without help of virgin births or any other incredulous claims.