Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
SalMinolta

Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

I now believe there is so much delusion in the world one can only truly be certain of what one personally verifies. I've lost faith in religions, politicians, and scientists who expect me to blindly believe whatever they may say just because they have fancy credentials.

I gain inspiration from many sources. However, when it comes to blindly believing information I cannot personally verify I tend to leave the matters open. I am always ready for more evidence whenever it may come along. I feel to be truly "enlightened" requires that one embrace the truth even if the truth hurts.

I am rather terrified of risking shattering anyone's religious faith with the truth. Just in case there is a God I don't want to one day find myself guilty of shattering anyone's faith. HOWEVER, when it comes to atheists I have no problem because atheists are NOT supposed to believe anything on faith. Atheists pride themselves on being believers in science and backing their beliefs with scientific evidence. This is something religions cannot do and are not expected to do since they openly admit they believe on faith.

So, here we go

Please present the NAMES of the experiments demonstrating that the human eye is continually being created by random chance mutations. I am NOT interested in your BLIND FAITH beliefs. I want the NAMES of the scientific experiments demonstrating this. I'll do MY OWN research into their validity.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

If you have no such experiments, then you believe the premise on BLIND FAITH whether you realize it or not. I feel mainstream atheistic science is GUILTY of presenting scientific speculation as hard, cold fact to hopelessly brainwashed students.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Russell Parr »

Hello SalMinolta, welcome to the forum.
I now believe there is so much delusion in the world one can only truly be certain of what one personally verifies. I've lost faith in religions, politicians, and scientists who expect me to blindly believe whatever they may say just because they have fancy credentials.
Yes, all verification ends with oneself. Even if one takes what others say to be true, there is a choice in doing so involved.
I gain inspiration from many sources. However, when it comes to blindly believing information I cannot personally verify I tend to leave the matters open. I am always ready for more evidence whenever it may come along. I feel to be truly "enlightened" requires that one embrace the truth even if the truth hurts.
Sounds like true science. Truth indeed cares not of anyone's subjective feelings regarding it.
I am rather terrified of risking shattering anyone's religious faith with the truth. Just in case there is a God I don't want to one day find myself guilty of shattering anyone's faith. HOWEVER, when it comes to atheists I have no problem because atheists are NOT supposed to believe anything on faith. Atheists pride themselves on being believers in science and backing their beliefs with scientific evidence. This is something religions cannot do and are not expected to do since they openly admit they believe on faith.
God cannot exist in the manner that mainstream religions propose Him to exist due to causality. All things are caused, so no one thing can have any ultimate power over anything else. All things are causally connected, so all things are equal in that manner.
Please present the NAMES of the experiments demonstrating that the human eye is continually being created by random chance mutations. I am NOT interested in your BLIND FAITH beliefs. I want the NAMES of the scientific experiments demonstrating this. I'll do MY OWN research into their validity.
I do not know of any such experiments, but I do have this to say. Ultimate truth cannot be found in scientific experiments, because science isn't designed to deal with ultimate truths. It is designed to find conventional truths backed by empirical evidence, that is to always remain open to new evidence which might allow for the development of improved conventional truths. Ultimate truths can be dealt with in philosophy alone, with conclusions arrived at through logical inquiry.

In other words, even the best scientific evidence for evolution will get you no closer to the truth about God. Only philosophy can get you there.
If you have no such experiments, then you believe the premise on BLIND FAITH whether you realize it or not. I feel mainstream atheistic science is GUILTY of presenting scientific speculation as hard, cold fact to hopelessly brainwashed students.
The wise do not believe in anything at all, except in practicality. All things are but what they appear to be, with no ultimate conclusions to ever be reached about them other than regarding their causal/constantly changing nature.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

YOU WROTE:

"All things are but what they appear to be..."

MY RESPONSE: New discoveries in Quantum Physics kicked the hell out of that certainty. Turns out nothing is what it appears to be and yet...it is. A paradox of ironies to be sure. There is obviously much more to reality than what is perceived by our senses.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

If consciousness did not come from a conscious source then consciousness must have sprung forth from dead matter. Please share the NAMES of the repeatable, observable scientific experiments demonstrating that consciousness sprang forth from dead matter? If you have no such experiments then you believe the premise on DUMB BLIND FAITH which makes you just like the BLIND FAITH religious in your ignorance.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

YOU WROTE:

"God cannot exist in the manner that mainstream religions propose Him to exist due to causality"

MY RESPONSE: Do you have repeatable, observable scientific experiments demonstrating this or is this just your dumb blind faith opinion? If God exists MIRACULOUSLY, as various Scripture says he does then...ANYTHING is possible whether it meets the standards of your precious causality or not. Life is NOT a sequel to The Matrix movie.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR that I am NOT here to teach anyone anything. I am here to test my CURRENT beliefs in order to improve upon them. In order to do this I feel I MUST face the truth about my current beliefs whether I like those truths or not.

I respect you atheists for you tend to be a lot tougher than the blind faith religious. I don't debate religious people anymore because the truth tends to blow their cozy little religious certainties apart at the proverbial seams. I don't like shattering the fragile faith of the blind faith religious. The very concept makes me nervous.

CASE IN POINT: Do research then logically decide just how many GOLDEN PLATES it would take to contain all the information contained in the Book of Mormon. We're talking A HELL OF A LOT OF GOLDEN PLATES. I wouldn't be surprised if it created a stack of plates close to THREE-FEET HIGH!!! Do YOU think a young man like Joseph Smith could lift that much gold?

If you saw the James Bond movie Goldfinger you should remember how much effort it took for Sean Connery to toss just one bar of gold at the Karate man Odd Job.

If the Nile truly ran red like blood during the time of "Moses" surely other kingdoms would have heard about the incident and it would be preserved in this writing of a number of other nations who were giving tribute to Egypt at the time. I have heard of the incident NO WHERE ELSE except in the Bible. I find that very suspicious.
Last edited by SalMinolta on Wed May 17, 2017 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SalMinolta wrote:Please present the NAMES of the experiments demonstrating that the human eye is continually being created by random chance mutations. I am NOT interested in your BLIND FAITH beliefs. I want the NAMES of the scientific experiments demonstrating this. I'll do MY OWN research into their validity.
Although I'm not a scientist, it seems to me your question is perhaps not asking what you think it's asking. Let me try to explain that. Evolution is a complex process and consists of various distinct mechanisms of change. What you perhaps call random chance mutations is one of them. But to my knowledge that's not the only cause or "force" of development and the idea that evolution is just a sum of random mutation and genetic drift is now largely abandoned in the sciences. This happens a lot in science, changes are made to theories when new convincing evidence is presented. There's never a real "end point", a theory can always be overturned by new insights which causes old evidence to be re-interpreted.

Large random chance mutations on DNA level result normally in a quick and certain death for the organism. Every second we have a holocaust of cells killed because of malfunctioning and as such being cleaned up by our own body. Same goes with mutations in the cells forming an embryo: normally it's being repaired or the embryo simply does not develop into anything viable. But evidence of such mutations are easy to find, in cases where the embryo or child survives long enough to be examined.

So with evolution you need to make distinction between adaptation, genetic drift [statistical redistribution], gene flow [mixing of populations, all the strange pairing], mutations [errors, viruses etc], natural selection ["fitness"] and speciation. One mutation doesn't map to a change in trait, or not a noticeable one at least, or if it does, the chance the organism would survive the change is near to zero. So most mutations, if not repaired right away, will just sit there, inactive, but might arise by recombination once in a while. Also, many traits are caused by a combination ('cooperation') of genes and a mutation could only slightly change a trait, not "completely' modify it.

The only recent eye change we know of is eye color (new lighter colors) which has links with skin color (traits are often linked throughout the body). Quite likely this has been a mutation which occurs regularly but in changing circumstances (migration) now was selected on for various reasons (efficiency with less sunlight, mate attraction) and then it goes suddenly fast: the mutations spreads!

Evolution can go fastest during a so-called "arms race" when competing organisms rapidly die (shorter cycles) and the "guiding hand" in this instance, during such upheaval is than simply the fitness test: what works probably continues. See also "evolutionary programming" and "game theory" in which anyone can experiment with a few line of codes to demonstrate that aspect of selection.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

Such are your BLIND FAITH opinions about Darwinian evolution. EVOLUTION is a fact. Things change over time. Darwinian evolution states that a monkey-like creature eventually EVOLVES into man. You have NO REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS demonstrating this. All you have is an ATHEIST interpretation of the physical evidence that others interpret differently.

Your fancy rhetoric without scientific experiments to back it up is just BLIND FAITH SPECULATION. Get back to me when you can back everything you stated with repeatable, observable scientific experiments.

I am no longer as easily tricked as I used to be.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SalMinolta wrote:If consciousness did not come from a conscious source then consciousness must have sprung forth from dead matter. Please share the NAMES of the repeatable, observable scientific experiments demonstrating that consciousness sprang forth from dead matter? If you have no such experiments then you believe the premise on DUMB BLIND FAITH which makes you just like the BLIND FAITH religious in your ignorance.
Is it fair to demand from science to deliver all those answers now and in such detail or be doomed or considered worthless? Many theories took centuries to develop and be tested, one building on top of the other.

For me the question would be more like: if one desires an explanation based on scientific experiments, it has to start somewhere. With a model, with a theory. The problem is not as much asking can "consciousness spring from dead matter" but asking the question "if it DID NOT emerge from matter (energy, chemistry, alive or dead, doesn't matter) then where did it come from?

Anyone is free to supply different theories on origination. Same with evolution. But if someone wants to entertain the option of willful, deliberate creation or interference, by some multidimensional laboratory, by aliens, by gods and so on, the same requirements would apply: show repeatable, observable scientific observations on this: any influence of god, alien or force. And model to explain their nature, their motive, perhaps location or origination, limits or any property to begin with.

Here you see the issue: one has to start somewhere. And with science one can start with chemistry: put chemicals together, some heat and some extraordinary things can happen! You eat a wonderful meal, some bowel movement later it's all changed. Lets put it on the gardens as compost, flowers grow as a result! These processes are all scientifically pretty well described and tested. So it doesn't explain life itself or consciousness but it's a start towards a more complete theory on life and related organic transformation.

Science so far cannot replicate the start of what we call "life" from organic molecules. Not without changing definitions of life. Some interesting reactive complexity can be created though. But not self-replicating stuff. Same with consciousness or self-awareness within the animal mind but that model can only be tested once scientists can build minds comparable to our own.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SalMinolta wrote:Darwinian evolution states that a monkey-like creature eventually EVOLVES into man. You have NO REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS demonstrating this. All you have is an ATHEIST interpretation of the physical evidence that others interpret differently.
We have monkey, apes and human beings. Or lets establish that. And we both want to know about origination, okay?

If you have any alternative, competing theory, please come out with it! If you think I blindly believe anything, you have misunderstood perhaps my posts, my intentions and are probably also not very familiar yet with this forum. But lets move on.
Your fancy rhetoric without scientific experiments to back it up is just BLIND FAITH SPECULATION. Get back to me when you can back everything you stated with repeatable, observable scientific experiments.
It's very good to doubt! As a starting point to new things. But that won't give you automatically a better model or theory to explain anything. But perhaps you're looking for something else entirely?
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by JohnJAu »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:If you think I blindly believe anything
It does seem that way.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:o with evolution you need to make distinction between adaptation, genetic drift [statistical redistribution], gene flow [mixing of populations, all the strange pairing], mutations [errors, viruses etc], natural selection ["fitness"] and speciation. One mutation doesn't map to a change in trait, or not a noticeable one at least, or if it does, the chance the organism would survive the change is near to zero. So most mutations, if not repaired right away, will just sit there, inactive, but might arise by recombination once in a while. Also, many traits are caused by a combination ('cooperation') of genes and a mutation could only slightly change a trait, not "completely' modify it.

The only recent eye change we know of is eye color (new lighter colors) which has links with skin color (traits are often linked throughout the body). Quite likely this has been a mutation which occurs regularly but in changing circumstances (migration) now was selected on for various reasons (efficiency with less sunlight, mate attraction) and then it goes suddenly fast: the mutations spreads!
Surely you admit that to me and you the above is all hearsay, extremely little to none of which you have verified or tested personally, and is the exact definition of believing blindly.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying you or any of it is wrong in this case, the point isn't that any of it is untrue, perhaps it is all accurate, the point is that you have not had the necessary first hand experiences to verify it or it's relevant position in philosophy, and therefore it's worthless in terms of philosophy. It shouldn't be here, and it's mostly a pretense. The same way that it would be worthless for someone who has never meditated to be giving opinions on what meditation can and cannot reveal about life, or for one to refer to experiments in quantum physics as reason on this forum. It's philosophical cop out, very out of place, and this habit has been frequently disguised as reasoning here to back up views on metaphysics, life and death, etc. I can either quote a few of you (and I'm grouping 'you' together, because most of you have done this), or I can simply ask you to explain your views on these topics, it shouldn't be long before references to physics and neurosciences pop up.

Every now and then this delusional tendency shows itself when you are challenged about the nature of life and death, or the nature of reality, and you refer to experiments as a cop out for independent reasoning. It lacks authenticity.
Last edited by JohnJAu on Wed May 17, 2017 12:26 pm, edited 5 times in total.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

YOU WROTE:

"If you have any alternative, competing theory, please come out with it!"

MY RESPONSE:

My theory is: if you have no repeatable, observable scientific experiments to back your scientific SPECULATION then DON'T PRESENT IT AS FACT!!

To do so is to be DISHONEST!! That is what I usually find atheists to be DISHONEST. They present speculative theories as though they are hard. cold fact to children.

I CONSIDER THAT CHILD ABUSE!!!!
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

You should face the reality that one-day mainstream science may be forced to toss the theory of Darwinian evolution into the scientific trash pile right next to their once precious Piltdown Man.
I personally believe it will be new discoveries in CONSCIOUSNESS that will completely topple the old, classic Darwinian paradigm.

Take a detached step back and explain to me how Darwinian evolution automatically means there was no intelligent designer involved in the creation process?

You have no repeatable, observable scientific experiments demonstrating that

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION = NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

Yet, you atheist types act as though you have all the scientific evidence in the world to back this ridiculous nonsense up!!
I mean, it takes quite a leap of dumb blind faith to jump to such a ridiculous conclusion, yet you atheist types
just proverbially jump off the 'cliff' of logic and reason to blindly take this stance!!

I don't know for a fact one way or the other and NEITHER DO YOU. However, at least I am honest enough
to openly admit that I don't know while you atheist types tend to act as though you have it all figured out!!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Dan Rowden »

There appears to be some sort of relationship between intellectual capacity and the use of caps lock. I wonder if anyone is doing a study.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

If that's the best you have as a response you need to change your avatar photo.
I think the Buddha would have a wiser response than that
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Dan Rowden »

I think the Buddha would have agreed that people sometimes get what they deserve. You're getting what you deserve. To some extent, that's ultimately up to you.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SalMinolta wrote:My theory is: if you have no repeatable, observable scientific experiments to back your scientific SPECULATION then DON'T PRESENT IT AS FACT!!
But I asked for your own theory on how the human ape or life itself came to be. Perhaps you should first study more the scientific concept of hypothesis, theory and experiment. Theories like formation of life or development of intelligence and awareness are NOT presented as ultimate fact. They are presented as current theory and there are competing models even in the field.

Feel free to add to theories with ideas based at least on a few elements which are repeatable, observable scientific experiments.
To do so is to be DISHONEST!! That is what I usually find atheists to be DISHONEST. They present speculative theories as though they are hard. cold fact to children.
Your bold caps seem to start from a simply wrong starting point. The end result is always tears or disappointment unless you'd rethink your whole starting point, in your case: you are assuming science proposes ultimate facts while instead you appear more way more radical in your desire for absolute interpretations. Of course if you want to challenge materialism, that's philosophy.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

TO DIEBERT: To be perfectly honest, ever since I learned about the amazing new discoveries in Quantum Physics and about the OUTRAGEOUS complexity of living cells I have felt that the existence of all life is a MIRACULOUS WONDER. I don't believe random chance can account for such incredibly orchestrated complexity. I mean, if true, the ways living cells unravel and use the amazing information contained in DNA is in and of itself a miraculous wonder.

So, I currently believe life is a miraculous wonder.

If you disagree do you do so on the basis of repeatable, observable scientific experiments or on the basis of DUMB BLIND FAITH?

You, like so many atheist types, have presented a bunch of fancy sounding rhetoric as though it is hard, cold fact. When challenged to back up our rhetoric with repeatable, observable scientific experiments all you have is rhetoric brainwashed into you by those who think they have things all figured out.

I have my current opinions, but I leave such matter as the mystery of life open as any wise person should.
Last edited by SalMinolta on Wed May 17, 2017 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

THERE IS NOTHING "WRONG" WITH HAVING AN INTELLIGENT OPINION.
However, when you present those opinions as though they are scientifically proven fact
when you have nothing but your farts as evidence of their validity,
that is quite another matter entirely.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

YOU WROTE: in your case: you are assuming science proposes ultimate facts while instead you appear more way more radical in your desire for absolute interpretations. Of course if you want to challenge materialism, that's philosophy.

MY RESPONSE: Where is your repeatable, observable scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution automatically means there is no intelligent designer of the universe? YOU HAVE NONE!! Yet, mainstream science pushes this ridiculous nonsense as though it is proven scientific fact.

I'll tell you what science has proven. From my studies, science has proven that life is more complex than old farts, like Darwin, ever dreamt possible. Darwin was said to privately have had his doubts about HIW OWN THEORY. The complexity of the eye was one of the things that he felt made his theory of natural selection random chance mutations look foolish. The complexity of a simple peacock feather was said to 'make him shudder'.

MY THEORY IS: if random chance mutations account for all life no two peacock feathers would look alike. That makes perfect sense to me.

I believe I remember reading that for about three-quarters of a century only a handful of scientists believed Darwinian evolution to be true. For about seventy-five years most scientists apparently thought Darwinian evolution was an inadequate explanation for the miraculous wonder of life.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SalMinolta wrote:So, I currently believe life is a miraculous wonder.
We fully agree on that and so would many millions of scientists and others. What's your point? You don't want to examine the miraculous any further? I'm not sure if I understand your issue or if you even have one.
You, like so many atheist types, have presented a bunch of fancy sounding rhetoric as though it is hard, cold fact. When challenged to back up our rhetoric with repeatable, observable scientific experiments all you have is rhetoric brainwashed into you by those who think they have things all figured out.

I have my current opinions, but I leave such matter as the mystery of life open as any wise person should.
What is your problem with "hard and cold fact"? A scientific finding is what it is but always relative and provisional.

Leaving "the mystery open" does not mean shutting down science, theories, methods and solid critique on false ideas.
SalMinolta wrote: Where is your repeatable, observable scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution automatically means there is no intelligent designer of the universe? YOU HAVE NONE!! Yet, mainstream science pushes this ridiculous nonsense as though it is proven scientific fact.
You are demanding evidence that a designer theory you refuse to support with any repeatable, observable scientific evidence is definitely WRONG? Science does not work that way. By all means, believe in a designer or trace his evidence in repeatable fact or mystical revelation for that matter. What's the problem for you exactly?
I'll tell you what science has proven. From my studies, science has proven that life is more complex than old farts, like Darwin, ever dreamt possible.
Yes, modern evolution theory indeed moved way beyond Darwin and even abandoned some of his notions over time. So what are you exactly challenging here? Some specific claim of someone you know?
MY THEORY IS: if random chance mutations account for all life no two peacock feathers would look alike. That makes perfect sense to me.
It makes sense to you but is not supported with "repeatable, observable scientific evidence" -- your requirement for a fact (I believe).

Why do you call this topic the truth of enlightenment? It seems to question the philosophy of naturalism "natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behaviour of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws"/

Perhaps you should address this as a philosophical issue instead? If not, this thread will be moved to "Worldly Matters" because it will just discuss the basics of scientific method.
SalMinolta

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by SalMinolta »

Your type enjoys making things as confusing and convoluted as possible.
As I began this topic thread I stated that in order to be truly "enlightened" you must face the truth even if that truth is NOT to your liking.

THE TRUTH IS:

There is no repeatable, observable scientific evidence that the human eye is continually being created by random chance mutations, yet mainstream science tends to act as though they have all the scientific evidence in the world that the eye is indeed being continually created by random chance mutations.

IT IS A SPECULATIVE MYTH, NOT A SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY

Can we agree on that?

I've found the only way to deal with your slippery type is to address ONE POINT AT A TIME and fully resolve it before going on the the next point. How about being straight forward and honest instead of trying to make things overly complicated and confusing?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Truth of Enlightenment

Post by Dan Rowden »

SalMinolta wrote:Your type enjoys making things as confusing and convoluted as possible.
Translation: I don't understand, therefore I'll blame you for it. Preferably in caps lock.
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

I challenge him to back everything he said with repeatable, observable scientific experiments and he's got nothing but fancy talk to try and hide behind.
People who advocate BLIND FAITH in mainstream science when they don't even realize that is what they are advocating are among the most brainwashed
dumb people you will ever find. Many of them have intellect, but little rational wisdom.
They tend to believe everything some atheist twit like Richard Dawkins has to say at face value.

As I said there is nothing "wrong" with having a speculative opinion.
However, when you accept that scientific opinion as fact with only your farts as scientific evidence of its validity
that is another matter entirely.

This guy wants to dance around the fact that he has no repeatable, observable scientific experiments to back his fancy talk
and I won't let him get away with it while YOU, apparently, blindly believe everything he stated.
What does that say about YOU?
Locked