Realizing for the first time that the physical part of me was listening and was being completely undergirded by a non-physical part of me , Not only that , but realizing that this non-physical part , was a part that nobody else could ever see, touch ,or know.
The non-physical was the real me. As opposed to the assembly of cells that I could see in the mirror. My Spirit. Do atheists allow themselves to have any spiritual side to them at all, or is this strictly forbidden territory to them that they make a conscious choice to avoid.
Or does it all depend on the individual? I have only ever heard Atheists focused exclusively on the disbelief in God, but never any other spiritual matter. Just Curious. Last edited: Dec 14, Define what exactly is "atheists who hold to belief in a spirit life"? I am not sure I would call this childhood experience "spiritual" as much as just a childhood fascination with some of the phenomena of optics.
Physics can sometimes be weird that way. For me there was definite realization that there existed what was in fact the real me apart from the body. This from atheist is what I am refering to : Some atheists experience spiritual discoveries and revelations.
Just as one example, many Buddhists are also atheists, but nonetheless seek spiritual enlightenment. Optical illusions can be weird. There are paintings where you look at it and could swear it was moving. For me It was a multidimensional multisensory awakening. Search forums. Popular Threads 24 hours. Popular Threads 7 days. Log in. Install the app. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics , many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties.
Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free! JavaScript is disabled.
For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. The New Atheism. Thread starter watsup Start date Oct 27, Prev 1 … Go to page. Go to page. First Prev 12 of 17 Go to page.
DP Veteran. Click to expand That is simply not true. The saying is not an absolute, and there may indeed be instances of absence of evidence that DOES mean an evidence of absence. Do you have any? If not, no evidence , no god, same as for wood fairies or Santa Claus. Using TWO different forms of the same word is clearly circular. I am atheist. Why not just say so instead of engaging in all the lame excuse blather.
What are those one or two exceptions? Rich said:. But you drift into equivocation fallacy here. We are talking theological. It's not in a legal context either, much as you abysmally tried to show.
However the lack of evidence is NOT evidence that it's not true. There is the world of difference, you're just stuck in your mental trench to see it. You clearly don't - to the detriment of your credability. However I'm not so arrogant as you as to categorically say that there is no God, like you do. There is almost nothing I can believe with absolute certainty - an exception is that I know I'm not God Because our knowledge is so limited, I say one or two , because there might turn out to be another thing that we can be absolutely certain of.
Supporting Member. Should they be cut out? Or should they be incorporated into a new business model, bringing the music industry and copyright into the digital age?
It is a question worth asking, and, deceptively, one with no easy answer. Using journal papers and articles, and my own experience as an ex-trader and now torrenter of bootlegs which are not the same as pirates and counterfeits , I hope to attempt to provide one perspective of this question, a potential answer, and one possible idea of how these can be incorporated into a potential business model.
Especially in the music industry, P2P is at the forefront of debates on copyright law. The BitTorrent file-sharing network currently counts millions of users located world-wide that share hundreds of thousands of files on a daily basis. BitTorrent is perhaps one of the biggest controversies of the internet these days. But what is BitTorrent, exactly? At its most basic, BitTorrent is a file-distribution protocol. Once the torrent has been fully downloaded, if the leecher leaves the torrent file in their client, they become part of the swarm of seeders, sharing the torrent with other leechers who might want it.
The client is what allows them to connect to the swarm and download the files. BitTorrent invites controversy because it is filesharing, and a very large portion of that filesharing is not legal. Most torrent sites allow the torrenting of officially released material, without any kind of payment to the labels, artists, studios, directors, and everyone else who invested into the creation, production, and release of the particular work.
Statistics on what percentage of music torrents are official releases and what percentage are bootlegs are not readily available for an overall sample, but I was able to find the statistics for one private torrent tracker, What. Between and , there were 1,, music torrents uploaded to the site. Of that, 15, were bootlegs, which is about 1.
Bootlegging is an interesting case, however. In particular, we investigate whether, and if so, how this illegal activity may hurt bands and record companies. It actually hails back to alcohol prohibition in the US. As described in the abstract, the point of the paper was to determine what effect, if any, bootlegs had on the music industry. To do this, the authors of the paper needed information on the quality, prices, and distribution channels of the bootlegs. First they gathered information about the quality.
They identified live audience recordings as having the lowest quality because they generally pick up ambient noise, specifically the audience, feedback, and so on. FM radio broadcasts tend to be higher quality because they are recordings of professionally-done mixes. And finally, soundboard recordings of live shows are generally the highest quality of all bootlegs, because audience members plug directly into the mixing console, avoiding the unwanted ambient noise.
The authors ultimately determined that, with a few rare soundboard exceptions, bootlegs were generally of lower quality than official releases. They next gathered information about prices, and found that bootlegs were generally more overpriced than official releases, meaning free distribution of bootlegs is generally preferred by traders. The attitudes are varied. Grateful Dead, Phish, and other such bands decided to simply allow their audience to record their shows, with the caveat that the recordings would not be distributed for profit.
It is a matter of principle for me to support an secular society. There is no place for supernatural beliefs in public policy decisions. So I disagree with you that it is some kind of abstract principle frozen in my mind and not in my active focus on maintaining and promoting secularism. Mann'sWord , It was almost impossible to discern what you were babbling about but I tried.
Your actively believing that your silly beliefs are answering anything, is actually beyond silly, it is delusional, in addition to being boringly trite. I have lived in a truly secular society, France, for twenty years, and the stuff that I have encountered about the unbridled coddling of religious beliefs in the public, tax-paying sector in America sickens me.
Our poisoning the well? Accommodationists have done that by themselves by being a bunch of mealy mouthed cowards by lying that science and religion are compatible fields of studies. One is based on evidence, the other is make it up as you go along because you want answers to everything right away like a spoiled brat.
I did not realize that you are an accomodationist. I will unsubscribe now that I know because you were the last person that could possibly have made a difference in my understanding of the accommodationists' viewpoint and you came up with this merde?
I had left the door open a crack, thinking maybe an accommodationist would come along and make sense. If anybody could have done that, it was you. Isn't that the underlying premise of evolution?
I, on the other hand, DO believe all these arguments are conquerable. It never occurs to me that given enough time I can't overthrow, with the help of God, every single bit of such thinking. One day, one way or another, you will understand. That's how the world works.
Not even close. It is obvious you do not understand evolution by natural selection. What people do with their little organizational challenges inside of their own lives is their own to bear the responsibility for. Do you seriously think that if Hitler can just be proven some kind of tool in Gods hand by atheists that the weight of his deeds and thus yours and mine as well will be alleviated?
Think again. What are we talking about when it comes to 'macro scale'? Extinction of species, hurricanes, earthquakes, suns going supernova, galaxies colliding?
How could anyone who can rationally put 2 and 2 together comprehend Natural selection? Lets weight the options. If you have another, please do add it.
Given enough time nothing might happen. Given enough time all kinds of things could happen. Given enough time disorganized life forms might appear. Given enough time miracles could definitely not happen. Check all the provisional verbiage on this list and tell me what part is not understood or accounted for? Does TIME really bring about life? If that is so, prove it without provisional language. C "Organization on a macro scale IS by God's hand.
And and don't forget pre-big bang physics as well. Were ya there by any chance, Richard? Or did it come to you in a fever? Then I laughed and laughed at the "given enough time You have become unintelligible with this random verbage. Caliana, please stop writing about evolution.
Have mercy. My brain hurts trying to understand how you can actually believe that. Really, I fell physical pain seeing how you mangle, distort and misrepresent the science in which I was trained. When you argue evolution you are perhaps the severest case of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have yet come across. Please pick up a basic biology textbook preferably from outside of Texas. You are like an atheist saying "hey, Jesus was crucified, no?
So this means the point of Christianity is torturing other people? And you would not want to share all this special and extremely important information with the whole world? I did not realize that evolution had become so esoteric No if I had such a great answer, I sure would want to share it with the whole world. I mean You said it is so super simple that anyone could understand it. If that is the case a short paragraph ought to do just fine.
I guess that would be painful. I suggest you start with a reasonably simple one. There are thousands of books that can fill in all the information you are missing. Also, stop lying about what I said. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said. This is not a sacred cow, it is a science. You are so ignorant of what you are trying to criticize that you are completely unaware of the profundity of your ignorance. I am working with molecular and morphological evolution and phylogenies every day, and I can assure you that there is a bit more to the work of thousands of highly trained scientists than "given enough time, miracles can happen".
Maybe that is the complexity of thinking that suffices for bible study, I would not know, but it is not in the natural sciences. Do you see me go to a particle physicist and tell her that quarks really do not exist because they do not occur in my holy book? Not that I have a holy book, but well, you don't.
I do not pretend to be able to have any expertise on quarks because I do not have any, so I assume that the people who spend their life studying them will know what they do. And before arguing with them that they study something that does not exist, I would at least do them the courtesy to pick up "particle physics for dummies" and try to find out if I have a leg to stand on at all.
Massimo, Dawkins repeatedly says that his book is aimed at rejecting the God that people actually believe eg. Haven't you read that? Mintman, Here's the thing. There are all kinds of mysteries that many of us do not understand fully as you said but it does not invalidate the possibility that certain things that we do not understand CAN EXIST. Namely even God Himself. What you are referring to in your studies, I think, are pockets of something like evolution or adaptation on a small scale and I know for a fact that what you are studying does not represent evolution as Darwin explained it.
To me, adaptations within species do not amount to evolution. It doesn't mean I don't care about what you are saying or hear it, it just seems like quite a stretch to use those little instances to explain ALL THIS. In fact, we are all accountable to God because His creation so profoundly points to Him Romans 1; Psalm Although natural causation can posit an explanation for the origin of the species, it utterly flounders when it comes to explaining other phenomena which naturalism must explain in order to be credible — the existence of unchanging laws; logic; the origin of life and the cell, consciousness and freewill.
In fact, as I had claimed before, there is not one shred of evidence that the laws that govern the movement and behavior of objects are natural and unintelligent. While we all acknowledge that phenomena are governed by formulae and are therefore predictable, it makes far more sense that the laws find their origin in the mind of God Just ask Occam!
I therefore challenge you to supply one piece of evidence that the laws are natural and mindless! God has no problem proving Himself. For one thing, Jesus performed so many incontestable miracles, that even the Jewish writings acknowledge this fact. Indeed, many of us have firsthand acquaintanceship with His miraculous proofs.
I would venture to also suggest that many atheists have also encountered the miraculous but have chosen to turn away from this evidence. Massimo, for the umpteenth time, how can you keep missing this basic point? Look, real simple: New Atheists think many of the dominant religions are forces of evil one may disagree with this assertion, but you don't, at least not here, so I'm moving on.
If, in their view, religions were not evil, they wouldn't speak up. Or if they did, you would perhaps have a point about their lack of philosophical understanding.
Kant says this, Mill says that and the jury is still out on that one. Likewise but much less intensely , New Atheists argue, religions are evil and they need to be stopped.
I find it contemptible that an intellectual such as yourself commits himself to these views. Massimo, I think you might have indulged in a little poisoning of the well yourself: Few people — possibly not even Dawkins is a giveaway. Also, your statement that in earlier times you'd have agreed with them, but now you know better seems a bit in the same vein. There's animosity on both sides. This debate seems to be two groups talking past each other. From what I gather, Coyne, et al.
I think this is correct, and your post bears it out. Science finds out 'truth' by a certain method. Religion just asserts stuff and has no method for determining was going to say falsifying, but you'd laugh at that, or verifying, which would get me labeled me a logical positivist what is 'truth' or no.
It has no method. No epistemic justification. That is an incompatibility. It's also philosophy as you point out. The so called accomodationists, probably not you, reply that some scientists and religious accommodate this epistemic incompatability in their brains we all are irrational, so that's no surprise , therefore science and religion are trivially compatible.
Which is not what the 'purists' are even arguing about and something they don't care about. In the end, all that they ask is that science bodies neither promote compatibility between science and religion, nor promote incompatibility. Seems reasonable to me. They're not asking that science bodies 'teach the controversy'.
Promoting science and implicating a view that scientists have no problem with religion to sell science is misleading. Especially when 'purists' do have a problem with religion conflicting with science. Hi, I read this blog for the first time today so pardon me if I am not fully aware of all previous debates on this topic. Please read the comment below with an open mind - before trying to judge which camp I belong to:- To me it appears like a lot of the debate on "God" vs. My basic understanding of the core of all easter religion is this: 1 The entire universe is one intelligent field which is the source of all creation..
The various paths are what are called as various Yogas in Hinduism Yoga means union - not be confused with the modern versions of physical postures sold under the name of yoga. The above basic postulations of most religions are not really in conflict with science - at least based on my limited understanding. Rather than arguing about whether it is Right to be an atheist or a "religious' person, lets simply truly research both with intense curiosity to uncover truth.
Cheers Cos Mic. Frankly, I think you've completely missed the point, Massimo - or perhaps a whole quiver of points. Philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism has very little to do with the central disputes between Myers and Coyne et al - including myself - and our opponents who continually go out of their way to reassure believers that science does not conflict with their religious beliefs and practices in any way: The primary problem is that science itself - not the content of science as a body of facts, but the practice of science - stands in direct opposition to faith.
Although there are many ways to parse out what exactly the practice of science consists in, every sensible philosopher of science seems to agree that science is a rigorous, formalized species of critical thinking, and they differ primarily on the details of what words like "rigorous" and "formalized" mean.
But whatever details one uses to characterize the practice of science, to simply decide what to believe by an act of will - or emotional preference, or childhood indoctrination, or however else people come to adhere to the various beliefs they adopt as matters of faith - is directly and precisely opposed to critical thinking in general and the practice of science in specific.
One clear thinker and writer after another has said very clearly that THIS opposition - between a scientific approach to acquiring knowledge about the world and determining beliefs about the world by faith - is what they mean when they say that science and religion are incompatible.
Faith is not, as the more postmodernist-inclined defenders of religion would have it, just a "different way of knowing. If you disagree that this conflict between science and religion is real, or think that it somehow isn't important, please do say how and why: As no amateur in the philosophy of science myself, I don't see how methodological vs.
You should also be aware that many of the "accommodationists" who draw the most ire Chris Mooney, Josh Rosenau, etc. But, of course, no one ever claimed that - and setting up and knocking down such straw man versions of your opponents' position again and again is eventually going to lead to people not taking you seriously and calling you names.
People are perfectly capable of all sorts of compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, and inconsistency - so the mere fact that people exist who are scientists and also religious believers establishes exactly nothing about the epistemic compatibility of science and religion. No matter how many religious scientists there are, science and religion are still incompatible epistemologies: Or, more accurately, science is an epistemology and faith is an anti-epistemology, a guarantee of never knowing rather than an approach to acquiring knowledge.
Your own disagreements on these matters have always been far more principled, and I've never caught you in such a dishonest straw man argument - but then again, I've never called you an accommodationist either. In fact, I don't remember ever reading anyone accusing you of being an accommodationist.
Could you be joining a different dispute than you think you are? Massimo, I think you've slightly misunderstood the debate. I've followed it for some time, mainly thorugh PZ's blog, and this is how I understand it: Chris Mooney et al argue that science educators in the US should explicitly say that science is compatible with religious beliefs, while PZ and others say that science educators shouldn't say anything about religion at all in the classroom.
That's all there is to it. And regarding poisoning the well, it was actually Chris Mooney who first called the likes of PZ Myers "accomodationists", not the other way around.
Mooney argued that by saying that science is not compatible with religion, PZ and others accomodate the fundamentalists. George, Your points below summarizes very well the distinction between faith based religion vs.
The only fact he starts with is that you exist - no one can deny that. Every statement after that is arrived at through inquiry and experience in a scientific way and anyone who has practiced that inquiry across centuries and countries, without contact with each other, has arrived at the same conclusion!
Be warned - it will radically question your basic assumptions about your self and everything you believe to be "true". If you are truly prepared to look at it with an open mind and are committed to find the truth, do look up those books - available for free on the internet or at a small price from Amazon. Other religions would have it that our main task is to transcend this physical, evil world.
On the other hand, there are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, faith is not something that is baseless, but rather a stance that is required in light of the confirming evidences. In other words, we believe because we have compelling evidences to believe. In light of this, making all people of faith out to be dangerous, irrational idiots is unwarranted. In fact, we are ALL people of faith.
Although today, many atheists avoid any mention of having a belief system or a faith, this had not previously been the case. I am nothing short of amazed that you think this is in any way an argument for supernaturalism.
Do not delude yourself by thinking that using pixie dust is anything short of abandoning the discussion B. Mann'sWord, calling people here purists is offensive. It is crass name calling. Would you like to be referred to as Jesus' Bitch for quoting those biblical fairy stories?
Quoting scripture to us shows that your mind is closed. You are guilty here of what you erroneously accuse others here of doing. George Felis: Sorry, Part one If none, then accommodationists do not say that science "does not conflict with religious beliefs and practices in any way" and you've just torched a strawman.
The question is then what religious beliefs science conflicts with and in what way. The practice of science? But we're not talking about the practice of science, since all scientists who also happen to be theists Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky and up to and including Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller today agree with the practice of science Newton, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Ayala and Miller were blocked from scientific knowledge?
We're going to have to go back and redo a lot of science! They point to Frances Collins or someone similar and say "See, here's a scientist who is also a believer, therefore science and religion are compatible," implying that the position of their opponents is the laughably stupid claim that one person can't both be a scientist and a religious believer. Uh, excuse me, but you made the claim that the two epistemologies are incompatible.
Were the people cited able to apply the epistemology correctly , despite the claim that they were "blocked" from doing so? Ifso, you must mean that the scientific epistemology should be applied to everything. If, in fact, you are "no amateur in the philosophy of science," then you must be aware of Hume, who made that point.
Part 2: [T]he mere fact that people exist who are scientists and also religious believers establishes exactly nothing about the epistemic compatibility of science and religion. Indeed not. But neither is it established that there is one and only one true epistemology. So, when you tell your significant other or your children that that you "love" them, you don't "know" that, prior to subjecting those claims to rigorously scientific testing?
If so, I feel very sorry for you. If you think Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language; Mozart the greatest composer; Turner the greatest painter; Dante the greatest poet, etc. Whether or not we can investigate those claims.. Unless you have empiric evidence, suitable for peer review, for those propositions, they must be incompatible with science and you should forthrightly deny that you have any reason whatsoever that you love your SO and children?
Now, of course, what you are espousing is a philosophy perfectly respectable called "scientism. Quite apart from the common misunderstanding of the meaning of "cognitive dissonance," which certainly doesn't apply to people like Newton, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Ayala and Miller or if it does, who cares? The very reason that we have peer review, and repeated testing is to remove those kinds of biases. In short, if it is a part of the human condition to hold contradictory ideas, there very purpose of the "scientific method" is to remove them, they are no great obstacle to science and who cares?
John Pieret: Speaking of strawmen, exactly which of the "accommodationist" say that science does not conflict with young-Earth creationism? That is correct in theory, as in theory accomodationism would have to amount to telling the religious faithful what theology they are allowed to practice, i.
Unfortunately, the only theology that does not conflict with the body of scientific knowledge we have accumulated today is Last Thursdayism; everything else is out.
Obviously, communicating that honestly to the religious side would be pretty much indistinguishable from New Atheism tm , and therefore accomodationists in reality spend all their time shouting down outspoken atheist scientists because they are afraid that the believers' feelings might be hurt. The rest of your comment again misses the whole point of the claim of incompatibility.
You may have heard it before, but here once again: religious faith and science are exactly as compatible as cheating on your spouse and marriage. Yes, there are married people who cheat. We know! But the idea of marriage is to be true to each other.
And yes, there are good scientists who build a mental wall between their professional work and their private faith and then sit in front of me in the restaurant and go "but I know in my heart that there is a divine purpose in life". But if they told us at a conference that they knew the interpretation of their scientific results in their heart they would be laughed out of the room, and rightly so, because the idea of science is to accept only claims that have been tested and found to pass.
In that sense, the approaches are completely incompatible, and it is only honest to state that. By the way, I do not at all believe that Massimo actually is an accomodationist. He is a very outspoken atheist who leaves no doubt that gods are a failed concept - he only claims that you need philosophy to show that. Accomodationists, in contrast, go out of their way to reassure believers that they can continue believing, implicitly claiming that there is no way at all to show their faith to be incoherent.
I can appreciate the basic argument that ultimately its a philosophical position and have changed my tone to that effect. Though I'm still somewhat confused as to why it's not a scientific question. To set the background for this, recently I was listening to a sceptical podcast which included a debate between a homoeopath and a sceptic. One thing the homoeopath tried to do was to dismiss the calls of a lack of causal mechanism by decrying the sceptic as a materialist - and thus couldn't appreciate that homoeopathy works but not through a material agent.
It's easy to see what was done here, it's completely abated any scientific criticism by putting the causal mechanism beyond the realms of science. Same as the last thursdayism mentioned above, homoeopathy could work as well as a placebo but that's because the supernatural causal agent has the same success rate as a placebo. Thus using a philosophical defence for what really is a scientific issue. And this is where I have my gripe with such arguments.
It's like they are trying to have their metaphysical cake and eat it too. That they want to make a scientific claim, they want to claim that their mystical force is part of reality but at the same time claim it's transcendent, mysterious - but really still there. Can science say homoeopathy is bunk any more than it can say God is bunk? So this may be where my ignorance lies, but I just can't get my head around it.
Why is it when someone says "God made us in his image" or "God is the great cosmic fine tuner" that these aren't scientific claims. I'm confused that when one is positing an interventionist deity that the lack of positive evidence isn't actually a problem. Of course "God is testing our faith" could always be said, but it seems like the same cop-out as "homoeopathy works - just not through the material".
Kel: And this is where I have my gripe with such arguments. Precisely what i think! Thanks for putting it so neatly.
If you cannot reject god scientifically, then you cannot answer ANY question scientifically, as the same ridiculous ad-hoc hand-waving is available for ANY issue. It makes no sense to privilege the god question. The supernatural can be defined as nothing but "escape clauses", curiosity stoppers and ad hoc stratagems for preventing inquiry.
But perhaps an example illustrating how can this be would be helpful. I have one: Paranormal claims and claims of the kind the-miracle -only-happens-in-the-abscence-of-sceptics. So the phrase "supernatural explanation" is simply an oxymoron.
Supernatural claims just just don't pass the first methodological filter for being amenable to scientific inquiry. That's their entire point. Paradoxically it is the "purists" who would need to admit that science and religion are compatible at least methodologically in order to claim that science refutes religion.
But why should we be surprised with accomdationism? Excentricity and wild imagination are, according to Popper, acceptable prompters of new hypothesis, solutions and theories, as long as the latter are then subjected to falsification. You must specify what particular faith-precepts to which you are referring. After all, we are all people of faith.
None of these things can be formally proved. Instead, they must be assumed. Our cognitive tool kits are not so comprehensive so that we can throw away other forms of knowing. Kel, I too as a Christian appreciate your comments. In this regard, I too have to reject one accommodationist model — non-intersecting domains of religion and science.
As you and Mintman point out, they clearly are intersecting. Therefore, science should have something to say about God, and God about science. Re Kel: That is correct in theory In other words, you're now about to abandon rationality for your own feelings about religion Oh, bullcrap! While no theology is supported by science, most theology as opposed to ID and other popular attempts to enlist science in favor of certain religious beliefs is not of that sort.
In short, it is still such a far cry from justifiably concluding that science has ruled out all theology If science has now made philosophy obsolete and unnecessary, perhaps you can answer the question that no less an "authority" on atheism as E.
Wilson has pointed out is atheism's biggest difficulty: "why there is something rather than nothing? Now, that does not mean that theology has any real content, but it belies the claim that science has all content. And that's the point Massimo and "accommodationists" not wedded to naive "framing" i.
Obviously, communicating that honestly to the religious side would be pretty much indistinguishable from New Atheism tm Massimo does not appear to be, and I am certainly am not, saying you shouldn't. We just hope you won't make such fools of yourself as to hurt the cause we both believe in. But it's a free country. Advising you is not an attempt to silence you There's more to be said, but what's the point?
Opps, I seem to have mistakenly directed my last reply to "Kel" rather than "Mintman".
0コメント