Sunday, May 15, 2011

In The Box #4: May 15, 2011

Pat Condell has made a few videos about Christianity lately. If you have been turned off by Pat's style over the past year, I recommend that you give his Christianity videos a listen. I find myself agreeing with him. My point in bringing him up is a statement he makes in one of these videos: Pat likes Jesus. He can listen to Jesus all day long. Pat also believes that Jesus would absolutely despise Christianity. In other words, Jesus maybe did have some good ideas, and we just need to focus on those and ignore all of the trappings that were added later. This again jolts me into thinking of Jesus as just a regular man who had some opinions, maybe even a bit like Socrates, even if he wasn't as smart. Given the enormous weight of the stultifying, demoralizing culture of Yahweh that Jesus inherited, perhaps he could be given a break for being less articulate than the Greek philosophers.

Thoughts along these lines were floating around in my mind the other night, resulting in an interesting experience. I was watching an excellent series of videos by YouTuber Evid3nc3, talking about his own deconversion. In one of the videos he talks about a book by Catholic Bishop John Spong. Spong is an atheist who considers himself a Christian. In other words, he likes what Jesus had to say but throws out all the supernatural stuff. Presumably he also would throw out all of the cultural baggage Jesus carried around. Listening to Spong's ideas, I found myself, for the first time in my life, thinking of Jesus as just a man who looked around him and saw that the powerful were mistreating people. I found myself thinking of Jesus as a reformer, a guy who had no particular love for Yahweh and maybe didn't even believe in it. A guy who thought that traditional Judaism left way too much to be desired. A guy brave enough to buck the system. I've never been impressed with Jesus, but I've always held him to a high standard. I think I'll have to go back and study Jesus in this light. Even if all of his ideas are outdated, I might have to give him credit for introducing ideas that in his day were radical.

YouTuber Bossman103 posted some interesting questions a couple of weeks ago, in a video called "5 Questions for Atheists and Theists". Seems like we might be able to get some good discussion from these.
  1. What do you think the biggest problem with your side is?
    We have a terrible definition of the word tolerance. We want so badly to live and let live that we end up tolerating much that we should not tolerate. As just one example among many, superstitionists teaching children that they might go to hell, or that other human beings definitely will go to hell. This is obscene, and it's child abuse. There should be laws against this sort of thing, and there would be, I think, if we got rid of this notion that religion and/or tradition are some kind of carte blanche to poison the minds and abuse the bodies of children.
  2. If you could convert/deconvert five people, who would they be and why?
    • I would deconvert myself, because it would be nice never to worry about hell ever again.
    • As for deconverting other people, it's a little tricky. The primary result of deconverting some prominent superstitionist would be to score points for our side, as though this is all a game. There is already way too much "Tastes great! Less filling!" in our discourse. Deconverting someone prominent would just provide another distraction from the real issues we face, rather than advancing the conversation. I would hope to deconvert people who have the charisma to influence others, and the integrity to stick to honest and open discussion.
  3. Would you ever date anyone from the other side? Why (not)?
    It depends on how far on the other side she is. I can handle a deist. I can even handle someone who likes Jesus, provided that it's one of the less virulent incarnations of Jesus. I would never date (or even be friends with) someone who intends to worship Yahweh eternally after watching it throw me into hell. I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who makes unjustified claims and criticizes me for refusing to accept unjustified claims. I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who can't see how ridiculous most religions are.
  4. The "god" / no "god" questions.
    • If you found out there is a "god" how would it change your life or perspective on life?
      Assuming that you mean an omnipotent creator that has planted fake fossils, falsified the age of rocks, and manipulated all the DNA of every living thing to make it appear that evolution is real, just so it can fault us for not believing and then throw us into hell for all eternity, then I would fall into despair.
    • If you found out there is no "god" how would it change your life or perspective on life?
      I'm not sure I can imagine what it would be like to find out that there is no "god". I worry a lot that there really is a monster in charge of the universe, a monster that has chosen to alter my perceptions of reality in order to make it seem like science is real and religion is bullshit. If there were such a monster out there that can alter my perception of reality, there would be no way for me to know.
  5. What is the most positive thing about the other side?
    I think that most of them are probably decent people. Many of them make a habit of telling preposterous lies in order to dupe their fellow superstitionists out of their hard-earned money, but I really think that these charlatans are the exception. The reason that most superstitionists are superstitious has only a little to do with their character and a lot to do with their upbringing.

Monday, May 9, 2011

In The Box #3: Atheist Outreach & Other Random Stuff

I'm starting to notice a theme in my experience here on YouTube. I occasionally get caught up in trading insults with people, honing my sarcastic wit in some weird replay of my childhood, in which I spent a lot of time feeling utterly humiliated. I tell myself that it's ok for me to give these people a hard time, because (1) they need a good slap in the face and (2) I don't let the verbal sparring take over the whole conversation, that is, I do stick to the point in addition to being provocative.

Then, for reasons I don't understand, I find myself taking a step back and asking what really matters. What's really important. There's not any benefit to the world in me becoming such an expert at insulting people in order to defend myself against leftover childhood issues. I took a step back last night, again, for no reason I understand, and changed my tone in a conversation from adversarial, trying to show this guy what an idiot he is and what a rag doll his god is, to persuasive, actually trying to reach him. I suggest that we all occasionally take a step back and think about what's really important.

It seems to me that we can reach some of these people. Certainly not those who are making money, such as Dembski, Craig, Comfort, and their ilk. However, there must be many superstitionists who could break free if we could just reach them. So I'll finally get to my point: we should put our heads together and try to find the best possible ways to reach those who are trapped against their will. Those like me, who are trapped by fear, and others who are trapped by other factors that I can't imagine To that end, I invite your stories of atheist outreach. Have you ever really reached someone? Have you ever come close? If so, send me a PM and tell me some of the details. If I can find any trends, I'll let you all know. Maybe we can come up with something.

Do me a favor and don't overload me with stories of failed attempts. Unless they're funny.

Ok, other issues. I've heard of the occasional person with liberal values who joins conservative organizations in order to be a moderating influence. Religion has always been divisive, and it seems to be getting worse all the time. Megachurches seem to me like entire communities where people get no exposure to anything but the party line of their church. That can't be a good thing, an entire population of people who distrust education and science, always descending further into their superstitions. I'm beginning to wonder whether we should consider becoming churchgoers, in an attempt to broaden the perspectives of religious people, to show them a way of thinking about things that could benefit them (and the rest of us) significantly. I'm not sure I'm ready to start singing hymns, but I'm interested to know what you guys think of the idea. Would it serve any useful purpose in the world?

A few of you have suggested that I make a video about my deconversion experience. I'm not sure there's enough material here for an entire video. Here's a brief sketch. When I was little, I heard people talk about Heaven and Hell, but I guess I never got any specifics. I had the idea that Hell is like an orphanage, a depressing place where kids don't get to have fun and the adults are always angry about something. A lot like the life I had at the time, only everyone wears a devil costume. I sort of unconsciously assumed that I would go to Hell, that Heaven is a special place for good kids, and given that my parents seemed always pissed off at me, I must not be good enough. That didn't bother me too much; it just seemed like a continuation of the life I was already living.

When I was 13, I had a very unfortunate conversation with my mother's boyfriend. He described Hell to me. The fire, brimstone, and eternal torture Hell. I believed every word he said, and naturally it scared the shit out of me. I started frantically studying the bible, but found no hope there. In fact, the bible just made it worse. Jesus says that I have to cut off my hands and gouge out my eyes. I spent a couple of years trying to get up the courage to do this. I discovered no such courage. I started planning to get a good education so I could get a good job so I could make enough money to hire a surgeon who would remove my eyes and hands painlessly. I spent the next ten years or so absolutely baffled that people can go around living their lives. Why does anyone bother, with an eternity in Hell hanging over their heads? I was a very angry person, rather unpleasant to be around, always feeling like scum due to my sexual lusts and my enjoyment of chocolate ice cream.

In my mid-20's I finally gave up. Jesus would never allow me into Heaven because I am just too sinful. I tried accepting Jesus into my heart many times, but it obviously never worked, because I still spent most of my time thinking about naked women. I gave up and tried to put the matter out of my mind. Over the next ten years or so I found that I really love learning about the world around us, and I started to tell myself that there is no god. I hung on to that, but still I would frequently have these nightmare visions of myself in Hell. Being married and having a kid and a career took my mind off of it most of the time.

In 2006, a few years after my divorce, I met and fell madly in love with a woman. After a couple of years, she left. I kept my shit together for a year or so, and then stopped keeping my shit together. I dropped out of life and started spending most of my time in bed. After a few months of this, I started contemplating suicide. Then I realized that I couldn't kill myself because I was still afraid that I would go to Hell, and I didn't want to go before I had to. I knew intellectually that the whole religion thing had to be bullshit, but childhood fears can be stronger than intellect, apparently. I started working with my therapist on ways to give more credence to my intellect than to my fears. It was difficult, but after a while it started to work. Once my fear of Hell was weak enough, I was ready to go. I took a bunch of pills. I woke up in the hospital and then had to spend three days in one of the most depressing places I've ever known: a psychiatric health facility. At first, my intention was to take more pills as soon as I got home, but during those three days I started to feel a kind of contentment. I realized that now I have an easy exit. I'm not trapped here any more. I can leave any time I want to. Now I feel like I can breathe.

So here I am. No longer afraid (well, mostly), and no longer trapped. As long as I'm here using up the resources, I'd like to see what kind of positive impact I can make.

Well, this is going long, and I had hoped to address some of the questions you guys asked after the last episode of In The Box. I think I have time only for one. Apologies to everyone else, especially those of you who asked time-sensitive questions. radicalbacon wanted to know some details of my first masturbatory experience. Girl, you know better than to ask a question like that. Masturbation is a sin. I've never done it.

That's In The Box #3. Thanks for watching.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

God's Quality Control 6.11: Coda

Here I conclude my series covering the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame on April 7, 2011. We've finished the debate, but before we move on to the questions, I'd like to address a point that I missed earlier. Craig misrepresents Harris as saying the following:

<clip Craig rely on axioms>

Let's hear what Harris really said:

<clip Harris every branch of science>

Harris is saying that in order for science to work, certain assumptions must be made. He's not saying that we are morally bound to make any particular assumption, or even any assumptions at all. He's just saying that no science is entirely self-justifying.

Craig attacks the argument that he has invented on Harris' behalf:

<clip Take it by faith>

If Harris were making claims about facts, and telling us that we must accept his claims as axioms, then what Craig has said here would be true. But Harris is making no such claims. He is offering an idea that, if we were to accept it as axiomatic, could make the world a vastly better place for everyone. To let him speak for himself:

<clip Harris make one assumption>

We move on to the questions. A couple of the questions to Harris went over my head a bit, but in His answers Harris made some interesting points that are worth hearing.

<clip (07) 5:04 Cut books to improve Christianity;>
<clip (07) 5:37 Improve ten commandments>
<clip (08) 13:42 Psychopathic core>
<clip (07) 12:12 No god needed to say that love is good>
<clip (07) 12:29 Euthyphro>
<clip (07) 13:01 Not leaving anything out>

Check out this awesome question, directed to Craig, and his awesome answer.

<clip (07) 7:00 Awesome question>
<clip (07) 9:14 You misunderstood>

Whether she understood the analogy is irrelevant. She's not even asking about the analogy. When he talked about our understanding of light and dark, she was inspired to come up with her own analogy. She's asking a simple, honest question. Craig dodges it and makes more pseudo-intellectual sounds to distract from his failure to answer the question. But she's paying attention.

<clip (07) 9:51 Clarification>
<clip (07) 10:04 I can't see it>
<clip (07) 10:30 That would be repetitive>

In other words, sit down; I have no intention of answering your question.

A couple more questions for Harris.
<clip (07) 14:37 What about miracles?>
<clip (08) 0:39 Dude in India>
<clip (08) 1:00 Every miracle>
<clip (08) 1:10 Discovery Channel>

<clip (08) 4:14 Destroy it all>
<clip (08) 5:58 No>

Note that Harris' medicine analogy works well here too: is anyone asking whether we could improve global health by killing all the sick people? No. Further, we're talking about flourishing here, which most dead people don't do.

Another awesome question for Craig, and his awesome answer.

<clip (08) ??? How do you know?>
<clip (08) 8:55 Because I know>

I conclude this series with some thoughts to consider: if you were to ask Craig what his ultimate reason for participating in this debate, what would his answer be? Now, ignoring all of his faulty arguments, how badly has Craig misrepresented Harris during this debate? Would Jesus approve? If Yahweh cares about truth, then doesn't it seem that it might be unhappy for its evangelists to deviate from the truth? If Yahweh is so awesome, then why would its ambassadors ever need to resort to anything but the unvarnished truth? Some superstitionists may wish to trot out the cliche that the imperfection of Yahweh's ambassadors underscores Yahweh's awesomeness, by showing that it can use even imperfect humans to save others. That sounds really nice, but I notice that all of its evangelists have to sacrifice the truth in some way or another. I would be far more impressed by a god whose message could be delivered in good faith, at least by a few of its followers.

That's 6.11, and the end of the series. Thanks very much for watching, and for joining in the conversation.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

God's Quality Control 6.10

Here I continue my thoughts on the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame on April 7, 2011. We're listening to Craig's closing comments.

<clip (06) 10:54 FGM comment>

That's an interesting position for Craig to take. Nowhere in his bible is this practice is forbidden, or even mentioned. In fact, given male circumcision, and given that women are property, and given the superstitionists' bizarre fixation on sexual purity (which is a preposterous notion to start with) it seems that mutilating girls' genitals is inevitable.

<clip (06) 11:24 Psychopaths could occupy the peaks>

No, he allowed in principle for the possibility that science might discover that some people really do flourish even when they're doing things that harm others. He made this allowance not as an admission of weakness in his argument, but because he wisely guessed at some of the criticisms he might hear and wanted to address them squarely. What Craig is doing here is very similar to Ben Stein insinuating that Richard Dawkins thinks we were planted here by aliens. Quoting Arthur Leff's article called Unspeakable Ethics, Craig goes on.

<clip (06) 12:05 Who says>

Here Craig is simply underscoring the weakness of coercive morality: it's based on directives from an authority rather than on well-being. A playground bully who retorts in this way has grown up in a coercive environment. Further, and more importantly, he is underscoring the fact that far too many of us, even many asuperstitionists, have the mindset of children squabbling over the rules while dad is at work and mom is out grocery shopping. The Abrahamic faiths foster this mindset. It's time for us to grow up. Still quoting Leff, he says this:

<clip (06) 12:14 We are all we have>

Exactly. We've spent millennia trying to coerce each other in the name of some higher authority. It hasn't worked. It can't work. We need to start having rational discussions about what we want to be and what kind of future we want to have. And by we I mean all of us, not just Westerners in general or Americans in particular.

We move on to Harris' closing statements.

<clip (06) 13:47 How do you know?>
<clip (07) 0:12 How much sleep lost>
<clip (07) 0:54 Afghan warlord>
<clip (07) 1:35 Craig insists>
<clip (07) 1:52 No Christian physics>
<clip (07) 2:15 Lives truly worth living>
<clip (07) 2:54 Not the way to do it>
<clip (07) 3:10 All we need is honest inquiry>
<clip (07) 3:17 Right by accident>

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

God's Quality Control 6.9

Here I continue my thoughts on the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame on April 7, 2011. We're listening to Harris' second rebuttal.

<clip (06) 0:56 No science is absolutely self-justifying>
<clip (06) 1:02 All sciences have axioms>
<clip (06) 1:10 Only one assumption required>
<clip (06) 1:34 What is scientific>

Harris uses some five-dollar words here, but don't be put off.

<clip (06) 2:17 Epistemological>
<clip (06) 3:06 Ontologically subjective>

You can still get his point even without having to know what these words mean. I sense that someone might want to shout something about a double-standard, whereby Craig is criticized for using big words while Harris is allowed to use them. My only response is this: listen to carefully to both speakers and ask yourself what each is hoping to accomplish with these words. For that matter, ask yourself what each speaker is hoping to accomplish with his entire presentation. I conclude that Harris, although he probably is making some good money and getting giant ego strokes with his books and appearances, is trying to make the world a better place, inviting us all to try this idea because it seems like it could work really well. I conclude that Craig is driven by no such vision for humanity. He does not care whether anyone in the audience has learned something, whether his efforts have any positive effect anywhere. I go even further with Craig: he knows that superstition could be our undoing, yet he doesn't care. His entire motivation is shortsighted self-interest. If you think I'm taking it too far, as some of you suggested when I made similar claims about Ray Comfort and pals, please do tell me your thoughts.

<clip (06) 3:50 Argument summary>
<clip (06) 4:45 Stupid question>
<clip (06) 5:00 Remarkable experiences (2:00)>
<clip (06) ???? Atheists can be spiritual>
<clip (06) 6:06 Jesus' effect on his disciples (2:12)>

I'm glad that Harris started off with the word if. I am ever confused when I hear people, even asuperstitionists, talk about what a great guy Jesus was. I'm not sure which Jesus they're talking about. The one depicted in the bible is one of the biggest jerks I've ever read about. I've never understood why his trifles are held in such awe. I would have been far more impressed with Jesus if he'd encouraged people to end slavery, or if he'd said a few words about the treatment of women and children, or if he'd broadened his criticisms beyond sniping about the hypocrisy of the Jewish rulers and the thick-headedness of the common people. Jesus is seriously oversold. I'm far more enriched by the six short videos by Alain De Botton called Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness than I ever was by years of bible study. I'll put a link to De Botton's videos in the love bar, in case you're interested. Well worth multiple viewings.

<clip (06) 7:12 21st-century conversation (2:29)>
<clip (06) 7:33 Please think (2:31)>

Exactly. Thinking is exactly what we need more of. Now we get to hear Craig's closing statement. I wonder whether he wants us actually to think about anything he's said in this debate.

<clip (06) 8:44 Greatest conceivable being (2:34)>

Remember back at the beginning when I mentioned that Craig's slippery use of the word "god" becomes important later? Here it is. If you ask me who my dad is, I can point to him or describe him in some way. He's a specific person. Similarly, if you ask who Yahweh is, although they can't point to it, its followers can describe it: you know, the monster that ordered the Israelis to murder Amalekite children out of revenge. In their minds, it's a specific person, with whom they are involved in a personal relationship. Say you ask me who my dad is, and rather than pointing to or describing a person, I say that he's the person who best embodies the essence of dad-ness. It's a nonsense answer. It refers to no one in particular. It means nothing to answer a "who" question with an abstract concept like this. You can't have a personal relationship with it. It can't be Craig's lawgiver. It can't be Craig's competent moral authority. Craig not only undermines his current argument with this greatest conceivable being garbage, he undermines everything he's ever said.

Further, greatest conceivable being according to what objective standard? According to its own objective standard, of course. Guess what: a concept can't have an objective standard. Finally, Yahweh could not possibly be the greatest conceivable being. Why? Because I can conceive of a greater being with one brain tied behind my back. A being that doesn't kill. That doesn't allow hell. That isn't fixated on our sex lives. Yahweh doesn't even occupy the same universe. It should try the universe where people seek the most repugnant conceivable being.

That's 6.9. Thanks for watching.

Monday, May 2, 2011

God's Quality Control 6.8

Here I continue my thoughts on the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame on April 7, 2011. We're listening to Harris' first rebuttal, in which he wisely continues to ignore Craig's bullshit and call attention to some of the glaring immorality of Jesusianism:

<clip (05) 0:35 Double-standard concerning "god's" goodness>
<clip (05) 0:59 Morally reprehensible>
<clip (05) 1:17 This kind of faith is obscene>
<clip (05) 2:40 Psychotic morality>
<clip (05) 3:10 How do you know?>
<clip (05) 3:39 Only lunatics>
<clip (05) 5:02 Not just the generic god>
<clip (05) 6:16 These are the people who wrote the bible>
<clip (05) 6:36 Haven't heard of anything less moral (2:40)>

I'm trying to figure out why Harris ends his comments simply by walking away from the podium. There's that awkward silence while people decide whether it's time to applaud. If I were the one speaking, there would be an easy explanation: stage fright resulting in impaired presentation skills. But Harris is used to this; he must have some reason for doing it, but I can't imagine what it would be. Sadly, we have to endure more of Craig now.

<clip (05) 7:34 Harris hasn't responded (30) >

Just a reminder here: Craig mentions these points as though they warrant a response, but those that aren't straw-man arguments turn out not to be arguments, because Craig has said absolutely nothing worth addressing.

<clip (05) 8:43 Not fire insurance (30) >
<clip (05) 9:35 Not about avoiding hell>

I beg to differ. The only reason I ever gave a thought to the bible was absolute terror of going to hell. I have to assume that I'm not alone in this. I also think it's safe to assume that countless people whose reasons resemble mine continue to call themselves Christians all their lives. I have to wonder what Yahweh thinks of this kind of love. Given that Yahweh seems to prefer much that is contemptible, perhaps it prefers this kind of love over anything more genuine.

<clip (05) 13:05 General theism is a foundation>

Earlier in this series I said that no sane person would make such a claim. I guess I have to revise that: no sane and honest person would make such a claim.

That's 6.8. Thanks for watching.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

God's Quality Control 6.7

Here I continue my thoughts on the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame on April 7, 2011. We're still slogging our way through Craig's first rebuttal.

<clip (04) 4:33 Good = flourishing>

Here he's just pulling out the same straw man that he's been pulling out the whole time, saying that Harris is attempting to claim that morality has to do with the flourishing of creatures that can suffer. I'd ignore it, but Craig spends a while developing what he calls a "knock-down argument" against this, and I want to make sure that no one is fooled by Craig's shenanigans. So we've started with Craig misrepresenting Harris' position; let's see where he goes next:

<clip (04) 4:46 Identity claim>
<clip (04) 4:53 Technicalities>

Some pseudo-intellectual sounds that will hopefully scare the audience into tuning him out while he drones on.

<clip (04) 5:27 Psychos>

Let's not forget that this entire section of his speech is an argument against an imaginary claim, something that Harris has neither said nor implied. So for those who hear what he is really saying, he is simply blowing hot air, wasting our time, arguing against something that was not said. For his victims who can't keep up with him, he's working hard: why bring up psychotics in particular? To make it appear that Harris is suggesting that it would be ok if we ended up enabling psychotic fantasies for the purpose of helping psychotics to flourish. Harris again has neither said nor implied anything like this. In fact, the point in Harris' book that Craig has hijacked here is Harris' attempt to address his critics who might suggest this as a flaw in his argument. He says that if rapists, liars, and thieves could be shown to be as psychically healthy as the rest of us, then his landscape would no longer be especially moral, meaning that it wouldn't be good or right in any sense that we can recognize. But then in the following paragraph, which Craig seems to have conveniently missed, Harris responds: we are human beings, and we're far more similar than we are different. No one with any understanding of humans in general would think that a psychotic's well-being is increased by allowing him to harm others.

<clip (04) 6:04 Identity>

Back to the pseudo-intellectual stuff, just to shake off anyone who is attempting to keep up with what he's saying. He goes on in this vein for a while and yet again claims that he has reinforced his original claim:

<clip (04) 6:58 Original claim supported>

He wastes yet more time by pretending that there is some difference in his so-called arguments concerning moral values and moral obligations.

<clip (04) 7:44 Competent authority>
<clip (04) 8:28 Not obligated>

We've all asked it before, but it seems worth asking again here: isn't he very clearly saying that it's only due to the commands of his god that he behaves well?

Harris seems to have finished promoting his ideas and moves on to discuss just how immoral Craig's god is and how preposterous the superstitionists' beliefs concerning that god.

<clip (04) 13:45 Lord of The Rings>

I just have to point out that Harris stole this idea from me, but I'll forgive him because the rest of his speech is awesome. He points out that Craig's god has deliberately engineered history such that over a billion people in India (and that's just those who are alive today), even those who are very decent people, will spend eternity in torment, while any kind of foul person, even a child molester, can accept Jesus on his deathbed and go to heaven.

<clip (04) 14:43 Moral accountability>

Exactly, and yet somehow, superstitionists convince themselves that what they mistakenly perceive in our arguments as a lack of moral accountability is a fatal flaw.

<clip (05) 0:25 Human understanding of goodness>

Yeah, he stole that one from me too, but I'll forgive him again because of the point he makes about the superstitionist view that when you get a pay raise at your job, it's because your god is good, but when millions of kids die every year it's because your god is mysterious.

<clip (05) 1:02 Morally reprehensible>

Awesome. That's 6.7. Thanks for watching.