Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[Muffled]

..so if YOU are effectively "leading people astray", then should YOU be punished,
but not the person led astray?

I mean, is the person who murders innocent, if they were "told" to do it by YOU?

I believe the person who murders is guilty of ignoring God's law not to murder.

 

[Muffled]

What about challenging your own beliefs (not in order to arbitrarily change them) but to see how strong they are? And maybe even grow as a person in the process?

I don't see challenging one's own faith as a sign of weak faith. To the contrary, I see it as a mark of strong faith.

What do you say to that perspective?

I believe when I was studying with the JW's they would say things the Holy Spirit did not agree with but I had no idea because I didn't know my Bible I had to search the scriptures to find the answers God wanted me to find. Now that I know scripture well there are fewer surprises but I was challenged to find passages that say people go to Heaven. There aren't any direct ones. All the references are indirect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hand writing analysis? That doesn't determine if something's true!

I never said that it did. I was only saying that we know who wrote it.

Then why do you believe that?

God enabled me to recognize Baha'u'llah and that is how I know that His Writings came from God..

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth.”

(Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

 

[ChieftheCef]

I never said that it did. I was only saying that we know who wrote it.

God enabled me to recognize Baha'u'llah and that is how I know that His Writings came from God..

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth.”

(Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

Doesn't God enabling you to see his cause seem like favoritism? That isn't good, that's provably bad. **mod edit**

 

[Trailblazer]

My experience has been that it is preferred to follow what one's own reasoning and moral faculties reveal over the opinions of others including (and especially) those who write in the name of an alleged god. There are an awful lot of people like me living satisfying lives without a god belief or a religion, and a lot that are tormented by their religious beliefs and living unnatural lives trying to accommodate them.

I think that you should follow your own reasoning and moral faculties over the opinions of others. That is what I do.
It just so happens that my own reasoning and moral faculties are aligned with what Baha'u'llah revealed.

So why do you recommend otherwise? Why do you recommend taking instruction from holy books instead?

I do not recommend you taking instruction from holy books instead of following your own reasoning and moral faculties.

What do you say to those who have found happiness without religions or holy books?

I say to follow your own path to happiness just as I follow mine.

First, he allegedly created angels that rebelled against him. Then he unleashed them on earth unreformed. Then he created man and eventually regretted what he had done. Then he tried to correct that by drowning most of the earth and repopulating it with the same breeding stock.

Those are Christian beliefs, not Baha'i beliefs. I consider them to be nonsense.

We are also told that this god wants to be known, understood, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped, but has been ineffectual at all of that.

I believe that is true and I think that God has been effectual in being believes, since 85-93% or people in the world believe that God exists, depending upon which statistics you look at.

Whether or not God is understood, loved, obeyed, and worshiped is another matter. That is up to the believers themselves.

And the holy books said to be authored by "God" are rife with error, imprecise language, and internal contradiction.

That is true, if you are referring to the Bible.

Yes, unconfirmed belief, which is what faith is. You also say that you have evidence that holy books come from God, but in the end, what you describe is that you and all other believers believe in "God" by faith. If so, I agree, but disagree that what is being called evidence for God has anything to do with arriving at that belief.

No, I do not say that I have evidence that holy books come from God. I say I believe in God by faith and evidence and that the Messengers are the evidence for God. I also say that the Messengers have to be believed on faith and evidence, since there is no proof that they were sent by God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't God enabling you to see his cause seem like favoritism? That isn't good, that's provably bad. **mod edit**

That is just the way the cookie crumbles. I do not question what has been ordained by God since I consider that to be futile as well as illogical.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

You could also consider it favoritism that some people have easy happy lives and other people have hard unhappy lives, since our fate is largely determined by God. What do you think about that?

 

[ChieftheCef]

That is just the way the cookie crumbles. I do not question what has been ordained by God since I consider that to be futile as well as illogical.

Really? Then how can I question god yet remain unphased? Why do I believe my world view is logically sound but yours isn't and isn't it the duty of your lord to increase his number until all may find him?

 

[ChieftheCef]

You could also consider it favoritism that some people have easy happy lives and other people have hard unhappy lives, since our fate is largely determined by God. What do you think about that?

It's mere math, not what you believe. And it's all provable, unlike what you believe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When ever did I say they were fiction "because I said so"?????
...
These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs, used in classes


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

Copy & paste..
They are partisan .. not fact!

..Beings of light and fire. Yeah that's real..

You cannot prove that other beings besides humans don't exist .. you just presume..

When you have evidence let me know..

When you can prove beyond doubt that I am WRONG, let me know.
..and I don't mean copy&paste of books written by atheists.
Historical events are one thing .. but drawing conclusions is another.

 

[Trailblazer]

Really? Then how can I question god yet remain unphased? Why do I believe my world view is logically sound but yours isn't and isn't it the duty of your lord to increase his number until all may find him?

I said I do not question what has been ordained by God since I consider that to be futile as well as illogical. I do not question what has been ordained by God since there is nothing I can do about it, and that is why it is futile as well as illogical to question what has been ordained by God.

I did not say that I do not question God. I question things about God that I do not understand and things I don't like.
For example, I question why an all-loving God would allow so much suffering in this world.

I think that you can question God and remain unphased because you do not believe that God exists. That is also why you believe that your world view is logically sound and mine isn't.

No, it absolutely is not God's duty to increase the number of people who believe in Him until all may find Him.
Why do you think that is God's duty? God needs nobody's belief nor is God responsible for our belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's mere math, not what you believe. And it's all provable, unlike what you believe.

I said: You could also consider it favoritism that some people have easy happy lives and other people have hard unhappy lives, since our fate is largely determined by God. What do you think about that?

Why is that mere math and how is it provable?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Religious faith is unjustified belief..

WRONG! Religious faith might be unjustified belief.

..and I agree that this kind of thinking is found outside of religion as well. It's why we see climate denial, election integrity denial, and vaccine efficacy denial (I heard somebody call Covid itself a hoax this week)..

Indeed..

So what do history texts have to do with that point? Are you claiming that they are believed by faith, and if so, did you mean justified belief or unjustified belief, and also, why did you want to make that point about history texts? I

It occurred as a response to your posts.
I see no point in backtracking and explaining it in detail.
It remains, that determining historical accuracy is far from easy .. and empirically proving
it practically impossible.

Maybe you don't understand what critical thinking is..

Maybe I do .. and maybe I think that "black & white" thinking is prone to error.

It is a skill that can be mastered with training and practice and has been by millions. It's all around you. And it is quite effective at identifying correct claims, incorrect claims, insufficiently supported claims, and unfalsifiable claims, which allows one to believe only demonstrably correct ideas and avoid wrong and meaningless ones.

I have skills in logic too .. but I am not a materialist .. I believe in the unseen.
..and I do not believe you can prove that mankind can appreciate everything through his "eyes" only.

They were intended to describe the history of the world from its inception and how it works today, which is what science does, only through observation and testing rather than pure speculation..

No .. I don't agree.
If G-d wanted to teach us how to make a rocket or nuclear bomb, then he could do so.
The Bible and Qur'an teach us about how to create a civilisation, by following His guidance.
We can see from history ( if you believe it ), that Christianity & Islam are the roots for the
West & the East. A coincidence, you might say .. ahem!

You believe that that never happened as do I, but that's modern thinking based in knowledge not available to the ancients or through the Middle Ages - people who didn't know where the rain came from or why we have seasons. They also had no idea what people were made from or made of..

No .. you miss the point.
Mankind are made from dust / water / clay .. whatever, but physical MATERIAL, as opposed to
light / heat / energy and what have you.

Of course, you might turn around and say that "what else COULD mankind be made from?"
..and that would be due to your "critical thinking" lacking imagination.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, unconfirmed belief, which is what faith is. You also say that you have evidence that holy books come from God, but in the end, what you describe is that you and all other believers believe in "God" by faith. If so, I agree, but disagree that what is being called evidence for God has anything to do with arriving at that belief.

As I was going about my day I thought of something I wanted to add regarding faith.
Forget about religious faith for a moment. We all have to have faith in something in order to get through life. We can have faith in ourselves, faith in other people, or faith in God, or any combination thereof.

You don't have faith in God but you have faith in yourself and you probably also have faith in other people. I have faith in myself, faith in other people, and faith in God to get me through life. I need faith in God in order to get through life, although that is not the reason I believe in God. I also need faith in myself and other people because I am not counting on God to do what I am responsible for doing.

You have an orderly life with little stress, a life you planned out, but perhaps if you had the kind of life I have you might need faith in someone other than yourself.

Faith in other people becomes necessary when you know you cannot do something by yourself and faith in God becomes necessary when you have nobody to help you! I depend upon God to put people in my life who can help me when I need help, which happens often since I have 3 houses and 8 cats to take care of, not to mention a job and tenants!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Religious faith might be unjustified belief.

As I use the words, a belief might be justified or not. All of the latter type are of the religious type - unjustified belief. And both are at times called faith. We'll see an example of that in a moment

It remains, that determining historical accuracy is far from easy .. and empirically proving it practically impossible.

This is why we've been discussing historical texts? That's not a point I disagree with. Little can be proved in life. We generally have to settle for demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

I do not believe you can prove that mankind can appreciate everything through his "eyes" only.

I can prove almost nothing. And the claim is that ALL knowledge of how the world works and how it got to be that way comes from the application of reason and one's data base of knowledge (remembered experience and conclusions) to the evidence of the senses. If you think that that is incorrect, please give an example of something known to be correct about the world learned by any other method.

Christianity & Islam are the roots for the West & the East.

I don't know what you're saying exactly, but Christianity plays no part in my worldview, which originated with the ancient Greeks centuries before the birth of Christ. It also plays no role in modern secular governments, or that's the intention. American Christians have circumvented that lately and injected some of their theocratic values into government, but that doesn't change the fact that that is not how such a government was intended to function.

your "critical thinking" lacking imagination.

Imagination precedes and perhaps follows critical thought, but is not itself a part of critical analysis, which is largely deductive (rules of inference). Imagination is where hypotheses for testing originate, as well as art and fiction.

Forget about religious faith for a moment. We all have to have faith in something in order to get through life. We can have faith in ourselves, faith in other people, or faith in God, or any combination thereof.

You're conflating two radically different ways of thinking - justified and unjustified belief - by calling them both faith and treating the two words as one because they are spelled and pronounced the same. Let me illustrate. A man believes that his car will start today based in experience starting it, and that when he drives it, he will be protected by angels, based in nothing more than unfalsifiable religious claim. I have no unjustified beliefs to my knowledge, but remember that mine include an element of doubt. My beliefs are that things can be said to be more or less likely to be correct based in experience, but almost nothing is proven or known with certitude.

if you had the kind of life I have you might need faith in someone other than yourself.

I understand. I don't begrudge you whatever you feel makes your life better, but I can't help but believe that one would have no need requiring religious faith to satisfy if he had matured outside of religious faith in the first place in the same sense that a person would have no need only a cigarette could satisfy had he never smoked or had quit smoking in the past and the urge abated.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I use the words, a belief might be justified or not. All of the latter type are of the religious type - unjustified belief..

Who are you to say, what is justified and what is not?

You can justify much of "history", but not ONE thing to do with religion.
That is merely your bias .. a bias which refuses to accept anything you can't explain by
scientific analysis.
How narrow is the sum total of your thinking!

That's not a point I disagree with. Little can be proved in life. We generally have to settle for demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt..

..you mean, like the fact that Muhammad (SAW) actually existed, and that he confirmed that
Jesus, the son of Mary (AS), also existed?

..Christianity plays no part in my worldview..

You don't say!
..and yet it remains a fact that:-

The University of Oxford is a collegiate research university in Oxford, England. There is evidence of teaching as early as 1096, making it the oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world's second-oldest university in continuous operation.
...
Theobald of Étampes (Latin: Theobaldus Stampensis; born before 1080, died after 1120) was a medieval schoolmaster and theologian hostile to priestly celibacy. He is the first scholar known to have lectured at Oxford and is considered a forerunner of Oxford University.
- Wikipedia -

Western, secular academia has its roots in Christian theology .. Western civilisation would
not exist without it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who are you to say, what is justified and what is not?

My standards are those of academia, which rules collectively comprise critical thought - a tried and true method that has improved the human condition.

You can justify much of "history", but not ONE thing to do with religion.

That's not correct. There are facts about religion that can be confirmed. I accept the fact that the Christians are attempting to recriminalize abortion in the States and that white evangelicals are enthusiastically supportive of Trump. I consider those historical facts. I just reject the unfalsifiable claims involving gods and the supernatural, such as the claim that Jesus was resurrected after being three days dead.

How narrow is the sum total of your thinking!

My thinking filters out falsified and unfalsifiable ideas.

you mean, like the fact that Muhammad (SAW) actually existed, and that he confirmed that Jesus, the son of Mary (AS), also existed

You wrote that in response to, "Little can be proved in life. We generally have to settle for demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt." I'd say that Muhammad existed beyond reasonable doubt, but the likelihood of Jesus being entirely a fictional character is significantly greater, and there is room for reasonable doubt there.

Western, secular academia has its roots in Christian theology

Disagree. We know its history. It's roots are in ancient Greece and the pre-Socratic and later philosophers. Christianity contributed nothing to secular academia, nor to science, nor to secular political philosophy. Theology, by which I mean the doctrine of religions and the things only believers believe, is not an academic pursuit.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I believe when I was studying with the JW's they would say things the Holy Spirit did not agree with but I had no idea because I didn't know my Bible I had to search the scriptures to find the answers God wanted me to find. Now that I know scripture well there are fewer surprises but I was challenged to find passages that say people go to Heaven. There aren't any direct ones. All the references are indirect.

Sure.

But I wanted to talk about how it is in principle good to challenge your own beliefs and assumptions. This was in response to your comment which said: "I believe once one has found solid truth there is no need to wander from it."

I agree with you, for the most part. But I also think it is good to "step back" and (for sake of intellectual growth) scrutinize your own convictions/deeply held beliefs. It's a good idea to do this for a multitude of reasons. It is an extremely honest and thorough way to form beliefs about the world and about religion.

Example:
What if someone belonged to a UFO cult? And the reason she joined was that the pitch that the cult leader gave her sounded very convincing. Life on the UFO commune was very pleasant. The cult leader wasn't some kind of sociopath. He bought into his own BS and treated his followers kindly.

But one day, she began to question whether all this UFO stuff wasn't just a bunch of nonsense. What should she do?

A) Tell herself: "I have found a solid truth. There is no need to wander from it."

-OR-

B) Do some serious questioning of her own beliefs, perhaps even consulting (and genuinely listening to) people who are skeptical of the UFO cult.

***

I am an atheist. But, precisely because I'm an atheist, I make it a point to listen to theists who make cogent argument for God's existence. I throw everything (including the kitchen sink) at my own atheism to see if it will still stand. And guess what? So far as I can tell, atheism survives the kitchen sink test. But I'm not done throwing kitchen sinks at it. I'm ALWAYS on the lookout for a new test... a new argument... that calls my own position into question, even though I'm perfectly happy being an atheist.

After all, if a few kitchen sinks send my worldview tumbling down... that means it was built on a foundation of sand to begin with (or somehow of faulty construction).

If I was afraid to have my own beliefs questioned, that might indicate that I am harboring inner doubts. And if that's the case, shouldn't I consult opposing viewpoints? Shouldn't I resolve these doubts if I have the means to do so?

 

[muhammad_isa]

My thinking filters out falsified and unfalsifiable ideas.

..but as I've already pointed out, that is NOT true.
You accept many historical "facts", but reject others .. and not on the basis of being "unfalsifiable".
..but just on the basis of not being scientifically plausible .. not the same thing in my book.

Disagree. We know its history. It's roots are in ancient Greece and the pre-Socratic and later philosophers..

Not at all .. you refer to the old Roman civilisation, and ignore the progress we made after say, 1000AD.
The global, secular academia you support, is relatively recent, and mainly a product of the 20th.
century.

Christianity contributed nothing to secular academia, nor to science, nor to secular political philosophy. Theology, by which I mean the doctrine of religions and the things only believers believe, is not an academic pursuit..

All I can say, is that you don't know what you've got, until it's gone.
The world is in uncharted territory, and it's not looking to good.

Science will not provide the answers, only religion can do that.
i.e. reform of the global financial system, which drives enmity and destruction (climate-change?)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

..but as I've already pointed out, that is NOT true. You accept many historical "facts", but reject others .. and not on the basis of being "unfalsifiable"...but just on the basis of not being scientifically plausible .. not the same thing in my book.

I've already explained my thinking, and you haven't understood it. That's fine. I can't explain it anymore clearly. The degree of belief I have in an idea is commensurate with the evidence supporting it, is tentative (less than certain), and amenable to revision pending additional relevant evidence. As a result, some claims regarding history seem very likely to be correct and others a little or a lot less.

you refer to the old Roman civilisation, and ignore the progress we made after say, 1000AD. The global, secular academia you support, is relatively recent, and mainly a product of the 20th. century.

We were talking about roots or foundations. You claimed that Christianity was the basis for Western thought. It's not. It began with the speculations of Thales. And modern Western culture is informed by the Enlightenment, not Christianity. Christianity made no contribution to science or secular democracy. Individual Christian contributed, but whatever religious ideas they had were not helpful.

You might know that Newton's Principia described the motions of the solar system that was free from religious beliefs until Newton hit the perimeter of his knowledge and chose magical thinking to explain the stability of the solar system. His math said that Jupiter and Saturn would have thrown planets like earth into the sun or out of the solar system but for the hand of God intervening from tome to tie to make ad hoc corrections to the orbits. Everything he wrote up until that point could have been written by an equally talented atheist, and such people still accept and gainfully employ his ideas today up until the point where he embraces magic. That idea he got from his religion, and it has been rejected. Likewise, Newton's optics and mathematics survive today, but his alchemy - more magical thinking - has been discredited and is ignored except as a historical curiosity.

Here's something I presented to my Freethinkers group a few years back:

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.

The questioning of dogma and the application of reason was a huge leap forward. But rational skepticism without empiricism, which is the appeal to reality as the arbiter of truth, is as sterile as religion. The pronouncements of Aristotle, such as the one that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, were also taken on faith, and were not tested with actual heavy and light objects until the time of Galileo, who added the element of empiricism to the matter. Galileo was therefore not just a rationalist and philosopher like Thales or Aristotle, but an early scientist.

science will not provide the answers, only religion can do that.

Religion has no answers, just guesses like Newton's "answer" for why the solar system is stable. The actual answers Newton gave us were useful and came from Newton the scientist, empiricist, and critical thinker. We he put on his religious hat and gave us his final "answer," it was wrong and useless.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We were talking about roots or foundations. You claimed that Christianity was the basis for Western thought..

No .. I'm not saying "western thought" .. that could mean anything.
I'm talking about the roots of our civilisation.

I suppose, as you are in the US, it might not be so visible.
We have historical buildings over 1000 years old, and many from after that.
They paint a picture of how "the West" evolved from Roman times until the present.

..modern Western culture is informed by the Enlightenment, not Christianity.,

More or less, yes.
The competition for whether religion(spiritual) is relevant, or science(material) is more relevant begins..

Christianity made no contribution to science or secular democracy..

Indirectly, it most certainly did!
The quest for knowledge, and organising civilised society to learn, began with religious teaching Islam/Christianity.
The global knowledge of mankind mainly originates from these Western/Eastern roots.

Individual Christian contributed, but whatever religious ideas they had were not helpful.

Helpful for what? Making money? What, exactly?

You might know that Newton's Principia described the motions of the solar system that was free from religious beliefs until Newton hit the perimeter of his knowledge and chose magical thinking to explain the stability of the solar system. His math said that Jupiter and Saturn would have thrown planets like earth into the sun or out of the solar system but for the hand of God intervening from tome to tie to make ad hoc corrections to the orbits..

You are blinkered. You think that mankind's observations in this material universe is
the b all and end all.

Here's something I presented to my Freethinkers group a few years back:

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.

Great .. if you want to live as in the "BC's
I for one, have guidance that surpasses this old, unenlightened philosophy.

Religion has no answers, just guesses like Newton's "answer" for why the solar system is stable. The actual answers Newton gave us were useful and came from Newton the scientist, empiricist, and critical thinker. We he put on his religious hat and gave us his final "answer," it was wrong and useless.

Religion most certainly DOES have answers .. the thing is, many people don't like them,
or don't want to hear them.
We all know why. It's always been the same. Wealth/status, and attachment to this worldly life.
..and those at the bottom will eventually become uppermost, because they DO listen!