Religious Insensitivity

[The Reverend Bob]

Eh, I must have struck a nerve.

Don't think or presume too much of yourself, kid. The only person who struck a nerve with me in this thread was @Deeje

 

[Deeje]

That we are to love are our enemies and Paul expounds further on it in Romans 12:17-21 that we aren't to pay evil for evil but do good to our enemies instead

And that is easy as long as our emotions are not stirred up. Being a Christian under pressure is the true test of whether we are real Christians or just pretending to be.

Imagine the situation of my brothers who were imprisoned along with the Jews in Nazi concentration camps. They were made to do the most disgusting tasks and suffered starvation and torture but they never allowed their treatment to make them hate their enemies. Their mild manner and humble compliance sometimes made it hard for the guards to persecute them.
Many of the SS guards admired their courage under such treatment. Some became our brothers after the war. Those who tortured became brothers to their victims. Love conquered the evil in a very real way.

The love that we are to show our enemies is "agape'" which is love based on principle. You can love an enemy by not allowing hatred to poison your heart and make you want to do harm to them in return. We are to leave retribution to God. (Romans 12:19) Can you imagine what that would take? My brothers and sisters went to the gas chambers, before firing squads, were beheaded and shot, but never did they rise up in opposition to their enemies. Hitler vowed to "exterminate this brood" but he never could.
If he put them in with other inmates, they preached to them about the good news of God's Kingdom....if he segregated them, they built one another up with prayer and song. He could not win and since then our brotherhood in Germany is stronger than ever....but Hitter is long gone.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

And that is easy as long as our emotions are not stirred up. Being a Christian under pressure is the true test of whether we are real Christians or just pretending to be.

Imagine the situation of my brothers who were imprisoned along with the Jews in Nazi concentration camps. They were made to do the most disgusting tasks and suffered starvation and torture but they never allowed their treatment to make them hate their enemies. Their mild manner and humble compliance sometimes made it hard for the guards to persecute them.
Many of the SS guards admired their courage under such treatment. Some became our brothers after the war. Those who tortured became brothers to their victims. Love conquered the evil in a very real way.

The love that we are to show our enemies is "agape'" which is love based on principle. You can love an enemy by not allowing hatred to poison your heart and make you want to do harm to them in return. We are to leave retribution to God. (Romans 12:19) Can you imagine what that would take? My brothers and sisters went to the gas chambers, before firing squads, were beheaded and shot, but never did they rise up in opposition to their enemies. Hitler vowed to "exterminate this brood" but he never could.
If he put them in with other inmates, they preached to them about the good news of God's Kingdom....if he segregated them, they built one another up with prayer and song. He could not win and since then our brotherhood in Germany is stronger than ever....but Hitter is long gone.

I appreciate your correction, Deeje. I am kind of like the Sons of Zebedee 'Shall we call fire upon them, Lord?" then Jesus says "Let's just move on"

 

[dybmh]

@A Vestigial Mote ,

i appreciate your candor. i still disagree that belief in bigfoot is equally as absurd as belief in God.

also, it appears that we do have different beliefs in what is moral and what isn't. it sounds like you feel ridicule is justified based on a subjective measure of how fervently the person is holding their view. and also, you don't care about ridiculing an entire family's beliefs even if they do not insult you and are causing no direct harm to you, your friends, your family.

essentially, based on what you have said here, you advocate throwing the first insult only because the other person has a strongly held belief that lacks support.

that doesn't feel right to me.

if most non-believers agree with you, then it makes sense that non-believers are perceived as mean spirited school yard bullies. it's because they are indeed throwing the first verbal insult.

if most non-believers behave as you have described, that is insensitive to other people's feelings.

if most non-believers behave this way, claims that non-believers lack empathy are being supported by their own behavior.

 

[Samana Johann]

It's not at all insensible if telling someone that certain release by making ones current incapacities and following the nose will be only for very short happiness and if one develops immunity against moral shame and fear of wrongdoing will lead him straight to hellish existences. It's not an act off compassion to let a fool run into his ruin, if having ways to avoid such, but only the fear to lose his favor, that let people think that they act out of compassion.

If wishing all but a "natural" flow, one might consider that one is soon not different to dogs...

What Is Natural?​

Claiming they want their practice to be "natural," some people complain that this way of life does not fit their nature.​

Nature is the tree in the forest. But if you build a house, it is no longer natural, is it? Yet if you learn to use the tree, making wood and building a house, it has more value to you. Or perhaps the dog is natural, running here and there, following its nose. Throw food to dogs and they rush to it, fighting each other. Is that what you want to be like?​

The true meaning of natural can be discovered with our discipline and practice. This natural is beyond our habits, our conditioning, our fears. If the human mind is left to so-called natural impulses, untrained, it is full of greed, hatred, and delusion and suffers accordingly. Yet through practice we can allow our wisdom and love to grow naturally until it blossoms in any surroundings.
​

[URL='http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/index-subject_en.html#hiri']Hiri [/URL](conscience, moral shame). See also Ottappa (moral dread) and In the Eyes of the Wise - Teachings on Honor & Shame

A wise person would avoid places and people where his incapacities and bad habits gain approve and good directions are not praised...

 

[dybmh]

It's not at all insensible if telling someone that certain release by making ones current incapacities and following the nose will be only for very short happiness and if one develops immunity against moral shame and fear of wrongdoing will lead him straight to hellish existences.

Venerable Samana Johann, Is doing harm a virtue? Is taking pleasure in making shame a virtue? What are the elements/attributes that define advice and instruction? What are the elements/attributes that define an insult?

Thank you,

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Dazzle you? I am here to entertain you, you entertain me. You're the one who is doing the square dance

Sure thing Bob.

 

[usfan]

I think some of the religious people on this forum, not all, are a little upset by the deep expressions against Christianity lately.
...
I think it may create a less hostile environment for both groups, so guess I'm demonstrating that tough love everyone hates in my pursuit of my greatest understanding of things.

I'm inviting @usfan to this topic but ask him to try to keep it civilized if possible too.

Thanks for the invite.. i believe your perceptions are accurate, at least from my pov.

1. 'Lately?' ..if you mean the increasing hostility toward traditional, biblical Christianity over the last 50 yrs, in contrast to how it was viewed during the Enlightenment and the American Experiment, i agree. There has been a noticeable shift, in the attitude towards Christianity in that time.
2. Religious bigotry is perhaps the most common (and accepted) foible of humanity for all our history.
3. The recipients of bigotry notice it more than the presenters.
4. The increasing acceptance of religious bigotry directed at Christianity is a negative in the culture, and promotes division and an 'us vs them!' mindset.
5. Atheists often give themselves a pass, and can't see their own 'religious' bigotry, because they define their beliefs as 'not religious'.
6. Civilized? Me? A champion of Truth and civility? ..no problem. I only bristle at expressions of bigotry and ridicule. I love everyone and prefer to hold hands and sing kum-ba-yah..

I have a thread percolating in the recesses of my mind, about this topic. I will likely expand on it soon.

I see this thread as an attempt at reconciliation. A lofty goal. As a traditional American, nothing would please me more than seeing true religious tolerance, and 'freedom of conscience', elevated to a more enlightened awareness. But though i am a starring eyed idealist and optimist, I've also lived in this world for many years, and can see the signs. It is difficult to be optimistic when so many are hell bent on the destruction and extermination of historical, biblical Christianity.

 

[Samana Johann]

Venerable Samana Johann, Is doing harm a virtue? Is taking pleasure in making shame a virtue? What are the elements/attributes that define advice and instruction? What are the elements/attributes that define an insult?

Thank you,

Sadhu for asking.

"Is doing harm a virtue? Is taking pleasure in making shame a virtue? What are the elements/attributes that define advice and instruction?"

Once there was a opponent of the Buddha who thought that he would be able to turn his sayings against him:
Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya - (On Right Speech)

(of cause there are certain rules, restrict, because of the dangers, like to even enter a couples sleeping-room, not sure if the religious discussion area is actually considered as such, although often similar... may it be told if.)

"What are the elements/attributes that define an insult?"

Ill-will, intention to harm or after gains, like material of honor (a mind of greed, aversion, delusion).

May householder Dybmh let it be known when details and explainings are desired or doubts still not overcome.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

i appreciate your candor. i still disagree that belief in bigfoot is equally as absurd as belief in God.

I wouldn't expect otherwise. The reason I equate the two is due to the caliber of evidence, ability/inability for anyone to demonstrate, the claim to knowing something that isn't certain and the unfalsifiability of either claim. Other than that, really the only differences they have are the subject material (obviously) and the number of people who truly believe in them. My point is, "religious ideas" don't just get a free-pass from scrutiny just because they are religious and more "sacred" than Bigfoot.

also, it appears that we do have different beliefs in what is moral and what isn't. it sounds like you feel ridicule is justified based on a subjective measure of how fervently the person is holding their view. and also, you don't care about ridiculing an entire family's beliefs even if they do not insult you and are causing no direct harm to you, your friends, your family.

But if you notice, I don't advocate ridicule as some form of "go to." I'm sure it sounds like that, but before I even employ it I (usually) weigh the situation first. Does the person respond to my questions with actual answers or with unrelated tidbits of nonsense? Does the person seem to hold their beliefs in high esteem, yet seem unable or unwilling to defend them in the slightest? Does the person exhibit signals that they believe themselves superior or that they pretend to know things for certain that it certainly seems no one can possibly know? And when they do claim to know, does what they bring to the table match what you would expect as evidence/support for how/why they know? When a good number of those things are in play, and I've tried a couple times to "get through the noise" at something actually useful/honest without success, or all I get is gibberish, or the person starts out ridiculing me or grossly caricaturing my position from the start - I may turn to words that aren't so couth to try and let them know they are being a dip-stick. No one has to like it. Hell... they aren't supposed to like it.

essentially, based on what you have said here, you advocate throwing the first insult only because the other person has a strongly held belief that lacks support.

I may be the first to throw out something in the form of verifiable ridicule, yes - but it will usually only be because someone has already insulted my position or intelligence or is generally being a real butt about things with their post/words/thoughts/etc. In essence, they already ridiculed me - it may just happen to be that they are also being honest because they really do hold super-poor opinions of me or my position.

that doesn't feel right to me.

As well it shouldn't! It is MEANT to make people uncomfortable.

if most non-believers agree with you, then it makes sense that non-believers are perceived as mean spirited school yard bullies. it's because they are indeed throwing the first verbal insult.

Hold on now - there are plenty, and I mean PLENTY of believers who start out the conversation with trash talk, mean-spirited caricatures of nonbelievers positions, and just really, really poor assumptions. There are a whopping TON of original posts from believers that are tantamount to "throwing the first punch." A lot of times it is like they want to walk into the "schoolyard", throw a bunch of punches, and then often times just disappear. Not even willing to take the heat for all the punches thrown. I'm pretty sure those types are still reading comments... they're just too frightened to get back into it - probably because they know they don't have a leg to stand on with their BS. And I truly believe the "bully" seen from nonbelievers is more because we tend not to back down as easily or as often. You say some crap - you're probably going to hear about it until you stop replying or there's a fair enough resolution. This is all anecdotal, obviously - but there are patterns one experiences over lengths of time doing this sort of thing.

if most non-believers behave as you have described, that is insensitive to other people's feelings.

Agreed, it is insensitive. But it isn't like non-believers have a monopoly on it. Nor am I the "spokesperson" for all non-believers. And this is also where I think a lot of believers have it wrong. Because they are used to identifying with a group, they tend to think everyone else who falls under some type of heading or label is also "a group", but with non-believers this is simply not the case. We're all individuals. Every last one of us a different mesh of beliefs, non-beliefs and personality attributes. We don't tend to speak for one another, and we do not hold one another accountable for what others might do. Other atheists, for example, are not responsible for my actions, and I wouldn't dare pretend to represent all atheists. It just doesn't work like that with non-believers. We aren't all "ambassadors" for the whole of non-believers - not like Christians feel they are such for the realm of Christianity. I'm sure you've heard things like this before, but theists tend to ignore it entirely, so I feel it is always worth mentioning.

if most non-believers behave this way, claims that non-believers lack empathy are being supported by their own behavior.

And DO most non-believers behave this way, in your experience? I doubt it. But if they do - what do I care? I am not their keeper, and they are not automatically my "brothers in arms." There is no automatic "bond" between non-believers except friendship that may develop like it does between any two people. We may agree on this one thing, and disagree on so many other things that we're nearly incompatible otherwise.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In the end, don't tell me you KNOW things about the "metaphysical" or "supernatural" (when there is nothing to investigate within our realm and no way to reach/measure/interact with any other realm for you to have come to any conclusions in the first place) and then go on to tell me that I should KNOW also.

Don't do that, and you won't hear much from me on the topic. Do that, and you'll hear plenty, because I'm not going to just stand for it. You're going to be questioned, poked and prodded. And if the types of questions that expose the weakness of your position (and trust me, if it is anything like what I described in the above paragraph, there WILL be weakness) leave you feeling hurt, insulted, or ridiculed - I don't care. I also don't care if you involve your mother, or your father, or your grandmother, or your dog. Your position and beliefs either stand on their own or they don't. Invoking your grandma does not make your position any stronger, and if you feel that it should, then you probably need to start taking to heart some of the criticism you are getting.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

In the end, don't tell me you KNOW things about the "metaphysical" or "supernatural" (when there is nothing to investigate within our realm and no way to reach/measure/interact with any other realm for you to have come to any conclusions in the first place) and then go on to tell me that I should KNOW also.

Don't do that, and you won't hear a lick on the topic out of me. Do that, and you'll hear plenty, because I'm not going to just stand for it. You're going to be questioned, poked and prodded. And if the types of questions that expose the weakness of your position (and trust me, if it is anything like what I described in the above paragraph, there WILL be weakness) leave you feeling hurt, insulted, or ridiculed - I don't care. I also don't care if you involve your mother, or your father, or your grandmother, or your dog.

My dog thinks you dress kind of funny, and that Christianity does too.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My dog thinks you dress kind of funny, and that Christianity does too.

I do dress kind of funny, and I literally couldn't be ashamed of it if I tried to be.

 

[usfan]

I do feel there is a time and place for ridicule, as bad as some may think that sounds.

It is an effective tactic to demean a competing worldview..

NOBODY who doesn't believe him feels sympathy for the guy who still believes Elvis is alive.

You cannot compare (but many atheists do..) a belief in God, which has thousands of years of precedence, overwhelming personal and circumstantial evidence.. and is The Historical human consensus, with deliberate fabrications or delusion.

You lack information to make that judgment. It is a belief, only.

I am only getting more and more fed up with people's wild thoughts and assertions without evidence or sufficient reason. The fuse gets shorter and shorter

..yes, that is how religious bigotry expresses itself.. increasing intolerance for alternate beliefs.

There are and have been a lot of really rotten destructive people who claim the mantle of Christianity

..and this evil subset of humanity smears, by association, ALL of Christianity?

Are no atheists or Muslims or Buddhists 'rotten & destructive!!?'

By what standards of morality do you condemn Christianity, yet exclude others?

And as a practical question for RF: Do you think that non-believers have good reason to pressure, criticize, and ridicule believers and religious people in a religious debate? Is it appropriate as comic relief even if the non-believer has nothing to contribute to the conversation? Is it appropriate as a means of exposing the believer's flaws?

Good point.

But religious debates are notoriously heated, so expecting rational civility is perhaps too lofty an expectation .

Suppose an atheist destroys a religious person's beliefs so bad in a debate,

IMO, that is a subjective opinion. One debater's 'destroy!' is another debater's 'fail!' Who is the judge, in this opinion rich environment?

And until it is an overwhelming agreed upon fact that God is not real, then I propose that comparing the belief in God to belief that Elvis is alive is a false equivalence.

Well said.

Assigning equivalent absurdity to belief in God as to belief in Mother Goose is in itself ridiculous.

again, well said. It is an absurd caricature, to correlate imaginary or contemporary fantasies with belief in God.

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy that attempts to make a claim look ridiculous by mocking it or exaggerating it in a negative way.

+1

Bull****. Name these "atheist beliefs"

1. There is no God!
2. We're moral, too!
3. We have purpose and meaning!
4. All theistic beliefs/opinions are delusions!
5. Christianity is religion! Atheism is science!
6. Religious bigotry and ridicule is ok for atheists, since we're not religious!

It all boils down to whether or not a person has compelling evidential support for what they are claimin

No, because NOBODY has that. We have beliefs.. religio/philosophical opinions. That is all. You have no more 'empirical facts!' for your ideological worldview than anyone else.

Since morality is relative, morality can exist without religion.
Stalin and Mao had no problem causing the deaths, if not outright murdering them, of millions of their own citizens. Why? Because by their own morals, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Killing a few people to create a better society is “moral” in their minds. The Nazis were similar; they considered it moral to murder Gypsies, gays, Soviets and the mental disabled in order to creat a better society. A “Pure” society.

Yes. Relative morality (anything goes!), is the same as no morality. There either is, or isn't, an embedded moral code.. and that implies an Embedder. There is no such thing as morality, in a godless universe. You make up whatever you want.

Until the claim is evidenced with evidence as compelling as the other propositions I feel forced to accept, there is absolutely no reason to believe.

You can believe whatever you want, about the nature of the universe. Nobody is forcing you to believe anything. Your intolerance of Christianity is a personal beef, and is nothing but old fashioned religious bigotry.

That’s because there is no evidence for god. The best there is for god are unsound deductive arguments. Even those do not get into an agent, let alone a personal god. This is primarily why religion is faith based, with some odd anecdotes here and there.

There is plenty of evidence for God. It is not empirical, or subject to laboratory analysis, but it is there, for the sincere seeker of Truth.

But, there is no evidence for the 'no God!' belief, either.

Everybody gotta believe something.

Everyone has to do their own believing, and their own dying.

 

[dybmh]

My point is, "religious ideas" don't just get a free-pass from scrutiny just because they are religious and more "sacred" than Bigfoot.

And my point is:

Scrutiny is much much different than ridicule. That is why it matters how many people believe in God compared to how many people believe in Bigfoot. Yes, they both deserve scrutiny. And neither claim deserves a free-pass. { Please note: I have not ever advocated for a free-pass. }

What I am advocating for is restraint and limits on ridicule.

It is absurd to try to prove that God exists without evidence.
It is not absurd to believe in God.

It is absurd to believe in Mother Goose.

Bigfoot... well.... in 2014 a lot of people believed in Bigfoot.. (source). So, maybe it's not absurd.

Do you see the difference?

If someone makes an absurd claim, then, OK, this is an internet forum, ridicule should be at least expected. I grant that.

But I do see people being ridiculed because of who they are, what they believe, and ( by your own admission ) how fervently they hold their beliefs.

This is wrong.

Ridiculing the claim made, is fair play. Ridiculing based on a person's devotion to their beliefs, is not fair play.

But if you notice, I don't advocate ridicule as some form of "go to." I'm sure it sounds like that, but before I even employ it I (usually) weigh the situation first. Does the person respond to my questions with actual answers or with unrelated tidbits of nonsense?

This is very interesting... "unrelated tibdits of nonsense" I don't want to dig too deeply into this. But in order to accurately qualify non-sense a person needs to be much much smarter than the other person. The person who claims non-sense is not accepting any modicum of ignorance on the matter.

The claim of non-sense is virtually worthless in a debate. All it means is that it doesn't make sense to the individual making the claim. I argued this point here: (link)

It's actually a very interesting thread because in it, there are several examples of ridicule. Some of it in my opinion is fair play, because absurd unsupported claims are made. And some of the ridicule is completely unwarranted, IMHO.

But what I think you will see in this thread is:

Claims of incoherence and non-sense are employed against me in this thread, but they did not refute my claim; because, in this case, I actually had more knowledge and experience in the matter being discussed than the person who claimed: "non-sense".

Does the person exhibit signals that they believe themselves superior or that they pretend to know things for certain that it certainly seems no one can possibly know? And when they do claim to know, does what they bring to the table match what you would expect as evidence/support for how/why they know? When a good number of those things are in play, and I've tried a couple times to "get through the noise" at something actually useful/honest without success, or all I get is gibberish, or the person starts out ridiculing me or grossly caricaturing my position from the start - I may turn to words that aren't so couth to try and let them know they are being a dip-stick. No one has to like it. Hell... they aren't supposed to like it.

OK. I want to highlight this: "exhibit signals that they believe themselves superior"

"exhibit signals" this is where I think, respectfully, an insult is not warranted. An insult is not warranted when someone exhibits a signal that they are going to be offensive. I think ridicule is not warranted until the person actually makes the absurd claim.

I know the sort of person, the sort of mindset, you are speaking about. And, in my experience, given enough rope, these people hang themselves ( ahem... figuratively ). So it's better to take the high road and wait it out. Let the person make the absurd claim. Then, by all means, pile on.

People who want to preach, preach. It's so compelling, they cannot resist.

Look, I sound like a bible-thumping lunatic sometimes... but I'm not. I give off signals that I believe I am superior... but I don't believe that.

And honestly... it's hypocritical to object to one person who "exhibits signals that they believe themselves superior" and at the same behave superior by calling their beliefs non-sense.

Hold on now - there are plenty, and I mean PLENTY of believers who start out the conversation with trash talk, mean-spirited caricatures of nonbelievers positions, and just really, really poor assumptions. There are a whopping TON of original posts from believers that are tantamount to "throwing the first punch." A lot of times it is like they want to walk into the "schoolyard", throw a bunch of punches, and then often times just disappear. Not even willing to take the heat for all the punches thrown. I'm pretty sure those types are still reading comments... they're just too frightened to get back into it - probably because they know they don't have a leg to stand on with their BS. And I truly believe the "bully" seen from nonbelievers is more because we tend not to back down as easily or as often. You say some crap - you're probably going to hear about it until you stop replying or there's a fair enough resolution. This is all anecdotal, obviously - but there are patterns one experiences over lengths of time doing this sort of thing.

When that happens, then I think that is fair play.

What I object to is anticipating the absurd claim, before it's being made, and attacking first.

Also, regarding the times when people disappear and do not answer or take the heat...

My friend, you don't have to look very far back in time to see that this happened to me in the Slavery thread. Virtually no one admits when they are wrong on this forum. When they stop replying, that is conceding the point.

I don't agree with this approach. I absolutely admit when i am wrong in a debate. I apologize. I take the heat. I have made some bone-head blunders. And I have admitted it when it happens.

I rarely, rarely see other people do it.

So, I don't think a non-response in this forum should render anything other than conceding the point.

And DO most nonbelievers behave this way, in your experience?

there are patterns one experiences over lengths of time doing this sort of thing.

What do i notice? What is the pattern?

Hostility. Pre-emptive hostility based on the subjective determination that some one is "signaling" that they are going to start preaching.

Hypocrisy. Objecting to one person behaving in a superior manner while at the same time behaving in a superior manner. Objecting to a lack of intellectual integrity while at the same time lacking intellectual integrity. Etc...

Both non-believers and believers exhibit hostility and hypocrisy.

I think that we agree on this.

 

[Road Warrior]

...Yes. Relative morality (anything goes!), is the same as no morality. There either is, or isn't, an embedded moral code.. and that implies an Embedder. There is no such thing as morality, in a godless universe. You make up whatever you want...

Societies can, and do, make up their own morality as shown in the previous examples. As for embedding; the “Embedder” can be evolution itself. Consider that a murderously psychotic civilization would eventually destroy itself whereas a society that establishes rules against rape and murder has a better chance of survival. If they survive, then they’ll spread their civilization. If they kill themselves off, they won’t. It’s simple game theory.

 

[usfan]

Societies can, and do, make up their own morality as shown in the previous examples. As for embedding; the “Embedder” can be evolution itself. Consider that a murderously psychotic civilization would eventually destroy itself whereas a society that establishes rules against rape and murder has a better chance of survival. If they survive, then they’ll spread their civilization. If they kill themselves off, they won’t. It’s simple game theory.

Even if you postulate, 'evolution did it!', wrt morality, it is still not a Real Thing, but a manipulation, to produce a desired behavior.. by a human controller with an agenda. It is still a delusion, in a godless universe. Morality is only a human construct, for control and manipulation, even if you speculate positive evolutionary benefits.

It can only be a Real Thing, if an Embedder actually put morality into His creation.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I, for one, think that religion doesn't give me my morality, but it gives me hope, more of the Yang I need in my inner Yin-Yang.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I, for one, think that religion doesn't give me my morality, but it gives me hope, more of the Yang I need in my inner Yin-Yang.

That hope can eventually lead to greater morality, maybe, but it isn't pure morality.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Sure thing Bob.

You address me by my prefered pronouns