Do 'atheist' and 'not a theist' mean the same thing?

[Jr_Wells]

@Arminius

@Jr Wells

So, Arminus’ example is a false trichotomy whereas yours is a false dichotomy.

My example was merely a reflection of his own example

Yes, I know Arminus (and I am agreeing with you).

[Arcturus_Descending]

@Mutcer

Do ‘atheist’ and ‘not a theist’ mean the same thing?

No, a deist stands between them. …one who doesn’t see a personal god but sees a god. But I think you knew this.

[Mutcer]

@Jr Wells

I already have:

1. All humans that hold a belief that God exists.
2. All humans that hold a belief God does not exist.
3. All humans who do not hold a belief about the existence or non-existence of God.

Your argument is a logical fallacy by definition of a false dichotomy above.

CONGRATULATIONS!!! You get the award for MOST BLATANT STRAW MAN ARGUMENT OF THE YEAR!!!

Here are two categories:

1. All humans who hold the belief that a god exists
2. All humans who don’t fall into category #1

Which of those two categories do newborn babies fall into?

1. All humans that hold a belief that God exists.
2. All humans that hold a belief God does not exist.
3. All humans who do not hold a belief about the existence or non-existence of God.

Here’s why it’s a straw man:

• You have taken my item #2 and divided it up into two sub categories such that you are now arguing against a trichotomy which I never made.
• My #2 (all humans who don’t fall into category #1) is the set of humans who don’t meet the criteria of #1. IOW, “all humans who DON"T hold the belief that a god exists”.

You’re free to take my category #2 and divide it up into two sub categories which we can use for a separate discussion. But that doesn’t make it any less true that newborn babies fall into category #2 in my dichotomy.

[Mutcer]

@Arminius

@Mutcer

If there are the following three categories elephants, lions, and zebras; in which category do you fall into?

That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.

No, That is no “false dichotomy fallacy”. That is no conclusion, so a fallacy is not possible. In order to be a fallacy there must be a conclusion. And there is no one at all - I merely asked you a question, a question containing a conditional.

You think you’re sneaky! It is a false dichotomy fallacy. Read about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
A conclusion need not be arrived at for it to be a false dichotomy (in this case trichotomy).

Even though it’s a false trilemma, I do happen to fall into one of those categories, as I actually am a zebra. I roam around on a plain in south central Africa. Now are you happy?

Why did you not notice that? And I did not ask you this question without any intention: the question refers to your own categories which are based on false definitions and false premises (preconditions). Why did you not notice that? With the three categories and the question in which category you fall into I tried to show that your definitions, your premises (preconditions) and - therefore (!) - all your conclusions are false. Why did you not notice that?

So when you said that my question was “a false dichotomy fallacy”, then you admitted that it is your false dichotomy fallacy. Why did you not notice that?

If you asked: (assuming creature can’t be both a lion and an elephant)
1-All living creatures which are lions
2-All living creatures which are elephants
3-All living creatures which aren’t elephants or lions
That would be a true trichotomy.

My dichotomy is true because it is essentially
1- All humans who have attribute X
2- All humans who don’t have attribute X

If there’s a third category I’ve left out, bring it forward!

For your convenience:
[i]Here are two categories:

1. All humans who hold the belief that a god exists
2. All humans who don’t fall into category #1

Which of those two categories do newborn babies fall into?[/i]

[Jr_Wells]

Once again I direct you to the definition of false dichotomy:
from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.

In other words, there are two ways in which one can commit a false dilemma. First, one can assume that there are only two (or three, though that case is strictly speaking be a “false trilemma”) options when there really are many more. Second, one can take the options to be mutually exclusive when they really are not.

My example, like Arminus’ is an illustration not an argument (read the above definition and you will see how it is an illustration of a false trilemma). Please carefully consider your replies in the future.

Is this a true dichotomy

1. People who believe God does not exist
2. All other people not in category 1
   Which of these categories does a newborn fit into?

If so, we have two true dichotomies that somehow do not completely agree with other.

[Lev_Muishkin]

If an atheist is something other than not a theist, then it should be possible to say exactly what that is.

There is a very simply way to answer this question.

I am an atheist.

Now tell me what necessarily follows from that statement, that means more than not a theist.

[Arminius]

@Mutcer

…

[size=90](AS USUAL.)[/size]

Mutcer, I did not ask you because of that. I asked you in order to show you that your definitions and your premises (preconditions) are false. You are probably no elephant, no lion, no zebra when it come to classify you as a human. So, in that case, it is not possible to classify you. It is also not possible to say that a newborn human is a “theist”, an “atheist”, or an “antitheist”.

For being a theist, or an atheist, or an antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.

So, in other words, my example had to be false, because it should show the falsity of YOUR examples. Why did you not notice that? It is very easy to do.

Let me guess what you will do next: (1) Ignore, (2) ignore, (3) mention false conclusions because of false definitions and false premises (preconditions) - as usual.

[Lev_Muishkin]

@Arcturus Descending

@Mutcer

Do ‘atheist’ and ‘not a theist’ mean the same thing?

No, a deist stands between them. …one who doesn’t see a personal god but sees a god. But I think you knew this.

This is most probably a category error.
As I understand it, a Deist is a person that accepts that a god made the universe but is no longer with us.
That would mean he was a theist who thinks god is dead.
This does not refute, nor add anything of value to the THREAD question. It does not challenge the idea that “atheist” is not a theist.

As a pig is an animal. An agnostic is an atheist, and a deist is a theist. Apples are fruit though not all fruit are apples.

[Lev_Muishkin]

@Arminius

@Mutcer

…

[size=90](AS USUAL.)[/size]

Mutcer, I did not ask you because of that. I saked you in order to show you that your definitions and premises (preconditions) are false. You are probably no elephant, no lion, no zebra when it come to classify you as a human. So, in that case, it is not possible to classify you. It is also not possible to say that a newborn human is a “theist”, “atheist”, or “antitheist”.

For being a theist, or atheist, or antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.

Please define Atheist.

[Jr_Wells]

@Lev Muishkin

If an atheist is something other than not a theist, then it should be possible to say exactly what that is.

There is a very simply way to answer this question.

I am an atheist.

Now tell me what necessarily follows from that statement, that means more than not a theist.

The sets of {not a theist} and {atheist} are not equivalent sets.
The sets of {not an atheist} and {theist} are not equivalent sets.
You are both; an atheist and not a theist.
A newborn is both; not an atheist and not a theist.
A Christian is both; a theist and not an atheist

[Arcturus_Descending]

Lev Muishkin

No, a deist stands between them. …one who doesn’t see a personal god but sees a god. But I think you knew this.

As I understand it, a Deist is a person that accepts that a god made the universe but is no longer with us.

“No longer with us”. Not sure what you meant by that…unless you meant a god who doesn’t get involved in our lives. I would agree there albeit who can really know how determined or undetermined the universe remains.

That would mean he was a theist who thinks god is dead.

No, a theist doesn’t think god is dead. A theist holds to the concept that a personal god is very much alive and interactive within our lives and the universe. An atheist

This does not refute, nor add anything of value to the THREAD question. It does not challenge the idea that “atheist” is not a theist.

But I did answer the question as I felt he was asking it. An atheist is not a-theist (as against or opposed to a theist). A theist holds to a belief in a personal god but an atheist holds no belief or lacks any kind of belief whatsoever in god. I think that to an atheist even the concept of a god is a closed issue…no relevance whatsoever.

That’s the way i see it. Maybe he needs to re-ask the question in a certain way.

As a pig is an animal. An agnostic is an atheist, and a deist is a theist. Apples are fruit though not all fruit are apples.[/quot

Wrong. Yes, a pig is an animal but agnostics are not atheists. I’m an agnostic but withholding judgment of some kind, any kind of belief in god’s existence, is not the same as lacking any kind of belief… so I can’t say that THERE IS NO GOD. And a theist would never say that. You’re convoluting the issue, Lev.

[Arminius]

@Jr Wells

@Lev Muishkin

If an atheist is something other than not a theist, then it should be possible to say exactly what that is.

There is a very simply way to answer this question.

I am an atheist.

Now tell me what necessarily follows from that statement, that means more than not a theist.

The sets of {not a theist} and {atheist} are not equivalent sets.
The sets of {not an atheist} and {theist} are not equivalent sets.
You are both; an atheist and not a theist.

About 90-99% of those who call themselves “athheists” are antitheists. And the antitheistic “Wikipedia” is one of their false gods.

I have given the definitions of “theist”, “atheist”, “antitheist” in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:

[size=140]--------------------------| “Theist” | “Atheist” | “Antitheist” |

Living being ______| yes | yes | yes ____|
Human being _____| yes | yes | yes ____|
Godbeliever _____| yes | no | no ____|
Intellectual ______| yes | yes | yes ____|
Child __________| no | no | no ____|

Against theism _| no | no | yes ____|
Against atheism | — | no | — __|
Against antitheism | yes | no | no ____|

[/size]

@Jr Wells

A newborn is both; not an atheist and not a theist.

And also not an antitheists. Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions.

[Jr_Wells]

99% of people agree with you Arminus (it is sound logic).

[Mutcer]

@Jr Wells

Once again I direct you to the definition of false dichotomy:
from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.

In other words, there are two ways in which one can commit a false dilemma. First, one can assume that there are only two (or three, though that case is strictly speaking be a “false trilemma”) options when there really are many more. Second, one can take the options to be mutually exclusive when they really are not.

My example, like Arminus’ is an illustration not an argument (read the above definition and you will see how it is an illustration of a false trilemma). Please carefully consider your replies in the future.

Is this a true dichotomy

1. People who believe God does not exist
2. All other people not in category 1
   Which of these categories does a newborn fit into?

If so, we have two true dichotomies that somehow do not completely agree with other.

The reason they don’t agree with each other is because you’re misinterpreting something.

‘Believes that God does not exist’ is not the same as ‘Doesn’t hold the belief that God does exist’.

[Mutcer]

@Lev Muishkin

If an atheist is something other than not a theist, then it should be possible to say exactly what that is.

There is a very simply way to answer this question.

I am an atheist.

Now tell me what necessarily follows from that statement, that means more than not a theist.

I think you’ve got them with a check mate!

[Mutcer]

@Arminius

@Mutcer

…

[size=90](AS USUAL.)[/size]

Mutcer, I did not ask you because of that. I asked you in order to show you that your definitions and your premises (preconditions) are false. You are probably no elephant, no lion, no zebra when it come to classify you as a human. So, in that case, it is not possible to classify you. It is also not possible to say that a newborn human is a “theist”, an “atheist”, or an “antitheist”.

For being a theist, or an atheist, or an antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.

So, in other words, my example had to be false, because it should show the falsity of YOUR examples. Why did you not notice that? It is very easy to do.

Let me guess what you will do next: (1) Ignore, (2) ignore, (3) mention false conclusions because of false definitions and false premises (preconditions) - as usual.

Does the fact a human baby doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists make it any more of a “human that doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists” than a dog or a cat?

So I can get a better understanding of where you’re coming from, please answer the following with yes or no:
Is a human being who holds the belief that a god exists a theist?
Is a human being who doesn’t hold the belief a god exists not a theist?
Does non-theist mean the same as “not a theist”
Does a newborn human baby hold the belief that a god exists?
Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?

[Arminius]

@Mutcer

@Arminius

@Mutcer

…

[size=90](AS USUAL.)[/size]

Mutcer, I did not ask you because of that. I asked you in order to show you that your definitions and your premises (preconditions) are false. You are probably no elephant, no lion, no zebra when it come to classify you as a human. So, in that case, it is not possible to classify you. It is also not possible to say that a newborn human is a “theist”, an “atheist”, or an “antitheist”.

For being a theist, or an atheist, or an antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.

So, in other words, my example had to be false, because it should show the falsity of YOUR examples. Why did you not notice that? It is very easy to do.

Let me guess what you will do next: (1) Ignore, (2) ignore, (3) mention false conclusions because of false definitions and false premises (preconditions) - as usual.

Does the fact a human baby doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists make it any more of a “human that doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists” than a dog or a cat?

That is not a fact. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are false - as I said several times in several post, in several threads, again and again.

@Mutcer

So I can get a better understanding of where you’re coming from …

I am as much no antitheist as you are an antitheist.

@Mutcer

Is a human being who holds the belief that a god exists a theist?

First of all one has to know which human is meant.

@Mutcer

Is a human being who doesn’t hold the belief a god exists not a theist?

First of all one has to know which human is meant.

@Mutcer

Does non-theist mean the same as “not a theist”

Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it?

@Mutcer

Does a newborn human baby hold the belief that a god exists?

A human newborn is not able to do that - as I said to you several times in plenty of posts and in two threads, over and over again.

Again the widened table:

@Arminius

I have given the definitions of “theist”, “atheist”, “antitheist” in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:

[size=140]--------------------------| “Theist” | “Atheist” | “Antitheist” |

Living being ______| yes | yes | yes ____|
Human being _____| yes | yes | yes ____|
Godbeliever _____| yes | no | no ____|
Intellectual ______| yes | yes | yes ____|
Child __________| no | no | no ____|

Against theism _| no | no | yes ____|
Against atheism | — | no | — __|
Against antitheism | yes | no | no ____|

[/size]
… Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions.

True.

@Jr Wells

99% of people agree with you Arminus (it is sound logic).

Also true.

@Mutcer

Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?

Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it, Mutcer?

---

B.t.w.: Shall I copy this post and put in this and your other thread, so that you don’t have to write anymore? (Because it is always the same!)

[Jr_Wells]

@Mutcer

@Jr Wells

Once again I direct you to the definition of false dichotomy:
from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.

In other words, there are two ways in which one can commit a false dilemma. First, one can assume that there are only two (or three, though that case is strictly speaking be a “false trilemma”) options when there really are many more. Second, one can take the options to be mutually exclusive when they really are not.

My example, like Arminus’ is an illustration not an argument (read the above definition and you will see how it is an illustration of a false trilemma). Please carefully consider your replies in the future.

Is this a true dichotomy

1. People who believe God does not exist
2. All other people not in category 1
   Which of these categories does a newborn fit into?

If so, we have two true dichotomies that somehow do not completely agree with other.

The reason they don’t agree with each other is because you’re misinterpreting something.

‘Believes that God does not exist’ is not the same as ‘Doesn’t hold the belief that God does exist’.

I am not misinterpreting anything.

1. People who believe in X
2. People who do not fall into category 1
   in my case my attribute X is not-God (making theism a neutral position)
   in your case your attribute X is God (making atheism a neutral position).

These are both true dichotomies (according to your definition of true dichotomy), so which category does a newborn fit into?
This can only be answered by rendering both scenarios as false dichotomies (as per the true definition of false dichotomy).

[Mutcer]

@Arminius

Mutcer, I did not ask you because of that. I asked you in order to show you that your definitions and your premises (preconditions) are false. You are probably no elephant, no lion, no zebra when it come to classify you as a human. So, in that case, it is not possible to classify you. It is also not possible to say that a newborn human is a “theist”, an “atheist”, or an “antitheist”.

A newborn human is an atheist. So your assertion that it is not possible to say that a newborn human is an atheist has been shown to be false.

For being a theist, or an atheist, or an antitheist attributes are required, and if someone lacks merely one of this attributes, then the classification is not possible.

What attributes would you say are required for one to be an atheist?
What word would you use to describe a human who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?

Does the fact a human baby doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists make it any more of a “human that doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists” than a dog or a cat?

That is not a fact. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are false - as I said several times in several post, in several threads, again and again.

Please indicate which definition or premise is false and why it is false.

@Mutcer

Is a human being who holds the belief that a god exists a theist?

First of all one has to know which human is meant.

It sounds like you’re saying some types of humans who hold the belief that a god exists are theists and others are not theists. Please explain how a human could hold the belief that a god exists and not be a theist.

@Mutcer

Is a human being who doesn’t hold the belief a god exists not a theist?

First of all one has to know which human is meant.

Likewise, it sounds like you’re saying some types of humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists are not theists and others don’t fall into the category of “not theist”. Please explain how a human could not hold the belief that a god exists and not be “not a theist”.

@Mutcer

Does non-theist mean the same as “not a theist”

Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it?

Please answer the question.
Does non-theist mean the same as “not a theist”?

@Mutcer

Does a newborn human baby hold the belief that a god exists?

A human newborn is not able to do that - as I said to you several times in plenty of posts and in two threads, over and over again.

So you would agree that a newborn baby doesn’t fall into the category of those who hold the belief that a god exists. What term do you think appropriately describes those humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists?

@Arminius

I have given the definitions of “theist”, “atheist”, “antitheist” in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:

[size=140]--------------------------| “Theist” | “Atheist” | “Antitheist” |

Living being ______| yes | yes | yes ____|
Human being _____| yes | yes | yes ____|
Godbeliever _____| yes | no | no ____|
Intellectual ______| yes | yes | yes ____|
Child __________| no | no | no ____|

Against theism _| no | no | yes ____|
Against atheism | — | no | — __|
Against antitheism | yes | no | no ____|

[/size]

Line 1 - Not necessarily. A zebra is a being and it can’t be a theist, atheist or antitheist.
Line 2 - Again, I agree with you
Line 3 - A godbeliever can be a Antitheist
Line 4 - What do you mean by ‘Intellectual’?
Line 5 - A child can be a theist, atheist or antitheist. All 3 of your choices are wrong
Line 6 - One who is against theism can be an atheist
Line 7 - What do the hyphens mean? BTW, one who is against atheism can be an atheist
Line 8 - One who is against antitheism can be an atheist. I know many of them.

… Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions.

A newborn baby by definition is an atheist. Please provide your source which says a newborn baby isn’t an atheist.

@Mutcer

Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?

Do you ignore anything just after you have “read” it, Mutcer?

Please answer the question.
Does non-theist mean the same as atheist?

---

B.t.w.: Shall I copy this post and put in this and your other thread, so that you don’t have to write anymore? (Because it is always the same!)

I’ll put it in the other thread.

[zinnat]

Mucter,

Do I have to remind you again and again to answer my posts?
If you are finding those unanswerable from your pow, you can say it openly to me and I will leave. No issue at all.

But, unless that happens, I will keep reminding you.
Below is my unanswered post, which you ignored—

@zinnat13

@Mutcer

If you are both a baseball fan and a football fan and someone asks if you’re a baseball fan, why are you obligated to tell them you’re also a football fan?

I am certainly obligated to tell him that I like both games, if he would misunderstand my silence about football as my disliking. Would it not be cheating otherwise?

That is precisely (cheating) you are doing all along in your arguments, which is exposed now.

@Mutcer

You’ll have to clarify. Agnostics isn’t a position of belief. It’s a position of knowledge

Wrong again.

Agnosticism is also related to belief in a way. It implies either the knowledge or the belief that one cannot be sure about either the existence or nonexistence of the god, or it implies the belief that there cannot be any certainty about this ever.

Mucter, even the knowledge of agnosticism would lead to belief at last. All three positions have beliefs. Theism has the belief of the existence of the god. Atheism has the belief of the nonexistence of the god. Agnosticism has the belief that both other beliefs are wrong because nothing can be known for sure, but it is still a belief.

@Mutcer

Agnostic isn’t the mid point between believing a god exists and not believing a god exists. With respect to a mid point, having no belief is a mid point between believing a god exists and believing no god exists.

It does not make any difference whether agnosticism is the middle point or not. The more important issue is that it is different from both other positions. Thus, you cannot present it as a subset of atheism. And, you also accepted in the discussion that agnosticism is from different plane from both others.

@Mutcer

Let’s say there are four types of cars in your area. Models are Fords and Toyotas. All the cars are either black or white. So you have Black Fords, Black Toyotas, White Fords and White Toyotas. Do you consider white/black to be a subset of Ford/Toyota? If so, is white/black the midpoint between Ford and Toyota?

Mucter, you cannot fool me, no matter how hard you try.

Your analogy is wrong for the simple reason that you are making category error. There is no relation between the brands and colors of the cars. But, threism, atheism and agnosticm talk about the same issue; the belief about the god.

If we use your analogy of colours, theism and atheism represent white and black, while agnosticm represents other colours like grey.

@Mutcer

There are two positions of belief.

1. Believes a god exists
2. Believes no god exists
   The neutral or midpoint between those would be doesn’t have a belief. And those who don’t have a belief are called atheists.

Mucter, you are losing it now. Did you read carefully what you said above! I do not think so. Are you saying that atheists do not believe in the nonexistence of the god?

Atheists are not void of belief. They represent second category of the belief, which is the nonexistence of the god, and just opposite to the first kind of theism belief.

Givem that, how you can say that atheism is a neutral position?

@Mutcer

One is the positive belief and one is the negative belief. A neutral or midpoint would be a scientist who doesn’t have a belief about how the universe came into existence. But this scientist would also fall into the category of those who don’t believe the universe came into existence from the big bang.

You are right up to here but as usual, it is again half truth.

If a scientist, who does not have any belief how universe came into existence, can be clubbed with those who do not believe in big bang, why he cannot be clubbed with those who believe in big bang?

He is neither against nor for any particular position. Given that, how can you include him with the non believers of the big bang?

@Mutcer

Agreed. However, please note that there is a difference between believing that there is no god and not believing there is a god.

Yes, there is some difference. But, I do not see how it support your position in any way!

@Mutcer

That’s a position of belief. Having a belief in the existence would be the opposite non-neutral position. Having no belief would be the neutral position.

True. But, it is only agnostics who do not have any belief, not atheists. However, you did not answer my question. Look again.

@Mutcer

I don’t believe I ever presented agnosticism as a neutral position. Read the above four categories and you’ll see what I mean.

Okay. Then explain how you presented agnosticism as a subset of atheism?

@Mutcer

You may be able to make an educated guess or be reasonably sure. But perhaps my intention is entirely beyond your understanding.

Mucter, not only me but many other members are also aware of your intentions now. Your effort to undermine theism at any cost is quite evident now.

I hope that either you will address it or accept your incompetence.

With love,
Sanjay