William Lane Craig: Master Debater?

Hey, listen in at about 2:45. ;-)

Even a Child Can Do It!

Let’s say a recognized expert on cats claims one of them talked. People do not have to be experts in cats to say they need to see the evidence. Nor do any of us need a theory of knowledge to doubt it. But if you believed the cat talked you would. You'd have to come up with a whole lot of intellectual gymnastics in order to make such a claim seem respectable to others. Lesson: It does not require understanding a whole lot of epistemology or sophisticated theology to doubt the existence of God either. In fact, even a child can do it.

Dr. Matt McCormick On "Bias and Heuristics in Religious Thinking"

Quote of the Day, by articulett

The bible is history? So a snake really talked? And god turned a woman into a pillar of salt? And appeared as a burning bush? And carved commandments on breakable stones? And sent "she-bears" to maul 42 kids for calling a guy bald? (defying the laws of the physical universe) And this god magically impregnated a virgin to become his own son? And temporarily died? And then became a sort of zombie? And then whisked off to heaven? And now sits in judgement of everyone in trinity fashion (whatever that means)? Really? Who knew? Or is just some of that historical? How do you know which magic is the "true woo"? If you don't believe that the bible is history does the god of the bible punish you for all eternity?

Christians Are Slowly Deconverting

Hi John, I've been an atheist for over one year now, and both your books were a major influence to deconvert me from Christianity, WIBA and The Christian Delusion. I am also a regular reader of your blog, so thanks a million for helping to open my eyes, the truth has set me free! Keep up the good work. -- David Sapo via email, with permission.

Recommendations of This Blog From Opposite Sides of the Fence

EricRC is Ph.D. student majoring in philosophy, and I take it a Roman Catholic (hence RC). He's one of the most intelligent and respectful commenters to hang out in these halls, that is, unless he perceives utter ignorance or is personally attacked, which sounds just like me. As a Christian intellectual he recommends my work on this blog:

Quote of the Day, by gooddogbaddog01

Christians think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their faith based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is "possible", and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely "posslble". Short of providing real evidence for the existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the necessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.

Quote of the Day, by extian

Almost everything in the Bible reads like a product of its time and culture. The ancient Israelites just borrowed their gods from the Canaanites (El, Asheroth, and Baal all used to be on the same team), then made El the primary (and later, only) god, merged him with another god, Yahweh, and developed an entire religious and ritualistic system around these plagiarizations. Centuries later, the gospel writers drew on these same OT fabrications while borrowing extensively from their time and culture, incorporating god-man resurrection stories (i.e. Romulus) to create the Jesus narrative. If you start your epistemology with the Bible, you've built your foundation on falsehoods. Ignorance is bliss. Willful ignorance is faith.

The Jews Didn't Believe So Why Should We?

The Jews of Jesus’ day believed in Yahweh and that he performed miracles, and they knew their Old Testament prophecies, and yet the overwhelming majority of them did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead by Yahweh. The most plausible estimate of the first-century Jewish population comes from a census of the Roman Empire during the reign of Claudius (48 CE) that counted nearly 7 million Jews. If we add in the Jews outside the Roman Empire in places like Babylon, the total first century Jewish population could have been 8 million. It’s estimated that there may have been as many as 2.5 million Jews in Palestine. By contrast, as Catholic New Testament scholar David C. Sim argues, “Throughout the first century the total number of Jews in the Christian movement probably never exceeded 1,000 and by the end of the century the Christian church was largely Gentile.” (Link) Since the Jews didn't believe why should we? No really. Why should we?

Quote of the Day, by AdamHazzard

Had Constantine established some religion other than Christianity -- say, Mithraism -- we would no doubt be celebrating the Tauroctony every spring and the birth of Mithras at the winter solstice. And if Mithraic scholars were to unearth copies of Mark or Luke from the Judean desert, the scrolls would be treated as cultic mystery stories of purely historical interest. Religion is as contingent and mutable as any other human cultural invention.

Christians SHOULD be Ashamed of the Gospel

There are a lot of Christians who know me when I was a believer, a college/seminary student, a teacher, and a minister in several churches. So when they find this site they have different reactions. Some of them send me spam Jesus emails. One guy has sent them several times a week for months, even though I have told him to stop and even though I have not even acknowledged them for months. Many of these believers think they can reach me because we have a special connection in the past. Others just like engaging me. My best friend from Seminary has started to comment here. His name is Gary and he's a great guy. He goes by "unashamedofthegospel," and like me, he was also trained as an apologist under James D. Strauss. Strauss is an amazing man, the one I credit with my anti-apologetical approach, but in reverse. To see what I mean read the first few paragraphs of my essay for the Secular Web, Why I Am Not a Christian, where I said:

Articulett on the OTF

Do you think someone of another faith-- say a Mormon-- could look at their faith the way you (an outsider) would and still maintain that faith? Or would they not really be seeing it as the outsider does? What would it take for you to accept their faith? Do you have that kind of evidence for your own supernatural beliefs? Do you think the reincarnationist has the kind of evidence you'd require to believe in reincarnation? Do you think you should have the same kind of evidence to believe whatever you believe happens after death that you'd require to believe in reincarnation?

Professor Matt McCormick's Definition of Faith

I've been discussing the reasonableness of faith lately ending here. Having read through the uncorrected advance reading copy of Dr. Matt McCormick's book, Atheism and the Case Against Christ, he has a chapter on faith that agrees with me (or should I say I agree with him).

On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It

Skeptics define "faith" differently than believers. It's hard to find a middle ground between us because we see faith differently. Here are a few skeptical definitions of faith:

WIBA Will Be Available in Four Weeks

I just received word that my extensively revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, was sent off to be printed today. It'll be available in four weeks. You can pre-order it off Amazon.com. This is my magnum opus. If you get only one of my books then get this one. Yes, there will be a Kindle or ebook version of it coming out, but when I don't know.

A Reasonable Faith is an Oxymoron

This is what I think. I’ve previously argued for this in a different way when I quipped, Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities.

Jerry Coyne on the "Sophisticated Theology" of Plantinga

While Coyne is attempting to deal with so-called "Sophisticated Theology," something the New Atheists don't do, even he doesn't get it. Plantinga is not trying to prove God, and the essay he's criticizing is from Plantinga's old school version. For a better critique read Jaco Gericke's Fundamentalism on Stilts. Yet Coyne is right when he says:

To paraphrase Orwell, one has to be a theologian to believe things like this: no ordinary man could be such a fool...It is apologetics: the practice of making stuff up post facto to buttress what you already know must be true. And, at bottom—and despite all the intellectual gymnastics of Dr. Plantinga—it all comes down to revelation, to what a particular group of people happens to find amenable as a "basic belief."

Quote of the Day, by articulett

It's not that science has ever been wrong... it's that religion has never been right. Science has an error correcting mechanism; faith does not. That's why there is one science-- and it's the same for everybody no matter what they believe.

Biola University is “fundamentally at odds with the entire direction of modern biology.”

This spring semester the Center for Christian Thought opens at California’s Biola University. The center is the result of a $3 million John Templeton Foundation Award. But based on the doctrinal statement of Biola, this sectarian institution is "fundamentally at odds with the entire direction of modern biology,” so notes Thomas Albert Howard and Karl W. Giberson. Why? Because "Common ancestry today is, quite simply, as well-established in biology as the motion of the earth about the sun is in astronomy. To attempt to exclude faculty who might hold this view is tantamount to closing one's eyes in the face of an encyclopedia of genetic information." Link. Their Apologetics Faculty includes:

Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities

You can quote me on this. Probability is all that matters. Faith is irrational. I want to drive this point into the ground once and for all.

The problem is that practically nothing is certain. So the word "faith" is used to describe any conclusion of ours that leaves room for doubt. Is it possible I'm dreaming right now? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility. Is it possible a material world does not exist? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility too. Is it possible a good omnipotent God exists given the world-wide massive and ubiquitous suffering in it? Again, I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility.

So what? Probability is all that matters. Accepting some conclusion because it's merely possible is irrational. We should never ever do that.

"Herding Cats?" by Secular Planet

It's said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. We're implicitly compared to believers, who have acknowledged leaders, authoritative texts, and formal organizations. The reason usually advanced to account for this phenomenon is that we atheists are generally rather individualistic and thus reluctant to follow someone else's lead on such matters. But there's another reason which I've never seen presented in the context of explaining the herding-cats idea: atheism is much too broad a concept under which to seek to organize. The proper comparison is not to individual religious sects but to theists as a whole.

"Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated"

I'm just relaxing a bit, taking a small break. I'm wondering if I have anything more to say that I haven't said before. I can revisit my arguments, review another book, link to a new site, do another podcast interview or other such things. But what additional things can I say if what I've already said doesn't change the minds of many believers? Most of them won't be able to even consider their faith is a delusion until they face a personal crisis. That's the power of the delusion. A crisis can and will force them to do what they should've been doing all along, critically examining their faith as outsiders. All I have to do is wait. ;-)

"The End of Christianity" Nominated Favorite Atheist Book of 2011

This is one of a few good atheist books in the yearly Readers' Choice Awards of About.com Agnosticism/Atheism. Last year The Christian Delusion won. Just to be nominated is pretty cool. I'm hoping The End of Christianity does well this year too. You can vote right here.

The Relationship of Religious Diversity to Moral Diversity

Religious diversity is one of the main reasons why there is moral diversity (next to gender, race, age, economic, and national differences). Religious diversity ultimately stands in the way of a healthy world society by pitting various religious groups against each other, each one claiming the exclusive privilege of possessing the divine moral truth.

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics

I have run across not a few evangelical Christian apologists who have argued that their religion is "superior" because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, "All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them" (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself."

Is Richard Dawkins the Liar?: “Doctor” Jim West’s Dishonesty Revealed

Psychoanalysis is a common method for delegitimizing atheists. For example, Paul Vitz's Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (2000) tries to show that atheism correlates with absent fathers. Jim Spiegel, a professor at Taylor University, gives us his psychoanalytic theory of atheism in the title of his book, The Making of An Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (2010). Aside from offering poor and arbitrary evidence, this type of psychoanalysis also deflects attention from the merits of any case that atheists themselves express for their views. So, instead of actually listening to reasons atheists give, it is enough for such theists to couch their explanations for atheism in psychoanalytic jargon that features anger, bitterness, and immorality.

The Christianity of the Future is Innoxious

Christianity has always changed like a chameleon to its culture and times. It's emphatically NOT the case that the Christianity of the 1st or 2nd centuries has survived. The heresy of a previous generation just becomes the orthodoxy of the next one. Subsequent generations develop an amnesia about what Christianity used to be. That's it. The conservatives in one generation become the moderates in the next one who become the liberals in the following one. In each of these subsequent generations conservatives who object to this trend start their own churches, publishing houses and seminaries. Then these new churches, publishing houses and seminaries follow the same trend. And as they do, conservatives break off again and the trend starts all over. Do you want to know the Christianity of the future in America? I suspect it might look more like the inclusivist/universalism of Rob Bell along with the pop-psychology gospel of Joel Olsteen.

The Debunking Handbook Is Now Free

The Debunking Handbook, a guide to debunking misinformation, is now freely available to download. Although there is a great deal of psychological research on misinformation, there's no summary of the literature that offers practical guidelines on the most effective ways of reducing the influence of myths. The Debunking Handbook boils the research down into a short, simple summary, intended as a guide for communicators in all areas (not just climate) who encounter misinformation. Link

Richard Carrier vs Douglas Jacoby: Jesus, Son of God or Apocalyptic Prophet?

This debate occurred on January 14, 2012 at the Amador Christian Center in Sacramento California. You can listen to it below.

Is Whitney Houston in Heaven?

Kevin Costner gave a wonderful eulogy at Whitney's funeral today. He and others all claim Whitney Houston is in heaven. Is she? Whitney was a wonderful singer and actress. I loved her. I listened to her songs all of the time. But why is it that people we like are all going to heaven? In Matthew 7 Jesus tells us the gate is narrow and few find it, even people who think they will. Now I understand about eulogies. Who in their right mind would question whether someone is in heaven in front of believing loved ones? Not me that's for sure, and as a former minister I did funerals for people I doubted were in heaven. That would be insensitive to the max. But again, why is it believers think they're all going to heaven? Why is it that any deceased person associated with the church is believed to have gone to heaven? According to Jesus even believers should not have this hope. According to him most people who have this hope are deluded.

Some "Nice" Christians Are Praying For Me

Care to pray along?

I've prayed that if he [John] doesn't turn to Christ in good health (which I prefer), that God would make him sick so that either a) he realizes his need for Christ and converts, or b) dies so that he doesn't lead any more people to hell.

The problem is that there are many skeptics so you'd have to pray that we all convert back (how's THAT working for ya?), get sick, or die. And like it or not, my books will stay in print for decades. Either Christianity wins in the marketplace of ideas or it doesn't. If it does, then do it. If it doesn't then there's nothing you can do about it with this prayer. The Levee has broken, okay? So as Led Zeppelin sings (at 4:08 below) "Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move."

Dr. Craig's Calamitous Cock-Up -- Bayes' Theorem and the Resurrection

Dr. James East Recommends WIBA

I'm always gratified to know that what I write helps. I sure would like to see my book get a bigger audience simply because I'm passionate about changing the religious landscape. Dr. James East recommends my book, Why I Became an Atheist:

Reviews And Emails Like This Keep Me Going

By Fox (Charleston SC) - This review is from: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Paperback)

As a former fundamentalist Christian of 26 years, I shudder to think what my life may have turned out like, had I not randomly spotted this book at my local Good Will. I picked it up, expecting to have a good laugh at the stupid atheist. I never expected it would completely alter my life forever.

Ed Brayton, the Founder of Freethought Blogs, Comments

Ed wrote:

I’m really saddened by all this infighting, not because there is disagreement on how to approach these matters — such disagreement is inevitable, even healthy — but because it is becoming so personal and nasty. I think John has done and continues to do very important work; I would not have invited him to join FTB in the first place if that were not true. And I do understand his decision to leave FTB and do not harbor any ill will at all over it. I hope he continues to do the great work he’s always done at his own blog. But it is also clear to me that John is incredibly thin-skinned. Even civil disagreement, such as Natalie’s post, is called an “attack” by “mean-spirited” people who are out to get him. Natalie may well be wrong in her criticism — who among us has not been at times? — but that is easily responded to in an equally civil manner rather than with “Oh my god, they’re attacking me!”

I Do Not Like Arguing With Atheists

That's right. I don't. Not one bit. I learn from other atheists, that's for damned sure. But given my focus and goals I dislike it to the extreme. For it wastes my time when I should be spending it arguing against evangelical Christians, and they visit me here. That's one of the reasons I have not argued against other atheists much at all. And that was one of the major reasons I left Freethought Blogs. There were just too many atheists and not enough Christians. I found myself arguing with the atheist commenters, some of whom showed no better critical thinking skills then the ignorant believers I have encountered here time and again. Atheists do not, on the whole, have much better critical thinking skills than the general populace. We don't see it until there is a disagreement, for until then it looks like we agree because we are good thinkers. They also didn't show me much respect, at least, that's what I felt. So it's better for me over here. I wish them all well, a few of whom I consider my friends. They can do their thing. I'll do my thing. But I learned something. I might argue against other atheists from time to time when I see ignorance. Hell, maybe I'll even permanently change the header to this blog to "Debunking Ignorance." How does it look to you? ;-) [Edit, I've changed it back.]

Defending Christianity Depends on Fallacious Reasoning, Part 2

I introduced this topic previously. It's quite possible that if you can think of an informal fallacy then there are some Christians who depend on it to defend their faith.

Before going into several specific examples let me introduce the topic. Psychology has proved that as human beings we are not all that rational or logical. This is a fact about all of us to various degrees. None of us is like Spock in Star Trek, none of us. We are all social creatures, emotional creatures, and habitual creatures, as well as rational creatures. The rational part of us is subservient in many cases to the rest of who we are. Much of what we think and defend is what we prefer to believe, especially when we're taught it by someone we like and respect.

Educated people admit these findings. Christians, especially evangelicals, will respond with the all too familiar "you too" fallacy. They will argue that these findings explain why people don't believe in their particular understanding of the Bible; that skeptics prefer not to believe. However, one reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because there are too many "you's" to "too" as I've said before. Evangelicals would have to say this about anyone and everyone who does not accept their understanding of the Bible, which includes not just people who identify as skeptics or atheists, but people in all religious sects who are not evangelicals. The biggest reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because these facts say something about them too. They believe what they prefer to believe. They are not all that rational, and so forth. So to deflect what the facts say about themselves by fostering it on others is clearly fallacious reasoning. My contention is based on what psychology tells us, which means we should all be skeptics, we should all trust only what the sciences teach us. That point continues to be ignored by many believers. Instead, they turn into science deniers in order to irrationally maintain their faith against the probabilities.

How To Increase Traffic to Your Blog or Website

[First Posted 12/16/09] Since I get asked this from time to time let me share what I did a few years ago to increase traffic to DC...

When I started Blogging there weren't as many blogs so it was easier to get noticed. But what I did tirelessly was to read other blogs and then link back to something I said on my own blog. I did it often, all of the time. That got me noticed. Then people would read what I wrote. If they liked it they came back. And I engaged popular blogs where many people already visited. I challenged the Christian sites, or on skeptical blogs I made substantive comments. Then what happened is that sometimes the authors would respond in a post of their own, which drove even more traffic my way. Remember, even bad publicity is publicity[!] Being the atheist that I am, Christian sites will tear into you so be better prepared for that than I was. It's very hard not to wallow in the mire with people who personally attack you, but that's what happened. Nonetheless, these sites have readers who will come and stay at your blog for a while.

Why Must People Always Personally Attack Apostates?

It's typical of human nature to say nasty things about someone who leaves a church, ministry, or social grouping of any kind. "He wasn't one of us in the first place." "He has some big problems." People do this. When it happens we should expect it. Christians do it with former believers. Skeptics do it too. They do it with people who become believers again. They also do it when one leaves their social grouping. I left Freethought Blogs. Now the attacks have started even though up until recently I have not said anything negative about my experience there. If Natalie Reed's post is not indicative of the “mean-spirited” atheists at Freethought Blogs then what is, even if many of them are not like her at all.

Six Thoughtful Links

Professor Matt McCormick's slides for a lecture on What is Atheism?

Christianity Disproved.

Debunking the Arguments of Fundamentalists by Winston Wu.

Adam Tells God Goodbye.

Brilliantly Stupid: How To Kill a Creationist Bill

On January 31, 2012, the Indiana Senate voted 28-22 in favor of Senate Bill 89, which was previously amended to read: “The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.” As a Hoosier from Indiana I'm pleased to learn this bill is now dead in the water. You can read more about it right here.

Private Subjective Experience is No Evidence At All: Against William Lane Craig's Inner Witness of the Spirit

Since I've written a lot against Craig's claim of the inner witness of the Spirit I've decided to gather together the most important posts about it here. Christians are claiming I am ignorant about what he claims. Nope, I'm not. That's a typical response. I understand that Craig is not claiming this inner witness is sufficient to convince other people to believe. He's claiming instead that this supposed inner witness is sufficient to convince him. Thomas Larsen even asked if I've read Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, as if that would straighten me out. He said the questions I pose about this "are elementary and, frankly, quite embarrassing for you." But given the looks of Larsen he was still in diapers as I was taking a master's level class with Bill Craig at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on Plantinga's epistemology. And I have read through the important parts of Plantinga's book and dissected them in Why I Became an Atheist.

My argument in a link below is that it doesn't matter how you dress it up philosophically. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. I'm arguing that Bill Craig is deluded to claim such a thing and that he should know better. I know he's not trying to convince anyone else that he experienced it. He distinguishes between knowing Christianity is true from showing it to be true. He claims to know it's true by the inner witness of the Spirit. I'm trying to disabuse him of this claim, as impossible as it is to do so with a deluded person. And even if I can't, there are more reasonable Christians listening in who might be persuaded against Craig. I'm trying to point out to reasonable people how deluded such a claim is, regardless of whether any Christian sees it for what it is.

Listen up, God spoke to Moses privately, and privately to Paul, and likewise to Joseph Smith, and to Mohammed, and to many Pentecostals, and to David Koresh, and to many of the prophets we read in the Old Testament. Why does God always speak to people privately? Why do most people claim to know God in a private way? A private subjective experience has no more evidence for it than none at all. Given that most people are delusional when they make such claims it's extremely probable Craig is too. The ONLY reason evangelicals buy into this is because they need to believe. They would never entertain Craig's claim if they were a Mormon, or Muslim, Catholic, or Jew.

Answering Some of My Critics

Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and bans people off his Blog who disagree with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain. I'm accused of being childish and abrasive. Granted this comes from a small fringe of people but since their noise is discovered by search engines I should respond.

I’ve tried to resist responding to such ignorant and false drivel before. I know I cannot satisfy the people making such accusations. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But here goes.

Some Atheists are Schmucks ;-)

Some of them remind me of Christians when disagreement arises. Enjoy.

David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!

One of the arguments why Richard Carrier is not a Christian is that God is silent. David Marshall, author of several Christian apologetic books, says instead that he knows God is not silent. He said of Carrier and me that our claim is one we "cannot possibly know to be true. " Really?

The Scale of the Universe

Link. Drag the square at the bottom from left to right and back. Where is God? ;-) Nikita Khrushchev later said after Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin flew into space in 1961 that "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there." Such a comment was laughed at by believers, but there would have been a time in the ancient past when it would be startling news.

The OTF for Mormonism

Mormons assume other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. They critically evaluate all other religions by reason and science.

In Defense of Rebecca Watson

This is one of my posts when I was at Freethought Blogs.

On Divisive Atheists and Some Freethought Bloggers

In February 2002, four years before his book The God Delusion was released in 2006, Richard Dawkins called atheists to arms in a TED talk. His talk wasn’t aired until April of 2007. He makes it clear he wants a campaign much like the gays used to gain acceptability in American society. His final sentence was, "let's all stop being so damned respectful."

At that point there was a split among atheists. A line was drawn in the sand. Although I admit that his approach has been very effective in getting people to take notice of atheists, at the same time I object to the demand that other atheists must adopt that same attitude or approach.

Quote of the Day, With Examples

If the same kind of reasoning produces support for two different conclusions then the reasoning is delusional. By your host here, John W. Loftus ;-)

--Example 1) Ontological arguments for God's existence equally support the Oriental conception of God, or a trickster god.
--Example 2) The same kind of arguments exonerating God from being evil also work in reverse to exonerate an evil God from being good.
--Example 3) Arguments deflecting the problem of divine hiddenness for the Christian God also work to deflect the problem of divine hiddenness for Zeus, Odin, Thor, Re, Hathor, Apollo, and Artemis.
--Example 4) Pascal's beneficial argument to support belief in the Christian God also works to support the evil Egyptian god Set (Seth), and the Greek gods Minos, Styx, Tartaros and Thanatos.
--Example 5) Arguments supporting the proper basically of belief in the Christian God also work to support the proper basically of belief in Allah. Somebody stop me!