Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[CassinoChips]

No but I do know many atheists. There seems to be a general consensus that the lack of belief is due to a scant amount of scientific evidence. This seems like a reasonable assumption anyway rather than the alternative of a blind belief that no god exists for no apparent reason.

To my point. It is reasonable to an atheist. Not to a Christian. To a Christian, belief in God is the reasonable assumption.

That's exactly the reason. There is no such thing as 'faith' in science. If there is no evidence then there is no conclusion. This is rational thought. If you can't substantially prove something then you don't conclude it exists. This is how science works.

Are you sure about that?

-Evolution
-Black hole thermodynamics
-Field theory
-Dark Matter
-Big Bang

Hell, the (arguably) most famous theory proposed by the (arguably) most famous scientist in history is not conclusively proven. (Relativity, Einstein)

Additionally, don't be quick to disregard scientific evidence in support of god. Many scientists have utilized such to attempt to prove the existence of god. Science is a very powerful tool that should not be disregarded so easily.

And others have attempted to disprove the existence of God. Neither have succeeded. Because neither is possible.

Atheist belief is more than schema. You reach the same conclusion regardless of whatever assumption you begin with.

It's not more than a schema. It is a schema. A schema is a framework within the brain that organizes information. It's a fundamental aspect of how the brian works.

The analysis is not adulterated by prejudice thought,

Of course it is! We're not talking about scientists in a lab performing an experiment, we're talking about average people. Schemata, confirmation bias, belief perseverance, attitude polarization... psychologists have numerous terms all describing the same basic phenomena. People accept what meshes with what they already believe to be true, and reject that which does not. That's why I can look at a man being pulled out of a burning building and see it as a coincidental chain of events, while a Christian can see the same instance as divine intervention, God sending Person X to save Person Y. Both of us are correct.

Psychology doesn't have much to do with this discussion.

It absolutely does. Belief is in the mind. Psychology is the study of the mind.

This has nothing to do with what is perceived to be true. We are arguing over whether something is true. Contrary to the old adage, perception is NOT 'T'ruth.

I disagree.

If you are saying that Christians believe in God because they are ingrained to take conclusions towards this direction, that is a strong reason why the belief in Christianity is flawed compared to atheists who rely on the unbiased method of science.

So why is it that it can work one way, but not the other? Why can atheists not be ingrained to take conclusions toward their direction, and thus be flawed?

I am saying that all people believe whatever they believe because they are ingrained to take conclusions toward that particular direction, and that all people who claim to be 100% certain on anything religious are flawed.

 

[lreal]

There are so many things you said that I disagree with especially your apparent love to focus on 'schema'; however, I don't have time to refute them seeing as I have a final tomorrow . Plus it doesn't seem like whatever I say is making any headway.

I am saying that all people believe whatever they believe because they are ingrained to take conclusions toward that particular direction, and that all people who claim to be 100% certain on anything religious are flawed.

I'll end with this though. Science is not 100%. I never said this or gave you reason to conclude this. I've continually said that science has allowed sufficient findings that leads us to the reasonable conclusion that god does not exist. Stop with the semantics if you understand what I am trying to say, it really sidelines the entire debate.

 

[CassinoChips]

Stop with the semantics if you understand what I am trying to say, it really sidelines the entire debate.

To be fair, you brought semantics into it.

Atheism is not a 'belief system"

 

[Ewan]

By definition, that has to be agnostic, not atheist. Atheism is more definite than agnosticism. Atheists cannot believe in a god of any kind, otherwise they'd be, at minimum, agnostic. And I'm sure some "atheists" call themselves that without realizing that they are, in fact, agnostic.

Minor quibble, but eh.

Agnosticism and atheism are completely different things. One has to do with what you think you know and what you believe, respectively. Someone who sits on the fence isn't an agnostic.
You can, for example, be an agnostic atheist which would be thinking Gods are unknowable or unprovable, but not believing in them at the same time.

Many describe an atheist as someone who "doesn't believe in God." But that's not wholly accurate. Atheism is better defined as the belief that there is/are no god(s).

Atheism is divided into weak and strong positions. I'm a weak atheist because I lack a belief in a particular God. Saying that there are no Gods is a completely different as it's a positive claim that requires backing up and people who believe as such are strong atheists.
Strong atheists are just as extreme as fundamentalist theists IMO.

I highly doubt that atheists 'would likely switch positions' if science were to come out in support of a particular religion.

A bit of tangent on my part. I just wanted to say I would believe in a God if science did prove one. That's just me though.
Whether I would worship that particular God is another story though!

 

[lreal]

One more final to go...anyway during my break.

To my point. It is reasonable to an atheist. Not to a Christian. To a Christian, belief in God is the reasonable assumption.

You need to go back and reread what this was about. The assumption was about whether or not atheists are atheists because of science or arbitrary belief. It had nothing to do with the actual belief itself. Total tangent on your part.

Originally Posted by lreal
That's exactly the reason. There is no such thing as 'faith' in science. If there is no evidence then there is no conclusion. This is rational thought. If you can't substantially prove something then you don't conclude it exists. This is how science works.

Are you sure about that?

-Evolution
-Black hole thermodynamics
-Field theory
-Dark Matter
-Big Bang

Hell, the (arguably) most famous theory proposed by the (arguably) most famous scientist in history is not conclusively proven. (Relativity, Einstein)

Did I say conclusive proof? Reread what I wrote...you are able to conclude what is reasonable. You need to focus on what I am trying to say instead of the "words" I use because this is not saying it is conclusive.

And others have attempted to disprove the existence of God. Neither have succeeded. Because neither is possible.

Okay, let's just take what you said to be true. You can't prove god to exist. You also can't prove that he doesn't exist. What is the more reasonable thing to conclude? That god doesn't exist.

You're going to probably ask "why not the other way?" Take a minute and think about the problem of simply positively assuming anything you can't prove/disprove. I hate to use old examples, but by this method you can essentially believe in anything. The Boogey Man. Can you prove he exists? Can you prove he doesn't exist? What's the reasonable course of action?

That's not reasoning, it's just arbitrary belief. That's not something that you should just simply do.

It's not more than a schema. It is a schema. A schema is a framework within the brain that organizes information. It's a fundamental aspect of how the brian works.

I say that atheists lack belief due to science. You say no it's schema. I argue how science allows atheists to believe in science despite the 'schema' of the individual.

You come back and say "that doesn't matter, it's schema."

You see the problem here? You can't just reach a conclusion that something is due to 'schema' because it is 'schema'.

Of course it is! We're not talking about scientists in a lab performing an experiment, we're talking about average people. Schemata, confirmation bias, belief perseverance, attitude polarization... psychologists have numerous terms all describing the same basic phenomena. People accept what meshes with what they already believe to be true, and reject that which does not. That's why I can look at a man being pulled out of a burning building and see it as a coincidental chain of events, while a Christian can see the same instance as divine intervention, God sending Person X to save Person Y. Both of us are correct.

Again, stop saying 'schema' because what atheists rely on is SCIENCE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCHEMA.

A Christian who uses science will reach the same conclusion as an atheist who uses science.

That is the beauty of science; it is unbiased.

Science doesn't allow a conclusion that something exists without some substantial proof that it exists. Again, this is how science works.

It absolutely does. Belief is in the mind. Psychology is the study of the mind.

Scientific conclusion is not belief. It is a tool utilized for rational decision making. That is the key difference between Christian belief and Atheistic (who rely on science) belief (since you seem key on 'semantics' this is not belief but a reasoned conclusion reached via substantial scientific evidence).

I disagree.

Congratulations. Only if this argument would work in the real world.

So why is it that it can work one way, but not the other? Why can atheists not be ingrained to take conclusions toward their direction, and thus be flawed?

I am saying that all people believe whatever they believe because they are ingrained to take conclusions toward that particular direction, and that all people who claim to be 100% certain on anything religious are flawed.

I don't understand how this is not getting through.

Yes, I agree that people are biased. However, science and logic are not biased; they are just tools. And when these tool are used properly, despite the person utilizing them, they reach the same conclusion that god doesn't exist. This allows the atheist to reason to his conclusion.

This is very different from Christian belief on 'faith'. There is no reasoning, argument, proof, analysis, etc.. here. It is just arbitrary belief. This is one of the hallmarks of Christianity, a Christian's belief in god is suppose to be without any reasoning. This is what makes it so divine and powerful.

 

[Dark Illumination]

Might i step in and be somewhat arrogant for just one moment here?

I read the title of this post and had hope that it would follow the lines I thought it was and first I will remain on topic.

I have read and I note to all of you that none yout have any poor opinions on the matter at hand. However do we not realize the arrogance we are using at this very point? It is not of the same type however it is a way of being arrogant. Read through some of these posts with that in mind.

And i Have a comment about something in particular.

That's exactly the reason. There is no such thing as 'faith' in science. If there is no evidence then there is no conclusion. This is rational thought. If you can't substantially prove something then you don't conclude it exists. This is how science works.

Are you sure about that?

-Evolution
-Black hole thermodynamics
-Field theory
-Dark Matter
-Big Bang

Hell, the (arguably) most famous theory proposed by the (arguably) most famous scientist in history is not conclusively proven. (Relativity, Einstein)

Did I say conclusive proof? Reread what I wrote...you are able to conclude what is reasonable. You need to focus on what I am trying to say instead of the "words" I use because this is not saying it is conclusive.

I truely do hope that you realize even religion does this. They Make points of things and have things make logical sense a good portion of the time. however this is not a one-hundred percent deal, I admit it doesn't always make sense. So my reaction to you bit here is, have you ever even studied up on many religions? I am not asking for one or two, but there are so many religions i greatly doubt the likelihood of you knowing so much about other religions. Wiccan and Pegan are quite logical and make much sense, while using science as a part of the belief system.

Now for my share on the annoyance of atheism. Why would any individual deny the existance of any higher force and/or diety? It is a common arrogant and ignorant mistake. Remember this "If there are gods and they are just, they will accept you without such warship."

A well famous quote that i must agree with. It is ok not to believe, I am not attempting to change your faith, but I am saying it is rather ignorant to make like there is not a such thing as any diety, it only sets one up for potential damnation.

 

[lreal]

I have read and I note to all of you that none yout have any poor opinions on the matter at hand. However do we not realize the arrogance we are using at this very point? It is not of the same type however it is a way of being arrogant. Read through some of these posts with that in mind.

Why don't you explain what this different type of arrogance is and why it matters.

Don't be so ambiguous.

I truely do hope that you realize even religion does this. They Make points of things and have things make logical sense a good portion of the time. however this is not a one-hundred percent deal, I admit it doesn't always make sense. So my reaction to you bit here is, have you ever even studied up on many religions? I am not asking for one or two, but there are so many religions i greatly doubt the likelihood of you knowing so much about other religions. Wiccan and Pegan are quite logical and make much sense, while using science as a part of the belief system.

I admit that I have not studied "all" religions but that doesn't matter for this discussion. I was talking with Cass about Christianity. Don't interject to derail our argument with irrelevant points.

Now for my share on the annoyance of atheism. Why would any individual deny the existance of any higher force and/or diety? It is a common arrogant and ignorant mistake. Remember this "If there are gods and they are just, they will accept you without such warship."

A well famous quote that i must agree with. It is ok not to believe, I am not attempting to change your faith, but I am saying it is rather ignorant to make like there is not a such thing as any diety, it only sets one up for potential damnation.

Again, why is it arrogant and ignorant? In order to respond to anything you say, you need to discuss the reasoning behind any statement you make. Anybody can make conclusions, the interesting and important points are the basis for such.

You sound like a very pretentious person. Who are you to claim what is arrogant and ignorant. Come back with an argument and maybe I'll take your statements more seriously.

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

I can feel the anger in the air, and yet I'm still diving in!

I would argue that most religions aren't going to make logical sense. They're going to make sense on a spritiual level, something beyond smarts, something that is more like emotion. They appeal to something deep inside you, and that doesn't have to be logical at all.

To live your life only in the realm of logic is to have a very sad life. In the realm of religion, you can't look at things in a logical life, but then, you can't look at most things purely with logic.

Let me give you an example. If a mother saves her child from drowning, and drowns in the process, that's not logical. She should have got help because she couldn't swin, logic says. But logic wasn't ruling her at that moment, her emotions were.

That's what makes religion such a dangerous topic, it's not logic, it's emotional, and emotions are hard to predict.

P.S: Please be nice to each other, it will make this much better.

 

[Apparent Amarant]

Guys seriously? Did this thread really turn into this?

lreal- Atheism isn't a belief "system", but its is the "belief" that there are no deities. Also an atheist doesn't necessarily follow science the way you claim. The two do not go hand in hand. Sometimes scientific facts and beliefs are the cause of a persons atheism, but they are not undeniably connected to each other.


See the thing about religion is you can not not look it up on the internet or take a class on it, and know what every single Christian believes you only know historically what beliefs were common among the majority of Christians belonging to the particular sect you studied. Many Christians do not believe the Bible in the literal sense. So when people say things like "why are there no dinosaurs in the Bible?" the question should be obvious. The reason is because it wasn't relevant to the meaning of the stories being portrayed, and that's whether it was written by God(who would have to know of the dinosaurs if he exists) or man who had no knowledge of them.

Remember I'm not religious. This thread was just pointing out that when an atheist gets in a discussion with an intelligent Christian that make a ridiculous amount of assumptions that all of which can't possibly hold true for that particular Christian.

Also if you are an atheist and you start to get in a discussion with a Christian ask him how old he thinks the Earth is. If he says "10,000 years old" then you already know that the two of you will not be able to hold any kind of intelligent conversation if they aren't open to at least entertaining the idea they could be wrong.

Entertaining an idea does not mean does not mean believing it or doubting your own faith in the instance of religion. A christian who could entertain the idea of being wrong and what that would mean for different aspects of life and retain their faith would have the strongest "faith" of any Christian I have every met.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

What i find annoying with some atheists is they always complain about believers they preach too much etc. but when they themselves promote and put in yo face pictures in their sigs and they are proud to be atheist isnt that different....

I dont give a shit if your atheist but at least have the decenty to show religion some respect and dont provoke, that only proves how fake you are if you do.
A sheep tht follows...

 

[CassinoChips]

I have never seen an atheist 'preaching' on a street corner, holding signs up saying 'WHERE'S YOUR JESUS NOW?' or 'THE END IS NOT NIGH. THE SUN WON'T EXPLODE FOR A BILLION YEARS.' or 'I DON'T CARE IF YOU WANT TO GET GAY MARRIED.'

On the other hand, I have seen first-hand 'Christians' preaching on the strip in Virginia Beach, extolling young women to not dress in revealing clothes and to not prostitute themselves to young men in a life of sin.

Which I found ironic, considering how much they were prostituting their religion. But that's beside the point.

And then of course there are the more (in)famous types like Fred Phelps and his crew, and the anti-abortion rallies, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, Christians take the cake as far as being pushy, in my experience.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

maybe not on the streets but ive seen some ppl on the net being proud they are atheists if you know what I mean, and with provocative pictures which I hate

example - a picture with a woman on her knees in front of Jesus and saying open your mouth for salvation /?? thats just uncalled for and lame and I dont know what else lol

 

[lreal]

Guys seriously? Did this thread really turn into this?

It turned into something much more interesting than your initial post, which should have probably been in a blog anyway.

But to show some deference to the thread maker, I'll respond to your initial post.

I have frequently read or participated in religious debates. Mostly just read, but the thing I have come upon frequently is that while Christians are often blasted for there ignorance and being blind to any form of reason when in discussion, and I will admit it's true for a good majority, a large majority of the atheists argue in such a way to exhibit the same level of ignorance. It's really frustrating.

Aren't you just frustrated with people who can't argue correctly? Why is this restricted to atheists? It seems like you'd be annoyed with Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, etc... since all those groups exhibit a similar majority flaw that you seem to be so keen on. You should probably change the title of the thread to "Something I find typically annoying with morons."

There is nothing wrong with believing in whatever you want and I typically find that my feelings about someone will have nothing to do with such. If I don't like someone, it'll generally be because he/she is a douche rather than that she's a Christian. Sure there are stereotypes; however, beliefs generally have a following of a very diverse group of individuals which makes any such stereotype pretty inaccurate.

In essence: Don't be frustrated with atheists because the arguments are bad, be frustrated with the individual making the argument. You're mad at the wrong thing.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

I would argue that most religions aren't going to make logical sense. They're going to make sense on a spritiual level, something beyond smarts, something that is more like emotion. They appeal to something deep inside you, and that doesn't have to be logical at all.

Meaning that it is illogical... Meaning that any atheist, or anyone, living their lives by logic isn't going to want any part of that. I personally view the concept of God to be illogical, therefore, I'm Atheist due to the fact that I believe that there is no God.

To live your life only in the realm of logic is to have a very sad life.

3 Years ago my life was ruled by emotion, and I was miserable. I try to live my life the best that I can by logic, and have had no problems with it thus far. If that's sad in your opinion, well that's too bad.

Let me give you an example. If a mother saves her child from drowning, and drowns in the process, that's not logical. She should have got help because she couldn't swin, logic says. But logic wasn't ruling her at that moment, her emotions were.

Her emotions ruled her at that moment and she died. If you know you can't swim, don't jump in the water. I wouldn't, I enjoy life. Logic wouldn't have got her killed.

That's what makes religion such a dangerous topic, it's not logic, it's emotional, and emotions are hard to predict.

Which is why I believe that the world would be better off without religion. However, that is my opinion, and I get bashed for it on a daily basis. It's to be expected though.

P.S: Please be nice to each other, it will make this much better.

The debates usually start off nice, then people get annoyed or angry. It never fails, especially if the two people arguing are arguing about faith and are on the opposite sides of it.

Remember I'm not religious. This thread was just pointing out that when an atheist gets in a discussion with an intelligent Christian that make a ridiculous amount of assumptions that all of which can't possibly hold true for that particular Christian.

Then shouldn't the title of the thread be "Something I Find Typically Annoying With Intelligent Christians."?

I dont give a shit if your atheist but at least have the decenty to show religion some respect and dont provoke, that only proves how fake you are if you do.

I do show other religions respect. The only times that I have ever gone out of my way to be an ass about it is when someone attempts to shove their beliefs on me. Even then I still show their religion some sort of respect.

While I'm at it, may I ask what you mean by the term "fake"?

If you are attempting to state that they are as blind as a blind follower of a religion, then I can see your point. However, I find it hard to believe that any atheist would blindly state they are Atheist without having a reason for being an Atheist.

It turned into something much more interesting than your initial post, which should have probably been in a blog anyway.

You're posts are the reason he finds something annoying with most Atheists. You're practically the cornerstone of his initial post.

Calm down, and try not the be an ass about the subject at hand. Your arrogance is doing little more than showing everyone that Mr. Amarant's initial post has a huge point, and allowing everyone else to think that we're annoying.

Maybe if you go back and read Dark Illumination's post again you'll find that he has some very creditable points in there.

 

[lreal]

You're posts are the reason he finds something annoying with most Atheists. You're practically the cornerstone of his initial post.

Calm down, and try not the be an ass about the subject at hand. Your arrogance is doing little more than showing everyone that Mr. Amarant's initial post has a huge point, and allowing everyone else to think that we're annoying.

Maybe if you go back and read Dark Illumination's post again you'll find that he has some very creditable points in there.

Did you read anything in this thread at all?

1. Go back and reread Amarant's OP. He was frustrated with atheists who blindly follow their belief as strongly as Christians do for no reason other than strict adherence to the belief. I'm responding with, at least what seems to me, reasoned arguments. Two very different things.

2. Calm down? I may be a bit argumentative, but I'm not being purposefully contentious (or an ass) to piss other people off. This is supposed to be a debate forum. What's wrong with responding to what people have to say with cogent arguments. I'm not straight out saying anyone is wrong without actually giving a decent explanation of why I think they are wrong. Isn't this the type of mentality this forum is inviting? I'm just doing what was expected, debating.

3. Did you read Dark Illum's post? Yes he has possible points; however, he gives no reasoned support for those points. It's uninteresting and boring to hear just the conclusions, I would like to hear the reasoning behind it. That's what I was asking for. If you could enlighten me as to such from his post, then by all means please do so.

If any of the mods think that I am being too aggressive in my posts, please let me know. Apparently this kid who "hates for no reason" pretty much thinks so. I think I do a fairly good job of keeping this kind of tone confined within the "sleeping forest".

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

If any of the mods think that I am being too aggressive in my posts, please let me know. Apparently this kid who "hates for no reason" pretty much thinks so. I think I do a fairly good job of keeping this kind of tone confined within the "sleeping forest".

Case and point. I'm not telling you that your entire post is insulting or demeaning to people. I was merely stating that you have moments, such as the one above, where you mildly insult someone. Don't take it so personally. Just by that alone I can tell how defensive you got.

You're right that this is a debate forum. However, this isn't a "debate-while-throwing-in-a-random-insult-every-now-and-then-forum."

If anything I was telling you to lay off on the occasional arrogant insult. So far, everything you just post confirmed most of the things that I stated.

Apparently this kid who "hates for no reason" pretty much thinks so.

1) I'm older than you.
2) Ad Hominem: Look it up. You just used one.
3) The fit that you just threw proves that you're taking this way too personally. Once again: Calm down.

 

[Serah]

Did you read anything in this thread at all?

1. Go back and reread Amarant's OP. He was frustrated with atheists who blindly follow their belief as strongly as Christians do for no reason other than strict adherence to the belief. I'm responding with, at least what seems to me, reasoned arguments. Two very different things.

2. Calm down? I may be a bit argumentative, but I'm not being purposefully contentious (or an ass) to piss other people off. This is supposed to be a debate forum. What's wrong with responding to what people have to say with cogent arguments. I'm not straight out saying anyone is wrong without actually giving a decent explanation of why I think they are wrong. Isn't this the type of mentality this forum is inviting? I'm just doing what was expected, debating.

3. Did you read Dark Illum's post? Yes he has possible points; however, he gives no reasoned support for those points. It's uninteresting and boring to hear just the conclusions, I would like to hear the reasoning behind it. That's what I was asking for. If you could enlighten me as to such from his post, then by all means please do so.

If any of the mods think that I am being too aggressive in my posts, please let me know. Apparently this kid who "hates for no reason" pretty much thinks so. I think I do a fairly good job of keeping this kind of tone confined within the "sleeping forest".

*sighs and puts on admin cap*
I think you do need to tone it down. We don't allow insulting, flaming or attempts at flaming other people during a debate. Express your opinion and your points to your heart's content, but do it without the mild insulting you're tossing about in here please. This is just a forum, this is just a debate and there really is no reason to get so fired up and taking it so personally. Tsukianei is right, calm down. Things will run much smoother that way.

 

[lreal]

Sigh...despite what it may seem, I wasn't making a fit or angry in any way. I'm sorry if the discussion was a bit to aggressive, hard, insulting, etc.. but this is what happens when you actually try to argue your point. I didn't expect a few minor and unintended insults on an internet forum to phase anyone, clearly I was wrong.

@Tsuk: Next time focus on the actual discussion instead of my "tone". Quick escapes like that won't work in real life.

I guess this discussion is over. Sorry to those who took my comments offensively.

 

[Serah]

No, you know exactly what you were doing, so do not going around playing innocent and pretending they were unintended. A few times you threw something into the debate to insult him that was completely off-topic and had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Example 1:

It turned into something much more interesting than your initial post, which should have probably been in a blog anyway.

Example 2:

Apparently this kid who "hates for no reason" pretty much thinks so.

Absolutely no excuse for either of those. People DO tend to get offended by post tone and all we ask out of each you as members of the forum is to keep the debate civil. I reiterate, argue your points to your heart's content but be warned we won't tolerate insulting or nastiness here. If you can follow those rules and debate maturely, then you'll do just fine.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Sigh...despite what it may seem, I wasn't making a fit or angry in any way. I'm sorry if the discussion was a bit to aggressive, hard, insulting, etc.. but this is what happens when you actually try to argue your point. I didn't expect a few minor and unintended insults on an internet forum to phase anyone, clearly I was wrong.

@Tsuk: Next time focus on the actual discussion instead of my "tone". Quick escapes like that won't work in real life.

I guess this discussion is over. Sorry to those who took my comments offensively.

Getting passionate about a subject sometimes leads to that, it happens to the best of us.

I do apologize for not speaking on the subject at hand. Although I will say I side mostly with you on the subject. However, I couldn't help but notice a few snide remarks, and I wanted to address that. Other than that, your posts were great, well responsive, and obviously well informed and researched. I should also apologize because I have unintentionally helped derail the thread.

Although I didn't reply directly to the subject that you and Casino were debating about, I replied to a number of comments by others that had replied in the thread.

However, I don't see how I got a "quick escape". If you could PM me with a description that would be great.