Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 108109110111112 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Rabid View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2010 at 15:00
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html

Some examples:

"All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die." 3:85
"Those who disobey Allah and his messenger will be burnt with fire and suffer a painful doom." 4:14
"Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers." (See 2:65-66) 4:47
"Those (Christians and Jews) are they whom Allah hath cursed." 4:52
"Those who refuse to follow Muhammad, follow false gods and are deceived by Satan." 4:60

And finally:

"Christians are wrong about the Trinity. For that they will have a painful doom." 5:73

Good luck turning that into a message of tolerance of other religions. Big smile
 
When is all this meant to happen?  I'm going to a gig next Saturday  Confused
 
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2010 at 18:42
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



I did not invent logic. I don't need to give any such argument. If you think that in order to validate the Atheist position it is necessary to prove the non-existence of God, you're simply, plainly

WRONG.

It happens. To you, to me, to anyone ... sometimes we're wrong. In the post that you got so angry about I said "I win" - but I really mean that logic wins. I happen to have the more reasonable position - that is my opinion, and if you disagree - fine. I don't have any problem with it. I say "I win", you say "no you don't", and we can leave final judgment to the others.

Mike, you are so desperate to reply and convince others (probably even convince yourself), that you don't even read what others have to say.

I didn't even cared to mention the words "I win" until after Theo and Dean did it, I'm used to your need of validation that I left you with your pyrrhic victory (Pyrrhyc  in this case,  because it's only in your imagination, and leaves you credibility terribly harmed).
 
I replied with emphasis (not with anger) not because you inented logic, because you invented what I said Confused. You changed every word  I said, if you don't believe it, read my post which is quoted word by word:
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Mike, why do you insist in changing what I said, is your position so weak and you are so afraid of us that you insist in in modifying everything others say to sound absurd?
 
  1. Have said it 3 times: Christianisn and Islam are not the same: I wouldn't walk for Gaza, Taiwan or for New York saying that   Catholicism and Islam are interchangeable because both religions are different, I have never said both religions are interchangeable because Islam has their own set of dogmas and their own doctrine that difers in many issues with Christianism, starting with the Trinity (that you said it wasn't mentioned in the Bible).
  2. I said both religions worship the same God and that Moslems show respect for Christ, that's all, but you keep changing it over and over, because this sounds too tolerant for your prejudices and hatred against any religion.
  3. Don't insult the intelligence of all the people here, inventing things I never said to make your point seem valid
  4. I just can't imagine how weak your position must be when you need to change the words of a poor deluded ignorant Catholic who has no evidence of the existence of God, in order to sound more logical than him,

I won't ask you respect for what I believe because it's impossible for a fundamentalist and fanatic atheist like you to show any respect for anything that you haven't thought, but at least have the courtesy NOT TO CHANGE WHAT I SAY.

Iván
 
By this point, even you must have noticed that I don't mention a word about your "self proclaimed victory" because this is not a win or loose game..I REPLIED WITH CAPITAL LOCK AND LARGER FONT BECAUSE I'M TIRED OF ASKING YOU NOT TO CHANGE WHAT I WRITE, AND MAYBE WITH LARGER AND DARKER FONTS YOU WILL NOTICE....I was mistaken, you only read what you want to read and are selectively blid for the rest.
 
Again you will probably reply about anything except the issue in discuussion, but I'm used to it.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 03 2010 at 18:48
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2010 at 20:42
Iván, big fonts, over use of bold and answering in capital letters signify intensity and emphasis - in a forum that nearly always means anger, when all three are used together that always means anger.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2010 at 21:56
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Iván, big fonts, over use of bold and answering in capital letters signify intensity and emphasis - in a forum that nearly always means anger, when all three are used together that always means anger.
 
Not angry at all Dean, if I was I would stop posting, but even if I was, it wouldn't be for the reasoins that Mike, claims, but for the fact that he's constantly changing every thing I said.
 
It would be absolutely lack of knowledge   to say Catholicism and Islam are identical, I never said that, but Mike keeps claiming (repeatedly) I said that both are interchangeable, something I never said or implied, I know both are valid religions that deserve our respect  but both are not identical..
 
That's why I highlight what I said, in hope that he reads this.
 
Iván
 
 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 03 2010 at 21:57
            
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 01:39
^ Maybe at some point you'll actually bother reading my reply - where I said "I exaggerated". And when you've sufficiently cooled down, maybe you can think about how *you* keep misrepresenting me. What about where you claimed that I said that "All Christian are fundamentalists" or something like that. I never did, and I would like to have you clarify that for me.

And when we're done with that, maybe you could get back to the on-topic  arguments where my points remain unchallenged. For example, I rebutted your quotes from the Qu'ran, and guess what: You changed the subject.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 05:47
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Iván, big fonts, over use of bold and answering in capital letters signify intensity and emphasis - in a forum that nearly always means anger, when all three are used together that always means anger.
 
Not angry at all Dean, if I was I would stop posting, but even if I was, it wouldn't be for the reasoins that Mike, claims, but for the fact that he's constantly changing every thing I said.
 
It would be absolutely lack of knowledge   to say Catholicism and Islam are identical, I never said that, but Mike keeps claiming (repeatedly) I said that both are interchangeable, something I never said or implied, I know both are valid religions that deserve our respect  but both are not identical..
 
That's why I highlight what I said, in hope that he reads this.
 
Iván
 
 
You may not be angry, but to the people reading that is how it looks when you use big fonts and caps - it looks like shouting and raising your voice because that's is the result of anger.
 
I've already said that there are two meanings for "mutually exclusive" - one for logic and one for set theory - Mike is using "logic" and you are using "set theory" - they are not the same.
 
Mike used logic to show that only one could be true so are mutually exclusive
You used set theory to show they shared commonality so are not mutually exclusive
 
(ie you both are right)
 
The conclusion of the "logic" solution is that if they are not mutually exclusive then they are interchangable because it would not matter which one you picked. If something is interchangable it implies that (for all intents and purposes) they are the same. The alternative word for mutual exclusion in boolean logic is nonequivalence or EXclusive-OR (EXOR).
 
In set theory two objects have to share every resourse to be interchangable and since they obviously don't then they cannot be the same.
 
Mike is not changing what you said - he is applying logic to your set theory, which is an incorrect thing to do, and you are compounding the error by applying set theory to his logical conculsion, which is also an incorrect thing to do.
 
(ie you both are wrong)
 
If the things that both religions share are the things that result in salvation then they are not mutually exclusive however if one religion has an important peice of belief that leads to salvation that the other doesn't have then only one can lead to salvation and the are mutually exclusive. It could be that both have missed that important piece of belief that leads to salvation.
 


Edited by Dean - September 04 2010 at 06:45
What?
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 06:11
There can't be many atheists as devout as Mike in his non-beliefs and the sheer unbridled stubbornness of the critter is deserving of some admiration. However, behind the pragmatism and dogged insistence on scientific scrutiny for the ineffable claims of 'faith' there lies at the heart of all nay-sayers a wistful longing for the mysterious, enigmatic and life affirming. As a nay-sayer myself, my head insists I cannot believe in any 'higher power' or 'consciousness' but my heart...harbours a pang of envy for those who clearly derive succour from the spiritual path. What remains after transcendental agents are discarded ? the psyche, the brain, nerve endings and a saviour in our midst who turns out to be (gulp) just electricity ?

Religion = God Unplugged
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 06:33
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

There can't be many atheists as devout as Mike in his non-beliefs and the sheer unbridled stubbornness of the critter is deserving of some admiration. However, behind the pragmatism and dogged insistence on scientific scrutiny for the ineffable claims of 'faith' there lies at the heart of all nay-sayers a wistful longing for the mysterious, enigmatic and life affirming. As a nay-sayer myself, my head insists I cannot believe in any 'higher power' or 'consciousness' but my heart...harbours a pang of envy for those who clearly derive succour from the spiritual path. What remains after transcendental agents are discarded ? the psyche, the brain, nerve endings and a saviour in our midst who turns out to be (gulp) just electricity ?

Religion = God Unplugged
As I said to Chris, that would be a joy and a wonder to me if that is the case. I guess that's the humanist view (ie I've not studied it in any depth) - that nature is marvellous because nature is a thing to marvel at - that simple physical reactions can create such wonder and by simple bio-electrical reaction we can find joy and amazement in such reactions. The simple observation that we can attribute such events to an organ that pumps blood rather than one that controls all motor-responses and permits thought, imagination, creativity and invention is a product of that bio-electrical activity in the brain suggests to me that there are more wonders and joys yet to be discovered by applying emotions to logical processes rather than trying (futility) applying logic to emotional reactions.
 
 
 (welcome back Iain Hug)
What?
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 06:37
Thanks for the welcome back  Dean, (to the show that always offendsBig smile)
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 06:44
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
Mike used logic to show that only one could be true so are mutually exclusive
You used set theory to show they shared commonality so are not mutually exclusive


I know what you mean, but I think that if you see Catholics as one set of people and Muslims as another set of people, those are mutually exclusive. Catholics and Muslims are not subsets of one greater set, they are specializations of a more generalized set.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


 
(ie you both are right)
 
The conclusion of the "logic" solution is that if they are not mutually exclusive then they are interchangable because it would not matter which one you picked. If something is interchangable it implies that (for all intents and purposes) they are the same. The alternative word for mutual exclusion in boolean logic is nonequivalence or EXclusive-OR (EXOR).
 
In set theory two objects have to share every resourse to be interchangable and since they obviously don't then they cannot the same.
 
Mike is not changing what you said - he is applying logic to your set theory, which is an incorrect thing to do, and you are compounding the error by applying set theory to his logical conculsion, which is also an incorrect thing to do.
 
(ie you both are wrong)



I was referring to the fact that any given person cannot be Catholic and Muslim at the same time (you cannot simultaneously reject and accept the trinity). I agree to everything you say based on the premise that you want to talk about it on a "logic vs. set theory" level, but I don't think that you can really separate them in a practical way.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 06:53
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

There can't be many atheists as devout as Mike in his non-beliefs and the sheer unbridled stubbornness of the critter is deserving of some admiration. However, behind the pragmatism and dogged insistence on scientific scrutiny for the ineffable claims of 'faith' there lies at the heart of all nay-sayers a wistful longing for the mysterious, enigmatic and life affirming. As a nay-sayer myself, my head insists I cannot believe in any 'higher power' or 'consciousness' but my heart...harbours a pang of envy for those who clearly derive succour from the spiritual path. What remains after transcendental agents are discarded ? the psyche, the brain, nerve endings and a saviour in our midst who turns out to be (gulp) just electricity ?

Religion = God Unplugged
As I said to Chris, that would be a joy and a wonder to me if that is the case. I guess that's the humanist view (ie I've not studied it in any depth) - that nature is marvellous because nature is a thing to marvel at - that simple physical reactions can create such wonder and by simple bio-electrical reaction we can find joy and amazement in such reactions. The simple observation that we can attribute such events to an organ that pumps blood rather than one that controls all motor-responses and permits thought, imagination, creativity and invention is a product of that bio-electrical activity in the brain suggests to me that there are more wonders and joys yet to be discovered by applying emotions to logical processes rather than trying (futility) applying logic to emotional reactions.
 
 
 (welcome back Iain Hug)

It's a holiday weekend and thanks so much for posting something that makes my brain hurt.  TongueLOL
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 07:06
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
Mike used logic to show that only one could be true so are mutually exclusive
You used set theory to show they shared commonality so are not mutually exclusive


I know what you mean, but I think that if you see Catholics as one set of people and Muslims as another set of people, those are mutually exclusive. Catholics and Muslims are not subsets of one greater set, they are specializations of a more generalized set.
Your initial statement limited the population to a reduced set of peoples and within that limited total set the subsets do overlap. If you want to expand that to include the whole generalised set then you need to modify your initial conditions.
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


 
(ie you both are right)
 
The conclusion of the "logic" solution is that if they are not mutually exclusive then they are interchangable because it would not matter which one you picked. If something is interchangable it implies that (for all intents and purposes) they are the same. The alternative word for mutual exclusion in boolean logic is nonequivalence or EXclusive-OR (EXOR).
 
In set theory two objects have to share every resourse to be interchangable and since they obviously don't then they cannot the same.
 
Mike is not changing what you said - he is applying logic to your set theory, which is an incorrect thing to do, and you are compounding the error by applying set theory to his logical conculsion, which is also an incorrect thing to do.
 
(ie you both are wrong)



I was referring to the fact that any given person cannot be Catholic and Muslim at the same time (you cannot simultaneously reject and accept the trinity). I agree to everything you say based on the premise that you want to talk about it on a "logic vs. set theory" level, but I don't think that you can really separate them in a practical way.

You can seperate them because you should not attempt to create a relationship between logic and set theory in the first place.
 
In practical terms it is possible to fuse any two ideologies together - the result is neither Catholicism or Islamic - the Bahá'í Faith is one such example where all prophets (including Jesus and Mohammed) are manifestions of divinity. To a lesser degree the Islamic-Christian Alliance is an attempt to put aside differences and look to mutual faith.
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 08:57
Can someone be Catholic and Muslim at the same time? The answer is either yes or no.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 09:11

The Vulcans stopped short of applying binary logic to religion. Wink
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 09:17
What kind of a lame excuse is that? If you don't want to answer the question - fine, but don't give me some crap about logic vs. set theory that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

EDIT: Or if you object to your argument being referred to as "crap" - please at least comment on what it has to do with the actual question.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 04 2010 at 12:12
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 11:56
With all this tension and misunderstandings hence and forth ... here's a video about Atheism for a change:
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 12:32
And this is why such discussions matter, and also why we can come up with useful answers without pondering philosophical fine points:



BTW: Notice that she calls it "Darwinianism".Pinch
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 12:48
Theism and atheis clashes happen since antiquity, so no, it is not settled.

The only thing I have to add to this discussion so far after its beginning is that atheists usually have a lower quality of life, which unfortunately leads to suicide. Contries with similar development indexes, but different importance of religion indexes show that quite well: Estonia and Finnland have the highest rates of suicides in Europe, wile also having the highest rates of atheism/irreligion, wile Italy and Spain are the exact opposite.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:00
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

What kind of a lame excuse is that? If you don't want to answer the question - fine, but don't give me some crap about logic vs. set theory that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

EDIT: Or if you object to your argument being referred to as "crap" - please at least comment on what it has to do with the actual question.
*sigh*
 
Whenever I attempt to come to your defence by pointing out possible misunderstandings I appreciate that I am in danger of being shot by both sides, and this I accept as an occupational hazard and an inevitable consequence of sticking my nose where it's not wanted. I also appreciate that inspite of my good intentions you can come along at some later time and say, "well, no, I did mean to insult them", and judging by your response to my attempt to lighten this with a little humour, (Vulcan was a polytheistic culture that retained its spirituality even after they adopted a philosophy of pure logic - okay not a belly-laugh, but amusing never-the-less), you seem to be more interested in proving how you are right and Iván is wrong rather than understanding why someone should attempt to show that you could both be right and both be wrong. Yes, my argument did indeed need to show that you both were wrong - if there is another explanation, I'm willing to hear it.
 
The relative crapness of my argument is immaterial and quite frankly beyond the initial scope of why I raised it in the first place, which was to show that you were not changing what Iván had said at all. But if you must persist with disproving this to the nth degree then my defence of your actions fails by your own action against it. So yes you are right someone cannot be Catholic and Muslim at the same time - well done - logic and set-theory are transmutable and my defence fails, so yes, you did change what Iván said and that was very naughty.
 
Then someone cannot be a Shiite Muslim and a Sunni Muslim at the same time nor can they be a Benedictine, Trappist or Cistercian at the same time. They are following similar doctrines and beliefs; two of them are Muslim and three are Catholic and are all striving for the same goal (all be it by different routes and methods). It really depends upon how pissy you want to be to be right. And quite frankly I don't care one way or the other.
 
If you find my attempt at brevity to be lame then there's not much I can do about that - humour is a natural trait not something you can learn particularly - of course you can hone a skill, but the skill has to be inherent.
What?
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2010 at 13:02
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

What kind of a lame excuse is that? If you don't want to answer the question - fine, but don't give me some crap about logic vs. set theory that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

EDIT: Or if you object to your argument being referred to as "crap" - please at least comment on what it has to do with the actual question.
*sigh*
 
Whenever I attempt to come to your defence by pointing out possible misunderstandings I appreciate that I am in danger of being shot by both sides, and this I accept as an occupational hazard and an inevitable consequence of sticking my nose where it's not wanted. I also appreciate that inspite of my good intentions you can come along at some later time and say, "well, no, I did mean to insult them", and judging by your response to my attempt to lighten this with a little humour, (Vulcan was a polytheistic culture that retained its spirituality even after they adopted a philosophy of pure logic - okay not a belly-laugh, but amusing never-the-less), you seem to be more interested in proving how you are right and Iván is wrong rather than understanding why someone should attempt to show that you could both be right and both be wrong. Yes, my argument did indeed need to show that you both were wrong - if there is another explanation, I'm willing to hear it.
 
The relative crapness of my argument is immaterial and quite frankly beyond the initial scope of why I raised it in the first place, which was to show that you were not changing what Iván had said at all. But if you must persist with disproving this to the nth degree then my defence of your actions fails by your own action against it. So yes you are right someone cannot be Catholic and Muslim at the same time - well done - logic and set-theory are transmutable and my defence fails, so yes, you did change what Iván said and that was very naughty.
 
Then someone cannot be a Shiite Muslim and a Sunni Muslim at the same time nor can they be a Benedictine, Trappist or Cistercian at the same time. They are following similar doctrines and beliefs; two of them are Muslim and three are Catholic and are all striving for the same goal (all be it by different routes and methods). It really depends upon how pissy you want to be to be right. And quite frankly I don't care one way or the other.
 
If you find my attempt at brevity to be lame then there's not much I can do about that - humour is a natural trait not something you can learn particularly - of course you can hone a skill, but the skill has to be inherent.


Do I see you going for your banhammer, Dean?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 108109110111112 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.367 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.