Support NeoGAF

[Log4Girlz]

"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany". - Hitler

" Adolf Hitler: Acting According to God's Will
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2"

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life. The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. ...There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can live wisely and intelligently without depending on the general standards that prevail in everyday life, but the millions of others cannot do so.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10"

He was just an asshole.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Mostly because it is actually widely disputed if he was religious or not, and if he was to which religion he belonged. He used religion to incite his people into action, but it is unclear if he actually was a believer.

True, he was just an insane asshole...so was Stalin.

 

[jaxword]

Mostly because it is actually widely disputed if he was religious or not, and if he was to which religion he belonged. He used religion to incite his people into action, but it is unclear if he actually was a believer.

That's because no religious person wants to be the same religion as Hitler. Has nothing to do with his actual beliefs or facts.

 

[Satyamdas]

He was just an asshole.

As is anyone killing or oppressing in the name of religion.

 

[Joni]

It's only a double standard if religion and atheism are analogous. They're not. Atheism is not an ideology; it has no inherent features that prescribe any behavior.

Yet people here are defending it as an ideology attacking anyone who doesn't support it.

He didn't want religion removed because he hated religion (he probably did, but that's not the core here), he wanted religion removed because it was COMPETITION.

He wanted religion eliminated because he didn't want religion. HE BELIEVED HIS COUNTRY COULD ONLY BE PERFECT WITHOUT RELIGION. Just like Lenin believed. And even if you don't believe that Stalin did it for these reasons, than you must believe Pol Pot did it.

Are you sure he wasn't misinterpreting some text in the Atheist bible?

True, he was a political leader that started wars. He was probably a secret Catholic.

 

[DCKing]

Other atheist states including a lot of murdering.

What is an atheist state?

Yeah, some of the biggest mass murderers (Pol Pot and Stalin) of all time used atheism as their justification.

Where'd you get this? How did they even do that? How does not believing in a God (which itself is the sole definition of atheism) form any basis of an argument for mass murder?

 

[Log4Girlz]

As is anyone killing or oppressing in the name of religion.

This is true, but its happened so much in history. Its curious to me why so many people, even common folk are so easily riled up by religious dogma.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Yet people here are defending it as an ideology attacking anyone who doesn't support it.


He wanted religion eliminated because he didn't want religion. HE BELIEVED HIS COUNTRY COULD ONLY BE PERFECT WITHOUT RELIGION. Just like Lenin believed. And even if you don't believe that Stalin did it for these reasons, than you must believe Pol Pot did it.


True, he was a political leader that started wars. He was probably a secret Catholic.

He probably only worshiped himself. He certainly did not use any of the Atheist bible to support what he did. It is impossible to incite people to violence using any of its texts. I challenge you to find a passage in it that can be used to incite violence.

 

[Monocle]

Yet people here are defending it as an ideology attacking anyone who doesn't support it.

Could you point me to some posts that explicitly represent atheism as an ideology?

He wanted religion eliminated because he didn't want religion. HE BELIEVED HIS COUNTRY COULD ONLY BE PERFECT WITHOUT RELIGION. Just like Lenin believed. And even if you don't believe that Stalin did it for these reasons, than you must believe Pol Pot did it.

He wanted to replace other religions with one of his own, which he called atheism but which had all the essential characteristics of a bona fide religion. His aim was to harness the credulity of the public for the glory of his own regime. Sound familiar?

 

[Satyamdas]

This is true, but its happened so much in history. Its curious to me why so many people, even common folk are so easily riled up by religious dogma.

For the same reason Mao and Stalin were riled up. They are so sure they are right that they can't stand the thought of someone who opposes their beliefs even existing. Live and let live? No. Wipe them the fuck out.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Could you point me to some posts that explicitly represent atheism as an ideology?


He wanted to replace other religions with one of his own, which he called atheism but which had all the essential characteristics of a bona fide religion. His aim was to harness the credulity of the public for the glory of his own regime. Sound familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

 

[Joni]

What is an atheist state?

States which supress any religion by constitution. Just like some countries only allow one religion, an atheist state allows none by law.

Where'd you get this? How did they even do that? How does not believing in a God (which itself is the sole definition of atheism) form any basis of an argument for mass murder?

Why do people here argue so much pro-atheism? It is their ideal and they want to defend it. Some people just take it a couple of steps too far.

That's because no religious person wants to be the same religion as Hitler. Has nothing to do with his actual beliefs or facts.

The facts are just a bit too contradictory in the case of Hitler. Hell, some people have even discovered facts he might be Jewish.

True, he was just an insane asshole...so was Stalin.

Indeed, all people starting wars are just insane assholes. Religion or atheism doesn't cause wars. Insane people do. They just try to find a justification. That some of them use religion, is no fault of religion just like atheism shouldn't be blamed for Pot, Stalin or Lenin.

 

[Uchip]

For the same reason Mao and Stalin were riled up. They are so sure they are right that they can't stand the thought of someone who opposes their beliefs even existing. Live and let live? No. Wipe them the fuck out.

yeah
kill the believing infidels! thats what atheism is all about right?
they had more in common with religious movements than anything

Why do people here argue so much pro-atheism? It is their ideal and they want to defend it. Some people just take it a couple of steps too far.

its not so much pro-atheism as it is promoting rationality
the thread title is asking why theists think they can back up their faith, obviously the thread is going to be full of different minded people

 

[jaxword]

He wanted religion eliminated because he didn't want religion. HE BELIEVED HIS COUNTRY COULD ONLY BE PERFECT WITHOUT RELIGION. Just like Lenin believed. And even if you don't believe that Stalin did it for these reasons, than you must believe Pol Pot did it.

Of course he believed that. That's the point.

Do you even know what Marxism and communism says about religion?

Marx very specifically identified organized religion as a threat to the working man. The loyalty of individual workers should be to EACH OTHER, not to any ethereal God. This is the central tenet of Communism and why any other ideas (capitalism, Abrahamic religions, etc.) were suppressed. I doubt at heart that Marx or Lenin or Stalin actually knew (or cared) whether there is a God or not--because that doesn't matter, what matters is to control the hearts and minds of the working populace to keep the country functioning.

Serious question, have you read any Marx at all?

 

[Joni]

Could you point me to some posts that explicitly represent atheism as an ideology?

I don't mean it is referred to as an ideology, but that is how the atheists here seem to react. An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. And a lot of people here are really, really defending it and attacking religion. Aside from that, there is a difference between being atheist (and having the ideology that you don't believe in any God) and being non-religious (meaning you don't give a shit if there is a god or not). The last group is not an ideology, the first group clearly is. It is just not a well defined one.

Have you read any Marx at all?

No, I have only read a lot of Engels. And both of them believed elimating religion would make a better world. Stalin just took that a step further.

 

[Satyamdas]

yeah
kill the believing infidels! thats what atheism is all about right?
they had more in common with religious movements than anything

Yeah, that's what atheism is all about and that's exactly what I implied. Atheism is all about killing the believing infidels. Thank you for clarifying my point for me. It was a little muddled I guess.

 

[EviLore]

there is a difference between being atheist (and having the ideology that you don't believe in any God) and being non-religious (meaning you don't give a shit if there is a god or not). The last group is not an ideology, the first group clearly is. It is just not a well defined one.

Non-theist = atheist

This sort of nonsense is why so many Americans are afraid of identifying as atheist. No one bats an eye if you say you're not religious, but if you're an atheist -- which the Evangelical church, for example, uses in its talking points about supreme evil opposition devil's work -- then people gasp or roll their eyes. It's an artificial construct.

 

[jaxword]

I don't mean it is referred to as an ideology, but that is how the atheists here seem to react. An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions.

Then atheism is not an ideology, because it has ZERO tenets about goals, expectations and actions. It has no guidance for people to live. It has no morality. It has no motivations.

One could say atheism doesn't really exist, because each and every atheist has their own independent motivators and guidance independent of that.

No, I have only read a lot of Engels. And both of them believed elimating religion would make a better world. Stalin just took that a step further.

Then maybe you should read Marx (and Lenin and Stalin) before claiming you know exactly what they thought.

If you had read them, you'd understand why they thought eliminating religion would make a better world--because they believe the worker-state loyalty required no competition. Did you know Stalin's father was a clergyman? Did you know Stalin CHANGED HIS STANCE ON RELIGION DURING WW2? Did you know he realized that religion could galvanize the populace and bolster morale during war?

Did you know these things?

Your constant claims about them having some sort of personal vendetta are very ignorant and are clearly an attempt at equivalence.

 

[Raist]

Usual "Staline, lol!" bullshit.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, vegetarianism leads you to commiting genocides.

There's an important difference. Most holy books at one point or another command to kill infidels. It's part of the doctrine, like it or not. It's not just "bad people doing it".

People like Staline wanted to replace religion with a huge cult of his personality. In a sense, it's exactly the same thing. Atheism doesn't replace religion.

And I'm afraid you're confusing atheism with anti-theism. There's an important distinction to make.

 

[Joni]

Non-theist = atheist

No, it is not the same. There are four groups:
- Atheists: People whose belief system is that they don't believe in God.
- Agnostic: People who neither believes or disbelieves in God.
- Theist: Someone who believes in a god.
- Non-religious: People who just might be apathic towards the existence of a god. It is not because you don't care about the possible existence of a god, that you're an atheist. Not a lot of people in this topic fall in this category.

 

[Uchip]

Thank you for clarifying my point for me

cant clarify something that doesn't exist, sorry!
but im glad you enjoyed my parody

 

[Wotan131]

The difference, of course, is that science is systematic and self-correcting, and depends on evidence and experiment and verification, not dogma, to inform its models of the world. Quite a far cry from taking on faith the notion that a holy text was divinely written or inspired, and thus offers insight into eternal truths about the universe and human society, down to the details of who we're allowed to sleep with and what we should eat.


Only if you're persuaded by the kind of argument that claims there is a 50/50 chance that there are unicorn-riding elves somewhere in outer space, since we can't actually check all of outer space to find out.

I think you don't know what religion really is, for example Christianity. Christianity is not reading a book that was written once and clinging to a single interpretation for all eternity. At it's base is the assumption that the universe is governed by a divine being called God, who takes interest in his creations and can reward humans with an afterlife. But who God really is, where he is, what the planets and stars are in relation to God, what the afterlife is, what morality is, even what reality is etc. those are all subjects that Christian scholars and philosophers have been thinking about for centuries. Interpretations varied immensely, there is no dogma that held for more than a few hundred years.

You mention that the scientific method revises old theories and seeks to improve them. Where do you think this idea came from? *Surprise* it comes from the centuries of Christian theorising about the nature of God etc. Christians came up with the scientific method in case you forgot. That's why the difference between the two is not that big, they merely start from different assumptions, but neither is retarded and both are simply trying to find the truth based on assumptions of what is real. Who says repeatability makes something reality?

How can someone in 2012 write such things? I swear, this post comes right out of the 18th century. If a theory is wrong and proof comes along to support a new theory, we change our mind accordingly.

The point is ti arrive to a point where we can honestly say: "This is most probably, with 99.99% certitude, true. Because X, Y and Z." And if a skeptic cones along and wants to disprove it, he is more than welcome, seeing he will either reinforce the theory or do us all a service and prove we were on the wrong track.

Honest question, how old are you? Why did you never have a proper science education?

EDIT: Anything can motivate anyone to do anything. Atheism does not equal secular humanism.

The same answer as above. Thomas Aquinas wrote proof for the existence of God (not even the Christian one per se) because of 99% probability because X, Y and Z were true. I dont feel the Christian God is very credible, but the greater idea of a "godly" influence that governs the universe is perfectly rational and possible.

25, MA in International Relations and secular.

 

[Joni]

Then maybe you should read Marx (and Lenin and Stalin) before claiming you know exactly what they thought..

Engels co-wrote Das Kapital and the Communist Manifest. Reading all his works also makes you read the most influential works of Marx. which of course is the problem who think they read Marx, but don't know anything about his works or his life.

 

[Lionheart1337]

No, it is not the same. There are four groups:
- Atheists: People whose belief system is that they don't believe in God.
- Agnostic: People who neither believes or disbelieves in God.
- Theist: Someone who believes in a god.
- Non-religious: People who just might be apathic towards the existence of a god. It is not because you don't care about the possible existence of a god, that you're an atheist. Not a lot of people in this topic fall in this category.

Theism = belief in god(s). Evilore is right.

 

[Raist]

Oh goodie, now we're also having the "science owes its existence to Christianity!" argument. Wooh.

(FYI, the person who's considered to be the father of the scientific method was a muslim. Oops).

 

[Satyamdas]

cant clarify something that doesn't exist, sorry!
but im glad you enjoyed my parody

So basically you're illiterate. Cool!

 

[Lionheart1337]

Oh goodie, now we're also having the "science owes its existence to religion!" argument. Wooh.

circles and circles and circles

 

[Joni]

Theism = belief in god(s). Evilore is right.

So an agnostic is the same as an atheist. While the latter rejects the existence of a god and the former doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of god. An atheist is a non-theist, but not all non-theists are atheists.

 

[jaxword]

Engels co-wrote Das Kapital and the Communist Manifest. Reading all his works also makes you read the most influential works of Marx. which of course is the problem who think they read Marx, but don't know anything about his works or his life.

Don't avoid the questions in the rest of the post, it's dishonest and indicates the weakness of your stance.


Your own definition of ideology means that atheism is not an ideology. Therefore you must agree that it cannot have an impact on people's behavior to the extent a religious code can.


Did you know Stalin changed his stance on religion, yes or no?

 

[Raist]

So an agnostic is the same as an atheist. While the latter rejects the existence of a god and the former doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of god. An atheist is a non-theist, but not all non-theists are atheists.

You can be agnostic towards a lot of topics, not just religion. Therefore, athiesm and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive in any way. Still blows my mind how many people can't understand that.

 

[DCKing]

Then atheism is not an ideology, because it has ZERO tenets about goals, expectations and actions. It has no guidance for people to live. It has no morality. It has no motivations.

One could say atheism doesn't really exist, because each and every atheist has their own independent motivators and guidance independent of that.

This a thousand times.

If you had read them, you'd understand why they thought eliminating religion would make a better world--because they believe the worker-state loyalty required no competition. Did you know Stalin's father was a clergyman? Did you know Stalin CHANGED HIS STANCE ON RELIGION DURING WW2? Did you know he realized that religion could be used as a tool to galvanize the populace?

This too. It is very easy to classify Stalinist regimes as state religions because they deify their leaders. It is very apparent in North Korea too, where myths are sometimes even taken from the Bible to deify Kim Il-Sung and his descendants. If not religious, they are definitely totalitarian which is a superset of organized religion.

Atheism is not an ideology.

 

[Uchip]

So basically you're illiterate. Cool!

oh really
what points have you made?

 

[Onemic]

This forum, and the world, would be a much nicer place if people just kept their nose out of other people's religions and stopped being so damn judgemental, on all sides. I'm so sick of hearing all this complaining and shitting up the forum with snarky comments. In the past there has been some interesting discussion but often it just devolves into pointless bitterness, usually to the tune of "Christians are dumb and I'm smart".

I certainly don't. Can't you just accept that some people see the world differently and move on?

Fucking this

what happened to shanshan?

 

[Joni]

Did you know Stalin changed his stance on religion, yes or no?

Yeah, I know he abused the Orthodox church. Which means he used the church for the good of his people. Do you realise this means an atheist saw the good a church could do? (After he had tried to eliminate the church and before he did it again after the war)

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. -> So an atheist doesn't have goals, expectactions and actions based on his atheism. Posting in this topic is a direct consequence of atheism. Someone who doesn't care about his atheism, doesn't post here.

You can be agnostic towards a lot of topics, not just religion. Still blows my mind how many people can't understand that.

But it is most commonly used for religion, so I used it is as shorthand because I hope people are smart enough I meant the 'religious' viewpoint.


And now I'm gonna quit. I have shown people have used atheism as reason for their wars just like they used religion. If you don't consider their call on atheism as a reason for their wars, you need to admit the same about the ones calling on religion.

 

[jaxword]

Fucking this

what happened to shanshan?

Do you think it's a good idea to go into a thread just to tell everyone you don't give a shit? Kind of a petulant and childish thing to do.

 

[Satyamdas]

oh really
what points have you made?

I've made it a point to try and ignore your inane strawmen, but unfortunately my will has been shown to be weak since I eventually give in and indulge you.

 

[Uchip]

I've made it a point to try and ignore your inane strawmen, but unfortunately my will has been shown to be weak since I eventually give in and indulge you.

so nothing then?

 

[crazy monkey]

look at bunch of cells talking

 

[Monocle]

I don't mean it is referred to as an ideology, but that is how the atheists here seem to react. An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. And a lot of people here are really, really defending it and attacking religion. Aside from that, there is a difference between being atheist (and having the ideology that you don't believe in any God) and being non-religious (meaning you don't give a shit if there is a god or not). The last group is not an ideology, the first group clearly is. It is just not a well defined one.

All of us, religious or otherwise, are to some extent prone to groupthink. I think you're mistaken to interpret this common human tendency as an indication that atheism is an ideology. I acknowledge that you've identified a real distinction, it's just that you've drawn the line in the wrong place. The groups you're talking about are antitheists and atheists. Antitheists are a subset of atheists, distinguished by their militant antireligious ideology. In contrast, atheism is the neutral absence of belief in a god or gods.

 

[MrHicks]

This forum, and the world, would be a much nicer place if people just kept their nose out of other people's religions and stopped being so damn judgemental, on all sides. I'm so sick of hearing all this complaining and shitting up the forum with snarky comments. In the past there has been some interesting discussion but often it just devolves into pointless bitterness, usually to the tune of "Christians are dumb and I'm smart".

I certainly don't. Can't you just accept that some people see the world differently and move on?

not giving a fuck is not possible
the problem is that religious people want other people to live like they do
it directly affects others so they are FORCED to give a fuck

so many stupid laws worldwide are religious in origin and also affect the non religious

if religions just kept their shit indoors/in private nobody would care whatever their worldview is

 

[Lionheart1337]

So an agnostic is the same as an atheist. While the latter rejects the existence of a god and the former doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of god. An atheist is a non-theist, but not all non-theists are atheists.

An non-theist (atheist) is simply someone who does not believe in god. You either believe in god or you don't. Whether you believe in the possibility is a another question. In fact, most atheists do not believe 100% that there is no god. That would be absolute gnosticism.

I don't believe in the Flying Risotto Monster but who knows, he might exist.

 

[Log4Girlz]

look at bunch of cells talking

They're typing.

 

[jaxword]

Yeah, I know he abused the Orthodox church. Which means he used the church for the good of his people. Do you realise this means an atheist saw the good a church could do? (After he had tried to eliminate the church and before he did it again after the war)

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. -> So an atheist doesn't have goals, expectactions and actions based on his atheism. Posting in this topic is a direct consequence of atheism. Someone who doesn't care about his atheism, doesn't post here.

Atheism has no set goals or expectations.

You're obviously and blatantly reaching to apply any negative traits you can to the atheists. There are no good OR bad traits that atheists have, and if the extent is "posting in this topic" is your best example of how it influences behavior, then you've already proven atheism's lack of impact compared to religion.


As for Stalin, you just agreed with me what I said a page ago when I said that a politician like him will remove or embrace religion if it benefits him. Therefore you agree his atheism was irrelevant in the bigger picture of consolidating power.

Your example about him being an evil atheist leader is wrong.

 

[GrizzNKev]

No, it is not the same. There are four groups:
- Atheists: People whose belief system is that they don't believe in God.
- Agnostic: People who neither believes or disbelieves in God.
- Theist: Someone who believes in a god.
- Non-religious: People who just might be apathic towards the existence of a god. It is not because you don't care about the possible existence of a god, that you're an atheist. Not a lot of people in this topic fall in this category.

Your definition of agnostic is also incorrect, as there is no single "Agnostic" group. It divides into subgroups depending on whether it is being applied to theism or atheism.

Also, I fail to see the grounds for shanshan's banning. That post, while a bit aggressive-sounding, was nothing more than a call to end bickering and a statement of indifference. Unless it was for something else?

 

[KHarvey16]

Yeah, I know he abused the Orthodox church. Which means he used the church for the good of his people. Do you realise this means an atheist saw the good a church could do? (After he had tried to eliminate the church and before he did it again after the war)

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. -> So an atheist doesn't have goals, expectactions and actions based on his atheism. Posting in this topic is a direct consequence of atheism. Someone who doesn't care about his atheism, doesn't post here.



But it is most commonly used for religion, so I used it is as shorthand because I hope people are smart enough I meant the 'religious' viewpoint.


And now I'm gonna quit. I have shown people have used atheism as reason for their wars just like they used religion. If you don't consider their call on atheism as a reason for their wars, you need to admit the same about the ones calling on religion.

Atheism is nothing beyond the lack of a belief in a god or gods. Religion carries with it rules and beliefs and traditions and books. Atheism does not itself inspire action. Wanting to rid the world or your state or the building you work in of religion IS NOT "atheistic". This should not be hard to understand. I realize it ruins your argument, but that's the truth. Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist...period.

 

[Onemic]

Do you think it's a good idea to go into a thread just to tell everyone you don't give a shit? Kind of a petulant and childish thing to do.

I don't know, in a thread like this where tensions are high, I don't see anything wrong with someone saying that its childish to argue that your way of thinking is superior to another persons, because at the end of the day that's really what this thread and the multiple religious based threads usually boil down to.

That's just me though.

 

[Raist]

But it is most commonly used for religion, so I used it is as shorthand because I hope people are smart enough I meant the 'religious' viewpoint.

And in that case it applies to both. You can absolutely be an agnostic theist. It's the most reasonable position for a theist to have even. So it's not synonymous with atheist either.

 

[EviLore]

So an agnostic is the same as an atheist. While the latter rejects the existence of a god and the former doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of god. An atheist is a non-theist, but not all non-theists are atheists.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive concepts.

If you don't believe in any gods but recognize that their possibility cannot be 100% disproven, you're an agnostic atheist.
If you believe that gods definitely 100% don't exist, you're a gnostic atheist.
If you believe that gods definitely 100% exist, you're a gnostic theist.
If you believe in gods but recognize that their existence cannot be 100% proven, you're an agnostic theist.
If you have no concept of gods whatsoever (e.g. newborn baby), or are completely apathetic about anything pertaining to theism or atheism, you're an implicit atheist.

Wiki on atheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]

People who identify as non-theist or non-religious or secular are atheists who think the connotations of the atheism label are too negative/strong/polarizing to associate with. "Atheists are douchebags! Me, I'm a secular humanist non-theist, nothing to see here."

 

[Wotan131]

Oh goodie, now we're also having the "science owes its existence to Christianity!" argument. Wooh.

(FYI, the person who's considered to be the father of the scientific method was a muslim. Oops).

You wish to deny it? Science stand upon the achievements of Christianity and Classical Antiquity before it. And no oops, the Muslim Iberians influence is almost exclusively that of reintroducing Classical texts through Arabic translations. For the rest their path was a dead end.

 

[Lionheart1337]

I don't know, in a thread like this where tensions are high, I don't see anything wrong with someone saying that its childish to argue that your way of thinking is superior to another persons, because at the end of the day that's really what this thread and the multiple religious based threads usually boil down to.

That's just me though.

That's what a lot of threads boil down to on GAF. I hardly see anyone complaining about it then.