More Dawkins critism

I was having an argument with an atheist the other day who says anyone who calls themself an atheist but believes in ghosts/anything else supernatural is probably not quite an atheist, despite the actual term...
interesting thought, I never looked at it that way before

Schuhart: brilliant

humanji

Schuhart wrote:

I tend to picture it like a car with no petrol. There’s two average, reasonable theists in the front seat occasionally making quiet ‘vroom vroom’ noises. One agrees that the car probably isn’t moving, but reckons you have to believe in something. The other, shyly, says he actually thinks the car does move a little, but not in a way that anyone else can tell.

In the back seat you have a fundamentalist theist making loud and enthusiastic ‘vroom vroom’ noises. He confidently asserts that the car is moving at a brisk 80 kph, but equally maintains that he will reject any physical evidence to the contrary.

An atheist sits beside him. He irritates the fundamentalist by pointing out that ‘vroom’ was first chanted by Babylonian temple prostitutes prior to coitus. He tells the soft theists stories about the massacre of the ‘ne-yarr’ heretics, but they don’t seem too interested. Finally, he steps out of the car to demonstrate it’s not moving. They all lock the door behind him, and go on as before.

lol, that cheered me up

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Woo! So, strictly speaking, we shouldn't call ourselves atheists, because we have no idea what we're denying the existence of?

surprised,
Scofflaw

That is kinda the point.

I'm not denying the existence of "something", because I don't know what that "something" is.

I'm rejecting the human concept of "god" as being nothing more than human imagination.

I could start randomly throwing out names in an effort to guess your real name. I might, by dumb luck, get one right. But I don't know your name. I won't know I'm right, and I certainly will not be able to claim that because I can do this I know your name. If I decide to call you Ted that might actually be your name, but when I decide to call you Ted I've no idea that that is true.

The theist goes "I believe wicknight when he says the name is Ted".

The agnostic goes "I think that the name might or might not be Ted"

The atheist goes "You don't know the name"

The question of if I have got the name right or not is not the most important question. The most important question is if I know the name. I don't know the name, I'm just guessing.

As an atheists I don't deny the existence of the human concept "god". Doing that would be like saying "I don't think the name is Ted"

I'm actually rejecting the concept itself. This is the same as saying "Wicknight does not know what Scofflaws real name is" Because I might have guess your real name doesn't change that.

The concept is invalid in the first place. Just like the "atheist" in the example above is correct in claim that I don't know your real name, even if I start randomly guessing names and by some fluke get it right 30 minutes, or 3 days, a 3 years from now. The fact that I don't know your name doesn't change.

If "something" is out there humans don't know what that something is. Therefore any attempt to define this "something" is ridiculous.

I've always said that I am perfectly happy with the idea that "something" might be out there. But that thing, what ever it is, is not classified as a "god" Classifying it as "god" is similar to just randomly guessing names.

We cannot classify that "something", we don't know how to, and any attempts to do that are nothing more than random guessing at its possible properties.

We don't even know what are its possible properties. We don't have a frame of reference to draw upon to define the set of possible properties that this thing might contain. We don't even know if "it" or "something" are suitable words to use when discussing "it." We don't even know if we possess the vocabulary, or the concepts, to possibly talk about this thing in abstract.

robindch

> I tend to picture it like a car with no petrol.

Hats off -- the post of the year!

joe_chicken

Schuhart wrote:

the massacre of the ‘ne-yarr’ heretics

Brilliant!

If that's all original material, you're a genius!

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

Finally, he steps out of the car to demonstrate it’s not moving. They all lock the door behind him, and go on as before.

lol

If only it was that simple

Dades

Schuhart wrote:

Finally, he steps out of the car to demonstrate it’s not moving. They all lock the door behind him, and go on as before.

I like it a lot.

Schuhart

Thanks, but now I'm absolutely petrified of posting something average. I think I'll head off to the DIY forum for a bit and do some posts about paint thinners.

Asiaprod

Schuhart wrote:

They all lock the door behind him, and go on as before.

Wonderful, definitely a candidate for post of the year:D

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Would he be Scottish?

As well? Most unlikely, I would have thought.

pH wrote:

Fine, a rough stab of the number of people on this planet worshipping your unfalsifiable God.

Hmm. I may not actually do this, for two reasons.

First, I suspect that the information is going to nearly impossible to come by in any form that you will accept as referring to the outline of a deity that I have put forward. It is rare for a survey to ask the question one wants answered - for example, the survey of scientists often quoted as showing only 40% "belief in God" actually asked about belief in an interventionist God. For what it's worth, there are web surveys showing belief in God as "A remote, initial creative force"; religioustolerance.org certainly thinks there are plenty of deists.

Second, the numbers expressing direct adherence to this "remote, unfalsifiable" God are almost certainly tiny compared to those who claim to follow the world's major religions - and I suspect they will be the only people who would show up in surveys. However, that is not my claim - and I doubt there are surveys asking "when backed into a corner by the evidence, what is the minimum God you would be prepared to worship?".

Finally, a minor point - what would you define as "plenty"? Personally, I would go for "a few tens of thousands" (based on the question "how many followers would I need to become really rich?).

pH wrote:

Woo! So, strictly speaking, we should call ourselves agnostics, even though we have no idea what you're NOT denying the existence of?

I've said it before - that's why I don't classify myself as either an atheist or an agnostic.

pH wrote:

I leave Wicknight to deal with this, but if you start a sentence here with 'We simply define God as ... ' how long do you think you have before someone throws a teapot at you?

Not long, obviously. However, I have survived Wicknight's teapots before...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

That is kinda the point.

I'm not denying the existence of "something", because I don't know what that "something" is.

I'm rejecting the human concept of "god" as being nothing more than human imagination.

I could start randomly throwing out names in an effort to guess your real name. I might, by dumb luck, get one right. But I don't know your name. I won't know I'm right, and I certainly will not be able to claim that because I can do this I know your name. If I decide to call you Ted that might actually be your name, but when I decide to call you Ted I've no idea that that is true.

The theist goes "I believe wicknight when he says the name is Ted".

The agnostic goes "I think that the name might or might not be Ted"

The atheist goes "You don't know the name"

The question of if I have got the name right or not is not the most important question. The most important question is if I know the name. I don't know the name, I'm just guessing.

As an atheists I don't deny the existence of the human concept "god". Doing that would be like saying "I don't think the name is Ted"

I'm actually rejecting the concept itself. This is the same as saying "Wicknight does not know what Scofflaws real name is" Because I might have guess your real name doesn't change that.

The concept is invalid in the first place. Just like the "atheist" in the example above is correct in claim that I don't know your real name, even if I start randomly guessing names and by some fluke get it right 30 minutes, or 3 days, a 3 years from now. The fact that I don't know your name doesn't change.

If "something" is out there humans don't know what that something is. Therefore any attempt to define this "something" is ridiculous.

I've always said that I am perfectly happy with the idea that "something" might be out there. But that thing, what ever it is, is not classified as a "god" Classifying it as "god" is similar to just randomly guessing names.

We cannot classify that "something", we don't know how to, and any attempts to do that are nothing more than random guessing at its possible properties.

We don't even know what are its possible properties. We don't have a frame of reference to draw upon to define the set of possible properties that this thing might contain. We don't even know if "it" or "something" are suitable words to use when discussing "it." We don't even know if we possess the vocabulary, or the concepts, to possibly talk about this thing in abstract.

Good points - and apparently no teapot (although that is the point of the teapot, of course). I would accept all the above, personally.

Theists do think they know what God is, but it is usually a transmitted picture drawn in more primitive times. Essentially, my argument with pH is that we can argue the intelligent ones down to your "indefinable and unknowable something" - and that they still choose to invest that "something" with worship.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Essentially, my argument with pH is that we can argue the intelligent ones down to your "indefinable and unknowable something" - and that they still choose to invest that "something" with worship.

I find the concept of 'worship' incompatible with a "something" of which we have know knowledge, or even a frame of reference. I would agree there may be 'plenty' of people in awe at the concept of an entity responsible for the dynamics of the universe. Worship I would leave to the sheep, however.

Scofflaw wrote:

I've said it before - that's why I don't classify myself as either an atheist or an agnostic.

Forgive me if you've explained before, then what would you classify yourself as? A deist?

I'm really thinking with your own generous definition of god, how could you be anything other than agnostic?

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Theists do think they know what God is, but it is usually a transmitted picture drawn in more primitive times. Essentially, my argument with pH is that we can argue the intelligent ones down to your "indefinable and unknowable something" - and that they still choose to invest that "something" with worship.

I'm skeptical of that claim, as I've said. It has not been my experience that it's possible for either side of the debate to get the other to concede one iota. I accept that this may be down to my poorer debating skills, but just the same I remain skeptical.

As I said before, I think that the number of people who believe in and worship a non-revealed God is small. This includes 'clever' theologians, religious physicists and those who invent their own religion and Gods.

As we've gone through before :

'We simply define God ...'

You can simply define anything, and give it unfalsifiable characteristics.

I say "Would you like to see this dragon in my Garage?"

http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I find the concept of 'worship' incompatible with a "something" of which we have know knowledge, or even a frame of reference. I would agree there may be 'plenty' of people in awe at the concept of an entity responsible for the dynamics of the universe. Worship I would leave to the sheep, however.

Forgive me if you've explained before, then what would you classify yourself as? A deist?

I'm really thinking with your own generous definition of god, how could you be anything other than agnostic?

Are you implying that I have a single personal conception of God? A deity of my own? I'm outraged....

I am almost entirely atheist - which is to say, atheist in respect of virtually all known gods. The Abrahamic conception of God, in particular, can be dismissed in a couple of easy moves. Indeed, almost any well-defined universal deity is self-evidently rubbish.

However, I am agnostic about: (a) the deist conception of God I have described; (b) various local and extremely limited gods; (c) gods I know nothing whatsoever about.

That is to say, I don't really follow Wicknight in rejecting the very idea of "god", because I think such rejections are based on the confusion of "god" with "God" (the Biblical supervillain).

In the end, I had to make up a term - alatrist. This was originally to describe Tar's position rather than my own, but it suits me too.

Essentially, it means "non-worshipper". The basic statement of my position would be "no god worth worshipping exists".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm finally reading "the god delusion" at the moment, I think it's pretty good though I'm not too sure about dawkins insisting that science can decide the answer to whether there's a god or not... we shall see

and hurrah for alatrists

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I'm skeptical of that claim, as I've said. It has not been my experience that it's possible for either side of the debate to get the other to concede one iota. I accept that this may be down to my poorer debating skills, but just the same I remain skeptical.

Fair enough. My own experience has been that you can shift most Christians all the way to deism fairly easily. They shift back once you've gone away, but never usually quite back to where they were. Born-agains are particularly easy if they don't actually suffer cognitive dissonance too badly.

I argued a Mormon missionary into accepting that trees had souls once, but then they took him away.

Possibly the difference is that I am not a hardline atheist, and have, perhaps, a lot more sympathy for the theist position than most atheists.

pH wrote:

As I said before, I think that the number of people who believe in and worship a non-revealed God is small. This includes 'clever' theologians, religious physicists and those who invent their own religion and Gods.

Well, I have already accepted that, both implicitly and explicitly. I am arguing that people will accept a non-revealed God as a sort of basic minimum after argument, not as their preferred deity.

Those people who actually believe in a non-revealed god on a daily basis are those who argue with themselves and do not require an outside source to supply the rational viewpoint.

pH wrote:

As we've gone through before :

'We simply define God ...'

You can simply define anything, and give it unfalsifiable characteristics.

I say "Would you like to see this dragon in my Garage?"

http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

Dragons, teapots - same difference. The argument, as you have set it up, is one-sided.

Let us say, instead, that worldwide, people believe in dragons. Books are written describing various dragons, their histories, their habits, how to appease them if you come across them. Billions of people claim to have personally experienced dragons. People write books about how meeting a dragon changed their lives. There are several dragon-houses in every town, for different types of dragon, tended by dedicated dragon-keepers, and most people go there once a week to hear the dragon-keepers talk about how great dragons are, and how we humans, puny as we are, have a place in the dragon scheme of things. Virtually every culture ever discovered or dug up refers to some form of dragon, and has dragon-houses, and dragon-keepers. Almost every child is educated by the dragon-keepers, and they spend even their kindergarten days drawing pictures of the dragons surviving the flood in a big boat, or eating every kind of animal. Huge volumes of material have been written on arguing whether dragons have scales on their lower lip, and which type of dragon is better. People who claim dragons don't exist are shunned - after all, if dragons didn't eat the wicked, why would anyone be good?

Now, when you say that you have a dragon in your garage, people won't even blink. Of course you do - why wouldn't you? If you say "it's just stepped out" or "it's invisible today" (*) - people are very likely to swallow it, because their entire experience predisposes them to.

*there's room in there for a "dragon garage" sketch - as per the cheese shop.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Let us say, instead, that worldwide, people believe in dragons. ...
Now, when you say that you have a dragon in your garage, people won't even blink. Of course you do - why wouldn't you? If you say "it's just stepped out" or "it's invisible today" (*) - people are very likely to swallow it, because their entire experience predisposes them to.

Yes but your analogy is flawed, people worldwide don't believe in Dragons, nor do they believe in your non-falsifiable God.

The number of believers possibly (I'm not sure how though) could be construed as some sort of argument for Gods (as a Christians, Muslims or Hindus believe in them), but I fail to see the relevance when applied to 'your' God, which you admitted earlier on in this thread that you'd just made up.

This 'god' has very little written about him, about as much I'd day as the invisible dragon in my garage.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

However, I have survived Wicknight's teapots before...
...
Good points - and apparently no teapot (although that is the point of the teapot, of course).

Do I use the teapot analogy that much

[ASIDE to thread topic]
Personally, rather than the invisible dragon, or the teapot (neither of which I came up with), I prefer the dragon/train/jumbo-jet falling on your head analogy, because it deals with actual consequences.

To me the most important part of atheism is not the logic behind the belief, but the consequences of that belief.

It doesn't make much odds to say that a tea pot is or is not orbiting the sun. There are no consequences, no further exploration, either way. On the other hand the analogy I use the most, that of some unknown disaster befalling someone, does have consequences. If a dragon did actually fall on your head it would probably kill you. Therefore how one considers the question is important.
[/ASIDE to tread topic]

Scofflaw wrote:

Essentially, my argument with pH is that we can argue the intelligent ones down to your "indefinable and unknowable something" - and that they still choose to invest that "something" with worship.

True. I don't think it is ever possible to logically trap a theist into admitting that it is not logical to worship their chosen God, since the choice to worship something in the end is not a logical one, but an emotional/moral position. Nor do I think it would be a particularly good idea to try and convince someone their god is not worth worshipping. I do get into arguments over in Christianity when the claim is made that such-and-such god should be worshipped by all, or that worshipping such a good is a valid moral position. Than annoys me a bit

To me it is more important to counter theists trying to use logic/history/science/social science etc to try and trap atheists into admitting that God is a serious possibility that requires serious consideration. For example what they (and i use "they" in a very tin foil hat kinda way ) are doing with the Intelligent Design movement.

Zombrex

I think pH's point Scofflaw is that there is no definition of "god" that doesn't also assume that such a god exists. God is never defined in the abstract, as in "I wonder if this exists". It is always defined as "This is a god, and it exists"

Now I'm not up on my world history, so i don't know if that is actually true. But I would be surprised to find, in the history humans, a concept of God that was detached from the idea that this concept actually was real.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Yes but your analogy is flawed, people worldwide don't believe in Dragons, nor do they believe in your non-falsifiable God.

The number of believers possibly (I'm not sure how though) could be construed as some sort of argument for Gods (as a Christians, Muslims or Hindus believe in them), but I fail to see the relevance when applied to 'your' God, which you admitted earlier on in this thread that you'd just made up.

This 'god' has very little written about him, about as much I'd day as the invisible dragon in my garage.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you're arguing with me at all.

First, yes, I made up the specific conception of god I have been arguing is unfalsifiable. I thought I made it clear I was doing so - there is no question of my "admitting" it.

Second, I have claimed that such a conception of deity is worshippable. I have not claimed that it is the focus of a major world religion, or that the majority of theists believe in this conception of deity on a day to day basis.

The claim of "worshippability" is based on (a) the closeness of my made-up god to the deist conception of god - and there are plenty of deists; (b) that, from my experience, this is a minimum conception of deity to which you can reduce an intelligent theist without them losing their faith; and (c) that this conception of god is pretty much the very well-known 'god of the gaps'.

So, to reiterate, because this is the point that you seem to miss every time: the god of the gaps is no-one's preferred deity, but is well-known as the sort of minimal conception of deity envisaged by those who have both faith and reason.

Third, the reason for claiming worshippability is to illustrate the point that there are conceptions of deity that allow intelligent people to reconcile faith and reason, as long as they do not apply the scientific criterion of non-falsifiability.

The point of this claim is my original argument - why should non-falsifiability apply?

Fourth, if you genuinely cannot see the parallel between the "worldwide belief in all kinds of dragons and an invisible dragon in your garage" scenario and "worldwide beliefs in gods and an invisible god in my belief", then I think we shall have to simply agree to differ.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Are you implying that I have a single personal conception of God? A deity of my own? I'm outraged....

Blasphamy, even...

Scofflaw wrote:

Essentially, it means "non-worshipper". The basic statement of my position would be "no god worth worshipping exists".

My problem is separating "god" from "worship". The word god, or even deity or deify, all suggest to me an element of worship.

Does an agnostic believe a god worth worshipping might exist?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I think pH's point Scofflaw is that there is no definition of "god" that doesn't also assume that such a god exists. God is never defined in the abstract, as in "I wonder if this exists". It is always defined as "This is a god, and it exists"

Now I'm not up on my world history, so i don't know if that is actually true. But I would be surprised to find, in the history humans, a concept of God that was detached from the idea that this concept actually was real.

Of course there is! The atheist's conception of god. Despite your points earlier, it is clear that you do have (and I am sure nearly all atheists have) a conception of god that includes his non-existence.

You might say that there is no theist concpetion of god that includes non-existence, but that really doesn't say very much, and may even be a tautology.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Blasphamy, even...

I must admit, I sometimes wonder if my apparently unusual viewpoint on gods is the result of actually growing up an atheist in an fourth-generation atheist household.

The Atheist wrote:

My problem is separating "god" from "worship". The word god, or even deity or deify, all suggest to me an element of worship.

I would tend to agree, but worship takes a thousand forms. It is possible for something to be a god only under certain circumstances, or at particular times - or to be accepted as being a god to someone else and not to you.

The Atheist wrote:

Does an agnostic believe a god worth worshipping might exist?

Presumably so. If they didn't they'd be alatrists! I share the same lack of certainty that somewhere, someone might be worshipping something supernatural that does exist in an objectively meaningful sense - but I suffer from the arrogant certainty that I would not worship it in the Judeo-Christian sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

I must admit, I sometimes wonder if my apparently unusual viewpoint on gods is the result of actually growing up an atheist in an fourth-generation atheist household.

That is an unusual background (too much so).
Now I'm thinking maybe your "alatrism" is the equivalent of someone rebelling from within a Christian enclave and questioning God.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

That is an unusual background (too much so).
Now I'm thinking maybe your "alatrism" is the equivalent of someone rebelling from within a Christian enclave and questioning God.

Nah. The great thing was that I wasn't even aware that my household was atheist until quite late in my teens, by which time I'd long decided to be an atheist. I didn't find out that my father's entire family were atheists until my twenties. As for rebellion, I was fortunate enough to go to boarding school, so I never applied it to my parents. My elder brother became a Catholic in his late thirties, but that's because the sad git is still rebelling against his father.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Of course there is! The atheist's conception of god.

What is the atheist concept of "god"? Surely that is an oxymoron.

Scofflaw wrote:

Despite your points earlier, it is clear that you do have (and I am sure nearly all atheists have) a conception of god that includes his non-existence.

Not really. We reject the concepts of others. That is not the same as thing. I am unaware of any concept of "god" that doesn't assume that the god exists, that his existence is not one of its vital properties of the concept.

Scofflaw wrote:

You might say that there is no theist concpetion of god that includes non-existence

I don't know of any conception of god that is not theist in origin. All atheists and agnostics seem to do is debate theist concepts of "god."

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

What is the atheist concept of "god"? Surely that is an oxymoron.

Not really. We reject the concepts of others. That is not the same as thing. I am unaware of any concept of "god" that doesn't assume that the god exists, that his existence is not one of its vital properties of the concept.

I don't know of any conception of god that is not theist in origin. All atheists and agnostics seem to do is debate theist concepts of "god."

Ah no - I can't let you away with that.

We've argued before about definitions of God. By the very fact that you (and pH and so forth) will accept some definitions of god and not others, it is clear that you have a conception of god yourself.

Now, obviously, I am not saying that this is a "personal god" in the sense that it is a god with whom you somehow have a relationship - that would be the equivalent of wolfsbane's claim that "we all know god really but some of us are rejecting him".

What I am saying is that you cannot reject any conception of god put forward by anyone unless you have a pre-defined notion of what "god" means. I have seen you reject definitions or conceptions of god as "not godlike", so clearly you do have a pre-defined notion of god, and godlike - and it is unlikely that you include the idea of real existence in that notion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

By the very fact that you (and pH and so forth) will accept some definitions of god and not others, it is clear that you have a conception of god yourself.

But that isn't my concept of God. That is a theist concept of God, that we discuss.

You have argued in the past that the Judeo/Christian concept of God is not the only concept of God in the rest of the world. Part of the problem people in this forum have understanding that point is precisesly because they have based their definition of God on the original Judeo/Christian theist concept of God.

I cannot think of any concept of God that I'm aware off that doesn't have a theist source. I certainly cannot think of any concept of God that an atheist invented

Scofflaw wrote:

What I am saying is that you cannot reject any conception of god put forward by anyone unless you have a pre-defined notion of what "god" means.

I know. But again that is not my concept of God. My pre-defined notion of what god is is most likely based on the Judeo/Christian concept of a God, or at least the Judeo/Greek/Roman concepts combined.

That is my pre-defined notion of what "god" But that comes from a theist source.

I would imagine I'm not the only one, which is why people have a hard time accepting an idea like the Jedi "Force", or the idea of a universal energy, as being defined as "god".

Dades

Rather than saying an atheist has a specific concept of god, perhaps it would more correct to say an atheist has limits to what can be defined as a god.

The crux of the issue at hand appears to be that Scoff's "god" has no limits that I can see, whereas others have drawn the line somewhere.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But that isn't my concept of God. That is a theist concept of God, that we discuss.

You have argued in the past that the Judeo/Christian concept of God is not the only concept of God in the rest of the world. Part of the problem people in this forum have understanding that point is precisesly because they have based their definition of God on the original Judeo/Christian theist concept of God.

I cannot think of any concept of God that I'm aware off that doesn't have a theist source. I certainly cannot think of any concept of God that an atheist invented

I know. But again that is not my concept of God. My pre-defined notion of what god is is most likely based on the Judeo/Christian concept of a God, or at least the Judeo/Greek/Roman concepts combined.

That is my pre-defined notion of what "god" But that comes from a theist source.

I would imagine I'm not the only one, which is why people have a hard time accepting an idea like the Jedi "Force", or the idea of a universal energy, as being defined as "god".

Sorry...I should have made myself more clear. Yes, an atheist may be using the Judeo-Christian conception of God, which is, as you say, a theist conception of God.

However, when the atheist takes on board that conception of God, they certainly don't accept the idea that this god exists, do they? Therefore, they have a conception of God that includes non-exstence, or does not include existence (and since existence/non-existence are binary opposites, these are equivalent).

I didn't intend to suggest that your conception of God is original, but that the atheist generally has a conception of god that includes non-existence, even if that is derived from an original theist conception. The important point is that the atheist's conception of God is not simply non-existence, but contains many other characteristics

cordially,
Scofflaw