The Irony of Atheism

[JudoJosh]

Im not following this atheist = ironic connection

I can say with certainty the boogeyman does not exist. Or that magical leprechauns don't exist. Or that flying fire breathing dragons don't exist. Should I play it safe as you put it with agnostics and say well maybe there are magical leprechauns or can I say with certainty they dont exist?

There is lots I can say with certainty yet are untestable. Im sure same goes for you, does zeus exist? If you answer no does that make you a hypocritical loser as well?

 

[PalmFist]

For the record, although I am a Christian I do not speak for anyone but myself. I express my views, opinions and my faith without imposing - nothing more.

As a moderator I fully support the rights of all to express their opinion - without being hateful and offensive. At that point I address that behavior and do not care who it is that is the perpetrator.

I have no desire to suppress anyone's right to believe and express their faith that there is no God. You have the right to do so here. You don't have the right to denigrate anyone else who does not share that faith.

No disrespect but believe whatever stupid **** you want to believe - all faiths have it - including the faith in science.

Fair is fair. I hold no grudge here

 

[PalmFist]

Really Palmer? Good to hear you're such a stand up guy.

So now that you've already defended gays and atheists so disproportionately, go ahead and demonstrate your righteous resolve by defending straights and theists rights a little too. I mean, since you won't 'stand by and let hate in any form go by', right man? Go on, condemn that offensive and hurtful sh!t like the gay Jesus picture, cuz you know that was uncalled for.

Firstly, I did not see the gay Jesus pic (which truly is offensive, but fùck it I don't really care), I only pop in here from time to time. And like I already stated, I support everyone's right to have their own views on whatever. And btw I'm as straight as the day is long... Not that that needed to be said but there it is

 

[JudoJosh]

science doesnt require faith.

Science deals with probabilities. You dont have faith in science, you accept the evidence being presented. To have faith in something means you believe it to be true despite the absence of evidence.

 

[B5150]

I can say with certainty the boogeyman does not exist.

So can you say with anecdotal or scientific certainty that this statement is false:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

 

[JudoJosh]

So can you say with anecdotal or scientific certainty that this statement is false:

No I can not, nor do I claim this is a scientific reality. For the record, claiming god doesnt exist isnt a scientific statement.

What I am commenting on is the notion that to say god doesnt exist somehow makes you a hypothetical loser because it is an unsubstantiated claim.

So the question becomes, if saying god doesnt exist makes someone a hypothetical loser, does saying zeus doesnt exist mean the same thing?

 

[B5150]

science doesnt require faith.

Science deals with probabilities. You dont have faith in science, you accept the evidence being presented. To have faith in something means you believe it to be true despite the absence of evidence.

Let me rephrase that: to have faith that probabilities and scientific evidence is all, and holds, all the truth there is.

 

[B5150]

No I can not, nor do I claim this is a scientific reality. For the record, claiming god doesnt exist isnt a scientific statement.

What I am commenting on is the notion that to say god doesnt exist somehow makes you a hypothetical loser because it is an unsubstantiated claim.

So the question becomes, if saying god doesnt exist makes someone a hypothetical loser, does saying zeus doesnt exist mean the same thing?

OK. I get your point. Not my contention.

 

[JudoJosh]

Let me rephrase that: to have faith that probabilities and scientific evidence is all, and holds, all the truth there is.

You are strawmanning me here

I never claimed scientific evidence is all there is and holds all the truth.

One can in fact be spirtual and scientific. The two does not have to be dichotomous.

What I am saying is science doesnt require faith. In science nothing is believed to be true without evidence first being presented. Scientific beliefs are founded on testable and observable evidence not faith.

Religion on the other hand requires faith. God is not something we can test nor is heaven or miracles etc etc. This is why religion requires faith, you have to believe and accept it in the abscence of evidence. This is faith.

Now this post isnt saying one is better then the other, it is just highlighting the two are not the same.

 

[PalmFist]

Firstly, I did not see the gay Jesus pic (which truly is offensive, but fùck it I don't really care), I only pop in here from time to time. And like I already stated, I support everyone's right to have their own views on whatever. And btw I'm as straight as the day is long... Not that that needed to be said but there it is

And on that topic, since its all gay this and gay that, let it be known that gays do not choose to be gay. Did you or I choose to be straight? No, we just are. Gays or transgendered persons are born that way just as you and I are born straight. Try hard as I may I will never become homosexual, its just not in the cards. Same goes for you, you cannot suddenly"become" gay

 

[PalmFist]

Furthermore as a holder of a doctorate in science I know you took biology and genetics. You therefore understand there is a genetic predisposition for an embryo to be more masculine or feminine, which with full development can produce a male that is less masculine than his counterparts or a female who is less feminine than her counterparts. Is it not a stretch then to believe these beings will grow into adulthood with a genetically determined preference for the opposite/same sex? I'm sure this is just propaganda in your eyes but c'mon already

 

[JudoJosh]

Furthermore as a holder of a doctorate in science I know you took biology and genetics. You therefore understand there is a genetic predisposition for an embryo to be more masculine or feminine, which with full development can produce a male that is less masculine than his counterparts or a female who is less feminine than her counterparts. Is it not a stretch then to believe these beings will grow into adulthood with a genetically determined preference for the opposite sex? I'm sure this is just propaganda in your eyes but c'mon already

You are completely wrong

First, masculinity and femininity are social constructs not biological realities.

Second, phenotypic differentiation doesnt happen until after the first trimester and by this time it is no longer an embryo but a fetus.

Lastly, none of this speaks to sexual orientation. Homosexual men arent really girls and homosexual girls arent really men. You are attaching sexual orientation to gender.

 

[DR.D]

Im not following this atheist = ironic connection

I can say with certainty the boogeyman does not exist. Or that magical leprechauns don't exist. Or that flying fire breathing dragons don't exist. Should I play it safe as you put it with agnostics and say well maybe there are magical leprechauns or can I say with certainty they dont exist?

There is lots I can say with certainty yet are untestable. Im sure same goes for you, does zeus exist? If you answer no does that make you a hypocritical loser as well?

That's what you don't understand. You cannot refute god or zeus or magic flying monsters with certainty, because there is a scientific Principle of Uncertainty built into the system already. All you can do is accumulate so much data that eventually, hopefully the odds of one scenario statistically stand out over the endless multitude of others. But that's the best you can hope for, just high probability. That's why atheism is ironic, because you can't believe in not believing! Think about it.

It's like the tree falling in the woods with no one around. Did it make a sound? What is a sound? We can guess with hi probability that it generated a mechanical wave because much data supports that guess and very little data stands against it, but if no ear was there to hear it then it truly made no sound. Because a 'sound' is just a wave translation that animal ears use to perceive physical movement in their environment. Sound is not a true entity of it's own like the actual wave is. Without ears you wouldn’t even know those waves existed so it wouldn’t be a part of your reality, even though it truly existed. Just like kids growing up, they make many new discoveries as time goes on because their awareness increases as their detection methods improve, but the truth was there already before it became real to them, as their parents already know (lol).


In other words, nothing is real until it is perceived. Even then it may not be "true" because our perceptions are limited, but any observation is necessarily "real" no matter what. Make since Josh?

That’s why it's invalid to discount the possibility of a god or dragons or whatever like atheist do, simply on the grounds that you haven't perceived it. So what. That doesn't eliminate the possibility or negate the reality for somebody else if they perceived it. That's the hypocritical, losing irony of atheism, and why I suggest that it’s better to be an agnostic if you don’t know any better.

 

[PalmFist]

You are completely wrong

First, masculinity and femininity are social constructs not biological realities.

Second, phenotypic differentiation doesnt happen until after the first trimester and by this time it is no longer an embryo but a fetus.

Lastly, none of this speaks to sexual orientation. Homosexual men arent really girls and homosexual girls arent really men. You are attaching sexual orientation to gender.

Firstly, now you're speaking in philosophical terms; in science a male is a male because of X characteristics, same for a female.

Second, its been a quick minute since Ive stretched my brain with them there scientific terms, so in retrospect yes you are correct sir.

And as for your tertiary statement, I am attaching a genetic predisposition to sexual orientation based on the scientific fact there is no certain "female/male" based on the X and Y chromosomes. There are countless variations of this...

 

[DR.D]

Firstly, I did not see the gay Jesus pic (which truly is offensive, but fùck it I don't really care), I only pop in here from time to time. And like I already stated, I support everyone's right to have their own views on whatever. And btw I'm as straight as the day is long... Not that that needed to be said but there it is

OK, well we're eye to eye in agreement then buddy. I could give a dam about any of this stupid crap people say or do or believe, but double standards are strictly a NO NO. That rule helps keeps everyone honest.

So God bless you sir, whether you believe or not, gay or straight, whatever, and thank you for your military service and sacrifice for us civilians. Much respect and appreciation.

 

[PalmFist]

That's what you don't understand. You cannot refute god or zeus or magic flying monsters with certainty, because there is a scientific Principle of Uncertainty built into the system already. All you can do is accumulate so much data that eventually, hopefully the odds of one scenario statistically stand out over the endless multitude of others. But that's the best you can hope for, just high probability. That's why atheism is ironic, because you can't believe in not believing! Think about it.

It's like the tree falling in the woods with no one around. Did it make a sound? What is a sound? We can guess with hi probability that it generated a mechanical wave because much data supports that guess and very little data stands against it, but if no ear was there to hear it then it truly made no sound. Because a 'sound' is just a wave translation that animal ears use to perceive physical movement in their environment. Sound is not a true entity of it's own like the actual wave is. Without ears you wouldn’t even know those waves existed so it wouldn’t be a part of your reality, even though it truly existed. Just like kids growing up, they make many new discoveries as time goes on because their awareness increases as their detection methods improve, but the truth was there already before it became real to them, as their parents already know (lol).


In other words, nothing is real until it is perceived. Even then it may not be "true" because our perceptions are limited, but any observation is necessarily "real" no matter what. Make since Josh?

That’s why it's invalid to discount the possibility of a god or dragons or whatever like atheist do, simply on the grounds that you haven't perceived it. So what. That doesn't eliminate the possibility or negate the reality for somebody else if they perceived it. That's the hypocritical, losing irony of atheism, and why I suggest that it’s better to be an agnostic if you don’t know any better.

I posit Stephen Hawkins view on an infinite universe with infinite galaxies hosting an infinite number of solar systems where an infinite number of life sustaining planets are capable of existence. In this infinite universe that supports an unimaginable amount of variation of what we call "life" there lies an unavoidable truth that life imagined as infeasible or non-real here on Earth is possible in the far reaches of space. Why can there be no dragons or boogeymen? Of course there can be and who's to say different with any kind of certainty

 

[PalmFist]

That said, I still don't believe in a Christian/Hebrew/Muslim/Hindi/Native American/Greek/Pentecostal/Catholic... Blah blah blah ... God of any kind here. I have my own value and belief system based on common cultural morals and my own spiritual view of the universe as a whole. I dare not say mine is better than anyone's but it is mine and it is forever evolving and changing while I grow as an individual and member of multiple societies. My views stem from the ideas of Newton, Locke, Voltaire, Einstein, Hawkins and the like and provide a solid foundation towards a view of the physical nature of the universe, natural rights and fair treatment for others.

 

[BoneDaddy]

If calling someone gay isn't an insult, what's so offensive about a gay Jesus? How do you know he wasn't gay?

 

[Admin]

Then if being called gay is an insult, wouldn't posting that picture be extremely offensive?

 

[BoneDaddy]

Then if being called gay is an insult, wouldn't posting that picture be extremely offensive?

"If" being the operative word, but since it seems to be established a few posts back that it isn't an insult, why the offense?

 

[Admin]

I'm not offended so I don't see the issue.

 

[Touey]

science doesnt require faith.

[h=1]“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”[/h]
― Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed

 

[JudoJosh]

That's what you don't understand. You cannot refute god or zeus or magic flying monsters with certainty, because there is a scientific Principle of Uncertainty built into the system already. All you can do is accumulate so much data that eventually, hopefully the odds of one scenario statistically stand out over the endless multitude of others. But that's the best you can hope for, just high probability.

So one should have an on the fence feeling about weather or not magical leprechauns exist? This is logical to you? I mean it is probable right? This would make it so that any irrational illogical made up statement would have to be treated as a probability and this isnt exactly rational. If someone says garlic extract cures cancer I can say with certainty they are wrong. Does does not make me a hypothetical loser. I would say the loser is the one who entertains such nonsense. If you see a magician perform a trick are you on the fence if thwy have magical powers or are you certain it is an illusion?

That's why atheism is ironic, because you can't believe in not believing! Think about it.

Maybe this is where the confusion lies. Atheism isnt the faith of nonfaith. It isnt a belief of non belief. Atheism is the rejection of belief bevause it lacks evidence. They dont have faith god doesnt exist, they reject the existence of god due primarily to the lack of evidence.

In other words, nothing is real until it is perceived. Even then it may not be "true" because our perceptions are limited, but any observation is necessarily "real" no matter what. Make since Josh?

disagree. Example, the higgs boson was never percieved until recently yet all of particle physics is based off its supposed existence. It was real before it was percieved.

That’s why it's invalid to discount the possibility of a god or dragons or whatever like atheist do, simply on the grounds that you haven't perceived it. So what.

You are confusing me. In the quote above you state nothing is real until it is percieved and in this one you state something can be real despite not having percieved it... these two quotes seem to contradict. Am I misreading here?

That doesn't eliminate the possibility or negate the reality for somebody else if they perceived it. That's the hypocritical, losing irony of atheism, and why I suggest that it’s better to be an agnostic if you don’t know any better.

Are you suggesting that we can not refute other peoples perception of what is true and what isnt? If so this is simply wrong. A relevant example to the forum would be nutrient timing. If an individual's perception is that eating x calores x times a day increases his metabolism does this make it a reality because it is his perception? No it doesnt, especially in the face of empirical evidence. Furthermore even in the absence of evidence it still wouldn't make their perception true. Human perception is extremely limited and often subject to our biases. Perception does not equal reality


If I misundestood any of your post feel free to elaborate. I found your wording a bit confusing so if I did misunderstand your position I apologize and am open to hearing a clarification

 

[JudoJosh]

[h=1]“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”[/h]
Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed

Once again you are posting nonsense.

When did I suggest science is based on reason?

My statement was science doesnt requore faith, it requires evidence. Reason does not have a role in science

 

[BoneDaddy]

I'm not offended so I don't see the issue.

Understood. D says he's offended by it right after calling Piston a gay atheist and goes on to talk about double standards. Just curious as to the differences so I posed the question.

 

[Touey]

Once again you are posting nonsense.

When did I suggest science is based on reason?

My statement was science doesnt requore faith, it requires evidence. Reason does not have a role in science

“Science is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to science at all.”

-Touey

 

[JudoJosh]

“Science is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to science at all.”


-Touey

As stated earlier this is false. Nothing in science is believed to ne true without evidence supporting it, which is what faith is.

If there is then please, give an example. What is a scientific truth that has zero evidence supporting it

 

[Admin]

Understood. D says he's offended by it right after calling Piston a gay atheist and goes on to talk about double standards. Just curious as to the differences so I posed the question.

I still don't understand how calling someone a gay atheist is an insult....

 

[BoneDaddy]

I still don't understand how calling someone a gay atheist is an insult....

Some would say it is, some would say it isn't. However, let's be real. He slung it as an insult. It's the intent. Despite his protests with a smirk, it's preposterous to suggest otherwise.

 

[Piston Honda]

I still don't understand how calling someone a gay atheist is an insult....

When it is meant in a pejorative context. Context being hard to discern unless you have the "reader's ear." It is the intended meaning of the speaker's usage of the word that carries the insult. The debate about the "n" word in the NFL now as an example; some players saying it's not offensive when black players use it toward black players, but if a white player uses it, especially in anger, the word becomes an insult.

 

[Admin]

When it is meant in a pejorative context. Context being hard to discern unless you have the "reader's ear." It is the intended meaning of the speaker's usage of the word that carries the insult. The debate about the "n" word in the NFL now as an example; some players saying it's not offensive when black players use it toward black players, but if a white player uses it, especially in anger, the word becomes an insult.

Thats your perception, not mine.

If you get offended by someone calling you a gay atheist, I suggest you get a thicker skin.

 

[Admin]

Some would say it is, some would say it isn't. However, let's be real. He slung it as an insult. It's the intent. Despite his protests with a smirk, it's preposterous to suggest otherwise.

Not its not. I didn't think he hurled as an insult at all.

If you deem that as an insult when you are supporting gay rights and atheism, get the **** over it.

 

[Piston Honda]

Thats your perception, not mine.

If you get offended by someone calling you a gay atheist, I suggest you get a thicker skin.

It's the perception of several people also, not just me. And I suggest you quit suggesting how I should feel when I get insulted.

 

[BoneDaddy]

Not its not. I didn't think he hurled as an insult at all.

If you deem that as an insult when you are supporting gay rights and atheism, get the **** over it.

Now you are putting words in my mouth and assuming. It's not an insult per se, but the intent certainly was. I get I'm not going to change your mind nor vice - versa.

 

[Admin]

It's the perception of several people also, not just me. And I suggest you quit suggesting how I should feel when I get insulted.

Yeah, the perception of people that expect everyone in this world to walk on eggshells because YOU get offended. Sorry, not happening.

And I can suggest anything I like.

 

[Admin]

Now you are putting words in my mouth and assuming. It's not an insult per se, but the intent certainly was. I get I'm not going to change your mind nor vice - versa.

I'm not putting words in your mouth at all. If you are a gay atheist, and get offended by someone calling you a gay atheist, intent or not, in my mind you are extremely insecure about who and what you are and that is your problem, not anyone else's.

 

[ax1]

“Science is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to science at all.”

-Touey

There is a big difference between science based on faith, and science by evidence. Science by faith is trying to provide evidence with wishful thinking, sorta like your trying to support evidence with placebo.

 

[B5150]

Read it objectively:

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

My measuring stick for the theists, atheists, agnostics...

What you believe or don't is of little significance to me but how you behave is.

(Edit: Let us all) Consider the behaviors generated by your beliefs and the fruits of that behavior.

 

[Touey]

“Science is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to science at all.”

-Touey

“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”


― Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed



to assert that our thoughts have any relation to / reality science anything



are you positive, I am positive, only fools are positive, are you positive, I am positive, only fools are positive /

Faith is outside above beyond this

 

[jack_black]

I wish there was a god I could pray to that would make everything all better or give me guidance and strength. Unfortunately life's not that convenient and I've gotta do it all myself from staying clean(no more drugs) moving forward towards my goals, controlling my emotions so I don't go all roid rage and snap on my cheating whore of a wife gods not there its just me and I can be my own god.

PRAY TO KROM. He laughs at your four winds. He will teach you the riddle of steel.

 

[Piston Honda]

PRAY TO KROM. He laughs at your four winds. He will teach you the riddle of steel.

Steel is only as strong as the man who wields it!

The above is actually a quote from "Alexander Nevsky," a Soviet propaganda film set in the 13th century. One of the German knights even has a helmet with the snake design Conan mentions as the sign of his snake cult. John Milius modeled much of his costume design on that film. I love showing it to my Cinema classes!
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Piston Honda]

Steel is only as strong as the man who wields it!

The above is actually a quote from "Alexander Nevsky," a Soviet propaganda film set in the 13th century. One of the German knights even has a helmet with the snake design Conan mentions as the sign of his snake cult. John Milius modeled much of his costume design on that film. I love showing it to my Cinema classes!
Invalid Link Removed

Also, as it is Soviet propaganda, Eisenstein appeals to the viewers' emotions. He has the German soldiers identify with Christian iconography in their attire. A particularly horrible scene is when the Christian soldiers throw Russian babies into the fires at Pskov.

 

[Piston Honda]

The Battle on the Frozen Lake is ripped off almost shot for shot by Gibson in "Braveheart:"


[video=youtube;pXr0m7SaGvs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXr0m7SaGvs[/video]

 

[Piston Honda]

[video=youtube;vKZPgGbUuX0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKZPgGbUuX0[/video]

 

[DR.D]

I posit Stephen Hawkins view on an infinite universe with infinite galaxies hosting an infinite number of solar systems where an infinite number of life sustaining planets are capable of existence. In this infinite universe that supports an unimaginable amount of variation of what we call "life" there lies an unavoidable truth that life imagined as infeasible or non-real here on Earth is possible in the far reaches of space. Why can there be no dragons or boogeymen? Of course there can be and who's to say different with any kind of certainty

Yes, I credit Hawkins for the formation of many of my attitudes and insights as well, but his original premise favored a finite model (which I think is still the most likely case.) In fact, after reading 'A Brief History of Time' about a dozen times, I abandoned my childhood loves of paleontology and microbiology, and obtained a degree in Nuclear Biophysics instead, with an undergrad in Chemistry as well. But you may be right about the universe being infinite, and that would be significant. It’s just not as probable based on my research and observations.

Either way, we seem fairly like minded about most of this, and like you I also think dragons and boogiemen may be legitimate phenomena. In fact, not only is it necessarily possible, it seems perhaps probable that most 'myths' are rooted in fact. Take dinosaurs for example. I was fascinated with dinosaurs as a kid, and used to excavate fossils with a local team of grad students. My mom was a professor at the college so I was able to make "lab connections" hanging out at the campus in the summer, lol. So consider this, what's the difference between dinos and dragons? Maybe nothing. If they were equivalent, then you can change the names over time but it still means the same. That's how easily myths and facts may be related.

 

[DR.D]

... You are confusing me. In the quote above you state nothing is real until it is percieved and in this one you state something can be real despite not having percieved it... these two quotes seem to contradict. Am I misreading here? ...

Sorry Josh, I tried to explain the difference between real and true, but as usual I just suck at expressing my point! Look into Schrodinger's cat in the box experiment. That might help you consider the Uncertainty Principle in a practical way.

Also look up "2 slit experiment" on youtube or something. Maybe you can find a professor who explains it better. But when I say nothing is real until it is observed, I mean that literally. This is the cornerstone of quantum physics. It is the act or observing which creates reality, because you can't see something without looking at it, and you can't look at it without influencing it. Now whatever "it" is (the object of your observation) that is the true law you seek to detect, while "real" is just a perception of it which is limited to your observational techniques.

I know how science minded you are, and you're a smart mf'er too, so once you grasp the point I think you too might come to refine your scope on the possibilities and probabilities of many things, not just god. And while not all scientists agree, it certainly hasn't been uncommon for many of the greatest scientists of all time to come to the same opinion that there is an intelligent designer at work in all this. Not that it matters what anybody else thinks, just sayin' though.

 

[CincyKiller45]

I appreciate the high level of intellect in here. Thanks for sharing knowledge and different angles for viewing things. I'm partial to one side, but I like hearing opposing views as well.

That is all.

 

[Oscar]

Can't we all just have different beliefs and get along. Your beliefs don't define you its your actions towards others. I may be an atheist but need I remind the good Christians in here of the story of the Samaritan.

 

[DR.D]

Can't we all just have different beliefs and get along. Your beliefs don't define you its your actions towards others. I may be an atheist but need I remind the good Christians in here of the story of the Samaritan.

Spot on, Oscar. You are a man of reason!

But can't the different all get along? Yeah, sure they could. But do they? I think the most interesting and pertinent question has to be why, why don't they.

 

[Piston Honda]

[video=youtube;JjTd-hypnYI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjTd-hypnYI&list=PLA7EFB860C5FBBAAF[/video]