fundamentalist christians

had an argument with one of those guys who thinks the earth* is like 3 thousand years old, YET he believes the ulumminati exists.

i have thought i would never see the day.

i told him to go shove his head up his arse when he started going on about dinosaurs -_-
Comments
114
ok..now, what?
it...makes...me...laugh

i think people dont realise the point of journals :D

pointless as usual.
Parent
tell it someone who cares
jehovas witness ? ;o
"Some people are really fucking stupid." - George Carlin
+1, including me apparently :)
Parent
You misspelled most.
Parent
"Think of how stupid the average person is, then realise half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin

:P
Parent
Can't argue with logic.
Parent
Can't understand believers anyway. Everything's based on a 3000-year-old-book and none of those appearances can be proven.
true but thats not the point, the point is they KNOW they are wrong yet choose to believe it because it makes their existance easier.

The nazi elite of the world believe in the darkest black magic imaginable, you not believing it isnt what you should be worried about, what you should worry about is the fact that they do.
Parent
than you didn't understand the meaning of religion. you can't read it like a history book where everything must had happened like that etc..it's just not like dat
Parent
That is how fundamentalists understand it, literally: God's word.
Parent
..and that's why people don't take them serious
Parent
You'd be suprised.
Parent
This might be personal, but do you believe in God?

I mean, do you believe in something that can't be concretically proven or seen?
Parent
i do believe in god..if you are happy with it you can also call it "energy" or something like this..but cmon their must be something out there which is just a "god" which has the whole universe under control dont you think?
Parent
Ummmmmm.... no, I don't think there's anything called "God" controlling the almighty universe. I rather believe in science and physics which controls itself...

About believers: sure they feel the attendance of God if they believe enough in it. That's how human mind works. You can cheat yourself by believing in something long enough. :l

So please, do me a favour, stop cheating yourself.
Parent
stop try explaining everything..it's senseless because it can't be done
faith is something you carry in your heart, you also, but you try to blend it out because you think you are smarter then the rest of the world and think you can explain it whit your especially smart brain, don't take it personal but it's just like that
if you try to not explain religion with your knowledge you will soon understand it
just by the way..anybody from your family or friends died already?
Parent
Quoteanybody from your family or friends died already?

Umm.. what are you referring to? No, none of my family's died yet.

I'm not trying to act smart but ask you how can you believe in God. Have you experienced "him"? Or is/was it just a placebo due your eager believing? :d
Parent
okay don't get me wrong im not a super religious guy, and i had no "experience", i go to church only on special events like christmas etc but still i believe in god because i know he exists, i don't pray much or something but i carry him in my heart <3 and when my grandma died, gott behüte, möge sie in frieden ruhen, it was sure thing for me :o
Parent
Quotebut still i believe in god because i know he exists

No. You really don't.
Parent
how can you call him stupid and that he is thinking that he already knows everything if he believes in science? You, believer, just take the world how it is, me and others who believe in science, we want to discover things...
Parent
i'm studying science to be fucking honest but things like that can't and shouldn't be explained with science..and i didn't say he is "stupid" but he trys to "defend" himself against faith because he thinks his very smart brain can explain how it all works..and this happens to all who "don't believe"..because in heart they DO believe but they don't let it come out because of their "knowledge"..
Parent
and why are you stuying science then if you dont want to discover things? -,-

Imo ppl only believe in god, because dont know how to explain certain things and are scared to die and dont know what is happening then... 500 years ago ppl believed in fucking raingods and that the earth was the center of the universe... get real
Parent
omfg it has nothing to do with that, i can probably explain more things in science than you..but that's not the sense of religion to explain certain things..seriously are you a complete moron or what?
Parent
i heard you are gay, dont worry god doesnt know
Parent
Yeah, the year is 3000 years old. I suggest the same.
edited o.0

dunno why i put year

tyvm
Parent
Bullshit. It's something like 6000
Oh Jehovists? :D
they are really annoying here, but since 5 year or so, they are not allowed to go and piss u at ur home, so they are randoming at public transport :)
lolz. still allowed in uk unfortunately
Parent
have fun with your sheep following shit.
Parent
If you get the chance watch this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/
Parent
I have actually watched that and rly enjoyed it.....
Parent
Pretty funny. I watch his show for the panel format which is pretty good but the sensationalist ending of the doc was a bit off putting at times. He's a bit smug at times. :P
Parent
While a generalisation it is quite clear that the vast majority of 'believers' and atheists are idiots who shouldn't even be in the discussion. The Bible is allegorical. 'Believers' make the mistake of following the Bible word for word, and Atheists make the mistake of 'disbelieving' based on this word for word interpretation.
There's a big strawman in there. Atheists don't believe in god(s). That's it.
Parent
you must remember that god is a man made word, put to the source of creation. I do believe there was a source. Every major theory requires something out of nothing in the end including the big bang(the idea behind it considering what we know about matter and explosions.)
Parent
Yeah, and shoe is a man made word describing something I put on my feet, but if I put mashed potato on my feet you wouldn't call it a shoe.
Parent
I think you missed the point xDDDD
Parent
Your point is based around the assumption that God means creator, my point was 'Creator' is only part of the definition of God - Just as 'Something you put on your feet' is only part of the definition of shoe.
Parent
my point was, why bother arguing about something nobody will ever agree on, even though it blocks out the bigger picutre.
Parent
What blocks out what bigger picture?
Parent
the arguments :)
Parent
And the bigger picture is?
Parent
NWO, power control corruption nazism
Parent
you know what the new world order is right? o.0

anyway i'm off 2 watch a film :D
Parent
You mean conspiracy theories? If that's the bigger picture you're talking about then I think you need to wipe the crazy off your brush.
Parent
nononono

the bigger picture is the corrupt governments wanting to control you

just for power and money

so much that it's willing to attack it's self. I'm not talking about 9/11 i'm talking about openly admitted cases by the government of government sponsered terror.
Parent
Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. The real question is why 'God' exists. Both the Atheist and believer can make their own assertions from this premise.
Parent
Well, no, they can't, since to postulate the why requires an admission of existence, at which point the definition of athiest gets in the way.
Parent
You don't have to concede the existence of God to question why people believe in him. Just look at what you're doing now for proof of that. The Atheist merely undermines the existence of God by counter-arguing the believers assertions.

It's quite simple. You take into account historical and social context, and make assertions based on that. Which you can do without bringing science into the discussion explicitly. For example: religion grew because of a misunderstanding (misappropriation?) of the natural world.
Parent
Then should have said why 'belief in God' exists. But a discussion like that between a believer and a nonbeliever is pointless.

Explicitly or not, investigating why God exists should be a scientific process.
Parent
because ppl are afraid to die and dont know what happens next
Parent
What sock said. Whether God exists or not is completely relevant. It is unanswerable, though. By definition it is unprovable.
Parent
The ironic thing is, Atheism is a belief. Therefore Atheism can be regarded as a religion in the sense of a large group of people who share the same belief(s). :p
Parent
So belief in the nonexistince Santa Claus is a religion?

Infact, belief in the existence of Santa Claus is a religion?

Please...

I've had the non-belief = belief argument before. :-\ It ends up in circles.

Anyway, I like how you added the "(s)" as if atheism somehow has a set of beliefs akin to an ideology, and akin to a religion. It doesn't. You're deliberately distorting it. :)

EDIT: Dictionary.com > "religion" imo.
Parent
The bible is only allegorical because rational christians lost the ability to defend it. The bible was written to be interpreted as truth, and for centuries it that was the case; it was only with the advancement of science that the concept of a talking snake became 'allegorical'. Before that, it was literal truth.

That it's intepretation changed is part of one of the defining features of modern religion: relentless qualification.
Parent
Quoterational christians

Good one.
Parent
They're slightly harder to find than unicorns.
Parent
'[L]ost the ability to defend it'. Oh, that is rich! It is obvious that 'rational' thought overcompensated for religious persecution, and religion was doomed to perpetually defend itself.

On the question of allegory: 'misinterpretation' is fundamental to language, and not only the Bible or religion itself. Derrida's theories of non-recognition and sensibility of the signifier pretty much explain why language is misinterpreted. This symbolic space creates allegory and every other literary technique and style you can imagine. The Bible was always allegorical in other words because of languages 'flaw'.
Parent
I'm not arguing that language can be misinterpreted, that it can be is obvious, you shouldn't need Derrida to tell you. What I am arguing is that the Bible was never intended to be allegorical, it was intended as literal fact, the word of God; and that it is no longer described as such is a result of progress in science and rational thought. From that I argue that you can not make the statement 'The bible is allegorical' and expect it to be a viable linchpin from which to launch your argument.
Parent
Advancements in science are not the same as flaws in early man. The Bible is fundamentally allegorical because it uses language. Just because early man said it was literal truth doesn't make it so. You're falling into exactly the same trap as other Atheists.
Parent
The bible was hardly written by 'early man', and not all language is allegorical.

The bible was not originally intended to be 'interpreted' as anything other than truth; the move to accept an allegorical interpretation came as a result of an inability to defend concepts like 'Eden' on a rational basis. Religion progressed and evolved along with culture and science. It is interpreted allegoricall because the church decided it would be, not because of some feature of language.
Parent
fully agreed on the matter that majority of both atheists and believers are dumb
Parent
Why bother dividing it up into atheists and believers.
Parent
why both dividing up god and gods. ;)
Parent
I think you failed to make a point.
Parent
EXACTLY, it's pointless to argue.
Parent
Putting exactly in caps at the beginning of your reply doesn't mean I agree with you.
Parent
didn't realise i answered with something for you to agree on?

and your saying you dont agree it's pointless arguing? :DDD
Parent
im not really.. its just that i see lots of dumb atheists who think they are much smarter than some avarage believer while they cannot grasp any of the theories that science provides
so in the end its just that mister x chose to believe in theory a because theory b is what stupid people believe in
Parent
A grasp of scientific theories isn't necessary to be an atheist (a smart one I suppose).

:s
Parent
I'm guessing he means things like cosmology, evolution, the kinds of theories that put religious beliefs on the backburner. Still, I'm not sure why it'd be necessary to know any of it in detail.
Parent
i dont think blindly believing in something is smart if that something is a big and important question to u
Parent
Ok, I get you now.
Parent
Not understanding something is very different to blindly believing it. For instance, I do not understand Quantum Mechanics, but I know that plently of people smarter than me do have a grasp of it, and I know that experimentally it works, so I believe it to be true.
Parent
i agree but not in this case
there has been so many discussions if theres a god or not and good arguments from every side
Parent
QuoteCan't understand believers anyway. Everything's based on a 3000-year-old-book and none of those appearances can be proven.

Pretty much epitomises most Atheists. Whether they use scientific theories or not is irrelevant since science is fundamentally flawed itself. Both science and religion require a (blind) leap of faith.
Parent
What blind leap of faith, with respect to science, are you referring to?
Parent
that theories change? that the best theory atm can be far away from the actual truth?
by believing in something like evolution u are taking a huge leap of faith in science
Parent
The mistake you make is in thinking scientists 'believe' in a theory. Scientists believe in evidence, which is what I think evan is getting at, not theories. Theories are only accepted if they fit the evidence: by accepting evolution you are essentially accepting that it explains what we know to date, that it explains the evidence we have collected to date. If new evidence is found, it does not mean that the theory was wrong, it wasn't, it means the evidence was incomplete: the theory perfectly explains the incomplete evidence.
Parent
and its hard to believe that the evidence is complete in any theory or even near
so what does science offer in terms of facts? nothing
still we can hear such things as "evolution is a scientifict fact" ok it is but scientifict fact is not the same as fact
which brings us to the point of stupid atheists who are thinking ok thats just how it happened
and like i said what we know to day can be miles away from the truth u cant denie that
Parent
You're taking an incredibly skeptical view of the world.

I'll give you an example of how science works, and how something it can be wrong.

Newton came up with his theory of motion, and it worked incredibly well. The motion of objects could be calculated to incredible accuracy. However, when things were moving really fast, something odd happened that didn't happen when they moved slow. The predictions began to become increasingly innacurate, and it was at this point that a new theory was required. However, the old theory was not 'thrown out', it's still used by nasa, because it is incredibly accurate for things travelling even up to 10% the speed of light. While the old theory is techincally wrong, it is still used because it was based upon evidence, and evidence never changes.
Parent
"and its hard to believe that the evidence is complete in any theory or even near"
forget i said that :D not thinking clearly on that one obviously
but u cant compare that to something way more complex where u have to take so much more things in to account
drastic changes are much more likely in these
Parent
You're right, but when things are more complicated and less certain, scientists are more cautious about their claims.
Parent
no no no no. You can't bring science into it at all. Plus i completely disagree that science is "fundamentally" flawed. If your basing that on the fact that science is based around theories then your not getting to the bottom of it as theories are based around evidence. The only flaw it has really is interpretation which is something that is unavoidable.
Parent
It has got nothing to do with theories - which I am actually a great fan of, and I actually wrote a theory before Christmas which a university lecturer is checking over! It is to do with how science validates itself based - explicitly or not - on probability, and the externalisation of knowledge and truth from the body.

There's nothing wrong with this in itself but it is just one way of satisfying the lack which people feel. It is not better or worse, and in my opinion science merely distracts people from their problems whereas religion tries to tackle them head on.
Parent
Ok now this is getting interesting. What problems are people having which religion is tackling head on?
Parent
'Issues' over mortality and fate would probably be two of the bigger ones.
Parent
Go on...

In what way are religions tackling these head on, other than giving people false hope?
Parent
Life is predetermined because God knows everything, or undertermined because we have free will, depending on how well read the person you're talking to is.

The 10 commandments, the golden rule, etc. Apparently, without religion, we'd all be raping and murdering each other.
Parent
Notice how God gave us free will. We didn't have any choice in that, did we? :(
Parent
Ugh, I'll get my paradox hat.
Parent
Science validates itself on probability. The probability of what? And of course science seeks knowledge outside of the body, there's really no need to state that. What exactly is this lack that 'people' feel?

Oh and what was your theory about.
Parent
Let me get this straight: science is allowed a certain level of permeability regarding theories and what it proves - the interpretation of the 'real' - but religion isn't? You use Newton as an example of the progressive nature of theories in physics yet different interpretations of the Bible aren't allowed to develop because of what went before? Thus making religion more and more redundant in the face of 'rational science' and contemporary society – which is moulded by science as well.

Just because people violently (in some cases) protested that the Bible should be interpreted as truth doesn't make it a legitimate contemporary counter-argument. It's like saying science is a waste of time because the world was flat at one point. There's nothing wrong with religion changing how it validates itself and becomes 'useful' for people – even if it directly contradicts what has been said before. It is, in fact, exactly what science does itself. Let the people decide for themselves.

Your point about Eden's existence not being 'proven' is irrelevant. Why would you want to prove that it existed in 'our world'? It's a literary space which has been embellished to become symbolic. Think logically about the connotations of a garden 'space', and then tell me that it is only contemporary religion which puts forward the idea of an allegorical reading of the Bible.

The garden suggests that a fall was inevitable so there's no contradiction about God determining fate yet giving men free will. The free will was an allusion. God's existence creates a co-dependent binary opposition which meant man was destined to fall.

This embellishment is a 'scientific process' (Todorov's theory of the fantastic) because the imaginative (taking the Atheist standpoint that God doesn't exist for a second) is framed by the real just like any mythology, or anything even remotely abstract – like scientific theories! There's a garden somewhere which was the inspiration for Eden, however. Though, that is not the proof you want it is an undeniable truth.
Parent
You argue for a progressive view of the bible, that the truth of the bible changes with time and interpretation. I ask you to think very hard whether you agree or disagree on that point.

Religion deals in truth and absolutes. It derives these absolute truths from the bible and other holy documents. These documents were written by men, and are interpreted by men. A man's interpretation is, as you have rightly pointed out, flawed. How can absolute truth be derived from flawed interpretation? Moreover, as interpretation changes with time, so will the absolute truths. How can absolute truths change?

The chain can be described thus: religion derives absolute truth from vague interpretation. Contrast this with: science derives vague interpretation from absolute truth (the absolute truth being external, objective fact).

This is the point that I am arguing. The reason I think the interpretation of the bible should not rightly change is that absolute truth is derived from it, and if the interpretation changes so does the truth: if the absolute truth of the church changes, then it can hardly be said to be holy or divine.

Also, literary interpretation is not a science, it's not even close.
Parent
QuoteThe reason I think the interpretation of the bible should not rightly change is that absolute truth is derived from it, and if the interpretation changes so does the truth: if the absolute truth of the church changes, then it can hardly be said to be holy or divine.

Right!

It's like the Vatican recently deciding that there was no such place as limbo, although many parents of dead, unbaptised babies had thought there child had went there...but then they're ready to be infallible all over again.

Religious beliefs these days are much more like a buffet where you can pick and choose what you want, than a set menu.
Parent
I think evan was brainwashed by academia. Someone, HELP!
Parent
I argue for nothing. 'Progressive' interpretation of the Bible is inevitable, and even if Christian doctrine force fed the Bible word for word people would reject it. They would reject it because political, sexual and social circumstance dictates that they should reject. [The West has decided that political equality is the fairest system, and it cannot return to oppressive values – though 'discrimination' exists subversively]. All systems have a legitimate time and place: even 'oppressive' patristic misogyny. It does not, however, make one more legitimate than the other.

I think you've missed the point I raised but you summarised it quite nicely towards the end. There's no such thing as an absolute truth – not in science or the bible. The fact you were quite nonchalant towards Derrida shows how far you're off 'getting it'. His theories explain why the Bible exists, why you study science and why we disagree over the interpretation of something unchanging. Language itself is 'flawed' even before you take into account individualistic interpretation [note I don't say subjectivity!].

My theory de-constructs binary oppositions into theoretical and 'real'. Good and Evil cannot exist in a 'raw' form because of biological limitations – my theory is essentially naturalistic. Which means there are no absolute truths [variables] since each pairing is co-dependent. One cannot claim a complete victory otherwise it would cease to exist but it can subjugate the other into submissive roles: patriarchy for example. Contextually, the Bible is an extension of man's control over women. [I've summarised a three-page theory into one paragraph so forgive me if you think the claims are unsubstantiated].

I'm quite surprised how unscientific you're being about this to be fair. While I get your point - “[t]he reason I think the interpretation of the bible should not rightly change is that absolute truth is derived from it, and if the interpretation changes so does the truth: if the absolute truth of the church changes, then it can hardly be said to be holy or divine” - you've to understand that the absolute truth which you choose to focus on is the embellishment which hides the real truth(s) – which reinforces the idea that the Bible [and all works in written language] are allegorical at some level [readerly/writerly – Barthes etc].

The divinity of Christ helps get across the message but the message's 'meaning' is not dependent on that divinity. After all, he has left his message open to the interpretation of mortal men which makes you question his 'plan' anyway. The fact the Bible or other holy texts are so explicit with their requirement of submissiveness is because their message often requires a change in nature of man.

I am by no means religious but I can sort the wheat from the chaff. If you read the Communist Manifesto or Social Contract you'd either agree with their principles or not. The Bible is no different. It merely chooses to reinforce its message [way of living] by targeting some of the basic fears of man and embellishing them – Christ rising from the dead etc. I do not discount Marx because he was a Jew or he believed he was a Dragon in a previous life. The embellishment either substantiates the story or, as you're trying to prove with the progression of science, undermines it. I say ignore the embellishment and go for the real message.

Lastly, while religion has generally be used as a means of social control there's nothing wrong with that. You can, in retrospect, decide that what was done was evil or bad but that would be a waste of time. You're in a superior position to question but you're wasting your time with embellishments.

This is why I said science tends to subversively displace problems whereas religion tries to directly displace them. I will live longer because of modern medicine than I would've a couple hundred years ago but now I've to deal with pensions, and I will still die. Will my life really be enriched because I live longer? Doubtful. Religion, however, attempts to attack my anxiety directly. It is right to suggest that the length of my life is not linked to my anxieties over mortality, and so it focuses on something else instead.
Parent
You use so many words but say so little.

Your first paragraph tells me the interpretation of religion has changed, and that such a change was inevitable. I never argued that it hasn't changed, but that it should not have. That change was inevitable is part of the problem with religion.

There are such things as absolute truth. That I exist is an absolute truth. I don't want a discussion about that because they end up being verbal masturbatory sessions rather than anything productive.

As for explaining why I study science, or why the bible was written, that is one hell of a theory. I started reading some of 'of Grammatology', but I get the sense, as I do with most philosophical and linguistic writing, that Derrida is wrapping something incredibly simple in a complicated, verbose, package. If you can't explain something wide reaching in simple terms then it isn't as important as you think, not least because no one will ever understand it outside of your field.

I have no idea what your theory is about from that paragraph. You describe binary positions in terms of the real and theoretical? What on earth does that mean. Which binary positions? That he is hot and I am cold? What are the theoretical and real parts? etc etc.

'Contextually the bible is an extention of mans control over women' - Says who? You? What context are you talking about exactly? How exactly is it an 'extension'? Do men use it to beat women who aren't under their control?

So what real truths are the apparent truths hiding?

The bible was not intended to be deconstructed linguistically, you are overcomplicating this by a few orders of magnitude. The divinity of Christ is CENTRAL to Christianity, it is not there simply to 'help' it along. The bible wasn't written as a story book from which to pick and choose your principles, it was written as literal fact. That people no longer see it that way, and that the church accepts this position, is the whole problem I'm getting at.

I think you some how got it into your head that I'm arguing the bible shouldn't be interpreted allegorically. I'm not. I agree with you, that's how it's interpreted by the more progressive christians, i.e. not fundamentalist, the christians who accept scientific advances. That they do interpret it this way is my problem - That was NOT how it was originally written.

Now, you can argue from your understanding of linguistics all you like, but it remains as fact that the bible was intended to be interpreted literally. If I tell you I am a Cat, and I mean it as to literally mean I am a Cat, with whiskers, paws, etc, then that is the only correct interpretation of the phrase "I am a Cat". Later on, an English student will probably tell someone that I meant to highlight the binary position of our carnivorous, violent history with our need to feel comfortable in a domestic setting: but they would be WRONG. In effect, this is what Christianity has done. Science somehow proved that I could not have possibly been a cat, and they adjusted themselves to the less literal interpretation; they now claim that I was being metaphorical about my cat like nature, that I was never actually claiming to be a Cat at all. But they are WRONG! That I thought I was an actual Cat is the only correct interpretation of that phrase because it is the original, author intended meaning.

The writers of the bible intended it as historical record, they intended it to be an accurate description of what exactly went on in history. Since I accept the goings on in the world as truth, they are describing a truth, and they intended it to be accepted that way.

Now, please, don't tell me that language is 'flawed' from the outset. It is not, I don't care what Derrida says. It is only flawed when meaning is left undefined. If I tell you that the earth is a sphere, that can only be misinterpreted if you don't know what the earth or a sphere is. For anyone that accepts the common meaning of those words the sentence is not flawed in the slightest, it has an exact, specific meaning - Almost all language has the same potential, it just requires a careful author and a large dictionary. I'll agree that non descriptive language, i.e language which points to something unreal, can be easily misinterpreted - My idea of the dragon described in a story may not be exactly what the author had in mind when he wrote it. But in the case of the bible, which was written as a form of historical record, it is describing explicitly events which occured in the real world, and descriptive language has a definite meaning - Something Did, or did not, happen, there is no in between.

I agree with your propsition that the message should not be confused with the man, but in the case of religion the two are intertwined. The more fantastical parts of the bible are not an embellishment intended to persuade the reader, they are not a linguistic device, they are literal historical records of what occurred. The bible was intended as a history book, not a rhetorical device. Progressive Christians pick and choose which parts are now historical fact and which are allegorical: Jesus's life is a historical record, the story of creation is allegorical etc etc. Fundamentalists interpret it as it was intended, literal record, and for that they are ridiculed, but the truth it is no more absurd to interpret the bible literally than it is to arbitrarily decide which parts are allegorical and which parts are not.


Is your life better because your risk of dying as an infant is significantly lower? Is your life better because you no longer risk dying from the plague? Is your life better because you don't run the risk of dying every time you break a leg or get a tiny cut on your finger? Is your life better now that you can have your heart augmented by mechanical parts should it fail? Or have a bypasses should it become clogged? So yes, your life is enriched. Science has allowed you to live longer in a world that is more open; Religion allows you to discard your anxieties about death by turning it into something glorious, in affect it directly addresses mortality anxiety by telling you it doesn't really exist.
Parent
"Pretty much epitomises most atheists"

I don't believe you. :-)
Parent
I think he's trying to argue from a "You can't really trust reality" point of view, or something.
Parent
Who gives a flying fuck about religion anyways, or what religious people believe.
as long as they dont kill me for it, or fly an airplane into my house, or telling me what to do because "their" god sais i have to or cant...
Parent
I recommend the movie "Religolous" ;)
serious shit going on... fuck religion tbh 8D
Back to top