Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

I'm on the fence about this really. I'm generally an amicable guy. I don't want to hurt anyone or their feelings. I appreciate the good in other people. The last thing I want to do is insult my Christian friends, or even people I don't know like NotReady or Splendour. So I try and engage in polite debate on the importance of rational thinking in the world. On the other hand...

There really is no debating with those infected by religion. As a recent YouTube video in another thread points out: It's non-negotiable if you're religious. To a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc., there's nothing to talk about. It's either their way, or the highway. They're simply not interested and unwilling to conduct rational discourse when it comes to their religion.

So I'm starting to wonder if people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, might not be on the right track. Years of politeness and tip-toeing around other people's dogma and superstitions is the very reason so little progress towards a rational thinking world when it comes to religion can be gained now. If it walks, quacks, and acts like a duck, maybe we should start calling it what it is. It's a duck dummy! Without fear of insulting resligious people's sensibilities. What do you think?

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

I don't see why you can't advocate strong atheism without being civil. I don't see anything uncivil about hefty disagreement.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

Use these message boards as an example. When people post irrational statements about poker hands, math problems, etc, others are quick to falsify those statements even through ridicule. While that may be due to the general anonymity of a message board, sentiments generally change on the topic of religion. Should they?

I stick to civil discourse on religion.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you can't advocate strong atheism without being civil. I don't see anything uncivil about hefty disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you can't advocate strong atheism without being civil. I don't see anything uncivil about hefty disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the entire problem. It seems that atheists are the violators, but it's actually the opposite.

Civil debate, at its fundamental level, requires the opposing parties to be rational. There can't be debate if the opposing parties can't agree on a rational framework to the discourse. The problem with theism, in debates, is that it frames itself as rational but is very much non-rational.

Just think about it: If your position is already decided, how can you possibly be rational about it? No matter what information you or your foe presents, you can't change your basic premise. But the IDiots (and others from theological positions) frame the debate such that if you don't accept their premises you are contrarian and contemptible to their faith, which is unacceptable.

Rational debate is the bane of theological debate.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

Civil debate does not need the debaters to think rationally, it only needs them to behave at some tolerable level of politenss.

There is no need to hide that many atheists, especially young ones, enjoy cheaps shots and douchebaggery towards theism/theists and seem to get their kicks out of posing their view as superior. The point of strong atheism is to spread it as broadly as possible, not to alienate theists. When online imagine you are arguing in front of an audience you want to convince, not an audience you need to impress or a debate you need to win. It isn't debating the convinced theist that matters, its about convincing the others.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett

[/ QUOTE ]
They're a bit too serious. The problem with serious debate is its like using a hammer to tighten screws - its a damn fine tool but the wrong one. You can't have rational discourse with people who believe there is good evidence for biblical truth or naming a teddy bear isn't unimportant.

So find the right tool for the job, silly beliefs need to be addressed by ridicule. The more fervent the lunatics the more we should take the piss and laugh at them. Don't under-estimate just how much the nutty wing of the church hated Monty Pythons life of Brian, Bill Hicks etc. Not only do they hate being laughed at, it undermines their authority and authority is all they have.

chez

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

You can respect a person without respecting their beliefs. And even if you don't respect a person, you don't need to be an [censored].

I don't think we should tiptoe around, and I think it's fine to acknowledge patently ridiculous beliefs for what they are. Making fun of them is great - regardless of how it affects them, it's entertaining. And sometimes humor can make points that are hard to make rationally.

But crossing the line into antagonism and self-importance isn't justified. Religious beliefs are idiotic, but it's clear that religious people aren't necessarily idiots. And I think the ultimate goal is for everyone to have laugh at the absurdity of the beliefs. I don't think it's an "us versus them" issue (though it can turn into one when people are persecuted on the basis of belief).

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
but it's clear that religious people aren't necessarily idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

true, it does seem something you can opt for, or at least it's a nuture/nature thing... like being tall isn't mandatory to be a good basketball player.

luckyme

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

I'm a little confused about the term neo-atheist. Since 'neo' implies new... what is new? Is the only new part that they're outspoken? Or is there supposed to be some other differences?

I've considered myself an atheist for about 14 years or so... just not sure if I'm a neo-atheist or just a regular atheist.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
So find the right tool for the job, silly beliefs need to be addressed by ridicule. The more fervent the lunatics the more we should take the piss and laugh at them. Don't under-estimate just how much the nutty wing of the church hated Monty Pythons life of Brian, Bill Hicks etc. Not only do they hate being laughed at, it undermines their authority and authority is all they have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chez's comments struck me as true. There is no doubt that the religous are NOT interested in reasonable debate. They consider it hubris and sinful to even question God. To apply man's logic to him is just silly to them. They consider it a virtue that they have Faith DESPITE the lack of evidence or reason to believe.

I think the hope is for future generations. And humor is one of the best ways to expose the weakness of a position.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused about the term neo-atheist. Since 'neo' implies new... what is new? Is the only new part that they're outspoken? Or is there supposed to be some other differences?

I've considered myself an atheist for about 14 years or so... just not sure if I'm a neo-atheist or just a regular atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been an Atheist for 50 years - am I a paleo-atheist?

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H. L. Mencken

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's non-negotiable if you're religious. To a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc., there's nothing to talk about. It's either their way, or the highway.

[/ QUOTE ]

That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions. (Why do you think that word "ecumenical" exists?) Plenty more believers are theists, they believe in a divine creator, but that does not interact with its creation. So a theist doesn't give a phuc how anyone worships, because the creator isn't listening anyway.

To me, a point of atheism is to avoid dogmatism, not create a new version using scientific jargon.

This whole "all religion is ignorant stupidity" business isn't science, it's just arrogance. Dawkins should shut the hell up. He's just using science to justify his personal trip -- snobbery. That, and sell books to the angry egghead market, which is large.

People trash fish on this board all the time. Substitute the word "believer" for "fish" and it's the same conversation -- supercilious wanking.

And I've been an atheist since grade school, nearly four decades, so can the kool-aid cracks.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

I think how much of a neo-atheist one should be, directly correlates to severity of the Theists symptoms. If you are talking with someone who is certain that god created the universe in 6 days and we all lived with dinosaurs before the flood of noah. Then the same amount of respect and civil discourse should be provided that you would provide to me if I told you the only way to heaven was to lick as many stamps as possible.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.
Catholics claim "god is X-like".
Mormons claim "god is Y-like."
Ecu's claim "god is XYZ and a touch of W-like"

luckyme

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
This whole "all religion is ignorant stupidity" business isn't science, it's just arrogance. Dawkins should shut the hell up. He's just using science to justify his personal trip -- snobbery. That, and sell books to the angry egghead market, which is large.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

Then do you agree with ALLEN CONRAD who seems to imply that our reaction should be proportional to the claim?

If someone notices you are on time alot and mentions in passing how your a typical Virgo, your reaction to such a comment might be rather tame. However, if someone started seriously outlining the legitimacy of astrology then your reaction to that should be a bit more serious?

The problem is how to react to people who are clearly living in a dellusional world. It might be true that the reaction should not only be proportionate to the dellusion and outrageousness of the claim, but also their demand for us to take them seriously. The problem with that is that the person who quickly reads their horoscope every day is walking along the same illogical path as someone who uses an astrological chart to plan major events. Do you really think the minor astrologist deserves more respect than the major one?

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of what they believe. That's not what I'm talking about. The fact that if Wiccans beliefs are a little more pleasant than a Muslim's is beside the point.

The point is that those beliefs are still ridiculous and unfounded and we are expected to respect them. My question is, why? Why should we have to tippy-toe around the obvious and respect that which is ludricrous? What's wrong with laughing in a Wiccan's face the way we might laugh at someone who believes in witchcraft?

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

<font color="blue"> I don't think it's an "us versus them" issue (though it can turn into one when people are persecuted on the basis of belief). </font>

I think this is an excellent point.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping. Have you ever met a Wiccan who thinks everyone is going to hell except Wiccans?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Worship", heh.

They aren't just ways they're used to give praise, they are specific claims about reality that often if not almost always contradict each other at the lower levels. They act in this manner because at the age of 5 years they are told that this is truth.

What in ahotep's name is good about the above process?

We won't get into another patent absurdity, that an all-powerfull being would lay about twidling it's all-poweful thumbs for 13 billion years, and then one bright shiny day decide that he needed a chorus filled with some half-apes to give him the equivalent of a mental back rub by "worshiping" him. And so on...

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

But here's the point...

THERE'S NOTHING TO REALLY DEBATE!

Isn't this it in a nutshell? How much civil debate would you be willing to have with someone who believes he's from planet cryto and the mothership will be arriving sometime in the near future at which time the end of the world will come?

I sometimes wonder if the very act of debating is where rational thinkers go wrong. You wouldn't debate somebody on witchcraft. You'd simply laugh in their face and move on. If they continued to spout their beliefs in your face (and tried to influence your children and others), then you'd probably get kinda nasty about it, no? But I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

That's not true. I'd respond much more civilly to witchcraft than Christianity under almost any circumstance.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's not true. I'd respond much more civilly to witchcraft than Christianity under almost any circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that madnak? Please expound.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes wonder if the very act of debating is where rational thinkers go wrong. You wouldn't debate somebody on witchcraft. You'd simply laugh in their face and move on. If they continued to spout their beliefs in your face (and tried to influence your children and others), then you'd probably get kinda nasty about it, no? But I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great point, unfortunately, it's not even the point.

If someone wants to shove their religion down your throat, sure, be as rude as you personally feel you need to be. But don't pretend it's all in self-defense, when it clearly isn't. More often than any of you will admit, it is the theist blindsided by a rude, obnoxious attack by the atheist.

Maybe I just have a different standard of raising and a higher standard of social skills than many of you, but if you were to ask me the question "Is it acceptable to mock people for X" I would cut you off at the word "people" with a resounding "NO!". Sure, we all lose control of our tempers from time to time, but to accept and embrace the fact that this group (theists) are acceptable to mock by the atheist, in my view, gives the theist the moral high ground straight from the beginning.

I don't care how stupid you think the beliefs they hold are, that's not the point. The point is to be a dignified human being. I have respect for some atheists, as well as some theists for the dignity and social skills they've shown, and I've also lost alot of respect for many otherwise intelligent atheists as well as quite a few theists for the childishness and pure lack of respect for others they've shown.

In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

I'm not sure how or why the prefix "neo" is used. Most likely because it's come to stand for the new-age atheist who is more outspoken.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how or why the prefix "neo" is used. Most likely because it's come to stand for the new-age atheist who is more outspoken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure either, although I generally lump one "neo" in with the next, neo-con, neo-atheist, neo-nazi.

Neo has become synonymous with rude, intolerant, and downright nasty people, and I think in many cases with the term neo-atheist, it fits like a glove.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

We'll never get rid of this virus/fantasy until we start treating it as what it is.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is how to react to people who are clearly living in a dellusional world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the question. In public, your response should be calculated to influence either the theist or observers -- not indulge your need to act superior.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you'd be advocating that the country start engaging in formal debates if witchcraft ever threatened to become part of the science curriculum in your kid's public shool, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is threatening. My kids' public schools are thoroughly subverted by creationists, this is something I've been dealing with for some time.

You have to keep an eye toward what political strategy will help. You have to start where people's minds are at. Today's creationists claim to be scientifically based. Okay, take them at their word, debate the science. You will win over many. So many of people's beliefs are based just on going with the flow. You have to create a presence in the community of open evolutionists, so the sensible types have a pole to gravitate toward.

Little things I do: encourage my kids' interest in evolution. Send them to school carrying books I gave them, for everybody to see. Give them Darwin T-shirts to wear at school. Encourage them to challenge their teachers and converse with the other students. What my kids are not to do: angrily quit the discussion after informing everyone that they are unintelligent. (That doesn't go over either for an eleven year old, or a 24 year old like youse.)

[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with laughing in a Wiccan's face the way we might laugh at someone who believes in witchcraft?

[/ QUOTE ]

So people don't think you are the angry-young-man whose conversation must be avoided at all costs.

No, seriously. There are certain people it is pointless to try and persuade, but you still want influence the people listening in. The point is to impact popular opinion, not satisfy the desire to blow off annoying beliefs. Not that you might never laugh at a creationist for therapy, but it makes no sense to just check out of the discussion just because their beliefs are so hopeless.

My main point: Just because something is scientifically unworthy of consideration does not mean it is not socially in need of addressing.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That just isn't true. Many, many believers are very ecumenical. They believe in a divinity that is legitimately accessed through all sorts of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that make it untrue?
It's just a different claim of the traits of their god, just as any other believer claims they know theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The OP made a blanket statement that religionists do not tolerate difference, "it's their way or the highway," was his claim. In fact, many religionists do not believe their method is special, correct, or privileged in any way, it's simply the way they are used to worshiping.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway? And these are the people I'm supposed to give respect to their ideas ( or them for holding them)? I seriously do have more respect/understanding for someone who sticks to believing those things they think are true, even the more wacko ones. The other approach is bold-faced self-delusion worse than normal intellectual dishonesty. It's openly admitting "I believe it because I want/need it to be true". No respect for that here.

are you sure they don't believe it's correct?
( I'm not questioning the polite/impolite, but the concept of which fantasies are more deserving of respect than other similar ones).

luckyme

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They aren't exclusive at all. It's still God, whether it comes in a bottle or a can.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the minor astrologist deserves more respect than the major one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I think it better to be a little idiot than a giant idiot. If you spoke to someone who preached the gospel of astrology and tried to convince them is was dumb you would most likely have less success than if you talked to a random person who had just skimmed over horoscope.

This fact makes the person who is a minor astrologist due more respect that the major. And lets say you did talk to a person who read there horoscope and refused to acknowledge that it was all fantasy that person would then be promoted to major astrologist.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They don't think their belief is correct but they believe it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They aren't exclusive at all. It's still God, whether it comes in a bottle or a can.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't questioning whether they believed their god was more wide-ranging than the Jehovah Witness one, I was questioning your statement that the attributes they believe their encompassing god has is not what they believe is true about him/it.
the 'they don't claim they're correct' part but believe it anyway.

luckyme

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

I agree with Bill Haywood on pretty much every point he has made so far.

Many of you are acting like hardcore theists were well-educated and rational adults when their beliefs were formed. In fact, many theists were born into their religion or converted after major life trauma. It is often an integral part of how they understand and parse the world. I don't know the best way to handle these people or engage in debate with them, but I'm am fairly sure it is not ridicule and disdain. All that does is make the debate more contentious and forces people to dig their heels in.

Should we challenge their arguments? Most certainly.
Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything?

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
If someone wants to shove their religion down your throat, sure, be as rude as you personally feel you need to be. But don't pretend it's all in self-defense, when it clearly isn't. More often than any of you will admit, it is the theist blindsided by a rude, obnoxious attack by the atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that the reverse is more common. In many communities, atheists are simply shunned. Remember, in our country atheists are the ones people would NEVER vote into office. They're considered the least desireable class of people. Many of the theists on this board are fond of insisting that atheists have no morals.

There certainly are rude atheists. But I think its unfair to suggest they have any kind of monopoly or even lead in the field of rudeness.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

<font color="blue"> Of course. I think it better to be a little idiot than a giant idiot. </font>

This really gets to the heart of my post/question. To be honest, I'm not so sure... Sometimes, there's not much difference between being a little wrong and a lot wrong. The end result is the same and the degree to which an illogical path has brought on the erroneous result is irrevelant.

<font color="blue"> This fact makes the person who is a minor astrologist due more respect that the major. </font>

Again, why is this so? They are both on the same illogical path. It can be argued that giving *any* respect to the minor astrologist only strengthens the case of the major astrologist. It certainly give him a degree of credibility that he shouldn't have.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks...now I have to watch V for Vendetta again.

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

<font color="blue"> Should we mock them? No. How does that solve anything? </font>

This is what I'm trying to find out. But I think perhaps you are dismissing the effects of mocking and ridiculing too quickly. No one likes to be mocked or ridiculed. Take this example:

You're like me and have no fashion sense of your own. You see a shirt in a store that you're not sure about. The fact is, it will make you look ridiculous to other people. You show it to your friend/wife/acquaintence. Do you want an honest opinion? Do you want them to soft-play you and pander to your sensibilities? Or would you be less likely to buy it if they were brutally honest and mocked the shirt and laughed at the prospect of you buying it?

Let's not get caught up in semantics here. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a mind of your own. Of course, if you really like something you shouldn't care what others think. But assume there is a right or wrong decision to be made about this shirt. Assume the purchase is important (maybe it affects your chance for landing your dream job). You are in danger of making the wrong choice. What exchange is more likely to lead you in the right direction? "Hmm. I don't know. It's not my taste, but it's your decision.". Or... "Are you kidding me? LOL!! That looks ridiculous on you! Sure, go ahead and buy it if you want to look like an idiot!".

Re: Is Neo-Atheism The Way to Go? [Poll]
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care how stupid you think the beliefs they hold are, that's not the point. The point is to be a dignified human being. I have respect for some atheists, as well as some theists for the dignity and social skills they've shown, and I've also lost alot of respect for many otherwise intelligent atheists as well as quite a few theists for the childishness and pure lack of respect for others they've shown.

In this world, when you've lost your dignity, you've nothing else in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Around here it takes more of the form of " a man of his word" is all you really have. That takes in sincerity.
I'm a very quiet spoken person and I don't hand out insults or praise wantonly. When I say to a bridge partner, "well played" it actually means that they did something exceptional, not that they followed suit neatly. And they know that about me and seem to appreciate it.
When I say, "I respect his position" I intend it to mean that it has considerable merit and is well constructed even if personally not for me ( much as I do to non-extremist political left or right positions). To say I respect a belief in an ancient myth ( etc, etc) would render the concept vapid and it would be like complimenting my partner for not revoking.

I don't know how much disagreement there would be in our actual interactions but I certainly want my 'respect' to be respected. In the sense that if a friend says, "well, luckyme respects Guillies position" that it is taken as a positive comment on Guillies position.

luckyme