Science vs Faith

[Matt H]

Im sorry but science is not about disproving theory. It primary goal is to Prove Theory.

 

your missing the point

 

Science is objective, not subjective. the only was to prove something is by not being able to disprove it! every experiment in favour of proving a new theory is done in the aim to disprove it, so they know its right Pling:

 

This is why religion can never be answered as true or false, you cant disprove it, but its the same as the tea pot theory, you cant disprove that but you dont believe it. but just because you cant disprove it doesnt mean it has a 50/50 of being true or false, i thing evidence so far goes at least 99% of modern religions being based on bull

[Matt H]

just finishing off reading The God Delusion, interesting read and it raises so many valid points, well worth a read

 

Thats what im primarily basing what im saying on!

[DamanC]

So your saying for something to be true then every experiment to prove it wrong would have to be done? Damn thats alot of experiments. I suppose there are probably loads of truths out there that havent had the full amount od posible disprroving experiments, which would mean we are living in an untrue would and every thing is a lie

 

I see where your coming from Matt, but thats not how i was taught to go about my Scientific experiments in higher education.

 

Out of interest are you a bible basher Matt?

[Matt H]

 

Out of interest are you a bible basher Matt?

 

am i f*ck!! lol, im atheist / agnostic. i dont believe in their being a resident god of any sort, no chance, but a possible creator that maybe kicked off the big bang then f*cked off never to be seen again? i still dont believe that either. But beacuse you cant say for sure either way, then it would be wrong for me to say im 100% atheist, cos you just dont know.

 

P.s id have a look at that higher education again!

[sdavies]

am i f*ck!! lol, im atheist / agnostic. i dont believe in their being a resident god of any sort, no chance, but a possible creator that maybe kicked off the big bang then f*cked off never to be seen again? i still dont believe that either. But beacuse you cant say for sure either way, then it would be wrong for me to say im 100% atheist, cos you just dont know.

 

P.s id have a look at that higher education again!

 

Guess my degree in Pharmaceutical Chemistry really was worthless

 

You prove your theory with experimental evidence, and continue to develop it. If someone disproves it then you adapt or scrap the idea. Of course there will be many eager beavers attempting to disprove your cunning view on the world (as well as those just as happy to prove you right by reproducing your results), but it is up to them to disprove it, or interpret your results using their own theories. At no point do I recall anything that says you can only believe it as it cannot be disproved - sounds like religious dogma to me and some pseudo science hippy bullshit interpretation to be honest (not having a pop at you Matt, just the people that originate these mis-interpretations and logical fallacies (sp) - sells books though!). I have read a few of these in the past, which make for some good down the pub discussion makers, but have no relevance in the scientific community, and do not stand up to the cold harsh light of the sober day lol - then again, maybe we should invest in more Pub scientific philosophy debates :) - I'm in if you are !! ) First round on me (Anything to further science *cough*).

[Kittyclaws]

This club does make me laugh at times. You get a ban if you call someone a c*nt, but it is ok to let threads carry on when it comes to having a pop at someones faith or the colour of skin etc

[sdavies]

This club does make me laugh at times. You get a ban if you call someone a c*nt, but it is ok to let threads carry on when it comes to having a pop at someones faith or the colour of skin etc

 

My first post was having a tongue in cheek poke at the concepts of faith in general no one persons faith The other posts were equally relevant internet spaff. It has since deviated completely from the original thread with a minor debate on scientific methodology At no point has skin colour or specific religion been covered? (ok it was implied by Joes Bible piccy, and Jakes generic church wasn't directed at any one faith - just a poke in general at the idea that religion is a method of control and used that church shape as a commonly recognised image for a place of worship).

 

Depends who you call a c*nt I guess mate. I personally welcome someone to debate away and call out anything I believe in As long as it doesn't turn into a hateful slanging match - that helps nobody.

[Chiefgroover]

HI Chilli, this is not aimed at you!, we have had our wee debate

 

The prescient of Atheist thinking is usually based on the outcome of accepted scientific theory, hence why Atheism is a religion, even though it needs no church, with no absolute definition to its structure or boundaries. Atheism clearly attacks other religions that have moral boundaries and laws etc, and opens the highway of Darwinistic/Galvinistic preaching to the masses. Many Atheists are particularly outspoken against Islam, saying its mind control, and based on a work of fiction, typically being hypocritical with its one sided "live and let live" policy, it continually fails to practise what it preaches in these modern times.

Most Atheists have no solid thinking on their views of life - the universe - and everything (Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy quote there, and yes the answer is 42!), preferring to revel in whatever theory science throws forward that makes them comfortable. If they truly believe their is no afterlife, and Emily -Rose was just some psycho off her head, then why do they fear death more than any other religion? surely its just accepted as the "natural end"?.

Atheism is also a very interesting religion to follow as the decade go by, science changes it's theories and various world views change, so does the ever searching Atheists set of views and moral values, which are truly optional to them.

Someone on Supraforums once had the quote "The devils greatest trick was to convince people he didnt exist", giving this some thought, creating Atheism rather than Satanism was just as effective for him.

Personally, from experience and many conversations down the boozer, most people hide behind Atheism, as religion is too scary, challenging, and a good escape goat to throw the worlds problems at.

I think the quote always to remember when pondering these questions is "He who laughs last laughs longest". All is revealed in the fullness of time, usually way too late!.

[sdavies]

The prescient of Atheist thinking is usually based on the outcome of accepted scientific theory, hence why Atheism is a religion, even though it needs no church, with no absolute definition to its structure or boundaries.[/Quote]

 

Interesting idea. I guess the more broadly you define the term "religion" you can apply it to anything. As with any definition. We are all objects etc . I can see the broad logical superclass of religion being Systematic belief, where as it has two sub-clases maybe for example Religion, and a subclass of non-religious Systematic belief - let us say - Atheism, although in your concept Atheism would be bundled with religion. Anyroad - they both inherit from the same base of properties, but they are not the same in my view of the world.

 

Atheism clearly attacks other religions that have moral boundaries and laws etc, and opens the highway of Darwinistic/Galvinistic preaching to the masses. Many Atheists are particularly outspoken against Islam, saying its mind control, and based on a work of fiction, typically being hypocritical with its one sided "live and let live" policy, it continually fails to practise what it preaches in these modern times.

Most Atheists have no solid thinking on their views of life - the universe - and everything (Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy quote there, and yes the answer is 42!), preferring to revel in whatever theory science throws forward that makes them comfortable. If they truly believe their is no afterlife, and Emily -Rose was just some psycho off her head, then why do they fear death more than any other religion? surely its just accepted as the "natural end"?.

Atheism is also a very interesting religion to follow as the decade go by, science changes it's theories and various world views change, so does the ever searching Atheists set of views and moral values, which are truly optional to them.

Someone on Supraforums once had the quote "The devils greatest trick was to convince people he didnt exist", giving this some thought, creating Atheism rather than Satanism was just as effective for him.

Personally, from experience and many conversations down the boozer, most people hide behind Atheism, as religion is too scary, challenging, and a good escape goat to throw the worlds problems at.

I think the quote always to remember when pondering these questions is "He who laughs last laughs longest". All is revealed in the fullness of time, usually way too late!.

 

I personally try not to *attack* other religions, although perceived attacks could be likened to when someone talks about putting an EFMIC on a Supra - we all tend to take a dig as in OUR minds it is the most ridiculous thing in the world to do, but it is down to the individual in the end as they may think it is THE ONLY WAY FORWARD! - just like people actually go out and preach their opinions on the streets - they are only trying to convince us that their way of thinking is the best and the rest are being silly, they are just trying to help! I occasionally take this internal view with religious practices that make no logical sense to me, I don't understand why people don't eat certain meats or would rather a child die because they don't believe in blood transfusions, it does nothing for the propagation of the species and defies my way of thinking. But I digress on that point.

 

I don't rank myself as either agnostic or athiest. I simply don't think there should be a label, I am me - I need nobody else to define or classify me or my way of thinking, I chose my own path We all find our own way of coping/interfacing/understanding the world. I chose logic and science after being dragged through a church school I heard the "satan" quote many times before - when I was like 8 lol, holds just as much water with me now as it did then.... (think I was a born cynic or something).

 

So in theory anybody that doesn't believe that there is a god, or follows a religious subclass of systematic thinking has no real goal in life, is likely to be immoral and will *burn in *? That being said, I guess I am morally questionable though Re: death; I personally am no more scared than the next man of his own mortality, I think we all have a healthy fear of death - it keeps us out of trouble and allows us to survive as a species I am severely allergic to pain.

 

Oops gotta dash and pick the Mrs up... to be continued...

[Kittyclaws]

My first post was having a tongue in cheek poke at the concepts of faith in general no one persons faith The other posts were equally relevant internet spaff. It has since deviated completely from the original thread with a minor debate on scientific methodology At no point has skin colour or specific religion been covered? (ok it was implied by Joes Bible piccy, and Jakes generic church wasn't directed at any one faith - just a poke in general at the idea that religion is a method of control and used that church shape as a commonly recognised image for a place of worship).

 

Depends who you call a c*nt I guess mate. I personally welcome someone to debate away and call out anything I believe in As long as it doesn't turn into a hateful slanging match - that helps nobody.

 

 

Hello matey

Ref the skin colour qoute etc, I was referring to older threads on this site. Yes, there is nothing wrong with a good debate, but alas far too many debates on here turn ugly

[sdavies]

Hello matey

Ref the skin colour qoute etc, I was referring to older threads on this site. Yes, there is nothing wrong with a good debate, but alas far too many debates on here turn ugly

 

Heh true, no worries. I don't think it has strayed much beyond pub philosophy just yet - as long as we don't have the brawl later

[sdavies]

Interesting idea. I guess the more broadly you define the term "religion" you can apply it to anything. As with any definition. We are all objects etc . I can see the broad logical superclass of religion being Systematic belief, where as it has two sub-clases maybe for example Religion, and a subclass of non-religious Systematic belief - let us say - Atheism, although in your concept Atheism would be bundled with religion. Anyroad - they both inherit from the same base of properties, but they are not the same in my view of the world.

 

Actually re-reading that makes no sense

 

I think it is hard to place the concept of "atheists" to be honest, they (not sure I include myself in "they" - but I am not agnostic) are seen to borrow from Science & Anarchy (popular myth (its own religion?) too). I know plenty of scientists that are religious to some degree, so the boundaries blur there too. In the end atheism wasn't what was being debated it was the fact that the Scientific way of approaching the universe is self improving and open to change - Religious dogma is set in stone and resists any change, even if the practices/theories behind them make no sense in a modern context. If scientist = atheist, then so be it, that's me Oh to add a certain amount of quirkiness, most scientists are - against their better judgement/nature - a little on the superstitious side lol, not sure what that proves though

 

Science doesn't have all the answers, but it tries bloody hard to get them!

 

p.s. anyone for a pint?

[imi]

Someone on Supraforums once had the quote "The devils greatest trick was to convince people he didnt exist",

 

Fantastic line from the movie "The Usual Suspects"

[Chiefgroover]

Thank you for the good reply. Definitions of boundaries are hard to get on this subject sometimes, as you have highlighted.

Looking to the scientific world, and some of it's peers, obsession with theory is comparable to a religion, as indeed its happening.

As much has changed since the millennium in the understanding of creation and universal structure, we now observe the new better informed creation science information. Too many scientists so subjective in their outlook they dismiss it without proper objective analysis.

I have studied it in detail, and have found that the modern version uses only what can be scientifically proven. I have never once heard "We believe" or "its our theory" or any assumption for that matter from that movement. I attended a talk by Prof Ken Ham which had over 1000 people at it. I can out gubsmacked at his knowledge and fact based agenda. Since then I have respect for these guys who are all top scientists. Since then I have learned just how may scientists world-wide have taken this view, the numbers increase greatly every year. Seems it's a popular subject world-wide with experienced surgeons, who are often the mouthpiece for it. I try to base my views on what seems the most realistic, and looking at the evils which can "evolve" from Atheism the results are demonstrated by Darwin and his cousin Galton. Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton founded the evolutionary Pseudo-science of Eugenics. He shared Darwin's antagonism for religion for most of his adult life. He was a childhood genius, knew the alphabet @ 18months, memorised poetry by 5, discussed the Iliad @ 6 !. Galton believed that talent, character, intellect etc was inherent from ones ancestors.Therefore the poor were not hapless victims of their circumstances but were paupers because they were biologically inferior!!.He believed that humans should be selectively bred. Galtons views left no room whatsoever for human dignity or the human soul. He wrote "Hereditary Genius" in 1869 which proposed a system of arranged marriages, of people of distinction. Darwin mentioned Galton no less than 11 times in his book Decent of man.Galton was much awarded for his work. His work had great effect in that from the 1920's on more than half of the US states had laws for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be "unfit". This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims who were criminals, drug addicts, paupers, blind or deaf, or mentally retarded and other conditions. Even a few were done as late as the 70's!. About 60,000 swedish victims between 1935 and 1976, and it went on in Norway and Canada, the figures of which I dont know. Hitler reckoned a more cost effective way was in order with Genocide, over 11 million in total, including Jews, Christians, Blacks, Gypsies, communists, gays, amputees, and mental patients. This was rampant Darwinism, with a strong Galton sauce served with murder. Sadly ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler. David Duke, Americas infamous anti black, anti-jew racist developed his ideas from reading Galton, Sir Arthur Keith etc. Galton/ Darwin also were strong on abortion, their legacy means today there is a one in four chance of a baby being aborted world-wide. In certain cultures it is common to find out the sex of a baby and abort on those grounds alone. However I doubt that Galton ever thought his theories would ever cause such havoc.

If you were to consider the lesser of two evils, so to speak, maybe religion is the victim of a witch hunt, a smoke screen for the harsh and obviously heartless living style of the Pseudo-science of Eugenics born from wanton Atheism.

It's also worth considering how many people in the 3rd world benifit from religious charitys, without which many would have absoloutely no hope in this world. I know of one single church who now sponsors several orphanages, schools and even bakerys in places like Romania and Ethopia. The world wide effort of churches makes many people lives better, and discriminates against no skin colour.

All food for thought, this is a massive subject as you know, hopefully we have sesn the tip of the iceberg!

[sdavies]

Godwin's Law proven again

 

Not that I mean to belittle the awful atrocities that that particularly nasty man did in his time - but I actually believe Hitler was in fact quite a religious man (brought up a Catholic, lately shunning that in favour of Protestantism?) - tiny bit over simplified, but you see what I mean - Hitler wasn't an atheist, although not sure that's what you were saying, just one mans ideas (the originator of Eugenic idea) having consequences far reaching than their original intention? The same can be said about many historical decisions and discoveries. Should we live in ignorance to avoid "discovering" such ideas? i.e. stop trying to find the way forward by bogging ourselves down in dogmatic preechings of long dead folk that have no concept about modern life (i.e. the ideas of folk back then may not have meant to inspire the religious diversity and debate they have brought about in todays world).

 

I personally don't need to be "god fearing" or religious to help someone out. I don't think it will save my sould or get me a better place in the afterlife... it is just the thing to do, you help folk. You do something nice - I have an interest in my fellow humans getting on with their lives and suceeding. If we were all excellent to one another, there would be no problems (or probably place for religion ). I give to charity (occasionally ). Eugenics and anthropological debates are for another thread that is little to do with the differences between religious dogma and evolution of a theory or model to describe and understand the workings of the universe around you.

[Matt H]

Thank you for the good reply. Definitions of boundaries are hard to get on this subject sometimes, as you have highlighted.

Looking to the scientific world, and some of it's peers, obsession with theory is comparable to a religion, as indeed its happening.

As much has changed since the millennium in the understanding of creation and universal structure, we now observe the new better informed creation science information. Too many scientists so subjective in their outlook they dismiss it without proper objective analysis.

I have studied it in detail, and have found that the modern version uses only what can be scientifically proven. I have never once heard "We believe" or "its our theory" or any assumption for that matter from that movement. I attended a talk by Prof Ken Ham which had over 1000 people at it. I can out gubsmacked at his knowledge and fact based agenda. Since then I have respect for these guys who are all top scientists. Since then I have learned just how may scientists world-wide have taken this view, the numbers increase greatly every year. Seems it's a popular subject world-wide with experienced surgeons, who are often the mouthpiece for it. I try to base my views on what seems the most realistic, and looking at the evils which can "evolve" from Atheism the results are demonstrated by Darwin and his cousin Galton. Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton founded the evolutionary Pseudo-science of Eugenics. He shared Darwin's antagonism for religion for most of his adult life. He was a childhood genius, knew the alphabet @ 18months, memorised poetry by 5, discussed the Iliad @ 6 !. Galton believed that talent, character, intellect etc was inherent from ones ancestors.Therefore the poor were not hapless victims of their circumstances but were paupers because they were biologically inferior!!.He believed that humans should be selectively bred. Galtons views left no room whatsoever for human dignity or the human soul. He wrote "Hereditary Genius" in 1869 which proposed a system of arranged marriages, of people of distinction. Darwin mentioned Galton no less than 11 times in his book Decent of man.Galton was much awarded for his work. His work had great effect in that from the 1920's on more than half of the US states had laws for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be "unfit". This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims who were criminals, drug addicts, paupers, blind or deaf, or mentally retarded and other conditions. Even a few were done as late as the 70's!. About 60,000 swedish victims between 1935 and 1976, and it went on in Norway and Canada, the figures of which I dont know. Hitler reckoned a more cost effective way was in order with Genocide, over 11 million in total, including Jews, Christians, Blacks, Gypsies, communists, gays, amputees, and mental patients. This was rampant Darwinism, with a strong Galton sauce served with murder. Sadly ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler. David Duke, Americas infamous anti black, anti-jew racist developed his ideas from reading Galton, Sir Arthur Keith etc. Galton/ Darwin also were strong on abortion, their legacy means today there is a one in four chance of a baby being aborted world-wide. In certain cultures it is common to find out the sex of a baby and abort on those grounds alone. However I doubt that Galton ever thought his theories would ever cause such havoc.

If you were to consider the lesser of two evils, so to speak, maybe religion is the victim of a witch hunt, a smoke screen for the harsh and obviously heartless living style of the Pseudo-science of Eugenics born from wanton Atheism.

It's also worth considering how many people in the 3rd world benifit from religious charitys, without which many would have absoloutely no hope in this world. I know of one single church who now sponsors several orphanages, schools and even bakerys in places like Romania and Ethopia. The world wide effort of churches makes many people lives better, and discriminates against no skin colour.

All food for thought, this is a massive subject as you know, hopefully we have sesn the tip of the iceberg!

 

 

wow! ive not read any of it but wow!

[Chiefgroover]

I hope you didnt think I was suggesting you needed to be religious to do good works, I was trying to focus on the outstanding work of some of the churches, which is to be highly commended, as a positive contribution to society.

Goodwins law, obviously written by a chap who isnt totally opposed to the work of the Nazi's lol. How about Chiefgroovers law; To ignore major bouts of history, and not use them for camparison creates a subjective outlook. Therefore not much use.

You can read it in small sections Matt over a few days lol.

[R Black]

IMO, If you look at high level science, it does'nt at present preclude the base idea of religions, science is unsure why finished?theories tend to be very neat & tidy, Science has a infinitely long way to go answering THE questions of life & universe etc, thus leaving room for many answers at present. I personally am agnostic, as i believe there may be more, but bibles & korans etc are over translated poppycock, (usually used to control the masses) IMO.

[chilli]

Hi Chief Not aimed at you in any way.

 

always an interesting subject this one!

 

I would say that anyone is entitled to believe anything they wish, so long as it doesn't adversly affect others. Unfortunately nothing creates and promotes in-group favouritism and out-group hostility more than religion (imho).

 

The way I look at it, atheism is not a religion anymore than not believing in say the tooth fairy. Atheism doesn't preach or tell you what scientific theories to believe in, at the expense of others - it just asks you to objectively consider the body of evidence before us (as we uncover it), over fictional ideals.

 

Well worth reading the god delusion if anyone remotely thinks people gain morals from the bible (or equivalents).

 

I'm a firm believer that most people _need_ something in their life to believe in, and for many god fills the hole - but just because you "believe" doesn't make it true.

 

but you can't argue against someone with faith, that much is obvious by definition.

 

Hence my ironic defence now is - I _believe_ in science and evolution - right back at you. It's my faith if you like, and how dare you criticise it, if you can be offended by my suspicion of religion and god, please observe the same respect with my personal opinions!

 

anyway, I'm not entering a debate here, it's futile and pointless, just wanted to add my 2 penith for the moment and tune out.

 

Whatever the case, I'm 100% none of us are even remotely close to the real truth and I think we all need to remember that sometimes.

[tbourner]

..... Hitler reckoned a more cost effective way was in order with Genocide, over 11 million in total, including Jews, Christians, Blacks, Gypsies, communists, gays, amputees, and mental patients. This was rampant Darwinism, with a strong Galton sauce served with murder.

 

Let's not go there again!

 

The prescient of Atheist thinking is usually based on the outcome of accepted scientific theory, hence why Atheism is a religion, even though it needs no church, with no absolute definition to its structure or boundaries. Atheism clearly attacks other religions that ....... ....... revealed in the fullness of time, usually way too late!.

 

Suggesting that Aethism is evil because it has no fixed plan, and implying that all atheists agree with murderous dictators (ahem) is as bad as saying all Muslims are terrorists (again: ahem). Maybe I've got you wrong but it sounds like you're completely against changing ones opinions on life the universe and everything when new information comes along? Is that really a bad thing? I don't base anything I do in life around it like religious people do, I live my life by my own morals, my beliefs in how we are here and where we are going don't come into it - so why does it make me any better or worse as a person because I change my views every 2 years when a new theory emerges?

[Chiefgroover]

Let's not go there again!

 

 

 

Suggesting that Aethism is evil because it has no fixed plan, and implying that all atheists agree with murderous dictators (ahem) is as bad as saying all Muslims are terrorists (again: ahem). Maybe I've got you wrong but it sounds like you're completely against changing ones opinions on life the universe and everything when new information comes along? Is that really a bad thing? I don't base anything I do in life around it like religious people do, I live my life by my own morals, my beliefs in how we are here and where we are going don't come into it - so why does it make me any better or worse as a person because I change my views every 2 years when a new theory emerges?

 

 

Who said this? I didnt!, if you read mine again, slowly and carefully, you'll see it says nothing of the sort, so dont jump on the bandwagon of paranoia, and accuse me of making statements when I mearly pointed thinking for consideration in your direction.

 

New information based on what fact? you mean theory.

You last question is only you can only answer yourself, and perhaps if you had an answer, you could tell us lol.

[Chiefgroover]

 

Whatever the case, I'm 100% none of us are even remotely close to the real truth and I think we all need to remember that sometimes.

 

 

lol.........this did give me a good laugh.........I think you wrote this for just that reason though (thanks for that!).

100% that we are all way out, but nobody has the answer, interesting but futile line of thinking winding itself up a spiral staircase.

 

Chilli, I respect you as a brilliant mind, and great drummer, so quit wasting time and gimme your backing track for this Supra song.

[tbourner]

Who said this? I didnt!,

 

You didn't say this then:

If you were to consider the lesser of two evils, so to speak, maybe religion is the victim of a witch hunt, a smoke screen for the harsh and obviously heartless living style of the Pseudo-science of Eugenics born from wanton Atheism.

 

Eugenics; born from Aethiesm. Eugenics being that which you so eloquently described in your verbose paragraph as anti-everything-that-is-sacred-in-life.

[tbourner]

You last question is only you can only answer yourself, and perhaps if you had an answer, you could tell us lol.

 

As for this, I can answer it: It doesn't make me better or worse, I'm me because of who I am not what I believe. I happen to think that religous 'nuts' are more likely to change the person that they are based on beliefs than an Aethiest would, but at the end of the day it's what you do that defines you. I've never said anyones beliefs are wrong and I don't try and force my beliefs on anyone else - I talk about what I think and listen to what others have to say.

I read it as if you were putting down science in favour of religion, I personally wouldn't claim one is any better than the other in terms of what it's given to (or taken from) the species, if you were simply giving info and not claiming me to be a racist genocidal maniac because I'm a scientist then I obviously misread it and oppologise.

[Chiefgroover]

If you were to consider the lesser of two evils, so to speak, maybe religion is the victim of a witch hunt, a smoke screen for the harsh and obviously heartless living style of the Pseudo-science of Eugenics born from wanton Atheism.

 

"Pseudo-science of Eugenics born from wanton Atheism"

various leaders who subscribe to Atheism have proven this to be true, fact not theory, or do you prefer i dont mention the things we can actually prove?