 I'll do this one because it's short, but it's funny. The question is, can you discuss Hinduism at some length? I mean, that's quite a question. No, I can't. How can I discuss Hinduism? I know almost nothing about Hinduism. I mean, I can't discuss Hinduism at some shortness. All I can say about Hinduism is it strikes me as a pretty crazy secular religion. I know a tiny bit about Buddhism. I know nothing about Hinduism. Yeah, that's it. I mean, it's another religion with its mysticism. It says, I will say this. And you know, this is a safe spaces. So I should warn you that I'm going to trigger you all. All kinds of microaggressions are gonna happen right now. Hinduism strikes me as a pretty primitive religion. And a religion that was not deeply in any kind of influence, in a significant way, touched by Aristotle. And that is, and the consequence of that is that people in Hindu countries, beyond a certain point, didn't really advance much. Civilization could not move very far. The same with Buddhism. The same with Chinese philosophy. The reason I believe that Western civilization advanced as far as it did, and Chinese civilization and Hindu civilization, which were more advanced than the West at certain points in time, the reason that Western civilization advanced so far and had ultimately a renaissance and enlightenment and industrial evolution is because it adopted even from the beginning elements of Greek philosophy. So even the original Christians, at least that Plato, at least that Plato is kind of wondering about the world and debating and discussing and thinking and engagement with the world in that sense. But the real thing that moved the West towards civilization is Aristotle. And the introduction of Aristotle's thinking into Western civilization with Thomas Aquinas, who, because he took it seriously, brought it into the Catholic Church and from then it was just an issue of time. And I would say, Jews have, Jewish culture has been a healthy, relatively speaking, healthy culture and a relatively speaking, healthy religion, relative, right? Because Jews integrated Aristotle early on as well, that is Jewish philosophers, relatively early, that is certainly from Maimonides onwards. That is what Maimonides think is the 13th century. On, there was a Sunnerist-Tillian attitude and really if you go back to the Talmud, the Talmud is a, you would think it was heavily, I mean, I don't know the history, but you'd think it was heavily influenced by the Greeks because it's very kind of disputational attitude that the Jews had. Everything was disputed, everything was questioned. There was really this Socratic dialogue that was going on, that's going on in the Talmud. And I really would have to look and see what happened first, Greece or the Talmud. But I suspect the Talmud was influenced by these Greek philosophers. And it's almost got this commitment to reality and to common sense and to logic in some primitive form. So Judaism's always at least since the Talmudic times has been grounded in reality, grounded in logic to some extent, maybe not formal logic, but some extent, logic in a way that Christianity was not because it was so heavily influenced by Plato. And it was so much more mystical and altruistic than Judaism was. Judaism was much more thisworldly. And therefore much more inclined towards logic and towards disputation. There wasn't quite the same dogma that was particularly implosed by the Catholic Church under Constantine. And later in Judaism, everything is debated. Nothing is settled. And that created a much healthier culture in terms of Judaism. And I think those are the reasons why Judaism and ultimately the Christian world developed in the way that they developed and developed in a much more healthy way than did Eastern religions, which never had Aristotle. They never had reason. Their epistemology was never grounded in reality, both Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, all the kind of Buddhism, all the kind of philosophical influences on Eastern philosophy, at least to the extent that I am aware of them. And I'm not an expert here. None of them have an epistemology of this world. They all have an epistemology of another world, a kind of a superstitious epistemology of mystical forces fighting it out that you are pawn within the fight. They don't have a conception of a reality grounded in this world and an epistemology reason they can understand and absorb it. You've written that the concept of God is morally evil. Why? I didn't say it's morally evil, not in those words. I said it's false. False. I said it's a fantasy. It doesn't exist. I would say religion can be very dangerous psychopistemologically in regard to the working of a man's mind. Face is dangerous because a man who permits himself to exempt some aspect of reality from reason and to believe in a God even though he knows he has no reason to believe in a God. There is no evidence of a God's existence. That is the danger psychologically that man is not going to be rational or will have a terrible conflict. It's wrong in that way. However, let me say I certainly recognize anyone's right to have any religion they want to. They're legal, right? Morally or philosophically, that's a different issue. For many people, religions are a way of explaining the mysteries of life, the unknown things. Do you recognize no mysteries? I don't believe that lack of knowledge is a license to start inventing fantasies.