Your God Is The Only True God

in #atheism8 years ago


Dear Religious Believer,

When you are born you have no religion or political affiliation. You are an apolitical polyatheist, whether you like it or not. That is your objective default state. Similarly, you don’t follow a football team and you don’t have a favourite tv show.

Whatever you believe today is the result of the cumulative knowledge your environment has imprinted onto you. Anything, from your deepest desire to your most superficial weakness, is the result of random information generated from earlier sets of random information.

At a young age, you are modeled after the beliefs and actions of your parents. They have themselves undergone the same process. Children believe their parents because they have no other choice. Monkey see, monkey do. Repeat. You also had no other choice.

There is no absurdity so palpable but that it may be firmly planted in the human head if you only begin to inculcate it before the age of five, by constantly repeating it with an air of great solemnity.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer

Your parents believe in a vengeful but also all benevolent Elephant God with eight arms? You will believe that story as true. Your parents believe in virgin sacrifices or resurrections? You will believe it as well. Everything becomes part of your reality. What is real is only but the sum of opinions you get about the world. You rarely test the validity of most things around you, including your very dear religious books. You most likely never carefully study them. Like most of us you are likely a cocktail of naive and lazy when it comes to your beliefs.

 


You believe in something because other people believe in something similar. After all, how can ~90% of the inhabitants of this planet be wrong? Yet, not a single one believes in the same version of God, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu or anything else in between.

You are encouraged to believe blindly and that everything is going to be ok. You are assured that if you follow a set of rules your will live forever in a very nice place you can’t really explain or even come to imagine. You believe that because you are afraid of death. You are afraid of being gone forever. You cannot accept that your biological body, the set of carbon molecules that make the real you is all there is. You believe in belief because your environment shaped you this way.

Every single person is their own unique heresy because we are all the result of different sets of information acquired under different circumstances. You are you own randomly generated code much like the very key you own to login to this website.

Your belief in God is unique. Nobody else believes in your specific version. You realised this soon enough after you elaborated details about your religion. The people whom you share the same religion with believe in the same general vague idea— but not the same tenants. You are your own heresy much like everybody else.

Your spiritual leader believes that the true God is the a, b, c, d, e, f, v, m, p, k, w, e, r pieces of information. Your father believes that the true God is the a, v, m, p, k, w, e, r pieces of information. You believe that God is a, v, k, b, m, and r pieces of information. According to you your father believes archaic, old traditions that are absurd. He is an old heretic. But you... you are a modern heretic! You know more about the world and you have constructed your version of the God much better; or so you think.
 


Your belief in God is much like an all you can eat buffet. You have a vast majority of choices and you pick and choose based on your subjective set of morality which one is best. You have a religious friend thinking that it is moral to have many wives. Another one thinks genital mutilation is ok. If you belonged to a certain monotheistic belief 2000 years ago based on the writing of a “holy book”, you would believe that is ok to sell women to slavery after a war. The existence of so many religions is evidence that ethics are subjective and directly depend on time, environment and culture.

You believe that your God created everything we see around us. After all, how all these can be so perfect?! You can’t explain it therefore the creation demands a designer. This is a naive thought since there are no other environments to compare this "intelligent design". In much the same way, a smudge on a white wall is the best piece of art that wall has ever experienced.

Have you ever asked yourself who designed the designer? If your answer is "Nobody" then you shouldn't be making the design argument. You see, an answer to a question that raises the same question (and in a much more complicated way) is not really an answer. You are avoiding the question. If your God has always existed then skip the God question entirely and just assume everything has always existed. We do not have any evidence that points to the contrary.

You can’t accept that everything around you weren’t created for you. You can’t accept that you are just a random conglomerate because you value your own existence too much. You believe you have superior intellect compared to a bird, or a dog or... a water paddle. Or do you?

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for" ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

If your version of God is the architect of this universe then you must consider that he is not such a good architect. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and unfortunately there is not even a single one that this universe is intentionally designed by your true God. This rock was as "intelligently" shaped by nature as much as you are.
 


99.99999999% of the entire universe is a desolate dark place inhospitable to any form of life. Even here on Earth life is not easy to flourish. This planet is called earth but 75% of it is filled with saltwater—something that humans cannot even survive upon or under.

Imagine an architect building a house that is 75% toxic, dangerous and a threat to your own life. When you ask him for explanations he responds: “Don’t question my wisdom. You can survive if you try hard enough”. If your God created this planet and the rest of the universe with an “intelligent purpose" in mind—just to make us part of an elaborate survival scheme on a suspended rock in space; then you have to accept that your true God is a masochist, a bad architect or both.
 


Take a look at your body. From a design perspective is an abomination. Would you create wisdom teeth that cause the entire jawline to be misaligned? Would you create knees and spines that wear and tear so easy? Would you design a special worm that gets into the eyeballs of people and kills them? s them? At last, would you put a toilet inside a recreation area?

There are at least 16,000 religions on this planet. You believe in most likelihood to either Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism. You believe most likely in one of these religions because they are the ones that made it through the centuries after absorbing smaller ones. They are the most violent. Survival of the fittest works in nature much like it does with ideas.

History is written and promoted by the winners. If you are a Christian you most likely owe your belief to the bloodthirsty Emperor Constantine that made Christianity an official religion in order to march the believers in a war for his own selfish purposes. All other religions follow a similar story. Your religion prevailed because it violently eradicated all others.

Your religion preaches about love, helping people in need and dear family values. Your religion is about peace. Your religious book says that all other religions are false or carry “false prophets”. Your religion is true because you were randomly born at a random geographical area on this planet instead of another. This is like saying that your newborn child is the most beautiful because it is your own.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, some men who wanted to manipulate the masses wrote these stories? Have you ever thought that some people with political and spiritual power, in an era where reading and writing was a privilege of the few, just took advantage of feeble minds that had fear for the unknown?
 


Have you even considered your religious stories with an objective eye? For example, imagine if your girlfriend approached you one day and told you, "Look ...honey, I know it sounds weird ..but ...I am pregnant even if we didn't have sex yet. You see, last month…. God...hmmm... came into my sleep!.... and we did it…. with a... lily flower! I am having his son!” Imagine yourself believing her along with thousands others from your town. Did your girlfriend cheat on you or did she get divinely fucked?

Let’s say you visit a foreign country. You pick an old local book to kill some time in the loo. You read about an event resembling a zombie apocalypse. Would you immediately say “Darn, I have seen the light!”? Or you would at least investigate? They only reason you believe the nonsense of your religion is because you were brainwashed into it by our own culture.
 


Most of the “amazing things” you see described in religious books such as visions, resurrections, people getting demonised, angels, dragons and all that cool stuff are actually stories, fables—much like the ones played out for you through Hollywood. They didn’t have cable tv or video games back then. People still had imagination and they had to use it. Most of the times they tried to pass ethical messages through their stories. Some stories ended up being religion since they were carried from mouth to mouth like a broken telephone game. I am sure though, your God is the exception to the rule.

Your holy book is proof for the existence of your God as much as Harry Potter is proof for magic. Fans and followers don’t make something true. Quite the contrary. Truth is rarely democratic.


Have you ever tried to make the objective question when it comes to your God? “Is there a God?” is not the right kind question. In much the same way “Is there chair?” is also erroneous. You have to define which chair you are talking about. Where is that chair? Describe the context of that chair. Give parametres and specific values. When you ask yourself about God you have to be equally specific. For example: Do you believe in the existence of a benevolent God that allows 16000 children to die every day from hunger and thousands others from diseases that he created?

You believe that there must be a plan. A plan that your human mind cannot understand. But really, if you could not understand that super intelligent plan of your true God, how come you would understand his existence? If you are to make assertions you have to be intellectually honest.

You live in a universe with trillions of galaxies containing billions of planets each. Stars explode, galaxies collide, nebulas light years across annihilate everything in their path. It is extremely naive to assert that your God saves from disorder when his design is a glorification of disorder. The concept of your sense of order or disorder is subjective and demands a certain perspective. After all, what is order for the spider is disorder for the fly.
 


You can take a step back and make the correct questions about “God”. A dude, all perfect, all awesome, bored, jailing Sims-like individuals into a matrix, an illusion. A game, with a specific algorithm we call “natural laws”. If this is true then don’t be surprised if God is a spoiled teenager from another dimension in his room having fun. He tortures us with diseases, catastrophes, illusions, pain. A sadist testing his subjects.

If you succumb to his game then you will be placed in a special part of the program in a state of trance in order to repeat paradise-like illusions. Forever. I can come up with hundreds of these likely scenarios but none of them will be necessarily true.

Have you really thought about living forever? Have you ever imagined eating just pizza for a year? How about eating just pizza for 10 years? Eternity is perhaps the most gruesome torture one can imagine—if they are really honest with themselves.
 


A book. Your evidence is a single book that comes from an era with no copyright laws. Your version of God is an old version of a randomly edited wikipedia article.

Your an atheist to at least one God. You believe in your God but you reject all the others.








image credits: 1234

Sort:  

I'm always sadly amused when I see an atheist go to so much trouble to prove to himself that he doesn't need to worry about God.

If he really believed the above collection of errors, he wouldn't need to compile and publish them.

Maybe he is going to so much trouble to prove to you and other people of faith that you can not prove yourself correct about worrying about god?

If you really believe in that collection of errors you would be able to compile and publish why you are correct.

Do you logic much?

Sure, I'm a retired rocket scientist. I have studied this subject for over 40 years.
This forum is full of my posts on the subject.
But there are soooo many lost people making posts like this.
(The embryo graphic has been exposed as a fabrication for decades.)

I thought about addressing the OP point by point, but I only have so many hours in the day. When someone has worked so hard to build the "logical" case full of false statements to offset the clear evidence to the contrary, I prefer to keep my response short and sweet. Perhaps a little quip will stimulate thoughts that a full rebuttal will never accomplish.

My point was:

  • I have the imperative to save unbelievers from a burning building.
  • They have the imperative to, what, save me from a life of quiet contentment serving the One who died for me?

Witnessing is well worth my time because the Lord commands me to do it.
Why is counter-witnessing worth an atheist's time?

Loading...

Yeah I was kind of chuckling about the embryo pict. xD

I want to say I am nutural on this subject as there is no evidence to prove either side. A lot of is has to do with belief and I can not let myself believe in something that can not be backed up with logic, fact and reason.

Why is counter-witnessing worth an atheist's time?

The same reason that people of faith feel the need to get others to believe in god. they are only trying to help no matter how annoying they come off. xD

it is all an "Ad Ignorantiam" fallacy anyways. lack of proof proving something right or wrong does not make it right or wrong. 8D

Unfortunately, there is no practical difference between being neutral or hard-over against God. Neither position changes how you will live this life or the next.

The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk that there are no consequences, not with the person warning about them.

Yeah I was kind of chuckling about the embryo pict. xD

Seriously guys. take a biology class. brake open an egg. a lizard..really. the evidence is there

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm

Unfortunately, there is no practical difference between being neutral or hard-over against God. Neither position changes how you will live this life or the next.

That is a "False Dichotomy fallacy". Their is a big difference because I accept the fact that god could exist. it is not black or white.

The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk that there are no consequences, not with the person warning about them.

That is a "Burden of Proof Reversal fallacy".
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claims. I have not made any claims so I do not hold the burden. The only people that hold the burden of proof in this situation are the people saying there is or isn't a god.

That is why I'm natural. When I am given factual evidence based in logic and reason I might take a side but until then I can not (I am not saying I will never receive evidence to prove one way or another I just have not received it yet.).

8D

What you have just used is the "Make up a phrase containing the word fallacy to prove fallacy fallacy." :)

This is not a debate game where being neutral gets you out of responsibility for your own fate. I can tell you not to go walking across the Serengeti unarmed because of the predators there and my obligation to you is over. I may or may not offer you some degree of proof. You must then do your own homework to decide how to weigh the evidence for or against my assertion - or remain neutral and set out unarmed anyway. Either way, I assume no obligation to prove the danger to your satisfaction.

Regardless of how much proof I am able to show you of my position, you have zero proof of the opposite. So all you can do is complain that I have not given you enough. If that is satisfactory for you to go on a barefoot safari across Africa, be my guest.

Saying "I accept the fact that predators could exist" is not much of a defense when you inevitably encounter one.

(The embryo graphic has been exposed as a fabrication for decades.)

Fabrication? For decades? Here is the study from 2010. Stan, you are full of shit my friend

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm

This controversy has raged for many decades with both sides going back and forth trying to prove/disprove that Ernst Haeckel's original drawings were deliberately fraudulant or merely misleading early works of an honest scientist. I'll not bother to retry the whole sordid history of Ernst Haeckel here. My only point is that the OP includes drawings that are the poster boy for misleading information still in many textbooks today. You can read a summary of that back and forth controversy critiquing both Ernst and his critics like Richardson here: http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven

As to the similarities that do exist at the embryonic level, what exactly do you think that proves at this point in the discussion? Common evolution history or that many things reuse the same design patterns and therefore presumably have the same Designer?

As an old rocket scientist I definitely see proof that all the rockets shown below must have evolved and therefore couldn't have had a designer.

@stan

You are probably old and afraid of death. Religions have no evidence. No wonder @dan hasn't completely broken through. Is this how you argue? You are a blind believer my friend. You are a mental slave. Believe whatever you want but be sure; You have ZERO evidence. nothing. nada. how can you call yourself a scientist and ignore evidence like this one? Don't you have chickens at home? break an egg! break a fish egg! see for yourself.

here is yet.. another study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9974/

As for your argument about the burden of proof. Have you ever thought about dying and both of being wrong? How about you find an elephant god who doesn't like your christian God? How can you be sure you believe to the correct God? You can't know. The burden of proof lies on you. Just "believing" in some higher power doesn't really cut it. Also. check Pascal's wager. Open a philosophy book. Seriously. it's embarassing

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page13.htm

Bring. evidence. make counter arguments

I have some really interesting eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago. I have studied how they got to me, including all the noise that got inserted into that signal along the way. As an engineer, I know how to extract signal from very noisy data. I am satisfied that I have reconstructed the signal sufficiently to understand the underlying message with a high degree of certainty. So much certainty that the message is impossible for me to ignore.

I understand that those who are not inclined to accept the output product of someone else's noise filter or to go to the effort of extracting the signal for themselves, are going to find it easier to deny that any signal exists.

I am not interested in convincing such people. Neither is Jesus.

So, I visit threads like this one merely encouraging people to do their own homework. Those who have ears to hear will hear.

The rest of you can ignore my harmless folly.

Yes, I've read the counter arguments to Pascal. They dodge the point. The real choice is between whether you decide that "because there are many contradictory beliefs I cannot know which to choose so I will choose no beliefs."

You have no choice, you must choose one. No choice is in fact a choice. Only a fool picks the one for which there is the least evidence, i.e. no evidence.

So Pascal would still advocate picking the best of the 1000 options over betting that none of those options are right.

If there is a God who wants to hold you responsible for following His rules, He will presumably have to make it possible for an ernest seeker to extract the signal from the noise. I am satisfied that this has happened. Most people just point to all the noise and then assume there is no signal. Pascal would say that is the least wise option.

and the point I missed was? O.o

Recapping my main points:

  • Saying you "don't know" does not absolve you of the risks you incur from not knowing.
  • The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk not the person providing the warning.
  • You have to decide what negative assurances you need to walk out into the Serengeti having been warned that the opposite of what you hope is true.
  • You require 100% proof on the warning side but 0% proof on the assurance side.

If we were trying to formulate a formal proof, then your logical fallacy arguments may have merit. But the four points are self-evident in practical situations. Truths can be communicated in many ways. Logical proofs are merely one way, if the domain of discourse is suitably crisp and noise free. Another way useful in teaching hard concepts is allegories and parables which sometimes cut through to the heart of the matter.

I have extracted a message from the signal in the noise of much ancient literature and judged it critical to share. Unless others are willing to put in that much effort, they will keep seeking simple one-liner, noise-free proofs instead. That I cannot give them. I merely hope to motivate them to put in the necessary effort for themselves, since that's the only way they will ever be convinced as I have.

If the Agnostic Nudists on the Serengeti parable I published a few days ago doesn't communicate anything to you as it stands, then subjecting it to logical fallacy analysis won't either.

I'm happy to leave it at that. Jesus spoke in parables and left it to those willing to hear. He didn't do logical proofs and did not go running after anyone who didn't want to understand. I will follow His example:

They said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matthew 13:10-17).

Excellent point @stan!

•Saying you "don't know" does not absolve you of the risks you incur from not knowing.

"Ad Ignorantiam fallacy"

•The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk not the person providing the warning.

"Burden of Proof Reversal fallacy"

•You have to decide what negative assurances you need to walk out into the Serengeti having been warned that the opposite of what you hope is true.

"strawman fallacy"

•You require 100% proof on the warning side but 0% proof on the assurance side.

"strawman fallacy"

I want proof not logical fallacies. I do not care on what side the truth falls on. That is why I am natural on the subject. I would be happy with the truth no matter if god was real or not, all that matters to me is the truth.

I seriously cant continue reading this tonight, tomorrow I will try to go back to it and respond to it fully. fallacies are not proof, they are faulty logic.

have a great evening

Sorry, you will not get proof. You can't seem to break out of that paradigm.

At best you will get an understandable signal from the noise. And you can't get that from a forum discussion. Seek, and you will find. Demand proof and you will not.

@stan

yet you haven't made a single counter argument my friend. your faith is blind

You are correct, I have not made such an argument here. I have made it many other places and did not intend to get drawn into it again here.

I only came by to make a tiny little point for everyone's consideration:
"Why is their an atheism tag in this forum?"
I can see why someone who believes that others are at risk would spend time trying to help them.
I can't see why people who believe there is no risk would care about talking others out of their harmless folly.

I can only postulate that atheists are desperately trying to reassure themselves that they are not making the biggest mistake of their lives. So they hang out with other atheists to share their lack of proof that they are safe.

I have some really interesting eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago.

We also have eye withness account for Hindu Gods. Are they also true. Dude! come on.

I only came by to make a tiny little point for everyone's consideration:
"Why is their an atheism tag in this forum?"

No you didn't. You are obsessed dellusional that got a voice because his son runs the platform. Your page is full of religious nonsense propaganda. You just came in here to say "you are wrong and i am right" without bringing anything to discussion other than so-call discredit a drawing ...which is a fact anyway you put it. a biological FACT.

I can see why someone who believes that others are at risk would spend time trying to help them.

You are trying to help yourself. The more people believe something the truer it becomes. That's how religions are. You are tortured from your faith. this is why your page is full of that shit.

I can only postulate that atheists are desperately trying to reassure themselves that they are not making the biggest mistake of their lives.

lol. no my friend. you are. your obsession in your profile reveals just that. Even if there is a god..your god. ..i would still shit on him because he did not reveal himself..lets say every 100 years just to make people at ease...I would still shit on him for allowing 1600 kids to die every day from hunger. i will still shit on him for not being clear. there 16000 gods Stan. everyone claims theirs to the true one. Could you please leave your redneck background on the side and see objectively how human cultures evolved? its not THAT hard my friend.

if you were born in India you were most likely be a hindu. in america you are most likely a christian. not rocket science..but for fucks sake..do realize this very basic reality.

Feel free to examine whatever other signals are out there and pick what works for you. You keep pointing to the noise as the reason you can't extract a signal.
I say it's because you are quite happy to have that noise as an excuse.

God has been very clear. But just clear enough so that people have the freedom to make up an excuse to turn away if they are not interested.

: chuckle :

Riiiiight.

I can tell you who designed the designer.........it was humanity

well obviously. :) tell that to @stan

Amazing coincidence. I just did a post on religion too. Very well written. My favourite point which really stood out was:

Your holy book is proof for the existence of your God as much as Harry Potter is proof for magic. Fans and followers don’t make something true. Quite the contrary. Truth is rarely democratic.

So true. I also love the Ricky Gervais and Douglas Adams quotes because they really get to the heart of the point.

Yet I am amased how many dellusional people still believe...

The babelfish!!! Love Hitchhiker's Guide

I think fear of death is one of the primary motivators for the conscious belief. Deep down though I think many people know that it doesn't make sense.

this is why everysingle religious person cries at funerals. they know that most likely, they will never see that person again. if they believed in the afterlife they would be relaxed like most indigenous societies

I've been to several funerals lately and have found the opposite to be true.

I was only laughing about it because its a black and white drawing/cartoon. xD

well yeah. it is for demonstration. you can see examine the actual embryos yourself :)

Not as enjoyable as the cartoons. xD

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.

Built by @ontofractal

Somebody (seems to me it was George Martin, but I can be wrong) said: "When I was ten, I prayed that God would give me a bicycle, but then I grew older and had learned that this system works differently. Then I have stolen bicycle and prayed for not to be seized"
BTW great song of the past


Cheers!

Just....

AWSOME!!!

And you still scorn flat earthers ???

I think you’re being overly rhetorical. An honest appraisal using Information Theory results in a near certainty that our World is an act of will by a Creator. In one of his early books, Bostrom considered the Anthrophic Principle and conclude that the coincidents necessary for life were sufficiently robust that an inference of design was legitimate. That led him years later to formulate the Simulation Hypothesis. He claims the Simulation Hypothesis is almost certainly true. That’s science, not religion. The same is true of the Intelligent Design movement.

Doug Axe in his new book, Undeniable, points out that children, rather than simply taking on the beliefs of their parents, have what he calls the ‘design intuition’—that things that exhibit craft are the product of knowledge. Axe argues that we all begin with a design intuition, and shows how anyone can wield that intuition to be smarter than a Darwinist.

You may think I’m arguing from a religious perspective, but I’m not. It’s just that the design people have much better arguments. Rather than thinking that all religions are wrong, I think they are all, to an extent, right. Religions represent philosophy (theology) from a pre-scientific perspective. It’s not surprising that a lot of it is wrong—but it is amazing that so much of it is right.

I have a lot more to say on this topic, and hopefully I'll get to it sooner rather than later.

You said so much and yet you presented no evidence. Evolution is a fact. not a hypothesis. Intelligent design a hoax

Hopefully I'll get around to fleshing it out soon (I'll link here for your convenience!).

I assume you accept Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis is not a hoax? I mean, it postulates design.

Evolution is fine as a word (I prefer 'niche filling'), but Darwinist Theory fails on one of it's three legs. Random mutation is not a strong enuff force to build anything.

Cheers!

ofcourse it is. read a book on evolution and you will undertand that..yet again..you only read religious ones...

You sure know a lot about me!

I'll try to get after some posts on the issue. Maybe I can expand you mind?

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.29
TRX 0.12
JST 0.032
BTC 60844.65
ETH 2995.69
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.88