# What's wrong with faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156 "2010-12-23T05:05:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/161 "2010-12-24T05:51:45Z")
I have to say I don’t find your last two posts overly coherent. However, doing the best I can, if your question is “why do people object to your faith in particular?” then: 1/ it may be because of the particular effects of your particular faith on those around you. No doubt you would deny this, quite possibly correctly and if it’s not that then 2/ surely I don’t need to explain to you how it might come about that people react against a phenomenon generally because of their perception of the broad consequence with which that phenomenon generally (but not perfectly) correlates? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/162 "2010-12-24T05:53:44Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Why? > > Science **is** silent on the matter. > > From there, we’re all witnessing. > > Whether one realizes it or not. Science is not silent. Science has taken up many religious claims about the natural world, and falsified all of them. As for the existence of God, I can only quote Laplace, who when asked by Napoleon where god was during a discussion of orbits, said “[No, Sire,] I had no need of that hypothesis.” The null hypothesis, that no gods exist, has worked very well. It is up to you to provide a falsifiable definition of god’s characteristics, as seen by us on this world. (It does not have to include a complete understanding of god.) Religion has mostly retreated from this, and now many say science is not relevant. BTW the null hypothesis has nothing to do with belief or lack of belief. I’d say in most cases the null hypothesis is exactly what a scientist does not believe, since he is going to do an experiment and collect data to falsify the null hypothesis to a certain reasonably high level of probability. Even if you think you have a way of demonstrating the existence of god, intellectually honest would require you to start with the null hypothesis of not god. If you want to default to a given god, you need to let us know which one, given that you are not yet presenting evidence of any. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/163 "2010-12-24T06:27:44Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I have to say I don’t find your last two posts overly coherent. However, doing the best I can, if your question is “why do people object to your faith in particular?” then: > > 1/ it may be because of the particular effects of your particular faith on those around you. No doubt you would deny this, quite possibly correctly and if it’s not that then > > 2/ surely I don’t need to explain to you how it might come about that people react against a phenomenon generally because of their perception of the broad consequence with which that phenomenon generally (but not perfectly) correlates? 1. No, that wasn’t the question but it isn’t a point that is pertinent so I’ll drop it. 2. No, you don’t. If that’s the answer then so be it. It probably is that simple. Since that’s not how I want to or try to approach things, that’s why I had to ask. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/164 "2010-12-24T09:52:26Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > **jinty** take a look at **Baboonanza** ’s statement above for an example of what I was talking about. He reserves tolerance for those people with conditions that cannot be changed but feels that faith is something that can be changed and is therefor fair game. > > This is the same attitude you find in people who view homosexuality as something that can be changed and should therefor not be protected against discrimination. > > The very same sort of bigotry. > > Fortunately, anti-discrimination laws are clear in their protection of religious views in the same manner that race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. are protected. Probably every Evangelical Atheist on this board works under an anti-discrimination policy at their job that would preclude the behavour that they exhibit here on this board if they tried expressing the same anti-religion views in the workplace. Sorry to continue the highjack, but this goads me. Where is the anti-discrimination protection for holocaust deniers? or for the moon-landing fakers or the astrologists? Should we not be able to form a judgement about anyone based on what sort of random Woo they believe? If I can discriminate against someone because they think the holocaust is a conspiracy surely I should be able to do the same to someone who thinks that all non-Muslims should be killed? My point is simply that religion has been put into a special category of bullshit views that must be respected, and it doesn’t deserve to be there. Clearly if you’re religous you don’t think it’s bullshit, but that doesn’t make it smell better to everyone else. I would concede that perhaps there should be protection for practical reasons (to protect religous people from other religous people mainly), but are not Neo-Nazis persecuted for their beliefs? Where do you draw the line? ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/165 "2010-12-24T13:10:15Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Wow, I’m a little too slow for the board. Sorry again. > > **martu** said the danger and as far as I know we were discussing one specific type of danger so I didn’t see the need to clarify he didn’t mean all danger but I will do that. > > **martu** , can you tell me what specific danger you meant that ties into my statement of worrying about dementia instead of faith and would be solved by not having faith? > I Avoid the danger of doing harm based on faith. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/166 "2010-12-24T13:42:46Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Got it. So (a) just keep in mind that, when folks are addressing the OP question of what’s wrong with faith, they’re referring to the former rather than the latter; and (b) when I reply that judging someone on the merits is okay so long as you’re not going on faith, keep in mind that I’m likewise referring to the former rather than the latter. > > I think we’re clear on this. Fantastic; now let’s see what happens when you apply cross-apply the latter and the former. I tried to sum up your description of faith in the latter context: _“basing your judgment on the evidence that’s come in so far … While ready to revise your judgment accordingly as evidence continues to come in … While remaining somewhat skeptical by keeping in mind that the person in question may well be dissimulating? Is that an accurate portrait of how you’re describing ‘faith’ in this context?”_ Your reply: _“In that context absolutely.”_ Now imagine someone advocates using _ **blind** _ faith in that context; you’re all about rationally basing a judgment on evidence, retaining a healthy skepticism while immune to claims that you’re scientifically incorrect – and someone walks up to declare that they judge differently: he freely admits there is no basis for his decision, mentioning that scientifically it’s incorrect – adding that he can readily converse with people and discuss the irrationality of his beliefs. And he calls that “faith”. And he asks, “what’s wrong with faith?” (Or, if it helps you, frame the question thusly: “what’s wrong with blind faith, in the aforementioned context where Disgruntled Penguin doesn’t use blind faith?”) ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/167 "2010-12-24T14:32:45Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > The fact is, there are many things that we have become aware of that were previously unknown—from planets and galaxies to sub-atomic particles. Did they simply not exist? Of course not. They existed. That’s not the point. The point is: prior to getting evidence / good reasons for the existence of planets, galaxies and sub-atomic particles, is it rational to believe they exist? No. The fact that some people get to be proven correct eventually doesn’t make their original position more rational - they believed without good reason. > [@](#): > > The only rational scientific default position for the existence of an supernatural God being sought in the natural world, using the only tools available by temporal humans,( in the natural world) is \*\*silence. \*\* > > Isn’t that the case? Isn’t science **silent** on the existence of a super natural God? > > Once you take the evidence (and you appear to be confusing ‘evidence’ for ‘proof’) and apply your subjective beliefs you’ve created a belief system. > > Some people call that faith. The default position for the existence of anything in the absence of good reason or evidence of its existence is that they don’t exist. One can conceive of an infinite number of non-existent things/concepts and for one to withold judgement on their existence in the absence of any evidence of their existence is simply stupid. The default response to someone claiming in the absence of evidence that fairies/ goblins/ leprechauns exist is that there are no evidence to show that fairies/ goblins/ leprechauns exist. For that matter, you do not have incontrovertible PROOF that Elvis is really dead. For all you know, he is an alien who is still living today and pretended only to die in order to escape the pressures of fame. You don’t stay silent when someone claims that Elvis is alive, do you? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/168 "2010-12-24T15:27:29Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I used to get posters to chase their virtual tail pressing them to make good on comments like, (and I quote) “The non-existence of God is as much an objective fact as the existence of trees.” I don’t know what you’re talking about. I explained how I justified this statement in the post where I made it. Both assertions are the best fit for the evidence at hand. Both assertions are also open to falsification should alternate evidence present itself. In my life I’ve encountered things that seem to be trees, but aren’t (fake trees, computer graphics renderings of trees). However, I’ve never encountered anything that seems not to be a god, but is. In fact, I’ve never encountered anything remotely godlike at all. So if I’m trying to weigh the likelihood of trees being illusory, or God not being illusory, I find the idea that trees are illusory slightly more plausible (although still pretty damn unlikely). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/169 "2010-12-24T15:30:43Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Even if you have touched the tree? I’ve touched things I think are trees. However I can’t be sure that I wasn’t dreaming, or hallucinating, or that my entire life isn’t taking place within a virtual reality simulation. Such hypotheses are extremely unlikely, but can’t be ruled out entirely. And they’re certainly more plausible than the existence of an entity that is logically contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![radorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e0b2c6/32.png) [@radorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/radorth)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/170 "2010-12-24T16:43:49Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Yes. Your misrepresentation of historical fact is vile. Heh heh. He absolutely positively said he was “enthralled with the Nazarene.” That’s all I claimed. I never claimed he believed in God > [@](#): > > I am not starting a new thread, Fine, you obviously don’t care that you have taken us completely off track, for no rational reason it turns out. > [@](#): > > because that might give your blatant contradiction of fact legitimacy in this thread. First of all, unless you purport Einstein to be a liar, his statements (some of which I pointed to) later in his life prove you wrong full stop. Um, I clearly pointed out that he made his statement in his earlier years. > [@](#): > > Second of all, you have not presented a quote. You have alluded to one in an article, but which one I do not know. You clearly implied you knew all the quotes. You mean you are making claims about what Enstein always believed without knowing what he said? Isn’t that rather foolish? Perhaps you should depend less on atheist sites for your information. > [@](#): > > Third of all, the fact that he said positive things about Jesus is completely irrelevant to the question of his religious views. Exactly. So why did you go into such a tizzy, accusing me of saying something I never said or believe? I never claimed he was religious or even believed in God. I said he was “enthralled with the Nazarene,” an exact quote. You just started making all kinds of assumptions EVEN THOUGH I QUALIFIED THE STATEMENT Now that we have that cleared up, would you like to discuss how much faith it takes to be an atheist and how many logical fallacies atheists themselves use? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/171 "2010-12-24T17:17:49Z")
> [@radorth](#): > > Now that we have that cleared up, would you like to discuss how much faith it takes to be an atheist and how many logical fallacies atheists themselves use? Well that’s an easy one, it takes exactly zero faith to be an atheist. That is sort of the point. Gods have not been adequately evidenced. As for logical fallacies? I’m sure atheists are prone to them, what with being human. However I’d imagine that the types most often used by atheists are different to those of the religious as their starting points are different. Do you have any examples? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/172 "2010-12-24T17:50:44Z")
> [@radorth](#): > > Now that we have that cleared up, would you like to discuss how much faith it takes to be an atheist and how many logical fallacies atheists themselves use? Sure. Tell us. ---
**Author:** ![radorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e0b2c6/32.png) [@radorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/radorth)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/173 "2010-12-24T18:01:48Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Sure. Tell us. OK but I will only talk about what roughly relates to the OP. If you don’t like that idea, and you take us off track, I will start another thread. Agreed? #1 The claim that there is not enough extra-NT evidence that Jesus is who the NT says he is, is basically an argument from silence. Lack of evidence proves nothing, and therefore faith rather than sound logic is required to deny he was who he said. Not to mention that in the law you have to prove the truth of an allegation or slander (e.g. “they made it up”). Otherwise you lose the case. You don’t get to tell a jury “trust me, they were all lying.” In other words “take it by faith.” YOU have to prove the truth of the allegation. The Christian is under no obligation to prove people were not lying. That’s why I don’t really bother anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/174 "2010-12-24T18:31:29Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > We all agree it can hurt and we all agree it must be confronted when it does. Are you saying that this risk is so bad we need to proactively stamp out any belief lest it become that type of belief? Again, think bigfoot not flying planes into buildings. I would say it depends. On the surface, a bland (no offense) modern Christian faith is nothing to worry about. The trouble is that it sets up situations like the one that lead the woman to drown her own kids because God was talking to her. So it depends. Personally I think that skepticism should be employeed - so that even if someone has faith, they do not have ‘certainty’ in that faith. If that makes sense. As to ‘bigfoot’, on the surface, it could be harmless. If, on the other hand, I had a friend who was investing considerable resources (his/her life savings, years of time, etc) and was planning an expedition to find bigfoot, I would feel compelled to reason with the person. If, after I reasoned with him/her, (again, assuming this is my friend) and they still had faith - that’s fine, I’ve done my part. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/175 "2010-12-24T18:34:48Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > Well, hmm, I don’t agree with the first sentence if you mean to the believer. Presumably their faith is in line with their beliefs and they would be able to sort out which is harmful and non harmful. I’ve never been someone to just randomly pick a faith and oh well, sucks if I disagreed with it personally, I’ll just have to change my own thoughts to match this new belief. > > There could be people out there like that but I’d like to give people more credit than that and assume that it worked the other way around. How can you not agree with the first sentence (You do realize that if you relied only on faith, both of those faiths (the harmful and the non harmful) are equal, don’t you? )? If ‘faith’ is all that is required for an idea to be believed, then epistemically they are both equal. You say that they, presumably, analyze their beliefs and reasonably sort them out. What you are suggesting is that they be skeptical about their beliefs (maybe not their meta-beliefs). So, it would seem, even you think there is something wrong with _just_ faith. Perhaps you would support a reasoned faith - one where you use reason in order to determine which beliefs fit within your worldview (which seems to be what you are saying). ---
**Author:** ![radorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e0b2c6/32.png) [@radorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/radorth)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/176 "2010-12-24T18:37:12Z")
#2 The question “Who created God?” is intellectually meaningless, although some famous atheists don’t seem to have noticed. Who created the human being? “The big bang and evolution did it.” Says the skeptic. Fine, maybe evolution created God on another super-advanced planet. I have no big problem with that. What I have a problem with is that faith in the big bang and evolution could create something out of nothing, but God can’t come from nothing. First the atheist says something can come from nothing, then s/he argues it can’t. This contradiction proves there is a force besides consistent rational thought being applied to the question. That force is merely faith that God doesn’t exist. Like I said earlier in the thread, if God exists, we are boneheads by definition and unable to affirm or deny him except by faith. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/177 "2010-12-24T18:39:27Z")
> [@radorth](#): > > OK but I will only talk about what roughly relates to the OP. If you don’t like that idea, and you take us off track, I will start another thread. Agreed? > > #1 The claim that there is not enough extra-NT evidence that Jesus is who the NT says he is, is basically an argument from silence. Lack of evidence proves nothing, and therefore faith rather than sound logic is required to deny he was who he said. This isn’t exclusive to atheists. Further, this seems to beg the question. > [@radorth](#): > > Not to mention that in the law you have to prove the truth of an allegation or slander (e.g. “they made it up”). Otherwise you lose the case. You don’t get to tell a jury “trust me, they were all lying.” In other words “take it by faith.” YOU have to prove the truth of the allegation. The Christian is under no obligation to prove people were not lying. That’s why I don’t really bother anymore. This is nonsense - in law, if someone said ‘the devil made me do it’ or ‘it wasn’t me, it was a ghost’ or any other paranormal claim they would not have a case. Yet you think law supports the new testament? Eye witness testimony is notoriously bad. Did you just read Josh McDowel’s book or Lee Strobel’s? Inquiring minds. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/178 "2010-12-24T18:44:30Z")
> [@radorth](#): > > #2 The question “Who created God?” is intellectually meaningless, although some famous atheists don’t seem to have noticed. > > Who created the human being? > > “The big bang and evolution did it.” Says the skeptic. Cite? Show us just one “famous atheist” that claims that “The Big Bang” and/or evolution created human beings. The more you type, the more your ignorance of science and atheism shows. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/179 "2010-12-24T18:45:23Z")
> [@radorth](#): > > #2 The question “Who created God?” is intellectually meaningless, although some famous atheists don’t seem to have noticed. > > Who created the human being? I agree with you - ‘who created God is intellectually meaningless’, but for different reasons. I think the term ‘God’ is, upon examination, meaningless. > [@radorth](#): > > “The big bang and evolution did it.” Says the skeptic. Actually I don’t think there was a point where the universe didn’t exist. You have a different metaphysical view of time then I do. > [@radorth](#): > > Fine, maybe evolution created God on another planet. I have no big problem with that. What I have a problem with is that faith in the big bang and evolution could create something out of nothing, but God can’t come from nothing. You have no problem with that? Then what do you mean by ‘God’?? I don’t think there ever was ‘nothing’, nor that anything was ever created from it. That’s why _YOU_ believe, that God created something from nothing. Which is absurd - it’s magical thinking. How did God do that? Take two scoops of nothing and put the oven to 400 degrees and BAM, something happens? > [@radorth](#): > > First the atheist says something can come from nothing, then s/he argues it can’t. This contradiction proves there is a force besides consistent rational thought being applied to the question. That force is merely faith that God doesn’t exist. I don’t know if something can come from nothing - if it _could_ then logically it could not have been created, since creation requires an actor to act _upon something_. So, logically, if something came from nothing, it could not have had a cause. That said, I don’t think the universe was ever ‘nothing’. > [@radorth](#): > > Like I said earlier in the thread, if God exists, we are boneheads by definition and unable to affirm or deny him except by faith. Seems to me that your beliefs about atheists are gross generalizations and strawmen. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156/180 "2010-12-24T18:47:14Z")
> [@radorth](#): > > #1 The claim that there is not enough extra-NT evidence that Jesus is who the NT says he is, is basically an argument from silence. Lack of evidence proves nothing, and therefore faith rather than sound logic is required to deny he was who he said. > > Not to mention that in the law you have to prove the truth of an allegation or slander (e.g. “they made it up”). Otherwise you lose the case. You don’t get to tell a jury “trust me, they were all lying.” In other words “take it by faith.” YOU have to prove the truth of the allegation. The Christian is under no obligation to prove people were not lying. That’s why I don’t really bother anymore. This is utterly illogical. Under that reasoning, we must believe in everything which we cannot prove false. Unicorns, Martians, Jesus; if someone makes a claim, somehow, we have to prove they are lying, else we cannot with any certainty say they do not exist? Is that your proposition? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-faith/565156.md?page=10)