Idiotic Theist Arguments
I have to admit that I am somewhat entertained now, rather than irritated, by some of the more idiotic arguments that we atheists get from believers trying to convince us that we do actually believe in God or have 'faith' whether we realize it or not. The most insane of these arguments is the 'You sit in a chair - therefore you have faith' argument.
I am going to let one of my anonymous moronic xtian trolls explain this argument in the quote which follows:
You basically say that faith is a lie. So, do you sit in chairs? If you do, I assume you believe they will hold you up when you sit in them.
Actually you do have faith. You have faith that there is no GOD.
To anyone with an ounce of common sense, comparing the act of sitting in a chair to the belief that an invisible man and his imaginary son rule the universe (along with a ghost) is preposterous. It is quite disturbing that there are people walking the streets of this country whose minds are so whacked that they could relate two such things. It is not as if this asinine argument is rare either. It seems to be a staple of xtian apologetics.
With arguments such as this in support of their cause, it is no wonder that atheist are the largest growing segment of the population in terms of belief and that christianity continues to fall in numbers. Come on believers; screw your heads on right! We atheists are statistically smarter than the average bear (or believer) and we aren't going to be convinced with the insane logic of brainwashed morons.
Tagged as:faith,christianity,atheist,atheism,religion
24 Comments:
Xtians who believe in their big daddy in the sky will continue to believe in it no matter what you say to them. They want you to listen to their argument for a god, but absolutely will not listen to you regarding your belief system. Atheists generally say..at least I do, that they don't believe there is a god. They don't say that there is not a god, just that the proof of an existance of a god has not been proven to them.
But I can say with confidence that the fucker that they currently call their god...ain't. If the christers would only read the story of buddah, and krishna they will see that the stories are carbon copies of the christ myth; only the buddah and krisna myths were evoked hundreds of years before the christ bullshit.
If the christers would only read the story of buddah, and krishna they will see that the stories are carbon copies of the christ myth; only the buddah and krisna myths were evoked hundreds of years before the christ bullshit.
When I pointed this exact thing out to a couple of xian relatives (Southern Baptists), they explained that similar previous myths prove that xianity has always existed since gawd made the world and people just didn't realize it till gawd got it on with Mary and created baby Jeebus and brought it all to light.
I have heard the standard "sitting in a chair" example many times from xians. If I tell them to go jump off a cliff and see if gawd will catch them, they laugh and say that we cannot "test" gawd. They make up irrational answers to contradict every rational point we try to make.
Yes, the more I try to reason with even people who think they are 'liberal' xtians, the more I realize that it is really pretty hopeless. But, you never know.
Are we really the largest growing segment? I hope so but don't know where the stats are. I thought it was Catholicism (Catholicism happens when there's no birth control).
Heresy now!
My husband is a liberal Christian, he is not too bad though, he accepts it all as mythology, or like Aesop's Fables, and doesn't think I need to convert so I can't complain about that.
Here is a link to a good article on the truth about the trend in America.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Speaking as one who has faith, I think the point of the example you mentioned is to give a working definition of faith in within the physical world, and how it is symbolic when speaking of the immaterial world.
The word faith is more of a verb than a noun. It is something one exercises, not something one possesses. And this is the point of that chair analogy. It involves looking at the chair, and making a reasonable to decision to trust that the chair will hold you, then sitting in the chair (putting faith in the chair). However, when speaking of matters of the immaterial world, you are right, it is silly to use this as an argument for the existence of God, and is not normally used as such.
What do you make of the rise of Wicca and Neopaganism? Do you see this as yet another portion of humanity falling into silliness, or are you glad for it? What is your take on a post-religious world? What would it look like? I think you are very intelligent and would encourage you to take some of your writings from being reactionary to progressive. Thanks!
Dave,
faith (fāth) pronunciation
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
"faith" as you call it does not apply since these people are attempting to use 2 different definitions ( just like the evolution *theory* ). When I go to sit down by my lifelong knowledge and wisdom i know that the chair will probably hold me. I know this because I have sat is thousands of chairs and know which ones are sturdy and what to look out for ( does it wobble too much under my hand, is it on uneven ground, .. ). This is worlds different from the blind faith that religious people often place in god and/or dogma.
I disbelieve because I can find no more evidence for god then for the tooth fairy, Santa, the Easter bunny, Isis, Thor, Allah, or superman yet you probably dismiss those gods / supernatural entities just as easily. I do not care how people arrange their own personal affairs, what I do mind is when those of faith expect other not just to be accepting, but to change to conform to a set of laws or actions that can not be rationally argued.
The interesting connection in almost all of those definitions is that they all hinge on the synonym of faith, "belief". That is the difficulty in throwing around large, abstract ideas in the form of small words. I think my point remains.
Words mean what we cause them to mean. If the jury 'believes' the witness's testimony, there will (should) be practical ramifications for that belief.
To imagine a world where no one's 'beliefs' affected how they lived their life is not being realistic, in my opinion.
I realize that what I'm saying in no way is trying to argue for the existence of God. I don't think those conversations are fruitful. You either believe or you don't. But as one of many 'silent lurkers' on Alan's site, sometimes I feel the need to speak.
As for your listings of different mythological deities/worshipped deities, I'd rather not let you think that just because you can group them all together because of their supernatural qualities means that we can now throw the entire thing away.
The tooth fairy, Santa, the Easter bunny, and superman are all intentionally ficticious characters. To my knowledge, no one has regarded these beings as real entities.
However, the gods of mythology, Allah, and Jehovah very well could be expressions/interpretations of a Theistic experience, however well or poorly interpreted. I think teasing out these differences will be essential if you hope to have fruitful dialogue with a person of faith.
Dave,
A jury's beliefs are based on facts, and so are my disbeliefs in god. I would hope that lawmakers intervened if juries around the country started voting guilty or not guilty based on a conversation with god rather than the facts.
You happen to step on a *big* problem with you post. You so quickly dismiss all of the entities in my post despite the fact that they represent everything from a simple fiction to a god worshiped by millions. Why do you think it's so easy for you to dismiss them, but find it so hard that I would dismiss Jesus, god, and other theistic fictions?
Since, as you point out, I can not convince someone who is not willing to accept change I will leave you with this quote.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
— Stephen Roberts
Eric,
I appreciate your reply (thanks Alan for hosting our little conversation). Let me clarify... I was not using the jury example to try to prove the existence of God. Rather, I wanted to bring up the fact that we are faced with situations every day in which we don't have full knowledge and hard evidence for believing certain events took place, but we form opinions anyway. Especially in cases where the evidence is more ambiguous (which probably happens more often than not). I guess what I'm saying is, the modern era was marked by a confidence in science, atheism, rationalism, and a general optimism of eventually explaining all of the mysteries of the universe..., but in post-modern times the popular majority had their epistemology shaken. Less and less people are able to say with confidence what they truly believe about the nature of life. And I am in this category.
I wanted make a distinction between intentionally ficticious beings and worshipped beings because it is anthropologically honest. While you may take delight in equating all religions with fairy tales, it brings me no closer to your point of view. Your point has been made. You don't believe. However, it might be more helpful if you approached the matter with a little more tact.
On a personal note, I happen to think that the many different religious interpretations of the spiritual world share a common thread, and respect them in their own right. The monotheistic religions have far more in common than most people give them credit for, and the eastern religions and their focus on wholistic living actually fit quite nicely with the Christian ethic of living. I have read the Koran, the Christian Scriptures, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, and other various texts that have been considered sacred throughout history. There are definite points of agreement among them (that's not to say that there aren't large portions where they don't agree, but then again you already knew that...)
you said, "Why do you think it's so easy for you to dismiss them, but find it so hard that I would dismiss Jesus, god, and other theistic fictions?"
I hope that I have cleared up my own view on the matter, helping you see that I don't necessarily dismiss another person's interpretation of the energy force/God/whatever you want to call it. Please refrain from assuming my points of view in the future. Thanks!
Dave,
I used a combination of fictional and religious figures because there is no more empirical evidence to any of their existences. If you soundly reject some of them you must critically examine why you believe that others exist.
While you have chosen for yourself a kind of new-age spirituality, you also know that it's incompatible with almost all of the religions that you site as having common themes. The fact that they do have common themes has nothing to do with "god", but the history of religion as a tool for maintaining order in a world before we had the population to allow for laws and police. It's not surprising that religions would form similar, if not identical, basic secular tenants. The stories were derived from an oral tradition that went back even further and it's not surprising that it would end up in many of the written religious texts.
What is more believable, that god has tried and failed dozens of times to reveal his *true* documents to the world? ( One might ask how an omnipotent, infallible god could fail in such a task ) Or that people have come to similar conclusions about how to best control people over the ages?
Alan, (or Eric or Startdust or whoever)
I wonder if you could provide a blog entitled "Why God Does Not Exist" (I realize that it is your blog and you can do what ever the smack you want with it)
I really get a kick out of reading your wacky Christian and crazy Religious nut blogs but in presenting an Atheistic worldview they do more to agitate than convince. This, of course, might be your intent. If this is the case then you have surely and surly witnessed the fruit of your labor. However it would be very interesting to hear your feelings, your sound logical arguments or scientific proof you have that there is in fact, no God.
Anyway, just a thought.
Reply to Jack (or whomever).
I would recommend this link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557
for a great essay by Penn Jillette about non-belief in God.
As far as proving God doesn't exist, that burden is not on me or any other atheist. Just as the burden of proving that unicorns don't exist does not fall on you or other believers (assuming you are a believer.) Hang on. Unicorns actually do exist according to the bible so that wasn't a good example.
But you get my point - ? I can't prove a negative. You can't prove pixies don't exist-nor can I. It would be a waist of time to try to convince others that they don't just as it would be trying to enlighten xtian or muslim believers except that pixie believers are not destroying our world and killing each other, writing our laws, destroying our constitution, enslaving women, torturing, murdering and looting in the name of Pixieism (sp).
I suppose that I the nutjob xtian are easy targets when I am in a bit of a lazy mood about writing. Perhaps I will get back into a more energetic and progressive mood soon.
Eric,
I realize that my last reply made it sound as if I hold some sort of touchy-feely spiritual arua spirituality. However, this is an incredibly complex conversation. By pointing out the similarities in the different religious texts, I was only trying to put the plethora of their existences in a positive light. As for God failing to clearly communicate His message to humans, I disagree. I believe that His clearest message is within Christianity.
But allow me to ask...do you honestly believe that humans just up and created religions to be used, as you put it, "as a tool for maintaining order"?
The problem with history is that it is always up for interpretation. I know it may seem easy for you to imagine simple-minded humans, freshly born out of evolution, to just up and create a highly complex and abstract idea like supernatural worlds and invisible gods, but I am more prone to believe their (the early humans') experiences with the supernatural than dismiss them as superstition. Belief in the supernatural, unseen world goes back to prehistoric times. I, and other postmoderns, believe there is something to be trusted about this widespread, common, historical experience.
Of course, it could just be that the entire history of humans, philosophers and scientists included, were all just superstitious sub-human thinkers, and now, finally, we have thinkers...real genius thinkers...who are brave enough to ask that final, critical question...'how kin you believe somethin you can't see?' But I believe that's just a phase we went through during the modern era.
You atheists get to answer your own difficult set of questions, like, "Why do humans have self-consciousness? How did it 'evolve'" "Why follow any sort of ethical guidelines (besides for survival)?" "What to make of the unseen, emotional world?" "How to keep chaos, purposelessness, and despair of our existence from ruining the joy our lives right now? Why not just commit suicide? I mean, it doesn't matter, does it?"
(Alan, please reference the passage in the Bible that talks about unicorns, followed by references of all the theologians that believe your interpretation of that passage. Please stop being lazy)
Dave, you are absolutely right, dismissing everything yet uproven is part of the current deconstructive mindset. Critical thinking plays a very important role in these matters.
You seem to believe that there is a universal truth out there you call "God", a truth that sporadically reveals itself. While that is unverifiable, there is nothing wrong with believing such a thing.
Here's the problem: Christians hold THEIR religion as the SUPREME TRUTH. God is perfect and the Bible, His word, is perfect as well. In dismissing Christianity, one needs only touch upon this "perfection", which is ludicrous. YHWH is a self-proclaimed supreme deity with serious mental disorders and inconsistent actions. The Bible is self-contradictory. So much for perfection.
Also, note that Christianity is a monstrous construct, which has little in common with the belief in YHWH, the Israelites' deity. Christians are blind and their agenda is to blind everyone else.
I see no problem in believing in the supernatural, as long as one defines supernatural as anything not yet discovered and classified by scientists. I see a problem, however, when this absolute supernatural entity is clearly anti-human.
Alan, sorry to continue dragging this out!
Unicorn references in the bible.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040109.htm
Dave,
You finally show your true colors. Though I find it interesting that "Less and less people are able to say with confidence what they truly believe about the nature of life. And I am in this category." and "I believe that His clearest message is within Christianity". So you don't believe in Christianity or do you? If you honestly are participating in this conversation are you not violating the #1 rule?
Religion *is* a tool of control, born out of ignorance and superstition and developed by more and more sophisticated people to become what it is today.
The argument you use that humans _for all time_ have believed in god(s) therefore it's probably true is a fallacy. Before ( and after ) Galileo people believed the world was flat... does that make it true? Oh, there that word is again, I believe the Earth is round, but I will never personally witness this fact; neither can I see subatomic particles, but I believe they exist because we can test and prove their existence and the fact that all empirical evidence points to that end. Trying to once again use "belief" in both ways is a fallacy of equivocation.
You try and malign my ethics and my self-worth, but you fail. My sense of ethics, belonging, and purpose is very strong because I have rational reasons for them. I don't need rewards or punishment from a supernatural being in order to live a good and purposeful life. I don't need to be told how worthless I am by Christianity in order to have humility and friends. I don't need to believe in a great designer to absolutely enjoy the beauty of nature in it's almost infinite complexity and simplicity.
Unlike Christianity, Atheism is not built on a house of cards that some mystical father figure set down 10 ( which 10 is another question ) rules that you absolutely can not break ( most of the time, but don't worry Jesus is here to save the day ). Where his holy and infallible text has holes and conflicts. Let us not forget the horror has been done in his name and in the name of Christianity. I could go on, but there are not enough time and this is not my blog.
You validate Christianity on based on it's commonality with other religions, how typical. It's just as likely that *those* religions are correct and you are wrong ( under your thinking ). You engage in wordplay and debate with the pretense of rationality but you have failed since you have never intended for a true introspection of you own premises.
Thanks for the link alan. It is amazing to me that the same arguements used for atheism are damn near the same arguments used for theism, especially Christianity. You cannot prove God exists any more than you can prove the he does not. I have seen straw man after strawman built and burned on either side of the arguement. unicorns=God, atheist=communist dictators. Both ridiculous, big fat straw-men. Where an atheist will use the fact that there are other similar myths and triumphantly yell "ha! see you all borrow from each other's beliefs so none of you have it right and there is no gawd! (and snicker because they cleverly used gawd instead of god"), the Christian will say "ha see, they are similar, this means that we have a common view of God, just in Christianity God revealed himself fully and finally"
the only foolish thing is for either side to call each other fools which is a problem because it seems the only way to justify either side one MUST think the other a fool. However, the best and most insightful debates I have read have been ones that have been kind and respectful on both sides.
The truth is that their are foolish and evil people on either side of the fence. I wouldn't call Hawkings (deist) a fool anymore than I would Sagan (atheist).
It is a forever stalemate. What both sides could use is a lot more kindness. No one looses if this is the goal.
If there is an upper hand on either side it belongs to the atheist. The atheist is not in danger of being a hypocrite. If they want to kill off a few hundred thousand in a furnace because they are jews, well, they don't necessarily abide by any moral law and if they are a dictator then they can make up their own laws. Hell, its all natural selection in the end they can just hope that the "good" ones will be the fittest and survive. If the christian starts knocking off people for kicks they have some splainin' to do.
Jack,
Atheists believe there is not more evidence "god" than "Santa". No adults believe in Santa anymore ( I hope ), but for some reason we can't use the same logic to dismiss god. Neither do we hear of people claiming that they are good "just in case" Santa exists.
I have used many of the common arguments, but theists just don't listen. It's not for the Atheist to prove that god does not exist since the whole concept of god is about as exotic as they come, it's up for the theist to prove that they *do* exist. In the meantime I will do what I can to show them the errors in logic that they use as fact.
And Hawking, if a theist at all, would probably be categorized as agnostic. He has been considered an Atheist in many circles, many have even speculated that he throws the word out on occasion to promote book sales.
But you see it is exactly this "santa clause" business that does no more for your cause than to agitate. First off Santa Clause was a real person. He was a Saint. The wikipedia says this about him "Santa Claus is a variation of a European folk tale based on the historical figure Saint Nicholas, a bishop from the region that is now present-day Turkey, who gave presents to the poor." Notice they say he is a folk tale based upon a real live person. If you use this arguement then you certainly will be helping the theist's arguement rather than harm. The santa stuff can be traced to certain and verifiable people and authors. God cannot yet he is still there and has been universally known throughout various cultures since recorded history. Who invented God? Nobody? You would say "well man of course" the Christian would say: "no, we just lucky enough to realize He is there" atheist: "well prove it" theist; "no you prove it" atheist: "no you prove it" and so it goes.
Since you cannot prove that God does NOT exist anymore than a Christian can't prove scientifically that he does exist, you turn to other alternatives such as displayed on this blog and others.
"realize that a peaceful, tolerant and hopeful future is not possible in the world of true believers and faith. Come to reason!" -alan
Well, if we can't reasonably i.e. scientifically prove that gawd does not in fact exist then we can hardly use pure "reason" as our "reason" for atheistic conversion. You are essentially asking the believer to not believe using the same thing that they use TO believe, -faith- because you cannot prove varifiably that he does not exist.
so the arguement looks like this: I can't prove God doesn't exist but I ask to you believe he doesn't anyways on... well not faith but reason, but not pure reason because pure reason would require some scientific proof and well we have none to prove he does not exist.
If the atheist is so conviced that the world would be a better place without God then why not spend a little time disproving him using better arguments than Santa, rudolph or any other straw man we can conjure to direct our darts. Spagetti monsters and Santas make could inflamatory bumper-stickers and are funny but do nothing more than childishly poke fun at a concept that is older than human history. If you wish to defeat anything you must first somewhat respect it.
And yes, Stephen is a theist of some sorts, like Einstein and Newton before him. Now there is a big step between a theist and believing in a personal God so no Chirstian should champion him regardless but my gosh, have you read "a breif History"? Cosmology is one of the fastest growing scientific communities today.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Natural Order, .... need I go on? Show some evidence.
So Sanata *IS* a good choice since he is the same as the theoretical Jesus figure. Jesus may have existed and spoken out with a group of followers ( there were lots back then ) but this claim that he was the son of god? Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence and there is none. Notice I didn't say extrodinary evidence requires extrodinary storytelling or specualtion, but evidence.
It still comes back to the same thing. If I brought up any other fictional/mythological/god character or belief theists have no trouble dismissing it ( when you are not too busy claiming it as your own ). They feel that the rules of basic logic need not apply to this one thing.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eric,
I apologize for the tone of my most recent post. The desire to paint the opposite POV in the same light as I and others I know have been painted on sites like these got the better of me.
I really enjoyed jack's posts. While reading them, I couldn't tell on which side of the issue he stood, which shows he was able to give a fair interpretation of the arguments from both sides.
I personally don't think atheists are fools for not believing, just as I don't think theists are fools for believing.
I think that's the reason why I initially responded to Alan's post. Not to convert, but to provide insight into the thinkings of one who has chosen to believe.
My intent was not to malign your (Eric's) ethics and self-worth, obviously I have no idea who you are or how you live your life (ah, the joys of internet conversation). However, what I'm interested in is the basis for that (your) behavior (ethic). Instead of responding by saying, "I don't need some sort of invisible unicorn telling me what to do" I'd rather hear (or be directed to a link with) a well-thought out reason for not quietly killing my housemate (who has failed to pay rent, doesn't have a job, lives off of welfare (he lied to get it), steals from me occasionally, has no familial ties, and is unhygenic). If there were no threat of civic reprimand for my actions, would they be right or wrong? As a follower of the teachings of Jesus, I believe I should show this man grace, love, and forgiveness. As a follower of atheism, what should be my response?
Or, interpreting history from an evolutionary standpoint, what was wrong with the Europeans taking over America and killing off the native Americans? Was that not survival of the fittest? Perhaps you believe they were killing in the name of Christianity - My guess is that you would criticize their actions as being hypocritical, and then we would go 'round and 'round about whether or not this was violence done in the name of Christianity, were they 'true' Christians, blah blah blah, all that shit. However, I would like to ask - shouldn't they be applauded anyway for spreading their advanced civilization to 'a new world'? Isn't that evolutionary advancement?
Shouldn't we do the same thing to Africa if we come to an energy crisis?
As for Christianity being a monstrous construct - having read the New Testament - I've not found any passages that condone violent behavior, certainly not the violent behavior that is supposedly done in the name of Christianity. A teaching should be based on its source material, not the actions of supposed followers (sorry Alan, I know you like to criticize us for distinguishing between true and false followers).
I realize that by telling you about my Christian beliefs, this all of a sudden makes my entire conversation loaded. But shouldn't I think the same of you and your atheistic worldview? We all bring our beliefs with us when we enter into conversation with another. I'm sure that you and Alan have major points of disagreement, even though you are both atheists.
You assume that because I have landed at a place of faith, I have not explored deeply enough to "come out the other side" into atheism. Could it be that I've weighed both sides fairly, and have come to a different perspective than you?
You say that the version of Christianity I am presenting cannot be, because you are polarizing athiesm and Christianity. EITHER the Bible is the ultimate authority, OR it has absolutely no authority. EITHER the Christian God presented in Southern Baptist churches is the true god, OR there is no god at all. EITHER...you get my point. The pendulum swings one way, then another. Perhaps it should be in the middle.
Dave,
I'm going to make this short. I don't set the dogma for Catholicism. The various brands of catholics all believe in the bible as the true and unvarnished "word of god". With god being all ( good, knowing, loving, ... ). Based on Xians own belief structure I need not "read between the lines" I just need to prove one aspect of the bible as wrong or contradictory to prove that religion wrong ( by their own standards ). Xians also cherry pick between old and new, why can't skeptics?
As for cuelty and voilence in the NT,,, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
I wasn't expecting to receive a link to a list of out-of-context misreadings/misjudgements of the New Testament. Do you want me to go through every single one and help sort out the laziness through which each of these passages is being interpreted by the skeptic's annotated bible? I think they should leave the historical and philosophical criticism to the scholars at Harvard, Yale, and Oxford.
I guess I would make a blanket statement to the majority of offenses that the SAB considers cruel. In each case where God or Jesus pass judgement on the wicked, they are warned of punishment. While the SAB may consider this cruel, I believe it's only because they assume God's judgements to be unfair. Any system of order that attempts to maintain goodness and punish evil is going to have...punishments. Whether or not that is cruel is relative.
Also, the passage about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands is mentioned several times. To my knowledge no one has cut off their hands or cut out their eyes because they understood this to be an exaggeration to illustrate the danger of sin.
As to proving the religion wrong (by their own standards), I submit that your are still setting up strawmen which are easy to knock down. Perhaps this is the doctrine of the Catholics. I don't know, I'm not a Catholic. They are my brothers and sisters, but they are but one version of the faith. There are other strands of Christianity that might have no problem with the existence of contradictions (perceived or real) existing within the Scriptures.
There are several views of the Scriptures roughly described below:
Inerrant - no mistakes, no contradictions/directly received from God
Infallible - no mistakes, but possibly colored by human interpretation/the message and character of God are correctly recorded
True in matters of faith and practice - may be wrong about science or history...
And there are many, many other views. For some up-to-speed discussions about biblical interpretation, I would look to the writings of Marcus Borg and NT Wright (who hold very different, and yet very dedicated views of Scripture). They are both well-respected in the theological community.
But you still never answered my question...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home