Atheism, the discussion

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30367
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Alan Phipps » Sat, 27. Jul 19, 16:04

I hope the 'accident' was not too traumatic (so not an 'Act of God' incident), but welcome back anyway! :)
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sat, 27. Jul 19, 21:37

Usenko wrote:
Sat, 27. Jul 19, 15:20
Geeze, I disappear for a few weeks (accidentally in this case!) and look what winds up happening?! :)
:D Good day to you, sir


EDIT: wait I was kind of expecting a longer reply
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Grim Lock
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed, 21. Jan 09, 16:36
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Grim Lock » Mon, 29. Jul 19, 13:42

So i guess i'll chime in with a known brain teaser.

So if one believes a certain religous doctrine, one knows that they have behave a certain way and mind certain rules to get into heaven, if they don't they go to hell (in a nutshell), what value do any of the "good deeds" or not breaking any "cardinal rules" if it is done for the biggest reward humanly possible (eternal bliss) or to avoid the biggest punishment (eternal punishment), What moral value does anything actually have? It's seems to me it's gonna be very hard for people living in that doctrine to simply be good cuz it's the right thing to do?

So probably didn't write that out as good as i could have, but it hink you all know what i mean, im genuinely curious on your thoughts.
Megatron: "You don't scare me, you mechanical throwbacks!"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Mon, 29. Jul 19, 15:19

Yes its a thing I'm intrigued a lot myself and from what I gather from own experience, people seldom do the right thing just because its the right thing to do. Most people I come across will ingore the right thing if there is short term benefit, be it direct or indirect. Many more will only do the right thing out of fear, be it legal or religious penalty.

Even making up excuses to justify not doing the morally right is very popular, people will go far, such as twist reality, lie to themselves and others, to make up grounds for their misconduct. Hypocrisy is strong in most of us, but many are oblivious to it, both intentionally and not. I think our selfish nature requires effort to not give in to do the easy part and more often then not, doing the right thing will make you stand out from the crowd, since what people hate more then anything is being called out on their hypocrisy and "wake them up" from the twisted reality.

I hope this was in line as to what you pointed out, if not I apologize for having misread it and call it a rant. :-)

MFG

Ketraar
Image

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Observe » Mon, 29. Jul 19, 19:36

Suppose ones religion teaches that you will go to hell if you cut your arm off. Do you say to yourself "I guess I better not cut my arm off, because my religion tells me I will go to hell if I do so"? No. How about my religion tells me I will go to heaven if I regularly nourish my body with food. Would I starve to death if not for my religion? No.

Same with morality, ethics, compassion etc. How we conduct ourselves is mostly dependent on what kind of person we are - irrespective of religious or legal dictate. Generally, we like to like ourselves. Sometimes we do bad things because we hate ourselves, or we hate ourselves for doing bad things. It can be a vicious or it can be a virtuous cycle.

Anyway, regardless of laws, we know what is right and wrong. Such knowing is built into our common DNA and has been custom designed for the human social animal. Our moralities are build around the pragmatic realities that give us the best chance to 'live long and prosper'.

Grim Lock
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed, 21. Jan 09, 16:36
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Grim Lock » Mon, 29. Jul 19, 19:50

@Ketraar those are the musings is meant and have sometimes myself.

@observe, I agree with what you are saying too, though that kinda leads into one of the problems with religion, some of the "rules" seem very counter-human nature in general, sure there are people who more or less automaticly comply with those rules, but for many they will have to deny their nature (gays f.e.) to conform. Imo that leads to all sorts of dangerous problems.

Thinking there's someone taking notes of what you do and don't do in the bedroom just seems unhealthy to me.
Megatron: "You don't scare me, you mechanical throwbacks!"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Observe » Tue, 30. Jul 19, 03:59

Grim Lock wrote:
Mon, 29. Jul 19, 19:50
...but for many they will have to deny their nature (gays f.e.) to conform. Imo that leads to all sorts of dangerous problems.
Yes, but those sort of things also apply to non-religious groups as well. Regarding gays, I can see how they might not be able to comply with the edict "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it". Other religions besides Christianity have similar commandments. Hence, gays can not be part of the congregation. At least that's how some see it.

Of course, religions always must adapt to the times, or they risk becoming irrelevant. It is now common for churches to have rock and roll bands. Can you imagine such a thing? Some no doubt think their churches are going to hell as a result! More and more churches are accepting gays and others, who not long ago were categorically ostracized.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 30. Jul 19, 08:59

Question but is there a source of original texts for Christianity dated back to the time of the first founding? Almost all religions originally are founded as a mental support and succor for the downtrodden. To be fair, I don't see a lot of differences in the 'core' tenets of each major religions, and they're mostly good. But what usually happens is as religion hold more influence over the mass, they started getting adopted by the ruling classes, become ruling tools and acquire unwanted flavors over the course of history.

I can only speak for my own religion: Buddhism. Most of the popular branches of modern Buddhism are rooted from China. Many centuries ago when Buddhism arrived at China, there were a long period when it was embraced by several dynasties and became almost like a state religion. Many of the current religious text for Buddhism originated from this period, from China instead of from the original birth place of Buddhism in South Asia, and thus carried many of the cultural flavor of ancient China, and some of them is just outright contra-Buddhism.

As a kid growing up I was always taught and under the impression Buddhism is a belief in compassion and forgiveness. When I get older and start reading some of the text myself, I was surprised at the amount of "brutality" reflected in them. Like ... instead of forgiveness, it cites examples and punishment that can be said "I wouldn't wish this fate on my worst enemy". And if someone is also familiar with classical Chinese literature of the time, it's fairly easy to spot the similarity. Once I became an adult I actually brought these contradictions with some of the religious leaders myself, how I think the "texts" seems to be a betrayal of the very essence of Buddhism. Tbh I never really get a satisfied answer, but I did get the acknowledgement that most of the current text are written by "followers" of Buddha hundred if not thousands of years after Buddha passing. One monk even suggested that the extreme brutality in the text is a way to compel people to follow the tenets more rigorously. Putting in the laymen term: a lot of Buddhism text are words written by overzealous disciples that had imposed their own ideal on the tenets of the faith.

Luckily though, there are way to trace other sources of Buddhism outside the China's branch which I think is a bit closer to the original and more agreeable with the original spirit of the faith, so I wonder if there exist such option for Christianity?
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Grim Lock
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed, 21. Jan 09, 16:36
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Grim Lock » Tue, 30. Jul 19, 10:12

Observe wrote:
Tue, 30. Jul 19, 03:59
Grim Lock wrote:
Mon, 29. Jul 19, 19:50
...but for many they will have to deny their nature (gays f.e.) to conform. Imo that leads to all sorts of dangerous problems.
Yes, but those sort of things also apply to non-religious groups as well. Regarding gays, I can see how they might not be able to comply with the edict "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it". Other religions besides Christianity have similar commandments. Hence, gays can not be part of the congregation. At least that's how some see it.

Of course, religions always must adapt to the times, or they risk becoming irrelevant. It is now common for churches to have rock and roll bands. Can you imagine such a thing? Some no doubt think their churches are going to hell as a result! More and more churches are accepting gays and others, who not long ago were categorically ostracized.
Also agreed however, religion in general has always given it's followers extra rules to follow opposed to non-religious folk, and well it's a fact that the religous groups have a lot more difficulty adapting to modern times, there's pretty much always first a period of loud disaproval of changing the rules, a lot of people get damaged during that period, and well it's not like we're there yet, the most vocal groups against changing the way we treat certain groups of people are mostly the organized religous groups.

Human law however changes much faster (in many cases still too slow, granted) Though the big difference between religion and human law is that human law only tells us what NOT to do and leaves what we can do up to us, religion does both, that seems restricting to me, and there's plenty of examples of what this can lead to.



On a completely different track, another question: How do you guys think heaven/hell would work? I don't believe humans can deal with "eternal bliss" or stuf like that, im very much of the ying-yang principle, so how would "eternal bliss" work? wouldn't a human psyche need to be modified to deal with both heaven and hell? And if that's the case what's the point, you wouldn't be "you" anymore.
Megatron: "You don't scare me, you mechanical throwbacks!"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Observe » Tue, 30. Jul 19, 15:25

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 30. Jul 19, 08:59
I can only speak for my own religion: Buddhism. Most of the popular branches of modern Buddhism are rooted from China.
Just to clarify, Buddhism has two main branches: Theravada and Mahayana. There is also the Vajrayana branch, but is is less prominent than the other two.

The branch that influenced you the most, is Mahayana; which is primarily practiced in China, Tibet, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. There are many offshoots of Mahayana, including Zen Buddhism. This accounts for some of the ideas you attribute to Buddhism, but actually originate from diverse non-Buddhist cultural influences; rather than from teachings of Buddha per se.

The other branch (Theravada), is the oldest and most conservative. They follow teachings from what is known as the Pali Cannon. Theravada is practiced in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and a few others in that region.

As for which is most popular, it is hard to say. Mahayana has so many variations, that it is likely a person can find one that fits. Theravada has less deviations and so, there is less wriggle room in it. Most everyone these days, has heard of Mindfulness meditation. This derives from the Theravada branch.

Anyway, all that is a bit off-topic, but I thought it worth mentioning, because just as with other religions, Buddhism means different things to different people.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Observe » Tue, 30. Jul 19, 16:15

Grim Lock wrote:
Tue, 30. Jul 19, 10:12
On a completely different track, another question: How do you guys think heaven/hell would work? I don't believe humans can deal with "eternal bliss" or stuf like that, im very much of the ying-yang principle, so how would "eternal bliss" work?
The phrase 'eternal bliss' is a strange one to consider. Bliss is a sensation. All sensations are temporary. I'm not sure that eternal change is what bliss-seekers are after, because change represents eventual loss of everything that we are attached to - including our self-identity.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 31. Jul 19, 22:41

Observe wrote:
Tue, 30. Jul 19, 15:25
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 30. Jul 19, 08:59
I can only speak for my own religion: Buddhism. Most of the popular branches of modern Buddhism are rooted from China.
Just to clarify, Buddhism has two main branches: Theravada and Mahayana. There is also the Vajrayana branch, but is is less prominent than the other two.
I know what you're saying and it's not what I'm talking about though. What you're talking is the methods, or "path to enlightenment". Within Buddhism itself already outline many different paths, it also goes as far as as acknowledging there are paths outside of Buddhism belief to reach enlightenment so there is no conflict or debate there. What I meant was the "flavor" of the text that had transformed over time, and you can find this difference even within the same branch. Here is a few example of what I'm talking about:

- The same action, but in one text is described as "do this and it helps you on the path of enlightenment" while in another it's "do this or you go to hell".
- There is no dispute in the original of Buddha: a prince who left behind everything to become a hermit, so in spirit of that the old teaching has always about minimizing attachment both emotional and physical matter over doing good. In fact, loosely translate one of the most famous belief is this: saving one life gives more karma then building 3 temples. Yet it's quite a big popular belief these days that "donate money to build big temple, erect big statues will earn you great karma". Not much different than the "affluence" belief in some of the church.
- Being a Buddhist is to practice humble and never put yourself above others, and this applies to Buddha himself. Yet again, it's very common these day for people to have the belief that Buddha is #1.

These are what I meant by contradiction to the original spirit of the faith. And I don't think this is off topic at all. We're talking about Atheism and in my experience, people can turn to it for various reason. Some is Atheism as the default state simply due to their disbelief in supernatural or absolute belief in modern Science. But also I have seen many turned to Atheism after becoming "disillusion" about the original faith, after seeing the corruption or similar things that make their belief strayed from the core value. What I'm saying here is when that happens, it maybe worth it to take a step back and review what one's faith is "truly" about vs the "institutionalized" belief they are told or seen practice.

I don't consider myself a good-natures person. And I can say that many times I have both done good thing and refrain from doing bad things due to the believe in the teaching of my faith, so it has an overall positive influence on me. But also I am critical enough about it that I don't listen or believe value that I feel contradict with what I believe the spirit of the faith, but that doesn't mean I would have to totally renounce it either.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Observe » Thu, 1. Aug 19, 22:40

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 31. Jul 19, 22:41
I know what you're saying and it's not what I'm talking about though. What you're talking is the methods, or "path to enlightenment". Within Buddhism itself already outline many different paths, it also goes as far as as acknowledging there are paths outside of Buddhism belief to reach enlightenment so there is no conflict or debate there.
You are right. The "path to enlightenment" is essentially the path of purification. If a person is able to remove all their defilements/impurities, that person will become "enlightened" and fully "liberated". Technically, this does not require knowledge of Buddha or his teachings, because truth is based on universal principles - not on any single individual.
Mightysword wrote: What I meant was the "flavor" of the text that had transformed over time, and you can find this difference even within the same branch. Here is a few example of what I'm talking about:
- The same action, but in one text is described as "do this and it helps you on the path of enlightenment" while in another it's "do this or you go to hell".
No contradiction really. Buddhist doctrine outlines 31 planes of existence. Some of those are known as "hell realms". Human beings reside in the fifth "plane" in the third "realm" known as the "sensuous world". Supposedly, humans can be reborn in lower as well as higher realms - depending on their behavior.
Mightysword wrote: - There is no dispute in the original of Buddha: a prince who left behind everything to become a hermit, so in spirit of that the old teaching has always about minimizing attachment both emotional and physical matter over doing good. In fact, loosely translate one of the most famous belief is this: saving one life gives more karma then building 3 temples. Yet it's quite a big popular belief these days that "donate money to build big temple, erect big statues will earn you great karma". Not much different than the "affluence" belief in some of the church.
Very true. Buddhists are subject to these kind of absurdities as well as anyone else. This was true before, during and after the life of Buddha.
Mightysword wrote:- Being a Buddhist is to practice humble and never put yourself above others, and this applies to Buddha himself. Yet again, it's very common these day for people to have the belief that Buddha is #1.
Such beliefs are the nature of ego. We all have one. :)
Mightysword wrote:And I can say that many times I have both done good thing and refrain from doing bad things due to the believe in the teaching of my faith, so it has an overall positive influence on me. But also I am critical enough about it that I don't listen or believe value that I feel contradict with what I believe the spirit of the faith, but that doesn't mean I would have to totally renounce it either.
:thumb_up:

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 7. Aug 19, 03:38

Usenko wrote:
Sat, 27. Jul 19, 15:20
Geeze, I disappear for a few weeks (accidentally in this case!) and look what winds up happening?! :)
"Geeze", where to start?

(ok, I'm in a stroppy mood, but you can do better than that)
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:00

If you got time and interest, this is somewhat interesting.

I skipped a few monologues, as it gets more interesting when they talk to each other directly.

Lawrence Krauss vs Hamza Tzortzis - Islam vs Atheism Debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI&t=4620s


Personally, I prefer to talk about Atheism in two distinct perspectives:
- whether we know that a god or gods exist
- and whether we should worship one.

The first option relies on knowledge, which in our case, mathematic's based sciences. I'd not defend science using Atheism, but I'd use science to defend Atheism. Not how Krauss approached this.

The second option is maybe more philosophical and not strictly Atheism's concern.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:38

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:00
- whether we know that a god or gods exist
This one is a very short conversation though, since we dont know. Its the whole point of most religions and no atheist worth their pizza would ever claim to know either.
- and whether we should worship one.
This will strongly depend on the interpretation of the word "worship".

If its the "light" version where everyone does their thing, then I'll say its like any other choice issue, where regardless of my opinion people should be given the freedom to choose.
Should it be the one where people take stuff literally and effect other peoples health because of it, its a hard no.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: Solved religion conflict now, what to do for the rest of the afternoon?
Image

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Wed, 12. Feb 20, 18:00

Ketraar wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:38
fiksal wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:00
- whether we know that a god or gods exist
This one is a very short conversation though, since we dont know. Its the whole point of most religions and no atheist worth their pizza would ever claim to know either.
I know of this position but I think it's way too careful for the sake of being too careful only.

Only based on what we currently know so far, we know that the gods that humanity have been imagining do not exist. And I also by that, mean supernatural.

Perhaps later, with more knowledge we can expand on what else can not exist.

We shouldnt shy away from saying that, for the sake of covering infinite possibilities. To address that - my suggestion is to narrow down to the specific claims we all know that humans had written down and answer on them. And not instead trap yourself in trying to disprove a not specific and infinitely changing concept of a god.

In another example, I use Santa Claus. Exact same way that we can test any specific god, we can test Santa Claus for existence, and reach a definite conclusion, right this moment.
Ketraar wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:38
- and whether we should worship one.
This will strongly depend on the interpretation of the word "worship".

If its the "light" version where everyone does their thing, then I'll say its like any other choice issue, where regardless of my opinion people should be given the freedom to choose.
Should it be the one where people take stuff literally and effect other peoples health because of it, its a hard no.
The word worship is usually specific to each specific denomination of a church or religion.

It is indeed everyone's personal choice of who to serve.

My suggestion is always - to never worship and never serve.

Ketraar wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:38
PS.: Solved religion conflict now, what to do for the rest of the afternoon?
it is indeed quite easy)
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Wed, 12. Feb 20, 18:26

To be honest I was being a bit silly and didnt mean my reply to be as deep, while still be true and honest. But since you tingled my inner philosopher I would like to answer in a more serious way.
fiksal wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 18:00
In another example, I use Santa Claus. Exact same way that we can test any specific god, we can test Santa Claus for existence, and reach a definite conclusion, right this moment
Here I disagree. Let me explain my reasoning.

Decartes once said, cogito ergo sum (or the like, I dont do Latin). Implying a way to "prove" his existence. But he made a fatal error of thought, he assumed things. He assumed that thought was only possible by beings that actually exist. He was obviously oblivious to the notion of virtuality and simulation.

As such I'm of the opinion that we never will truly know anything conclusive. I think we will base our conclusion on our (limited) surroundings and experiences. Unless we find out the universe (or whatever holds it) is finite there will always be the possibility to discover new information, which in turn leaves room for doubt (as it should).

As such I find, like with Santa, its rather moot trying to prove the (non) existence of god(s). I would much rather people focus on how to understand religion and demystify them so that people can be allowed to freely participate in it without imposing it to others and or limit choices based on belief. Paraphrasing Stephen Hawking, God is not needed, and I would add, even if it exists it does not matter. Much like with climate change, if we do things that avoid it, even if it was a hoax, you benefit from it.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Wed, 12. Feb 20, 18:33

Any reply is good :)
Ketraar wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 18:26
To be honest I was being a bit silly and didnt mean my reply to be as deep, while still be true and honest. But since you tingled my inner philosopher I would like to answer in a more serious way.
fiksal wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 18:00
In another example, I use Santa Claus. Exact same way that we can test any specific god, we can test Santa Claus for existence, and reach a definite conclusion, right this moment
Here I disagree. Let me explain my reasoning.

Decartes once said, cogito ergo sum (or the like, I dont do Latin). Implying a way to "prove" his existence. But he made a fatal error of thought, he assumed things. He assumed that thought was only possible by beings that actually exist. He was obviously oblivious to the notion of virtuality and simulation.

As such I'm of the opinion that we never will truly know anything conclusive. I think we will base our conclusion on our (limited) surroundings and experiences. Unless we find out the universe (or whatever holds it) is finite there will always be the possibility to discover new information, which in turn leaves room for doubt (as it should).
Ah but you dont disagree, it seems. The universe if not infinite (and probably isnt infinite), appears to be quite large, so possibilities could be large (or could be zero).

Regardless, the important part is that we dont care whether or not Santa Claus exists in another galaxy somewhere, however unlikely. We can say with certainty whether he exists here on Earth, or could ever exist in the past.
Ketraar wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 18:26
As such I find, like with Santa, its rather moot trying to prove the (non) existence of god(s). I would much rather people focus on how to understand religion and demystify them so that people can be allowed to freely participate in it without imposing it to others and or limit choices based on belief. Paraphrasing Stephen Hawking, God is not needed, and I would add, even if it exists it does not matter. Much like with climate change, if we do things that avoid it, even if it was a hoax, you benefit from it.
It's possible someday people will see that it's not needed. Yet it seems to me people who are prone to be religious would expect something instead, and I am not sure there's anything else there that is equal.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Chips » Wed, 12. Feb 20, 23:43

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 12. Feb 20, 17:00
Personally, I prefer to talk about Atheism in two distinct perspectives:
- whether we know that a god or gods exist
Real Atheism - we don't care.

Faux atheism - "Let me show you that god doesn't..."

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”