Friday, November 27, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Atheism is the new fundamentalism

by Debate - Intelligence Squared

http://events.intelligencesquared.com/current-events.php?event=EVT0204

Live Streaming available at
Come to this page at 6:45 pm GMT on Sunday November 29th to participate in the first Live Online Intelligence Squared debate:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/live

"Atheism is the new fundamentalism" - including Richard Dawkins

Event Information:
Does God exist? Has atheism replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age? Are today's atheists as blinkered and dogmatic as they claim religious believers to be?

Wellington Squared is a new partnership between Wellington College, one of the country's most innovative schools, and Intelligence Squared, the world's leading forum for debate. We'll be bringing the greatest authorities to Wellington to battle it out over the crucial issues of the day and you'll get the chance to cast your vote at the end of the evening.

For further information please contact David James at: daj@wellingtoncollege.org.uk

For the first time, Intelligence Squared will be live-streaming a debate. In partnership with livestation.com, from 6.45pm (GMT) on Sunday 29th November, you will be able to watch online as Richard Dawkins takes on Richard Harries, the former bishop of Oxford, at this event.

The debate will take place at: Wellington College, Crowthorne, Berkshire.

Doors open at 6:00 pm. The debate starts at 7:00 pm and finishes at 8:30 pm.

Speakers for the motion:

Richard Harries Former Bishop of Oxford.

Charles Moore Former editor of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator.

Speakers against the motion:

Richard Dawkins Professor Emeritus at Oxford University and best-selling author of 'The God Delusion'.

A C Grayling Professor of Philosophy at the University of London.

Chair:

Dr Anthony Seldon Master of Wellington College.

Posted: Friday, November 27, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 215 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #435867 by fretter778 on November 27, 2009 at 8:55 pm

I know what I'll be doing Sunday evening then

Other Comments by fretter778

2. Comment #435868 by MrPickwick on November 27, 2009 at 8:58 pm

Will this be another massacre? Like the one Hitch and Fry delivered not long ago?

Other Comments by MrPickwick

3. Comment #435869 by PrimeNumbers on November 27, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Don't give them an inch, Richard!

And fundamentalist to what dogma? Atheists have no dogmas, no leaders.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

4. Comment #435870 by Sally Luxmoore on November 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Wow. Definitely a date for the diary.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

5. Comment #435876 by Bremas on November 27, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Yup, on the calendar. Now have to go look up GMT ahead of EST this time of year.

Other Comments by Bremas

6. Comment #435878 by Friend Giskard on November 27, 2009 at 9:55 pm

The motion is so retarded that the fact that Richard Harries are Charles Moore are willing to argue for it proves that they are idiots.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

7. Comment #435879 by Kyrill on November 27, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Nope, this will not be another massacre, since, unlike Mz. Widicome, Lord Harries does have his wits about him. I'm sure neither Richard will give an inch. My guess is that the debate will quickly become pedantic and semantic with constant implorations for people to define their terms.

Other Comments by Kyrill

8. Comment #435882 by mordacious1 on November 27, 2009 at 10:12 pm

The answer to all three questions is NO, but I'll watch in spite of knowing all the answers beforehand.:)

Gotta go search GMT to local time...

[edit] Starts at 22:45 PDT...not too late.
[edit edit] As Quine stated, 10:45 AM, my bad.

Other Comments by mordacious1

9. Comment #435883 by Thurston on November 27, 2009 at 10:12 pm

I have my ticket.
The poll on the Intelligence Squared website looks encouraging: 93% against the motion.
I'm looking forward to hearing AC Grayling, as he wrote a great essay on this subject in Against All Gods.

Other Comments by Thurston

10. Comment #435889 by stephen.stallebrass on November 27, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Me too, I have my ticket. Can't wait, should be really good.

IQ2 really know how to put on a good debate. I was recently at the faith schools debate in Bushey, near London, (not an IQ2 debate) and it was the worst I have ever seen or heard.

xXx

Other Comments by stephen.stallebrass

11. Comment #435893 by Art Vandelay on November 27, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Got my tickets, can't wait! This is the same organisation that put on the Hitchens/Fry debate, and another canny choice of speakers we'll be getting.
Moore, like Widdecombe, is a catholic convert (and for the same reasons, women priests), and right now that puts him at a disadvantage to start with, if he hopes to speak with any kind of moral authority. While editor of the torygraph, he surprised Jeremy Paxman when talking of the importance of "concealment" and "hipocrisy" in journalism (he was being interviewed about media coverage of the break-up of Charles and Diana's marriage).
It was a previous Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, who was famously trounced by Thomas Huxley at the 1860 Oxford evolution debate. I don't suppose there's any deliberate connection this time round, this being about atheism, not evolution, but there's a frisson of historic resonance about it.
Harries is quite a liberal bish, and undoubtedly part of the reason Moore defected to the papists, so I can't see how they'll present a convincing united front.
The motion of the previous debate was easy to refute, which clearly surprised, shocked even, many people. The motion of this debate puts atheism on the defensive, but while many have been throwing around the idea of atheist fundamentalism, now they're going to have to back it up. And of course they can't. And we have Richard. And Grayling. I really can't wait.

Other Comments by Art Vandelay

12. Comment #435897 by bendigeidfran on November 27, 2009 at 10:59 pm

Isn't Harries that bumbling nice one? Will Grayling be doing his Michael Heseltine impersonation?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

13. Comment #435900 by Sally Luxmoore on November 27, 2009 at 11:04 pm

This one is Evan Harris:
http://www.evanharris.org.uk/pages/aboutevan.html
Seems nice, but not bumbling.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

14. Comment #435901 by bendigeidfran on November 27, 2009 at 11:14 pm

He's forgotten his first name - that's a bit of a bumble.

Isn't it this one

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/902

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

15. Comment #435903 by Quine on November 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Comment #435882 by mordacious1:

Gotta go search GMT to local time...

I thought we were both in PST which is GMT - 8:00 so it will be 10:45 am Sunday, for us.

Other Comments by Quine

16. Comment #435904 by Sally Luxmoore on November 27, 2009 at 11:22 pm

Comment #435901 by bendigeidfran

ROFL!
Maybe Bishop Richard Harries is a long-lost relative....

Edit - Oops. Mea Culpa. I've been watching the parliamentary committee and thought this was that thread...
You are quite right - THIS is the one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Harries,_Baron_Harries_of_Pentregarth

I sit corrected. (Not for the first time)

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

17. Comment #435905 by digibud on November 27, 2009 at 11:27 pm

That's 9:45AM for me. Right in the middle of church services. Oh..wait...I don't go to church... nevermind...

Other Comments by digibud

18. Comment #435909 by PaulJ on November 27, 2009 at 11:39 pm

I'm going to this.

What arguments are the proposers likely to put forward in support of the motion? My guesses would be:

1) Atheism is a religion too.

2) You need just as much faith to be an atheist as you do to be a theist.

3) Atheists are always so shrill and strident.

Maybe the above are too simplistic for the likes of these more sophisticated debaters. So how about these:

4) Atheism demands that supernatural entities and actions are a priori ruled out of the question. Therefore atheists are dogmatically attached to the doctrine of naturalism. Any creed that demands wholesale acceptance of doctrine is by definition fundamentalist.

5) Atheists say there is no God. Even those who say they are only 95% sure there is no God tend to base their worldview on there being no God. If you're that certain that God doesn't exist — to the extent that you're prepared to base your whole life on it, and go around proclaiming (or maybe you mentioned, just once) the non-existence of God — you're a fundamentalist.

Or, to put it bluntly:

6) Atheism is fine as long as you keep it to yourself. But anyone who persists in spouting atheism all over the place is obviously a fundamentalist. Here's an example of the kind of offensive uncompromising pro-atheism language likely to rile moderate people of gentle, undemanding faith:

"I don't believe in God."

Other Comments by PaulJ

19. Comment #435918 by anonbloger on November 28, 2009 at 12:12 am

Looking at the speakers this could be a constructive and civil debate. The only one I don't know anything about is Charles Moore, but the others are all good men.
Anyone know if this will be recorded and available afterwards?

http://carnifexinsania.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by anonbloger

20. Comment #435929 by HappyPrimate on November 28, 2009 at 1:19 am

There is only one fundamental aspect of being an atheist - and that is not accepting the existence of any god(s). That's it. Doesn't seem there is much to talk about. Maybe they will discuss the utter confusion and lack of understanding of the subject by the religious community. I do think they highly resent having science brought to the forefront which bears substantial evidence that dispells their myths. In any event, Richard will obviously be able to enlighten them. Hope we can get this in the U.S. Will try.

Another way to look at these encounters is that the religious communities are really really getting nervous -- that they see people may be getting interested in questioning its authority over how and what they accept. Hope that is the case.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

21. Comment #435930 by anthonzi on November 28, 2009 at 1:38 am

"Atheism is the new fundamentalism"

Stupidity Squared! Live Sunday at 6:45 PM GMT!

@mordacious1: That's 10AM PST not 10PM. I think you switched the locations in the converter.

Other Comments by anthonzi

22. Comment #435948 by Akaei on November 28, 2009 at 3:37 am

The sticking point is largely perceptual. Many (including some atheists) fail to consider or grasp the subtle difference between "There is/are no god/gods," versus "There is no adequate reason to believe there is a god." Or put another way "I believe there is/are no god/gods" versus "I don't believe there is/are a god/gods." If we focus on our lack of belief there can be no dogma. But if we assert a belief in the absence of a supernatural then we have the beginnings of an ideology.

And it is difficult,perhaps impossible, to construct a world view on a lack of belief. At some point interaction with the world requires some degree of assumption on how the world DOES work. If we try to interact with the world operating only on assumptions of how the world DOESN'T work we are likely to get nowhere. So at some point if we lack belief in supposition we must assume/believe that the basis of that supposition is untrue and/or that the opposite is true. If we we lack belief in a god then in order to interact with the world we must assume there is not god. But we should never forget that our underlying foundation of a worldview is a lack of belief in the existence of gods rather than the belief in the non-existence of gods.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. It's not impossible to support a claim that there are probably no gods. It's not hard to support a claim that there is no adequate reason to believe in gods. As a result of our lack of belief we assume there are no gods. But if we promote our assumptions, our conclusions, we are either dismissed or forced to fight our way back to the facts. By focusing on the absence of evidence, the irrelevance (and even the detriment) of faith and the fallacies "supporting" the existence of gods we can introduce decision making information before they prejudge your statements.

Other Comments by Akaei

23. Comment #435956 by seabala on November 28, 2009 at 5:01 am

If we try to interact with the world operating only on assumptions of how the world DOESN'T work we are likely to get nowhere.

Science tells us how the world works. There could be a million ways that the world doesn't work. There's no point trying to refute each one of them. How most people think the world works, is not necessarily how it actually does.

Other Comments by seabala

24. Comment #435960 by Bonzai on November 28, 2009 at 5:20 am

First of all we need to establish what a 'fundamentalist' is and what 'fundamentalism' is before there can be an intelligent debate.

For example, can one be a 'fundamentalist' in mathematics by insisting that 1 plus 1 must equal to 2 and any other answer is wrong?

Can one be a 'fundamentalist' in insisting that one must adhere to the rules of logic to make valid arguments? Can one be accused of being a 'fundamentalist' by arguing that claims must evaluated based on evidence and logic?

Now can one be a fundamentalst for insisting that theistic claims must be evaluated like any other claim based on evidence and logic?

Just on a technical point, atheism is not the same as denying that religion maybe useful. It strictly just means denying that there is any evidence for God's existence.

So an atheist (though Richard probably wouldn't agree with him/her) can legitimately hold the position that religion may serve some useful purpose, so Karen Armstrong-ish defense for religion against atheism can be dimissed out of hand as a distraction.

Finally, can someone be called a 'fundamentalist' just because of the forceful manner with which he makes his point(i.e. stridency)? I think this is probably what the other side will go for to score emotional points after all else fail.

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #435965 by RightWingAtheist on November 28, 2009 at 6:26 am

Oh, dear. More nonsense from the theists.

I'm sure Dawkins and Grayling will do the job quite well, but I would add Dennett to the mix any time there is an issue of common language and concepts being used in violation of their own definitions.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

26. Comment #435972 by carbonman on November 28, 2009 at 7:40 am

Just looked up 'fundamentalism' in the Free Online Dic:
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Does atheism fit into these definitions? Let's see.

Def. 1
If the requirement for evidence (in support of claims about how the universe works) is 'a fundamental principle' to which we 'adhere rigidly' then perhaps part of definition 1 may be applied to atheism, although it's hard to see any negative connotation of the type normally assumed by those who utter the word 'fundamentalist'.
As for intolerance of other views, if we read that as meaning we don't tolerate claims that aren't supported by evidence, then perhaps that applies to us too. But I still don't see anything negative there.

Definition 2 obviously doesn't apply to anything other than religious fundamentalism so we can forget that.

My problem with the motion as worded is the inclusion of the word 'new'. Socrates was in favour of questioning assertions that aren't supported by evidence. If we accept the atheist-friendly definition of 'fundamentalism' as in any way meaningful, then Socrates was a fundamentalist, and a damned good one at that. I'd be honoured to be considered a fundamentalist in the same way as Socrates, but I wouldn't pretend to claim it's anything new.

Other Comments by carbonman

27. Comment #435978 by bendigeidfran on November 28, 2009 at 9:29 am

Comment #435960 by Bonzai

Certainly it is fundamentalist Mathematics to insist 1 plus 1 must equal 2. Have you not heard of Mathemagics? You can test how fundamentalist you are by asking yourself what is 1 divided by 3? If the 3 are persons and the 1 is essense then 1/3=1.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

28. Comment #435981 by weavehole on November 28, 2009 at 10:43 am

I sometimes worry that I spend too much time on internet mass debates.

Other Comments by weavehole

29. Comment #435983 by Jiten on November 28, 2009 at 10:57 am

How can atheism be the new fundamentalism? What can you possibly say FOR the motion? I mean, is simply not believing in god fundamentalism?

Other Comments by Jiten

30. Comment #436008 by the great teapot on November 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm

why not?
If white can be the new black.

A definition of the term wouldn't go amiss.
Ofcourse we all know they mean rigid and proselytizing.

But they (the believers) really should consider what would they say to someone who thought they were Napoleon.If they said "I don't think so" are they being fundamentalists?
If you believed you were destined to be with Angelina Jolie (a la Sam Harris) a real freind points out that you may not be right. If you don't care about anything it is easy to stay silent.

Other Comments by the great teapot

31. Comment #436012 by a.j.g.wolf on November 28, 2009 at 1:45 pm

@akaei: I liked your post.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein lists and demolishes 36 Arguments for the Existence of God on the Edge website:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/goldstein09/goldstein09_index.html

Other Comments by a.j.g.wolf

32. Comment #436062 by quaredunt on November 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm

RE: Comment #436012 by a.j.g.wolf on November 28, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Yes, akaei's post, right on the money!

Other Comments by quaredunt

33. Comment #436096 by Vadjong on November 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm

I will admit to being a fundamentalist a-fundamentalist.
Debate over.

Other Comments by Vadjong

34. Comment #436098 by Bonzai on November 28, 2009 at 6:02 pm

29. Comment #435978 by bendigeidfran

Certainly it is fundamentalist Mathematics to insist 1 plus 1 must equal 2. Have you not heard of Mathemagics? You can test how fundamentalist you are by asking yourself what is 1 divided by 3? If the 3 are persons and the 1 is essense then 1/3=1.

Well I know of a kind of mathemagics which says infinity - infinity = 0 and infinity/infinity = 1 etc. It is called 'renormalization' by physicists and failed calculus exam by first year math students. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #436120 by mordacious1 on November 28, 2009 at 7:20 pm

15. Comment #435903 by Quine and anthonzi

Oooo...glad I checked back here. I got the 10:45 part right, but for some reason I turned it into PM. Next time I'll use a converter to be safe...

Other Comments by mordacious1

36. Comment #436172 by aquilacane on November 28, 2009 at 9:54 pm

Again, their best insult is to compare us to religious people. Do they not see the irony of labeling us with the worst one can expect from the religious instead of labeling us with something actually asociated with atheism.

What would a mathematical fundamentalist be like£ Someone who insists without hesitation that 4 plus 4 is 8. What a bloody fundamentalist.

They don't realize that religion is based on lies and meaningless faith whereas science is based on facts and evidence. It's what you are fundamental over that counts, not the level of conviction you have.

When it comes to not raping children I am a fundamentalist, does that make me bad£ Twits.

Other Comments by aquilacane

37. Comment #436208 by Enlightenme.. on November 29, 2009 at 12:08 am

The previous talk; Fry & Hitch vs Widdecombe & Oneiyekan is available here in the full version.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

38. Comment #436210 by King of NH on November 29, 2009 at 12:16 am

Normally, I dance around church services and cast evil spells on the the good Xians during Sundays, as all atheists do (a point I do hope they bring up in the debate, or all my effort is for naught), but I guess I can skip one Sunday and tune in. GMT -5, so I guess 1:45 in the afternoon. Perhaps time for a quick splash of un-holy water on a few of the close ones?

Other Comments by King of NH

39. Comment #436224 by Akaei on November 29, 2009 at 1:06 am

25. Comment #435956 by seabala

...makes a good point. If we lived in a culture free of superstition and supernatural claims I would agree completely. We would not need to develop an opinion about gods or their existence. But as most of the world, especially here in the USA (Hello, World \o/ ) is inundated with supernaturalists and proselytizers, forming a world view without considering how the presence or absence of gods plays a part is nigh impossible. It is illogical that we need to consider what we don't believe to be there (or even what we believe to not be there). But (and this is somewhat autobiographical and more so speculative) people who are familiar with religious beliefs (especially former believers) cannot consider natural explanations without rejecting supernatural explanations.

The point (I'm not sure I know how to be succinct) was that as individuals, perhaps only privately, perhaps only on a barely conscious level, we must make a positive claim of the absence of gods. But when we take it to the streets our public expressions should not stray from something like "no adequate evidence/reason to believe." And when we decry supernatural beliefs let us remember that what we're really saying is "Your position is so poorly founded, improbable, convoluted and/or illogical that it doesn't merit sober contemplation."

Other Comments by Akaei

40. Comment #436258 by Hylasmikeler on November 29, 2009 at 2:53 am

To comment 41.

I have read many articles, essays, treatises and books that do not lend themselves to an easy understanding come the first pass reading. However, I can truly say I cannot, for the life of me, understand what Akaei is trying to say in either of his comments.

Akaei, please do us the favour of recasting your sentences so that they quickly and efficiently broadcast your points. And construct them so the reader can easily understand them in order that they may be able to debate with you on the issues at hand.

Way, way, to obscure.

PS. Remember, atheism is no more a fundamental belief than is the belief that you are only the culmination of all the biological and physical sub systems (ie, organs, cells, molecules, etc). It simply is the belief that remains, once all others have been correctly and rationally excised.

Other Comments by Hylasmikeler

41. Comment #436267 by Bonzai on November 29, 2009 at 3:21 am

Maybe Richard want to take a look at some of the great soundbites from the latest Pat Condell before going into the debate. Not that I don't trust his debating ability, but the PC speech is just too good.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #436296 by Sonic on November 29, 2009 at 6:02 am

You can test how fundamentalist you are by asking yourself what is 1 divided by 3?

FORTRAN integer division rounds toward zero, so the expression "1/3" evaluates to zero (and "−1/3" does too). That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Other Comments by Sonic

43. Comment #436330 by eautio on November 29, 2009 at 9:15 am

Atheism is NOT about not accepting gods of any kind.

Atheism is about not ASSUMING gods. It is an intellectual position that endorses Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is always the best, and you should not make any assumptions beyond what is necessary.

Other Comments by eautio

44. Comment #436338 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 29, 2009 at 11:33 am

Oh man... I'm going to be on my way back to New York City from Thanksgiving at my parents' house when this is on... I hope somebody caps it so I can listen to it later!

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

45. Comment #436367 by SaintStephen on November 29, 2009 at 3:44 pm

6:45pm GMT = 10:45am PST

Roger that. Can't wait! I guess it will be a lazy Sunday morning.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

46. Comment #436379 by LWS on November 29, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Dawkins and Grayling should be ruthless with Moore on the issue of the Vatican's culpability in the Irish abuse scandal and not let up on that. Will Moore sink low aka yappy D'Souza and pull out his Hitler, Pol Pot and communism cards rather than deal with this very current issue? Those arguments are so tiresome.

Richard please ask the Roman Catholic convert to justify the fact that as of this Pope Benedict is ignoring demands to dismiss Irish bishops in child abuse scandal? Is that an act of morality?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/pope-benedict-ireland-child-abuse

Why does the Vatican continue to exist as a secret hideout for criminals like Cardinal Law to avoid extradition to the USA?

http://www.slate.com/id/2188971/

What about the lavish, ostentatious lifestyle of the inhabitants of that bizarre place. It is crazier than Dubai!

Moore can also be challenged on the issue of Blair's IMO false piety and his alleged criminal persecution of the Irag War:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-the-uwaru-was-illegal-1830508.html

Harries comes across as a bowl of jelly.

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/902

It seems like it will be 3 decent, thinking, honest speakers against Moore.

Thanks Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling for being steadfast on the issue of irrational, Iron Age religious beliefs being neither true or good for any community.

Other Comments by LWS

47. Comment #436388 by Bonzai on November 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Atheism is about not ASSUMING gods.

No man, you got it wrong.

A born again Christian would say,--and it probably is true,--that he didn't start out assuming God. Only that he has found God,--or God has found him,--later through some personal revelations etc.

Atheism means that there is no evidence for God. One may actually started out assuming that there is a God and come to the atheistic position later by examining the evidence.

So the debate between atheism and theism along this vein would be over how evidence should be properly interpreted, not whether one assumes there is a God or not.

It furthermore can mean that God is a meaningless concept, I am more inclined towards that position.

(It would be a piece of cake to reject the specific God of Christianity. It is too clearly a bad fiction.)

But this doesn't seem to be the main point of the this debate. I have the feeling that it is more about alleged aggressiveness of 'new atheism' judging by the motion. So it would probably backfire by saying that we are aggressive because we stand up for the truth. That will come across sounding exactly like a fundamentalist.

It is better to stick to the script that atheists are merely responding to religion's unearned privilege position in society and its attempts to impose its dogmas on society at large.

Other Comments by Bonzai

48. Comment #436409 by Paula Kirby on November 29, 2009 at 6:04 pm

If you're going to be watching this debate live, please remember to vote! You can do it online, using the voting options beneath the video window at http://www.intelligencesquared.com/live.

There's a BEFORE vote, which you'll need to make between 6 and 7pm GMT, and an AFTER one (to measure any swing), which will be available between 8 and 8.25pm GMT.

Don't know if this has been mentioned already, but you can also comment and submit questions for the panel via Twitter, using #IQ2Atheism

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

49. Comment #436422 by Janus on November 29, 2009 at 6:34 pm