The Great American God-Out

This will be fun.

On November 15th, Dr. Lydia Hartunian is organizing The Great American God-Out. Modeled after The Great American Smokeout, it’s a chance for religious people to try to go God-free for one day.

(That day, by the way, is a Thursday, not a Sunday. No need to fear God’s wrath on a Thursday!)

So how does it work?

… just for a day–people will [act] as if there is no god; people will live as if there only exists the goodness of self and others to sustain healthy living!

Join individuals across the nation (and across the world!) who will celebrate a day marked by peace, love, kindness, strength and appreciation for all the beauties of the natural world.

It’s a lofty goal to get religious people to take her up on this challenge, but even the thought questions are at least worth asking:

1. Say there is no god, would you no longer love your family, friends, children, pets or significant others? Why or why not?

2. Say there is no god, would you stop hoping for a cure for cancer? Why or why not?

3. Say there is no god, would you stop caring about the health of the environment? Why or why not?

4. Say there is no god, would you want orphaned children to find loving homes? Why or why not?

5. Say there is no god, would you want auto-engineers to design a safe car that gets great gas mileage? Why or why not?

6. Say there is no god, would you want Osama Bin Laden to be captured? Why or why not?

7. Say there is no god, would you want child-abusers to be punished by law? Why or why not?

8. Say there is no god, would you teach children to be selfish? Why or why not?

9. Say there is no god, would you steal money from an unattended purse? Why or why not?

10. Say there is no god, would you steal an item from a large department store? Why or why not?

FINALLY: Say there is no god, identify at least one reason you would still have to keep on living, be happy and that would bring meaning to your life. (Think hard–you can do this!)

The point is that your answers would not change whether you believe in God or not.

There is also an ongoing list of ideas/events you can engage in that day.

You’ll be hearing about this more in the future, but consider this a heads-up for everyone interested!


[tags]atheist, atheism, Lydia Hartunian, The Great American God-Out, The Great American Smokeout[/tags]

  • http://jurisnaturalist.blogspot.com jurisnaturalist

    1. Say there is no god, would you no longer love your family, friends, children, pets or significant others? Why or why not?

    I would love them much more selfishly. Right now I love my wife and am committed to her unconditionally. If she were hurt so that I had to care for her the rest of her life with no return, or if she cheated on me, I would stay with her and continue to love her. If there were no God, I would only be capable of loving her for what she does for me.

    2. Say there is no god, would you stop hoping for a cure for cancer? Why or why not?

    No, I would not, but I wouldn’t contribute to cancer research charities (my current favorites are AFLAC’s Children’s cancer and the Jimmy V foundation) unless I thought I would benefit from them. Since I have no history of cancer in 3 generations of my family, I don’t smoke and drink only in moderation I am not at risk. I’d probably contribute more to heart disease charities.

    3. Say there is no god, would you stop caring about the health of the environment? Why or why not?

    I don’t care much about the health of the environment now. At least not religiously like many others do. I don’t recycle, other than cans sometimes, because most recycling processes are more expensive, wasteful,, and sometimes harmful to human existence than just trashing them.

    I do take care of my own property, because I have an interest in it, and if people really cared about the environment they would buy up endangered properties and restore them on their own.

    4. Say there is no god, would you want orphaned children to find loving homes? Why or why not?

    I would want orphans to do the best that they could. But would I have an interest in adopting a child if I did not believe in God? Only if they would take care of me in my old age, and work for me while they lived with me. Right now I support two children in Africa, and I spent 8 years working with at-risk kids in the inner city because I believe in Christ’s mandate for Christians to care for the least of these.

  • Maria

    well first off, as an agnostic deist, I don’t believe in the bible god, but I do tend to believe there is a higher power. so I’m going to answer these with the assumption that there is no higher power of any kind.

    1. Say there is no god, would you no longer love your family, friends, children, pets or significant others? Why or why not?

    Yes, absolutely. Because they would still be all the people I know and love. that wouldn’t change.

    2. Say there is no god, would you stop hoping for a cure for cancer? Why or why not?

    hell no. because cancer is horrible-and because it runs in my family. one of my parents has already had it (saved in time, luckily, made a full recovery) so I now have a 50% chance of getting it myself. God or not, I don’t want to get cancer, and I don’t want anyone else to either. I watched my grandparents die from it-no thank you.

    3. Say there is no god, would you stop caring about the health of the environment? Why or why not?

    no. Higher power or not, we need to clean up this earth b/c it’s the only one we have.

    4. Say there is no god, would you want orphaned children to find loving homes? Why or why not?

    yes, because everyone deserves a good home

    5. Say there is no god, would you want auto-engineers to design a safe car that gets great gas mileage? Why or why not?

    yes, because it’s good for the environment

    6. Say there is no god, would you want Osama Bin Laden to be captured? Why or why not?

    yes, because he’s a dangerous man who hurts people

    7. Say there is no god, would you want child-abusers to be punished by law? Why or why not?

    yes, because they hurt the most innocent: children

    8. Say there is no god, would you teach children to be selfish? Why or why not?

    no. because a society where everyone was selfish would wipe itself out pretty quickly

    9. Say there is no god, would you steal money from an unattended purse? Why or why not?

    only if I were really desparate-i.e. starving. even then I’d try to find another way to get money. I wouldn’t want someone stealing from me, so I would try not to do it to them.

    10. Say there is no god, would you steal an item from a large department store? Why or why not?

    no, because I don’t think it’s right to do that-if everyone started stealing from their favorite stores we’d be in big trouble. there’d be nothing left for anyone to buy

    FINALLY: Say there is no god, identify at least one reason you would still have to keep on living, be happy and that would bring meaning to your life. (Think hard–you can do this!)

    well, I’m already here, so why not stick around? having been through a life-threatening illness, I know how precious life is. if this really is the only life we get, I’m going to cling to it even more. there’s so much beauty and joy in the world and life itself is amazing (the fact that we are here at all, when there’s so many chances that we could not have been). I could never give that up.

    you’re right, the answers change every little whether or not there is a higher power.

  • http://misanthropic-bastard.blogspot.com/ Rasputin

    First off, this is a phenomenal idea.

    Second off, to the first commenter, jurisnaturalist, are you nuts?

    You’re actually saying the following:

    1) That you would love your wife less if there were no god.
    2) That god would rather cure cancer than heart disease.
    3) That none of the work you’ve done for children would be worth it without god.

    I strongly suspect that if you were given proof of the nonexistence of god, that none of your opinions on any of these things would change. And if they do, well that’s just sad.

    I cannot imagine loving my wife more and god just doesn’t enter into the equation.

    Cancer killed my father and all my grandparents. It will probably take my mother and myself someday. It makes millions of people miserable every day. The day we cure cancer, I weep for joy.

    Children deserve parents, period. Safe cars mean fewer families broken by crashes. Osama Bin Laden and child molestors and other evil swine are evil swine regardless of the presence of a deity.

  • Maria

    Cancer killed my father and all my grandparents. It will probably take my mother and myself someday. It makes millions of people miserable every day. The day we cure cancer, I weep for joy.

    dude, I totally sympathize and agree. I do hope they find the cure so we don’t follow in our families’ footsteps.

    You’re actually saying the following:

    1) That you would love your wife less if there were no god.
    2) That god would rather cure cancer than heart disease.
    3) That none of the work you’ve done for children would be worth it without god.

    okay, that is kinda scary……

  • Darfasti

    What’s the point of this day? Seriously, I don’t get what this is supposed to accomplish.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com/ olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    What’s the point of this day? Seriously, I don’t get what this is supposed to accomplish.

    About the only point I can see in it is to make more enemies for atheists. It’s pretty juvenile. If atheists want to make enemies this is exactly what they should do, if they want to protect and extend their civil rights they should grow up and try to make coalitions with the majority who they will need to achieve that goal. While I am interested in everyone having their civil rights protected I wouldn’t bother trying to work with people who promote counter-productive stunts like this. They are the ones who will lose you elections.

  • http://jurisnaturalist.blogspot.com jurisnaturalist

    You’re actually saying the following:

    1) That you would love your wife less if there were no god.
    2) That god would rather cure cancer than heart disease.
    3) That none of the work you’ve done for children would be worth it without god.

    1. This is precisely what I am saying.

    I am saying that I love my wife more than you love yours, if you don’t believe in God, because regeneration or salvation creates in us a greater capacity for love.

    2. I am saying I would rather cure heart disease than cancer, if I were purely self-interested, but that god in me cares about both and has compassion for both, which generates in me a compassion for those suffering from cancer.

    3. The work I’ve done with children has been mostly in vain, if judged by results. Most of the kids I worked with went back to the streets. Some have gone to jail. Some have been shot. Some have several illegitimate children. Some are doing really well. If there were no god, it would not have been worth it.

    The list of questions intends to demonstrate how existence of god does not much affect the basic questions in life. I think it does just as good a job of demonstrating the superstitious beliefs of atheists. If you, as an atheist, do love your wife unconditionally, why? Do you have a completely rational justification for your affections? Just because you love her doesn’t count. Apart from the regeneration I mentioned earlier we are only self-interested or we are irrational. Have any of you read Ayn Rand? She shows that self-interestedness creates a morality that is rational and internally consistent. But such a morality has little regard for the least of these. When her characters are asked, “what do you think other people will say?” they respond, “I don’t think of them.”

    My challenge to the atheist: Why should you care about other people other than in terms of what they can do for you?

  • Valhar2000

    Does anyone really think that these questions would receive an answer in any way different from the ones given by Jurisnaturalist and Reg Golb at Scientia Natura?

    People who beleive really do beleive; they say that morality is impossible without God because they really do think so, and thus they cannot possibly conceive of another answer for these questions. Hell, there are atheists who beleive this rubbish, and thus continue to profess religiosity and work trielessly to ensure that everyone else continues to beleive, so that society won’t devolve into “chaos”.

    Though a few people will protest to the contrary (but a lot will agree) religiosity is an entirely emotion-driven process. People who beleive have come to do for emotional reasons, and only by apealing to their emotions can they be “deconverted”, or have their proclivities modifed to the point where they do not do active harm to humanity. Attempting to reason with these people (on these issues, not necessarily in general) is useless; they argue from different axioms, and they cannot and will not take ours into consideration.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Valhar2000, if I had a dollar for every time an atheist testified in the most heartrending way about the emotional hurt put on them by their religious (usually fundamentalist) upbringing and how that was their motivation for converting to athism, I’d be able to buy a better computer. I don’t find that atheists are more rational than religious believers, taken in agregate, though lots of them arrogantly take that they are for granted.

    If you exchanged the word “experience” for “emotion” in your argument, you would make a stronger case, though you would still be over generalizing.

  • http://crossimpact.net Cody Clark

    To me, God is Love. If you Love selflessly, there then is God.

    I cannot logically answer these questions. If there were no Love, then of course I could not love my wife. Or if may be there were only romantic love (eros) and not self-giving love (agape) then I would only love my wife until the romantic feelings went away.

    To make the point that Love will go on if there is no God is, to me, an oxymoron. Of course you can Love without professing the canons of belief in the God of the Christian scriptures. But if you love, especially if you love selflessly, then you are in Christ. Whether you like it or not.

  • http://little-endian.blogspot.com Alan Lund

    olvlzl, no ism, no ist: I cannot recall hearing from any previously religious atheists that the hurt they experience is what motivated their conversion to atheism. That hurt may be the reason that they are perceived as “angry” atheists, but I cannot recall any who actually claimed that was the actual trigger. That does not mean that there are no such people, but I wonder where you are hanging out to have heard from so many. Either way, your anecdotal data and my anecdotal data are not going to get us very far. (I do agree that atheists have neither a monopoly on rationality nor even a reasonably complete absence of irrationality.)

    On the other hand, I think Valhar2000 went too far by saying that [all] people believe for entirely emotional reasons. For instance, people growing up in religious families and religious cultures are likely to be believers simply because they are immersed in those beliefs. One might even say that, under those circumstances and in a certain sense, belief is rational (though still false). Yes, they are working from a very different point of view that is difficult to break down, but that does not make their basis for belief emotional in nature.

  • Polly

    @jurisnaturalist: Your ideas about “regeneration” being the only way to have compassion for others are being refuted right in front of you by other respondents. I think your presuppositions about the depravity of man are affecting your ability to appreciate human nature.
    Very few atheists are followers of Ayn Rand in my experience, so referring to her is about as relevant as quoting Marx because he was an atheist, too.

    I was a xian fundamentalist and am now an atheist. I love my wife exactly the same. What reason, not holy ghost machinations, but actual REASON does god give you to love your wife? If you don’t need a reason, then neither do atheists. And because He tells you to, is not a logical reason, that’s just mindless obedience.

  • http://little-endian.blogspot.com Alan Lund

    One problem with the way “The Great American God-Out” is framed is that it invites people to act as if there is no god, when they believe a god exists. So, for people like jurisnaturalist, they are being asked to imagine how things would be different if reality were different from what they believe it to be. And since (in their view) this hypothetical situation will never actually happen, there is nothing to prevent them from imagining things would be different, because we can never prove them wrong.

    A slightly better approach (though in no way foolproof) is to encourage people to try explain the world as it exists in non-theistic terms. That is, take the world as it is and try to explain what can be observed in those terms. Assuming there is no god, explain the existence of the various religions. Explain the existence of my religion. Explain why I love my family, support medical research and oppose child abusers. In some cases, see how the reasons you have doubted your religion (even if you never stopped believing) suddenly make so much more sense.

    This is something that any intellectually honest person should be willing to try. It is part of the process that I went through. But I am not sure that it can be done in a day. It takes a certain amount of commitment to the truth that can lead to a sustained investigation. I suspect that (as the end of the previous paragraph suggested) this will be most effective for people who have already taken a few tentative steps toward disbelief.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com/ olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Alan Lund, while there are some variations in the tales of heartbreak I’ve heard that general story many times, OK so I might have exaggerated when I said they could buy me a computer. I can’t account for your not having experienced them but maybe you will notice if you do now. I’ve read some pretty sad songs of that sort right here.

    I don’t think that someone who genuinely believes will be dissuaded by this kind of thing. What are you guys hoping for, that suddenly the light they thought was there goes out and they suddenly say “I don’t see the light anymore,”. No, this is a silly thing that will only make some religious believers angry with atheists, some bored and most probably not consider at all.

    There is an underlying arrogance in this that I’ve got to say seems to be just about endemic in the neo-atheists. It’s exactly the same kind of arrogance that you might experience if you get a religious missionary knocking at your door. Don’t think people don’t notice and resent it. You don’t know any of this just as the religious don’t know it. No one can know anything about this, what you think you know about any of this you only believe.

  • http://steelmansmusings.blogspot.com Steelman

    Alan Lund said: On the other hand, I think Valhar2000 went too far by saying that [all] people believe for entirely emotional reasons. For instance, people growing up in religious families and religious cultures are likely to be believers simply because they are immersed in those beliefs. One might even say that, under those circumstances and in a certain sense, belief is rational (though still false). Yes, they are working from a very different point of view that is difficult to break down, but that does not make their basis for belief emotional in nature.”

    I agree with your assessment that the beliefs of the religiously enculturated are rational, rather than purely emotional, in the sense you say. However, I think some of the strongest reasons for not critically examining, let alone abandoning, those beliefs are emotional. Depending on their situation, doing so might seriously damage their family relationships, challenge their perception of meaning and purpose in life, or change their sense of identity in relation to their culture. A lot of reasons not to upset the emotional (and practical) applecart there.

    I agree with your 1:09pm post as well.

  • Polly

    I think one can be completely rational in their acceptance of the Bible as literal, historic truth and its attendant supernatural claims.

    OK, now that your brow is sufficiently furrowed, I’ll get to the point. Rationality has only one major weakness – it’s dependent on information. If you’ve never read about the many reasons to disbelieve in the Flood, the creation of animals circa 6,000 years ago, the resurrection, etc. and have been told repeatedly by science “experts” that evolution is a fraud, the Flood is well proven by geology and that the grand canyon shows the Earth to be about 6,000 years old in total agreement with the Bible (this is a real apologetic argument) then you are completely logical in believing in LITERAL Xianity.
    The irrationality only comes in once you are exposed to the needed information to make an informed decision and you reject it 1)based on specious conspiracy theories about scientists’ motives and 2) the double standard of requiring absolute proof from science while letting Biblical claims skirt by on scant evidence.

    I will also contend that to believe in a god that does not contradict any laws of nature and is not himself self contradictory is not irrational. I think a different sort of category should be applied – “non-rational.” By this I mean that the belief is not based strictly on objective fact, but is convincing as a personal experience. However, one must still draw the line at imposing their views on others who haven’t received the message.
    I would also say that a believer in such a god should request objective evidence of that being’s power and authority if ever commanded to do something sick, like sacrifice his first-born, commit genocide, or some other nonsense.

  • Polly

    @olvlzl no ism no ist:
    The last section of the 3:39 post was the result of our exchange a few days ago. I wanted to better delineate what kind of faith I was talking about. Though obstinate faith IS contrary to reason, there is a “meta-faith” that I think can co-exist with logic. That, I think, is what you were saying?

    “Whatever is not prohibited is allowed” kind of thing.

  • http://jurisnaturalist.blogspot.com jurisnaturalist

    Valhar,
    I did not say that morality is not possible, but that it would be different. Specifically, I do not believe there is any virtue without god, because virtue requires imitation. Imitation requires a model or standard to imitate. Without an absolute standard there is no way to be certain that one is imitating the right model. If there is an absolute standard then that is your god.

    Please provide an alternative instead of just a carte blanche refutation.

    I have been quite reasonable, offering good definitions, and thoroughly thought out defenses.

    Polly,
    I do not refute that people have compassion apart from regeneration. I may have, and if so, I recant. I do say that if not regenerate they do not have the full capacity for compassion neither do they have a rational explanation for their compassion. Empathy is another matter. It is fully within the realm of possible experiences for anyone. But purely selfless yet rational compassion is unique to the regenerate.

    Alan,
    Good points. You can neither prove me wrong, nor can I prove you wrong. Nor is it my intention to do so. I am merely clarifying the correct, if rare, Christian position on these issues and making an appeal to reason. I will consider your challenge to explain the world as it exists in non-theistic terms, though at first glance such would be the content of a full book rather than a blog post, however much this post is beginning to resemble a book!

    Olvlzl,
    There are various sources for knowledge, authority being one of them. I believe the authority of scripture because I have seen its testimony to be trustworthy. What prerequisites would you place on authority before accepting its testimony? How do you know what you have not experienced empirically? There is nothing irrational about this sort of belief.

    Steelman,
    You make an astute observation in pointing out the opportunity cost of abandoning deeply held convictions which have social implications. I hope I have the courage to maintain a high level of skepticism about those beliefs which I have adopted as well as those others espouse.

    Polly,
    I agree with you admonition against imposing beliefs on others. Personally I encourage Christians to fully renounce manipulation of the political mechanism for achieving their ends and to work politically only to increase the liberty of all individuals. Any action believers take should be purely voluntary and should encourage action in others to be fully informed and likewise voluntary.

    Nathanael Snow (jn)

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com/ olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    jurisnaturalist, I’ve got an allergy to argument by authority, perhaps because I’m kind of ornery. Consider the history of the bible, the fact that it is a collection of writings over a long period, some of them by multiple authors, some practically pastiche. Is there any reason to believe that the people who compiled the individual books, copied them, chose them, rejected them (Luther didn’t like the letter of James, one of my favorites) all had divine inspiration? I tend to doubt that, especially the cannon of the New Testament. I don’t see the entire collection to be useful, at least to myself. I do like the way that rabbinical Judaism uses the scriptures as a wonderful motivation to considering the ethical implications of the writings and of actions today.

    Everyone picks and chooses, it’s part and parcel of the history of the collection. Try presenting the verses in Proverbs that advocate drunkenness for the poor to a tea-totaling Baptist and ask for an explanation, and the dodge that it meant grape juice should be seen for the self-serving lie that it is.

    And with this, I close this investigation.

  • http://jurisnaturalist.blogspot.com jurisnaturalist

    olvlzl, no ism, no ist,
    Totally understandable. I don’t expect anyone to accept anything except on their own terms. But certainly there are some things you do accept on authority? For example: the circumference of the earth: How do you know it is 24,000 miles? And what about gravity? Do you know that it’s acceleration is 9.8 meters per second? How?

    The variation in acceptance of authority as an argument is one of degree, not of kind.

  • Darryl

    There is an underlying arrogance in this that I’ve got to say seems to be just about endemic in the neo-atheists. It’s exactly the same kind of arrogance that you might experience if you get a religious missionary knocking at your door. Don’t think people don’t notice and resent it. You don’t know any of this just as the religious don’t know it. No one can know anything about this, what you think you know about any of this you only believe.

    And you drone on yet again about how no one knows anything for sure. How do you know? Aren’t you the one who’s arrogant to conclude that the rest of us don’t know anything more certainly than you do? I’ve got enough certainty to satisfy me; how about you? You sound like someone who’s worried about the absolute truth of things, otherwise you wouldn’t give a damn about certainty. Face the facts: I’ll trust my scientists–be they atheist or otherwise–over any fool blabbering about his amateurish theory of no-one-knows-nothing-for-sure-ism.

  • http://little-endian.blogspot.com Alan

    To clarify, when I said above that “we can never prove them wrong,” I was speaking specifically about the case of believers who give answers to questions about what they would do if God did not exist. While the questions invite the believer to say they would still do all these good things, when the believer answers, as jurisnaturalist did, that he would behave substantially differently, we cannot really say he is wrong. Maybe he would act differently. That does not reflect well on him, perhaps, but what else can be said without degenerating into “No, you wouldn’t”/”Yes, I would”?

    jurisnaturalist also said:

    Specifically, I do not believe there is any virtue without god, because virtue requires imitation. Imitation requires a model or standard to imitate. Without an absolute standard there is no way to be certain that one is imitating the right model. If there is an absolute standard then that is your god.

    Where to start? “Virtue requires imitation” sounds like a carte blanche assertion to me, which practically invites a “No, it doesn’t” response, carte blanche response. But suppose that you did define virtue in such a way that “virtue requires imitation” is true. You complain that without an absolute reference to imitate, we cannot be certain we are imitating the right model. But even if that absolute reference exists, absolute certainty is still unattainable. Absolute certainty requires perfect, complete knowledge and we just do not have that and never will. (I’m absolutely certain of that! ;-) )

    But do we even have good reasons to believe such an absolute standard exists? How can we learn about it? Better yet, how can we investigate it? How can we be confident that the results of our investigation are true?

    And that brings us to arguments from authority. You give the examples of the earth’s circumference and the acceleration due to gravity (at the earth’s surface). It is true that most people have not and will not personally make these measurements. But the measurements are possible, and have been verified by a large number of people. While not absolutely certain, we have very good reasons to believe that these values are accurate, and some of those reasons are rooted in the process by which those values have been verified.

    When it comes to the authority of scripture, that foundation is just not there. Instead, we have anonymous and pseudonymous authorship, intentional and unintentional alterations to the text (some of which can be corrected, some not), internal contradictions, contradictions with external sources with better credentials, similarities to other texts that are not afforded a similar level of trust, evidence of legendary accretions, and so on, all combined with the lack of empirical means to verify many of its important claims. Yet, you would have us simply accept its authority? Or to reduce the difference to just a matter of degree? The difference of degree is so substantial that it becomes a difference of kind.

    In an attempt to bring this back around to the original topic, or at least to the alternative formulation I suggested earlier, I might ask you to consider whether all of the above mentioned characteristics of the Bible are best explained by divine inspiration and authority or by human authorship in a godless world (or, perhaps some other alternative).

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com/ olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    Darryl, I don’t care if you don’t like it.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » The Great American God-Out is Here!

  • Ben

    I would like to speak to this quote from jurisnaturalist:

    “What prerequisites would you place on authority before accepting its testimony? How do you know what you have not experienced empirically?”

    For me, the answer to this is simple. I will accept authority, and by proxy its testimony, based on whether or not the “authority” in question has demonstrated the ability to consistently punish those who do not recognize said authority. The “God” of the Bible does not meet this criteria. There are stories of him punishing people for this, but I have not seen it demonstrated, and it sure isn’t consistent. In other words, I dont think it is unreasonable to not accept something you have not experienced first hand. I do admit, multitudes of human beings need no evidence or experience whatsoever before they will vehemently believe in something and violently defend that belief. That is the reason the church and government have little resistance when it comes to controlling all of human society. We are taught to believe that dont exist from the time we are very young. Easter Bunny, Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc. I think it makes it that much easier to train people to believe in God.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » I Love Acronyms


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X