Isaac Flemming, round #1

I’ve agreed to do an online debate/blogalog with Isaac Fleming over the existence of god.  Here is his opening.


God exists. When I speak of God I speak of the Christian God in particular although the arguments used pointing to theism may at times overlap with deism as well. I am going for God in general, and more specifically of Christianity in particular.

From a worldview level I think that because God exists one can have a cohesive and coherent worldview. One can make sense of the world and one’s personal life.

1. Origen – God is the best explanation for the universe. The argument is as follows. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, 2. The universe began to exist, 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. This cause I call God. An eternal universe breaks down with the laws of thermodynamics. A multi-verse does not seem to be proven as of yet, and if it were it would not take God out of the picture. I think that God created the universe, which is backed up by the outset argument of this paragraph. It was created with a purpose, by an all intelligent being. To further back up this idea we could say that from nothing, nothing comes. We can clearly see that the universe had a beginning and was not always here, therefore how does something come from nothing. There is also intelligence from the outset. How does intelligence come from non-intelligence? If there is no intelligent being of some kind in the cause, how can we expect the same in the effect?

2. Meaning – I think objective meaning exists, and is best explained by the existence of God. If there was no ultimate objective meaning from the outset, then how can there be any ultimate meaning to this existence now? From the point of view that God exists, there is meaning from the outset therefore ultimate meaning is an actual reality. It stands outside of ourselves which gives it objectivity. Atheism does not give a good explanation here. In my own discussions some say there is no actual objective meaning. Others provide subjective personal examples of what is meaningful to them. Yet, this is not ultimate or objective. It is subjective, and again how does meaning and purpose come about if there was not meaning and purpose to our coming about in the first place?

3. Morality – Objective morals exist which is best explained by the existence of a good God. Therefore Christianity has the best ontological argument for the existence of morals. If absolute moral values exist then God exists. Absolute moral values do exist, therefore God does exist. The idea that God exists provides the framework for looking at moral evils that happen in society and actually calling them for what they are. This does not mean there are no sticky issues, but it does mean there is an absolute objective standard, where as in atheism there is subjectivity. Now, this does not mean that some of the same conclusions cannot be reached about morality. I am not saying that an atheist cannot do good things. This is clearly not what Christianity says. The point is that the Christians have a way of grounding them.

4. Destiny (What happens after death?) – I think that life after death exists, which shows that there is true destiny. In the end if atheism is true, it has a real sense that what was done on this earth did not matter. Now, I know the atheist tries to rescue this, but it is foreign to the worldview. If there was no meaning to existence in the outset and there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to the end of life, then life has no ultimate meaning or purpose. One is left with the temporal purposes, which may have its perks, but meaning is not central or ultimate to atheism. If in the end there is nothing, morality is undercut as well. Destiny makes sense if God exists, which makes one’s life having meaning in the outset as well as what comes after.

5. Truth: Objective truth that can be known makes the most sense if God exists. This leads me to the validity of reasoning itself, which seems better explained by the existence of a rationale mind rather than the result of non-rationale processes. It is hard to think that rationale can be valid from non-rationale causes; therefore a rationale super intellect makes more sense of one’s valid rationality.

6. Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and backed it up with a resurrection in time and space history. The best explanation for the resurrection story is that it actually happened. I think his resurrection was an actual miracle which is proof for the validity of the Christian religion most specifically that God exists. One may not grant miracles, but they cannot use their ideology to discount it, it must be discounted by what evidence there is itself. One cannot just say miracles do not exist, because they have to prove this, not assume it. Which I think trying to prove the resurrection actually wrong, is a tall order.

  • Rob

    “1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause”

    Wow, wrong in one. Impressive “proof”.

    “If there was no ultimate objective meaning from the outset, then how can there be any ultimate meaning to this existence now?”

    Why is an ultimate meaning required?

    “Objective morals exist”

    [Citation needed]

    “Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and backed it up with a resurrection in time and space history.”

    So did Osiris. Your point is….

  • Rob

    “One cannot just say miracles do not exist, because they have to prove this, not assume it.”

    Wrong. Null hypothesis holds, you make the positive claim, you provide the evidence. Put up or shut up.

  • LawnBoy

    How many different ways can he restate an Appeal to Consequence? I get that he wants to believe that there’s meaning and objective morality and destiny and ultimate objective truth, etc. However, the desire for those claims to be true is not evidence that they are.

    Does he have any evidence that does not boil down to “I really want this to be true”?

    Also, I look forward to his disproofs of the miracles of every other religion. After all, he claims at the end that miracles should be accepted as valid unless proven otherwise, right? Has he met the burden of proof he established when dealing with the miracle claims of other Gods?

  • Baylee W.

    So. Many. Typos.

  • http://ginsu417.is-a-geek.net Kalani

    Really? REALLY? These arguments haven’t been torn to effing shreds already and hammered into the ground over and over and over and over and over again…. the same circular logic, the same circular reasoning, the same tired argument from purpose and subjective interpretation that objective meaning and purpose is not only a viable, answerable question – but the most important question… this is complete crap.

  • http://www.sbsoapbox.blogspot.com/ Susi

    oh, jt, you won’t even need to go beyond round one. you will crucify him with your rebuttal. and i’m with baylee… too many typos.

  • Mark DeMonbreun

    Don’t hurt yourself knocking this softball out of the park, J.T.

  • Jason B

    @Kalani: and when JT gets done shredding them, he’ll just pretend it never happened and continue to use the same arguments. I’ve seen this play out again and again.

  • http://www.actok.org William

    Oh, this ought to be easy.

  • Lani

    On the morality question, if using the god of the bible. What evidence is there that god is “good”? I never got this. What does he do that is good? His character/personality actually seems the opposite.

  • http://songe.me Alex Songe

    Talk about a Freudian slip mixing “Origen” (an early church father) with “Origins” (explanations about the origins of cosmology).

    From section 1:
    > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

    No, see quantum field theory. This is very much in contention.

    > 2. The universe began to exist

    The universe isn’t a thing, it’s a set of things and a logical construct. It only exists as a concept, and not as an entity. You’re committing the composite fallacy here, and as you’re presenting a philosophical proof, you’re playing in the big boy leagues and have to pay attention to these fallacies.

    > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. This cause I call God.

    You can’t get from there to any discernable attributes, like intelligence. If it is reasonable that a quantum field fluctuation was the cause of the universe (a valid theory that may soon make predictions that are empirically verifiable), then by this argument, you’d argue that a quantum random event is intelligent? So is radioactive decay intelligent? This is nonsensical.

    The rest of what you’re talking about is really just the Christian straw-man of modern cosmology.

    Section 2:
    Do you require objective meaning? If I fail to feel this objective meaning…and it cannot be demonstrated to me, wouldn’t that suggest that what you consider an objective meaning is really still subjective and you’re just asserting that it really exists outside of you?

    Section 3:
    Euthyphro’s Dilemma. Look it up. It shows us that even with a God, we must know what morality means in order to say that God is moral. This gives common ground for the atheist and the theist to discover objective moral truths in the world through logic and reason. It was not divine command that outlawed slavery, it was the rational discussion of mankind that made the case within the Christian tradition. That doesn’t require a god. If there was a God whose command was the best moral system available, we’d have seen no moral progress since Biblical times.

    Section 4:
    Destiny…is this appeal to wishful thinking? You just want to avoid an existential reality. We all die, and we don’t know where we go when it ends. By the evidence, I think that we probably just cease existing…do I wish otherwise? Maybe. I’m not sure I do wish I would live forever. I don’t think wishing otherwise makes it so, and I’m interesting in reality…and there’s something to living forever that makes life meaningless.

    Section 5:
    Objective truth? In the sense that humans can obtain a perfect picture of reality, sure. But what I think you mean here is transcendental Truth (capital-T). And if you want to get in a metaphysics slapfight, go ahead. But I’m not even interested in the vocabulary wars to get to that metaphysical slapfight.

    Section 6:
    There is no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus’s resurrection. You’d think that the miraculous accounts of Matthew must’ve been recorded somewhere. I know I would’ve written “Dear diary, grandma and grandpa were running around like zombies today after we nailed a heretic to the cross. Oh and the temple veil was torn in two.” The silence speaks volumes. Also, if you want to bring in the evidence for the Resurrection, please demonstrate why the documentary hypothesis (that the gospels are a historical record of the life of Jesus) when most CHRISTIAN Biblical scholars have settled on the 2-source hypothesis (that Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark with a book of saying called “Q”) and are not eyewitness accounts. If you’re going to take a position away from the experts’ opinion, one must justify it beyond mere assertion with evidence and reason.

  • http://www.willisweb.com Jon Willis

    My brain hurts.

  • Russell P.

    1. “Origen – God is the best explanation for the universe. The argument is as follows.”

    Is he talking about Origen of Alexandria, the Christian theologian or is that just a misspelling?

  • http://eckthelion.wordpress.com/ Russell P.

    Hell JT, this is just too damn easy for you.

  • Richard Dana

    My brains! They hurts from the typos! Based off of round one, I take it that god does not approve of spell check, research, or critical thinking. As a side note, the destiny section made me very sad.

  • Javier

    JT, May the FSM grant you the patience and temperance to deal with this horribly fallacious arguments :D

  • Zach

    Has this guy taken even a philosophy 101 course?

  • Zach

    oh and I’ll add that its nice that he is comparing Christianity a world-view with atheism a position on one claim. i think he should be comparing it to something like secular humanism which is also a world-view

  • John Philoponus

    Hey Isaac,

    I’m just gonna throw this out there; I’m a christian and I find these arguments more than irritating. Most of them you can’t call arguments unless if you take bare assertion to be a form of inference. With others the moves are quite terrible. For example:

    “I think his resurrection was an actual miracle which is proof for the validity of the Christian religion most specifically that God exists.”

    This takes the basic form of ‘I think that p, therefore q’. It just doesn’t work. I may think that some miracle occurred but this does not license me to make an inference based on the content of the thought without giving reasons for why you the thought is correct.

    @Rob

    Naysaying hardly amounts to argument, and adding insults does not amount to giving evidence.

    @Alex Songe

    “From section 1:
    > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

    No, see quantum field theory. This is very much in contention.”

    No, see not all causes are fully determinative. An event, entity or whatever can have a causal explanation for its occurring, existence, etc. without its determining or forcing it to be the case. Quantum field theory does not throw anything into contention besides the view that all causes are determinative.

    @Kalani

    It’s funny that you make the accusations you do but then give us no reason to think them to be true. If they are circular, etc. tell us how.

  • Jonathan Figdor

    Wow, this guy is off to a terrible start:

    “1. Origen” – I think he was looking for “Origin,” unless he meant to reference the theologian, Origen, who isn’t mentioned elsewhere.

    You need better debate opponents.

  • http://songe.me Alex Songe

    @John Philoponus

    I should also clarify what this means to the starting premise of the Kalaam argument. One is fully justified in saying that in the “normal” world (we don’t account for quantum mechanics in most of our daily lives and decisions), all things have causes. But we’re talking about Big Bang cosmology here. This is not something we can intuitively infer in a philosophical argument. We can only apply interpretive frameworks to descriptive equations that make observable predictions that have shown these equations to be accurate. The equations don’t have a source for the indeterminate causes of quantum events and only take on board the minimum assumption that quantum events are probabilistic and there is no mechanism for cause.

    Richard Feynman talked much about having biases towards the reasons and explanations we have for matter at “normal” energies and scales, but that the “nature of nature” should be what we observe. It would be Hume’s classic misapplication of analogy to assert that causation must exist in the quantum because it exists at the macro. It would also be another instance of the composite fallacy, stating that because we observe causation in the macro, then there must be an unbroken, eternal chain of causation. Can we really rely on such an analogy rooted in “common sense” when descriptions of the world without quantum causation are accurate?

  • Rob

    @John:

    Virtual Particles. Sum total of energy / matter in the universe is 0 so it doesn’t violate conservation of energy at all for the universe to be spontaneous. Plus, nothing is unstable, it violates the uncertainty principle. When you have nothing, its position and momentum is precisely known (0, to infinite precision)

    I notice you didn’t address my statement about Osiris. What makes Christianity right and all other gods incorrect?

  • http://justy.me Justy

    My response to this is summed up by my profile pic on FB:

    “Learn about the many refutations to arguments for the existence of God- before you slavishly repeat them”
    – The Skeptheist
    Out of the Closet Atheist

    I mean really! The first causes argument.. sheesh.

  • Anthony Fleming

    You know, I remember Isaac telling me he sent his arguments like 4 or 5 weeks ago. Why is this being posted just now? Wasn’t round 2 supposed to happen within like 14 days. I think that was the number discussed on Isaac’s wall. Did Isaac ask for a delay?

    Also, should you post the arguments of a blogalog before responding? Isn’t the point of challenging someone to a debate in the fact that it is just the two of you debating and then posting the results? Or do you get your arguments from others before responding?

    I am also still waiting for a response to your positions on defining human persons in terms of consciousness on the planned parenthood debate. Do you like to start debates and then not finish them and then post parts of it before interacting again? I really appreciate those like Michael Riggs that actually follow through with their debates for the sake of coming to the truth in a discussion rather than posting before completion to a personal base. Very classy.

  • Billy

    Well by the logic of point 4 I must be able to fly, because I would be really bummed out if I couldn’t.

  • Brandon

    @ Anthony Fleming
    You said something dumb, and I’m going to call you out on it.

    “Isn’t the point of challenging someone to a debate in the fact that it is just the two of you debating and then posting the results?”

    No, that’s not the case at all. Grow up and stop slapping your desires on how things “ought” to work. In a debate, both sides need there case made public as it happens so that anyone who tries any silly shit can be seen for the lackluster mind that they are by the audience.

    In this case Isaac (who I’m assuming is your relative) deserved to have his arguments posted. I for one am grateful; I’m going to spend some of my morning relaxing, listening to an episode of Dr. Who, and tearing his silly arguments apart for fun; something any other rational thinker could easily do.

    *lifts coffee mug for a toast*

    Here’s to transparency in debate, giving me something to do this morning!

  • Anthony Fleming

    @Brandon

    I am all for posting the debate before it is completed. I just assume that a challenge between two people in a debate means that both sides are posted on each round so the content is assured to be from the two engaging in the debate. Notice I wrote, “and then posting the results.”

    Rational thinker huh? Do you define rational by intelligence level, beliefs, or the process of inductive reasoning?

  • Daniel

    dang dogs, this ought ta b so easy to tell dis guy how dum he rilly is. what an idiot! evrbody knows god didnt creeate nothing. citation not needed b/c all peeps no this to be true, word.

  • Richard Dana

    @Daniel
    What? <<…

  • John Philoponus

    @Rob

    “Virtual Particles. Sum total of energy / matter in the universe is 0 so it doesn’t violate conservation of energy at all for the universe to be spontaneous. Plus, nothing is unstable, it violates the uncertainty principle…”

    Not sure about what you are trying to get at here. What about the universe being spontaneous violates the causal principle? Some things cause spontaneously or indeterminately. So an appeal to quantum indeterminacy hardly counts as a counterexample.

    “I notice you didn’t address my statement about Osiris. What makes Christianity right and all other gods incorrect?”

    Do you think I came in here to debate you on the entirety of Christianity? Seriously I have more do than sit on the internet making replies all day long on a blogpost. If you ever want to debate in a public setting, I’d be quite happy to debate on most topics pertaining to religion.

  • Daniel

    @ R. Dana:

    After cogitating on Flemdog’s opening remarks, we can only conclude that JT will bring back his talents from South Beach, shred this acolyte, and send him back to his bovine encephalitic milieu. I mean, how is this guy gonna prove god exists when we all know there is no evidence for god? Atheists know all evidence, therefore the only conclusion is god doesn’t exist, and Flemdog is a hopeless specimen only to go home, lie on his bed, and stare at the raindrops running down his bedroom window until natural selection takes it course on the weaker vessel that he is. Poor soul.

    Atheists all know how the world began too because they have all the exact evidence showing the world it could never have been a god. That is why Barack Obama is as dumb as Flemdog. He believes in god too. What a creepy, idiot, weirdo president that believes in god when we all know Richard Dawkins scientifically proved, without a doubt, god doesn’t exist.

    How can Flemdog say god created our world when atheists know everything and have all the proof of the origin of all things? He’s probably from Charlotte because he’s a charlatan. Like a teenage mutant ninja turtle fighting crime after snorting mutant green juice, JT will no doubt bring sexy back with his vertiginous wit and when he lands an unscrupulous round house atheist kick to the brain provoking all theists on this thread to commit deicide, running back home to their hairy mother who sold them the lies of god when they were just mere children.

  • Brandon

    @ Andrew
    Yes, I did notice your posting-after-the-fact statement. That’s what I was saying was dumb. You post as you go in an open debate so that everyone gets a chance to see who sticks their foot in their mouth.

    As for my definition of rationality, I don’t see why you’d want to entirely separate out all three of those criteria you gave me. They each play some role in rationality. Intelligence dictates to an extent how rational someone can be; a person with a genetically deffective brain inherently cannot be *as* rational as one with a healthy brain. Also, one who starves their brain through a lack of education (and is thus less intelligent without regard to genetics) will be less rational than one with a healthy, well-educated brain. Intelligence and rationality go hand in hand, and together skip happily away from credulity and superstition.
    As far as a “process of inductive reasoning,” is concerned, this also plays a role in assessing someone’s rationality. I would say that deductive reasoning is important as well; someone cannot hear the classical example of “All men are mortal…” and at the end conclude that Socrates is immortal and still be entirely rational. People who use either inductive or deductive argumentation in an unsound fashion are hampered in their attempts at rationality.
    Finally, on beliefs, I think a person’s beliefs are a good indicator of their rationality. Do their beliefs fit the available evidence at hand? Are their beliefs inherently biased towards their desires or cultural environment? Do their beliefs require a large number of ad hoc assumptions, warrantless assertions, or the ignoring of empirical evidence? How dubious is the historical documentation of their belief? Do their beliefs entail logical impossibilities?
    Every “yes” answer to those questions (except the first one) raises the improbability factor not only of that person’s hypothesis, but of their own rationality as well.

    (By the way, I think that all spirituality systems of thought violate those principles mentioned above and count as irrational and improbable to the point were it is more justified not to believe in their claims than to believe in them.)

  • Anthony Fleming

    My name is Anthony…no prob. People mess it up all the time. I’m usually call me Ryan or Chris.

    Beliefs may be an indicator of rationality and intelligence may be a result or a tool that supplements rationality but they don’t define rationality and they are not part of the definition of rationality. That’s like saying that B which resulted from A and C is also somehow A. Someone can be “rational” with a low level of intelligence. Something can make sense logically without being correct. For example, some might say that high caloric density foods help people gain weight so peanut butter helps people gain weight. That is a logically consistent and rational argument based on the premise. However, then we find out that peanut butter helps with metabolism (as a latest Harvard Study showed) then the argument which is logical based on the premise is partially wrong based on new information or “knowledge.”

    You can claim that someone’s beliefs are not rational because they do not have enough evidence. Do you happen to have the evidence for how much evidence one should have to find a belief or proposition acceptable? Do you have something to show that the Christian world view is irrational based on evidence? You can say it is not the case based on inductive reasoning if you would like. Or you can say there is not enough evidence for it. All fine and well. Can you make an argument however how Christian thought, for everyone, is irrational? Would you just say it is not rational? If so then by what standard? If you have a standard can you use that standard to prove your own proposition?

  • Richard Dana

    @Daniel

    Thanks for speaking in… certainly more verbose terms. However, while we as atheists are likely to be appraised all current evidence on the issue of god, this is not to say one day we may discover written in every language on humanity’s DNA god’s signature with a signed affidavit from every pope and buddha just for kicks. Arrogance has its place, but to assume you know everything about everything has severe issues. A rational frame of mind requires flexibility in thought, that beliefs can be overturned by evidence, and the universe is far too damn big to assume that we know everything.

    Also, would you rather have had an insane evangelist who couldn’t even hold a job as president after her predecessor had a heart attack? That is a true nightmare. I’m actually a patriot of sorts, for a myriad of reasons including that this country was founded on the concept of non-religion (Treaty of Tripoli section 11). I have this, ideal, that the current leader of our nation deserves some base form of respect. While religious extremists wont give him the time of day, that puts him in a higher house than evangelists. There is a great deal of variety between people. To say one is the same as another when they certainly are not, is sad. Though, I do agree that he could be a stronger leader for the causes he believes in than he has been.

    Though, I do agree we are all waiting for JT’s sexy roundhouse kick to this debate. I heard him speak at Dragoncon last week, was a speech to remember.

    Thanks again for making your comment understandable and legible.

    @Anthony Fleming
    Speaking of Dragoncon, that may have accounted for part of the delay. He may have wanted to give it more attention than he could afford at the time. However, I will not pretend to know the actual particulars, it is just a theory.

    Contrary to popular opinion, atheists have lives :-P.

  • Anthony Fleming

    I have to ask. What is Dragoncon. I see quite a few people on my fb talking about it and I have no idea what it is.

  • Richard Dana

    It is a large convention in Atlanta, GA that is organized around “tracks:, which are groups centered around themes or purposes. There is a sci-fi track, a wheadonverse track, and a skeptic track as a few examples. The latter, is where I saw JT give his speech on “Coming out Skeptical”. The wiki is a bit bare in regards to the details, however the convention has alot of people who wear costumes from every genre. I saw my share of zombie jesus costumes nestled in with the doctor who and storm troopers.

    It is quite a bit of fun. Though, for many the draw comes in the form of drinking and women wearing nothing but string or paint. As a married man who isn’t a fan of drinking, I enjoyed the panels and the costumes.

  • Anthony Fleming

    Very interesting.

    I do realize now I over reacted to JTs response and debate post. It came shortly after Isaac posted on his wall so perhaps it reminded him. I apologize. Must leave the board for a while as I am going to Atlanta for several days. Maybe I will be back on later. Christians have a life too so you never know. :)

  • Daniel

    @ RD – Are you saying that atheists should actually listen to reasoning from theists because atheists do not know everything and should be flexible in their thoughts towards theism? And perhaps (b/c atheists do not know everything) there is the possibility that Flemdog is right and god does exist?

    Lastly, are you saying that atheists are comfortable with governmental leadership believing in god?

  • Richard Dana

    @Daniel
    Comfortable? No. More comfortable than being lit on fire by a more extremist representative, yes. The lack of fire equates to more comfort for me, you know, being not burned to death.

    I would hesitate to call Isaac Fleming’s reasoning, reasoning. However, what is wrong with listening? What is so toxic in your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong? Wouldn’t it be nice to live forever in a paradise with fluffy clouds and such? Having an inflexible worldview is the weakness of religious theologies, it should not be ours.

  • Daniel

    @ R. Dana

    So, to clarify, Flemdog could be wrong. However, Flemdog (despite the typos) could be right in that god exists because atheists don’t know everything.

    Or do you think, there is no way on earth Flemdog could be right and JT is about to strap on his do-rag once he returns from Fire Island and prove once and for all there is no god?

    If you say, Flemdog’s arguments are weak and he does not have enough evidence to prove god exists, then I ask, what evidence would need to be laid out to prove the existence of god? However, since atheists do not know all evidence (b/c as you said, the universe is too damn big) can atheists definitively and honestly know exactly what evidence it would take to prove the existence of god? Or are atheists just bluffing when they say “there is not enough evidence?”

  • John-Henry Beck

    Once you’ve investigated an argument or claim pretty thoroughly, listened to the evidence and arguments, then it is not inflexible to not want to bother to listen to the same arguments trotted out over and over.

    For example, Isaac’s first point is just the first cause cosmological thing rehashed. Poorly. It’s not inflexible to not want to listen to the same thing for the 100th time when better presentations of it have already been thoroughly refuted.

  • Richard Dana

    @ John-Henry Beck, Daniel

    Chances are? You are both are on the money, that Sir Fleming is rehashing old stuff over and over like most religious types. I agree with you, John-Henry Beck, that it gets tiring reading the same stuff over and over. I also agree that it isn’t inflexible for JT, if he wanted to, to simply say get lost with your lack of new evidence. It would be a reasonable response to an unreasonable person spouting circular nonsensical arguments. I just think it is inflexible to assume that one knows everything, and as to the question if atheists are bluffing? I’m fairly greedy, I would want a miracle that could be reproduced under laboratory conditions. If any god exists, they should have the capabilities to prove it to all skeptics, in all corners of the universe, for all time.

    Once, 2000ish years ago, maybe, if you take this badly translated book of nearly incomprehensible allegories literally and then a gigantic leap of faith, simply is too weak a tea for me to drink.

  • Daniel

    @ R. Dana
    Thanks for your honesty, but you have now entered the world of nonsensical and inflexible with your hilarious demands and poor knowledge of historical literature. Boa Noite.

  • Richard Dana

    @Daniel
    To return to my first reply to you.
    “What? <<…"


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X