RSS

No God? No Problem.

27 Nov

The American Humanist Association is launching a national advertising campaign this weekend. This year’s slogan, a variation on last year’s theme, is:

The Washington Post/Newsweek had their On Faith panelists answer the following question:

What do you think of the American Humanist Association’s new “Godless Holiday” campaign? The ads, displayed on transit systems in five major U.S. cities, will say: “No God? . . . No Problem! Be good for goodness’ sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God.” Is this another front on the so-called secular “war on Christmas”? Or is this another example of the pluralistic strength of America? And would you agree with the premise “No God, no problem”?

Daniel Dennett (who, as one of the so-called New Atheists, needs no introduction), said this:

I am delighted with the American Humanist Association’s campaign. It articulates a simple truth that should not even be considered controversial. OF COURSE you can be good without a belief in God….

We can all be good for goodness’ sake, and not because an imaginary God ‘commands’ it (who believes, literally, in such an anthropomorphic commander anyway?) or because we fear eternal torture if we don’t (what a vicious idea!), or because we crave the goodies in an afterlife (what an ignoble, childish myth!). Once we set aside, as beneath respect, those traditional themes of obedience to a supernatural monarch, fear of punishment, and covetousness of reward, religion turns out to have nothing to offer to morality except some inspiring examples of good and courageous behavior that can be appreciated by believers and non-believers alike.

I don’t share Dennett’s “delight” at the campaign (I’m more f’r it than agin’ it, but my attitude is akin to Susan Jacoby’s: “I actually think that proselytizing transit ads for goodness without God are, well, a bit undignified….”), but I agree that the ad’s premise, that people can be good without gods, shouldn’t be controversial. I’m troubled by Dennett’s reference, in his closing sentence, to “inspiring examples of good and courageous behavior” on the part of religious exemplars. As I think about those exemplars and their deeds, I’m struck by how often these people fail(ed) to live up to their moral ideals:

  • Jacob cheated his brother
  • Abraham lied about his relationship with Sarah
  • Jesus cursed a fig tree that didn’t bear fruit out of season
  • Inquisitors tortured people they deemed as heretics and infidels
  • Protestants and Catholics bled Europe dry during religious wars
  • The Catholic Church still refuses to take full responsibility for pedophilia
  • Muslims stone women for being unchaperoned when in the presence of males to whom they are not related

The list goes on and on. One could argue more persuasively that religions have provided enduring moral teachings than that they have provided moral role models. Of course, many non-religious philosophies have also provided enduring moral precepts, so the realm of morality is not, and never has been, exclusive to religions. On that point, Dennett and I agree.

Susan K. Smith, a pastor in the United Church of Christ, had this to say:

I cannot for the life of me understand why humanists don’t just leave people who believe in God alone….

Just like atheists don’t want God pushed down their throats, neither do those of us who believe in God want atheism pushed down ours. People like me who believe in God find comfort in the thought of an Almighty. Belief in that Almighty has been a mainstay of my life and of the life of my ancestors. I choose to continue to believe and will do so, and so I resent people telling me that I should not….

I wish humanists would just go on and believe like they want … and leave those of us who prefer to believe in God alone.

I cannot for the life of me understand how Smith got the idea that this ad is directed at her. I don’t see anything in it that urges her to give up her beliefs. Here’s a newsflash for Smith and other Christians of her ilk: it’s not all about you. Really. It’s not. This ad is not about belittling believers, it’s about encouraging nonbelievers. If you and your peers want to believe in God, go right ahead. Worship him/her/it in your homes and churches. Find all the comfort you want from your faith communities, your hymns and your rituals. While you’re at it, turn your own words around, aim them at yourselves, and keep your religion out of my community’s science curriculum (i.e., intelligent design/creationism). And out of my country’s medical agenda (i.e., stem cell research). And out of my country’s laws (i.e., abortion). Most humanists would be glad to “live and let live,” if Smith and her cohorts would let us do so. But, as long as Smith and Co. insist on pushing their religion into our lives, we have no choice but to push it right back out at them.

Michael Otterson (Mormon) had this interesting take on the issue:

This is a nation that has long cherished the basic, founding freedom to be religious or nonreligious. Members of the American Humanist Association have every right to believe as they do and to communicate those beliefs.

The potential for trouble lies in whether a message like theirs is allowed to descend into ridicule or condemnation of those who do profess a belief in God. Just as those who consider themselves nonreligious expect their lack of belief to be respected, religious Americans should also be able to safely assume their profession of faith will be respected and not just tolerated.

Unfortunately, there is a growing tide of anti-religious sentiment in America….

The American Humanist Association’s appeal for us to “be good for goodness’ sake” is timely and reasonable. I hope they take their own message to heart when it comes to respecting the rights of the rest of us to celebrate a religious holiday with religious language, symbols and special acts of goodness.

I’ll touch on two points. First, the notion that “religious Americans should also be able to safely assume their profession of faith will be respected” is vague and troubling. What does the phrase “profession of faith” mean? I respect the rights of religious Americans to hold and profess their beliefs. I will not, however, respect the contents of their beliefs. That battle has already been fought and the religious have lost it – humanists, atheists, etc., will not respect beliefs that we deem to be either ridiculous, or, in more worrisome cases, dangerous. Second, given the role that the Mormon Church in the USA has played in squelching gay rights, Otterson’s final sentence is rich. Humanists do respect the rights of religious people to celebrate their holidays with their unique language, symbols and rituals; we are not trying to take those things away from them. Otterson and Smith are arguing against a position that is not held by most, if any, humanists. Otterson wants us to respect his rights to practice his religion, while he and his buddies campaign to deny basic human rights to others. Can you spell i-r-o-n-y? I guess it’s never occurred to him that the “rising tide of anti-theism” may be due, at least in part, to the roles that theists play in suppressing human rights.

I’ll quickly touch on two more articles and leave you to read the rest on your own (there are nineteen articles in all).

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary left this brief, ostensibly cordial (but, actually, smug and self-righteous) message:

We evangelical types have paraded enough of our own in-your-face stuff in public places, so why should we complain when the unbelievers do the same? Nor should we get too worked up when those same folks insist that morality is possible without a belief in God. Actually, the Bible itself teaches that such is the case….

Ultimately, of course, the big question is what–or Whom–we are trusting in as we go about our efforts to “be good for goodness’ sake.” But, as for the Humanists wanting to run their anti-God ads: I say, “No problem”–at least in the short run.

Did you catch that? He ended with the trump card to trump all trump cards – the Threat of Hell! What a humble guy! His cup runneth over with Jesus’ love.

The person who most closely captures my attitude about the whole War on Christmas issue is Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, formerly of Chicago Theological Seminary and now a fellow at the Center for American Progress:

American public holidays are about consumption, not God. Even worse, the Christian faith has internalized this message of cultural Christmas. Christians themselves often forget what Christmas is really about. The humanists really can’t do any more harm to Christians about Christmas than we’ve already done to ourselves.

American holidays, particularly Christmas, are all about the economy. Economists track the health or weakness of the economy based on the purchasing habits of American consumers between now and Christmas….

We’ve set up our entire economy to depend on the sales generated by the hype of “holidays,” particularly Christmas. What could this possibly have to do with God?

The secularization of Christmas isn’t anything new and it can’t be pinned solely or even primarily on atheists, old or new (well, I’ll skip the part about the atheist songwriters who wrote all those great Christmas songs ;) ). The secularization of Christmas has occurred, and often continues to occur, with the full cooperation of Christians. Here’s an example of how a Christian organization does its part to secularize Christmas: the American Family Association opposes the secularization of Christmas by rating “naughty” and “nice” retailers according to how vociferously their sales catalogs promote Christmas rather than a generic holiday season. Moreover, the association urges people to boycott the naughty merchants and do all of their Christmas shopping at the nice stores. See above for the word i-r-o-n-y. For an example of how individuals participate in the secularization of the season, consider this: last year, a friend of mine who bemoans people taking Christ out of Christmas didn’t just take her children to see Santa Claus and get their picture taken with the jolly old fella. Oh no, she went one better: she took her dog to see Santa and got his picture taken too. My suspicion is that Jesus only plays a marginally greater role in her Christmas than he plays in mine. Just don’t try telling her that.

I’ll leave it to others to fight faux religious wars, max out credit cards and do almost everything to excess in this season in which many seem to celebrate excess above all else. As for me, I’ll take consolation in this thought: No God? No problem.

– the chaplain

 
64 Comments

Posted by on November 27, 2009 in atheism, humanism, religion, secularism, society

 

64 responses to “No God? No Problem.

  1. Mark

    November 28, 2009 at 12:04 am

    I REALLY like that sign….a lot!
    It’s honest, but not insulting.

     
  2. the chaplain

    November 28, 2009 at 12:05 am

    Mark:
    I like it much better than last year’s sign and slogan.

     
  3. PhillyChief

    November 28, 2009 at 12:30 am

    You’ve done a fine job presenting and responding to the religious responses to this new ad. I would like to add a few things though…

    For pastor Smith, all I can say is it’s about time you got a little taste of what non-believers have lived their lives chock full of. What astounds me is her failure to recognize that, to see beyond herself and recognize how others feel. Ah, but then that requires empathy, doesn’t it?

    Now whereas Smith’s comments were simply clueless, Otterson’s were cold, calculated and diabolical. The first two lines were especially clever. They establish the existence of the “freedom to be religious or nonreligious” then states how the American Humanist Association have every right to “communicate those beliefs”. What’s the problem? There’s two subtle implications, that the Humanists are being given something, and later it’ll be implied that they’re ungratefully taking advantage of that gift and misusing it. The whole “potential for trouble” thing spells out the latter implication. I have to laugh at the suggestion that the non-religious have their non-belief respected, and I too have to laugh at the talk of rights when the Mormons are SO involved in denying equal rights, but then they see that discrimination as a right since as a religious tenet, their discrimination is an act of religious exercise. And you thought the underwear was crazy!

    So where can you get your dog’s picture taken with Santa?

     
  4. Lorena

    November 28, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Wow! So much to say on this well-written, information-packed post that I almost feel I should write my own post to respond.

    I’ll just say, though, that what most people are missing is that the campaign isn’t exactly targeting the deeply religious devotees. Actually, I am not sure who the target readership is, but I know who will benefit most: the closet atheists or agnostic Christians who still don’t want to admit even to themselves that they don’t think there is a god or who think fearing a god is necessary to keep people in line. It could also open the eyes of parents who are themselves atheists but send their kids to Sunday school, so they can learn morals. There is a whole group of people out there who are sick of religion but are still fearful that the only way to be good is by joining a church and hanging out with the religious.

     
  5. the chaplain

    November 28, 2009 at 12:41 am

    Philly:
    Thanks for reminding me of one of the things I initially intended to include about Otterson’s piece, the implication that humanists are misusing our right to state our beliefs publicly. If there’s a less offensive way to state that it’s okay not to believe in gods than what’s recorded on that sign, I sure can’t think of it.

    The Santa and doggie photo was taken in Canada – somewhere around Toronto. Is Elsa up to the trip?

     
  6. the chaplain

    November 28, 2009 at 12:52 am

    Lorena:
    Your breakdown of the people most likely to benefit from these ads seems to describe, at several points, people whom the deacon and I refer to as “functional atheists.” These are people who don’t have any use for church or organized religion, nor do they look to scriptures for moral guidance. At best, they’re C&E Christians. If pushed to explain their religious beliefs, they can only offer vague generalities, like, “there’s gotta be something behind it all.” They may not say they’re atheists, but, for all practical purposes, that’s the way they live.

     
  7. krivecdotcom

    November 28, 2009 at 1:00 am

    I would love to hear peoples views and skepticims on christianity and have thus devoted a blog to it.

    http://www.krivecdotcom.wordpress.com

    Whether you simply dont see any rational reason to believe, or have other questions lurking I will not try to convert you to anything, but instead would just love to talk about your thoughts and discuss them in contrast to mine

     
  8. the chaplain

    November 28, 2009 at 1:11 am

    krive:
    I’m going to assume you’re a newcomer to the blogosphere and give you a bit of advice. It’s bad form to pop onto someone’s blog and pimp one’s own blog without at least saying something about the OP (opening post). The way to get people to come to your blog is to leave thoughtful comments on their blogs about their posts and in response to other comments. That’s the kind of activity that gets people interested in having future discussions with you.

     
  9. krivecdotcom

    November 28, 2009 at 1:16 am

    I was not trying to undermine the message of your blog post by promoting my own. I was simply looking at the bigger picture of whom might be interested in having these type of discussions and the AHA seemed like a good fit. I felt that the major theme of this blog being how atheism does not entail a lack of moral judgement was a direct link to what I am trying to discuss. I am sorry if I offended oyu in any way, that was not my intention.

     
  10. John

    November 28, 2009 at 3:36 am

    How can you be good when you have no objective standard for what is good? Or conversely, how could you not be good? No doubt Charles Manson is smiling at the add and thinking what a good boy he is.

     
  11. Eshu

    November 28, 2009 at 5:43 am

    What I like about this ad:
    - It educates people about what humanism is.
    - It’s simple, positive approach is so un-antagonistic that anyone who gets uptight about it will look totally unreasonable.

    What I don’t like about it:
    - It reminds me of nauseating Christmas songs in crowded shops.

    Lorena is right that this is what is needed for the closet atheists and agnostics who just need a little encouragement.

    I guess it’s never occurred to him that the “rising tide of anti-theism” may be due, at least in part, to the roles that theists play in suppressing human rights.

    Well said. So, for him the worst thing about the ad is that it reminds him of other, more hostile ads?

    John, non-religious ethics are defined over time by society and much of it is codified into laws. The objective moral standard you talk about has failed, because there’s no way of determining what it is. Who could possibly adjudicate in an argument about which moral code allegedly came from God? Certainly God does not show up and make this clear. With a humanistic/utilitarian view of ethics, we can see what works, investigate and improve our understanding of ethics over time (as I believe we are doing, albeit slowly).

    I’d suggest you read Bishop Richard Holloway’s book, Godless Morality.

     
  12. the chaplain

    November 28, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Eshu:
    Good answer to John’s question. I know you had to think long and hard about it, because you’ve never encountered it before. ;)

    John:
    Welcome back. Will you be sticking with the name John throughout the weekend, or switching off between that and xpusosostomos? I’m just asking because commenters may want to be able to track who’s saying what. It facilitates conversation when every commenter uses one handle consistently.

     
  13. nal

    November 28, 2009 at 11:45 am

    John:

    How can you be good when you have no objective standard for what is good?

    How can one determine whether an objective standard is for good or evil? On what basis does one decide that a certain objective standard is for good? Such an objective standard is for good only by definition, in which case it becomes subjective.

     
  14. The Exterminator

    November 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    Excellent post, but allow me to go slightly off-topic. Look at the ad again. You missed one big question I have about it:

    Why are the freethinkers wearing Santa Claus caps? Is it OK for skeptics to dismiss Jesus iconography but “accept” images of St. Nick?

    I have no quick answer, because I’m equally guilty. But I do wonder why I have so little trouble being amused by a character who’s basically a training-wheels version of the dreaded Christ.

     
  15. nal

    November 28, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Maybe they are showing that God is like Santa Claus, imaginary.

     
  16. PhillyChief

    November 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    I find it comparable to dressing up as a monster for Halloween or a leprechaun at St. Patty’s in that it’s having fun with the woo, not embracing or promoting it.

    I bet most people would list more non-Christian imagery than Christian imagery when picturing Christmas. That would make a nice test to spring on average people, I think. Say you ask people for 5 or 10 icons and see how many are actually Christian, and also where on the list they appear.

     
  17. the chaplain

    November 28, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    nal:

    How can one determine whether an objective standard is for good or evil?

    Good question. I await an answer.

    Ex:
    Perhaps freethinkers don’t find Santa Caps as offensive as Savior Creches because most people over the age of seven don’t take the Santa imagery seriously.

    As I’ve thought a bit more about the belief-in-Santa-as-training-wheels-for-belief-in-Jesus idea, it’s occurred to me that a lot of the popular Christmas tales, movies and songs are about believing in magic and miracles. So, they actually do reinforce that sort of thinking and promote it as a good thing, and they do it very blatantly. Still, I’m not ready to take the position that freethinkers must never enjoy fantasies and fables. Can’t we just have fun with Christmas imagery since we don’t take it at all seriously? The season will be pretty bleak if we can’t sing about Frosty (can’t sing about a magic black hat) or Rudolph (can’t sing about reindeer flying). I don’t want to spend an entire month singing only Jingle Bells and Sleigh Ride! Maybe we just need to lighten up and have fun sometimes. The last thing freethinkers need to do is to become as dreary as fundogelicals!

    Christmas is a fun season, especially for nonbelievers who are not burdened by the guilt-trip of the cradle-that-leads-to-the-cross. Make no mistake about it – over the next month, allusions to the cross will be nearly as plentiful as allusions to the cradle in many fundogelical churches. Freethinkers can sidestep all of that junk and just enjoy fun stories, movies, songs, silly hats, and most importantly, lots of good food, drink and fellowship with people we love.

     
  18. The Exterminator

    November 28, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    chappy
    Still, I’m not ready to take the position that freethinkers must never enjoy fantasies and fables. Can’t we just have fun with Christmas imagery since we don’t take it at all seriously?

    Yes, I like to say that, too. However …

    Why are we so willing to adopt Santa/Rudolph/Frosty imagery, and so unwilling to accept Christian iconography. The baby Jesus and the three wise men are kind of fun in a childish way, too, aren’t they? If our objection is that the blatantly religious figures pack some kind of whammy, I’m curious why we don’t rebel equally against It’s a Wonderful Life or Miracle on 34th Street or Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Superstition pervades the holidays. In fact, the entire season is about suspending one’s disbelief on some level or other. Peace on Earth? I don’t believe in that, do you? At least not until religion disappears entirely.

    So what’s up with us? I’m not challenging you; I’m engaging aloud in self-examination. Perhaps other atheists would like to join me.

    But don’t shout, or cry, or pout while you do it.

     
  19. the chaplain

    November 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Ex:

    I would like others to join this conversation too, so I’ll just keep this comment brief. You said,

    The baby Jesus and the three wise men are kind of fun in a childish way, too, aren’t they?

    The deacon and I are getting ready to put up Christmas decorations today. As I loaded the dishwasher, I thought, “Maybe I should put up at least one of my nativity scenes, since they are rather pretty. I don’t refuse to put out Santa, Rudolph, Frosty and the others just because I don’t believe in them. Maybe I should treat the nativity thing as just one more Christmas tale instead of as something with a deep, mysterious meaning.”

    That line of thought indicates to me that I’m increasingly comfortable with treating Christian myths like all others. Two years ago, and even last year, I wanted nothing to do with religious imagery. This year, it doesn’t really bother me. In fact, I even see a quaint sort of beauty in the little family scene.

     
  20. The Exterminator

    November 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    chappy:
    Well said.

     
  21. Mariano

    November 28, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    The ads are mere propaganda that answers to an argument that no one has made. The claim is not that atheists lack of morals but lack of moral premise, lack of ethos.
    It is also a reprinting of their ads from last year: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-atheist-charity-huge-success.html

    Yet again, during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are—need any more be said?

     
  22. Cephus

    November 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    Unfortunately, we all know that no matter how well-done, non-insulting and neutral the sign is, the religious will treat it as an attack. So long as you’re suggesting people don’t need their imaginary friend, they’ll freak out. It’s a given and there’s nothing we can do about it. While the new sign is perfectly acceptable, it’ll still catch a ton of flack from the religious who don’t want anyone suggesting you can be good without their invisible father figure in the sky.

     
  23. Eshu

    November 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    I have no problem with the hats. Just another mythology, so each to their own. Personally, I don’t care much for nativity scenes, but I like some carols, especially the melody of “God rest ye merry gentleman”.

    Cephus, I think we’ve been here before. Two points only to make clear.

    1. Yes, there are always unreasonable religious folk who will kick up a stink at anything.
    2. Not all religious folk are like that. Some may even be made to feel curious/interested by such a sign. Most atheists were once such reasonable and perhaps agnostic theists. I think we should keep them in mind. How atheist adverts go down with moderate/agnostic theists is most important. Ignore the fundies.

     
  24. PhillyChief

    November 28, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    The claim is not that atheists lack of morals but lack of moral premise, lack of ethos.

    Atheist’s choose their morals, the religious choose their interpretations of their religious morals. Same thing. We all start with premises influenced by our surroundings and genetic predispositions.

    atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are

    Two things there I want to address.

    First, if spending money on advertising rather than giving it away as charity is a sign of bad behavior, churches are exponentially more bad than the Humanist Association. Every flyer, billboard, television spot, holiday pageant, concert, legal defense, decorations, demonstration to have nativity scenes on government property and whatever the hell else they’re up to other than charity efforts trumps the Humanists’ meager ad budget.

    Second, the ads I think are meant to help people. They’re to help raise the morale of the non-religious at a time which is overly annoying with religious shit everywhere they turn (see above), help serve as comfort for those still in the closet or barely hanging on to their religious faith, they help raise awareness that we’re here and you can’t simply ignore us as much as you all would love to, and to that last point, perhaps it makes some of the non-religious have an easier time this holiday by tugging at that human empathy buried with every religious person.

    I just find it amusing how you religious ALWAYS think it’s about you when it’s not at all. If you’re insulted by the ad, then you’re admitting you’re insulted by our very existence, and if that’s the case pal, tough shit. Get over it, and maybe take a stab at that alleged inclination “towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages” that you claim this time of year and your religion inspires.

    Have a nice day. :)

     
  25. athinkingman

    November 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    I really like the slogan in the campaign, and, like you, I find the assumption that people of faith should assume that they should be respected to be troubling. That’s what extremists of all faiths are thinking and using to suppress free speech. I also find it laughable that people who preach their message in every conceivable way, week in and week out, and have their religion enshrined in various public cultural activities, should object to a few others with an alternative viewpoint putting an ad on a billboard, calling such few to keep quiet and not attack them!

     
  26. The Exterminator

    November 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Mariano:

    Why is it that Christians almost never know the rudiments of grammar. “Non-gender specific persons” are specific persons who have no gender. Perhaps you meant non-gender-specific persons, which would also be ridiculous, since those would be persons whose genders weren’t specific.

    Maybe you meant “both men and women.” Why didn’t you say so? But, then, what about boys and girls? Try again, OK.

    See, if you’re going to come here to debate, you’ll have to write precisely. Unlike many religionists, we atheists don’t claim to be mind readers — of humans or gods.

     
  27. PhillyChief

    November 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Maybe he meant hermaphrodites. Their genders aren’t specific. Or what about pre-op trannies? Are they gender identified according to their plumbing pre snip/stitch? Or perhaps he was referring to the archaic, caveman age gender roles which those “family values” types are always trumpeting. In that black or white, either/or world, I’d say a large portion of the population would be “non-gender specific”. Women not just speaking and wearing pants but actually working! Men waxing! Oh, and then there’s the whole non-contrasting plumbing pairings. It’s gotta be tough being a believer in today’s world where reality is much harder to deny.

     
  28. cl

    November 28, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    I echo Ex’s “well said” in response to Chappy’s comment here.

    As far as the ads, a sign of plurality, in my opinion. I don’t get offended by it; if anything I chuckle. I think the “church” needs to learn how to better handle non-belief. Hell, I’m surprised why they’re surprised people aren’t following along with ‘em any more. So often, church can be utter rubbish, dry, dead and devoid of any living truth!

    As far as the discussion in the thread, well… Dennett himself said,

    We can all be good for goodness’ sake,

    Maybe Dennett – or any of you – can explain whether what’s good is good because it is good, or because we say it is good?

    See, if you’re going to come here to debate, you’ll have to write precisely. Unlike many religionists, we atheists don’t claim to be mind readers — of humans or gods. (Ex)

    I understood what Mariano meant just fine. The ironic thing is, if I so as PEEP about problematic grammar over at your boy SI’s, everybody pees themselves in a fit of condemnation! So, what’s the official position of Team Scarlet A then? Is precision of language important? Or not? And – to get back to Euthyphro – is that ruling good?

     
  29. cl

    November 28, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    Oh, and:

    Eshu,

    ..we all know that no matter how well-done, non-insulting and neutral the sign is, the religious will treat it as an attack. (Cephus)

    I think we’ve been here before. Two points only to make clear… Not all religious folk are like that. Some may even be made to feel curious/interested by such a sign. Most atheists were once such reasonable and perhaps agnostic theists. I think we should keep them in mind. How atheist adverts go down with moderate/agnostic theists is most important. Ignore the fundies. (Eshu)

    Thank you for that. By definition, I would qualify as “religious,” yet I wasn’t offended by the sign at all, which shows Cephus’ statement to be false. Like I said, I chuckled. Narrow-visioned blanket statements should be rebutted wherever found, and it’s rare to people do so to their own.

     
  30. The Exterminator

    November 28, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    cl:

    I’m not on a team. (You know that very well.) I just can’t bear seeing sub-standard writing — from anyone. Imprecise writing is a symptom of imprecise thinking, regardless of its content.

    I suspect even you will admit that there seems to be some correlation (note: I’m not claiming anywhere near 100%) between one’s religious posture and one’s ability to write clean, clear English. Skeptics, in general, sling the language better than the gullible masses do. Not that such skill makes us any friends among the illiterati. Hell, education is the devil’s handmaiden, ain’t it?

    But if you’re inclined to PEEP about problematic grammar over at SI’s (he’s not my boy, by the way), I approve. I’m assuming that, like me, you have years of professional editing experience behind you. Am I right?

     
  31. cl

    November 28, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    Imprecise writing is a symptom of imprecise thinking, regardless of its content.

    I wholeheartedly agree. That’s just one reason I want you to start blogging again. If you want, I’ll even promise not to comment! Though, I’m not interested in taking a stance one way or the other on whose got beddar grammer betweeen skeptiks and beelievers as grouups.

    As far as you not being on a Team, well… I just googled “Exterminator No More Hornets” and your blogger profile came up, and what does it say? “Team Members: Babs Ordinary Girl Spanish Inquisitor John Evo PhillyChief the chaplain.” Yet,

    I’m not on a team.

    Ahem? Now, if you’re actually *not* on said Team, then your concern about Mariano’s imprecision seems misplaced.

    Granted, you’re not really much a faithful supplicant of the Team anymore; rather, more like the intellectual renegade the rest of the Team ought to aspire towards being. You are in fact the only Team member that ever busts Philly’s balls (well okay, I saw Evo and Lifey each do it once, too). Besides, like Gideon said, the only real Team commitments these days consist of the usual stroke-off between PhillyChief and SI whenever a theist shows up at SI’s. Evo just weirds out on YouTube all day and barely even comes around to play anymore. Lifeguard probably got sick of all of us.

    But if you’re inclined to PEEP about problematic grammar over at SI’s (he’s not my boy, by the way), I approve. I’m assuming that, like me, you have years of professional editing experience behind you. Am I right?

    Glad you approve, and, yes I have. The whole spirit of my comment was one of “jesting protest,” as whenever I raise grammar concerns, the Team claims it’s a dodge.

    As far as whether SI’s your boy or not, well… he is listed as being on your Team. We’re both rationalists, right? Then, you should know that if you’re telling me something that’s clearly contradicted by the available evidence, I’m going to reject it.

     
  32. The Exterminator

    November 29, 2009 at 1:01 am

    cl:

    The “team” you’re referring to was the group that did Another Goddamned Podcast. So, in that sense (and only in that sense) we were, indeed, all on the same team. Now, with our weekly podcast no longer in production, the team has disbanded, and we’re just a bunch of friends. None of us ever liked the uniforms anyway.

    I think you’re being coy and dishonest, though. Since the AGP cast members were never known as “Team Scarlet A” — and, if you’ve really read all my posts, you ought to know how stupid I think that insignia is — I suspect that you were alluding snidely to some kind of generic “atheist” team. If there is such a team, I’m not a member. Never have been.

     
  33. Grace

    November 29, 2009 at 10:03 am

    I can agree that atheists/agnostics can humanly speaking be as “good,” and compassionate as any person of faith. There are plenty of humanists who put so-called Christians to shame, actually, in the non-judgmental, caring department.

    However, where does our base for compassionate, and moral values actually come from? Are people good because of atheism, or in spite of it? And, what would a culture look like based solely in philosophical materialism over the generations?

    If it’s believed by all that we are simply highly evolved animals, here based in survival of the fittest, by chance, is this really the best base to also affirm that all humans have immeasurable, and intrinsic worth, and value apart from performance, or their benefit to the group?

    Rationally, why should we love our enemies, and do good to those who may even hate us, as Jesus encourages, to give one example? Can atheism provide an answer other than subjective personal opinion, a kind of existential leap of faith?

    Realize that my post maybe offensive to people here, but I’m sincere, and asking some honest questions. Am willing to take some heat. :)

    I think there are even some atheists/materialists who struggle with these issues. Brian Worley, awhile back, shared his concern over at his Ex-ministers blog about the terrible situation in Latvia, a culture which as been “godless,” over a few generations now.

    Of course, it’s more than possible to point to plenty of abuse around the institutional church as well. Yet, doesn’t this shows a manifest failure to follow the morals, and ethics of Jesus, and to apprehend the love of God in Christ? In other words, it seems to me that the central difficulty is not a failure of the Christian faith. It’s that we are not authentically, “Christian, ” enough.

     
  34. PhillyChief

    November 29, 2009 at 10:12 am

    Don’t listen to him. He secretly goes down to his underground lair reminiscing about the old days and occasionally donning the costume just like that other Owl from that other team.

    The real loss is not seeing Chappie get dressed up anymore.

    I of course still wear the costume and get around town doing odd super hero work, but it’s not like the old days.

     
  35. PhillyChief

    November 29, 2009 at 10:17 am

    Can you, Grace, provide an answer other than personal subjective personal opinion why either Christian morals should be adopted over any other morals and why the interpretation of Christian morality that YOU follow should be adopted over the myriad of other interpretations of Christianity?

     
  36. the chaplain

    November 29, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Philly:
    Aw, man! You pinky-swore to keep that photo private!

    (P.S. – the deacon wants a life-sized copy of it. ;) )

     
  37. the chaplain

    November 29, 2009 at 10:35 am

    Grace:
    Following on Philly’s comment, I’ll note that atheism is not just a rejection of Christianity; it’s a rejection of all god-claims. Given that perspective, Christians have three tasks:

    1. persuading nonbelievers that any god-claims are credible
    2. persuading us that Christian god-claims are more credible than those of other religions, such as Hinduism, Islam, etc.
    3. persuading us that a particular flavor of Christianity (there are over 30,000 from which to choose) is the right one to choose.

    Adherents of other religions also have similar tasks, so you’re not alone by any means.

     
  38. nal

    November 29, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    Grace:

    Are people good because of atheism, or in spite of it?

    Neither.

    If it’s believed by all that we are simply highly evolved animals, here based in survival of the fittest, by chance, is this really the best base to also affirm that all humans have immeasurable, and intrinsic worth, and value apart from performance, or their benefit to the group?

    I agree that Darwinian evolution is not a good base on which to build a moral philosophy. But must we invent gods to provide that base?

    Can atheism provide an answer other than subjective personal opinion, a kind of existential leap of faith?

    Isn’t that what god-belief is, an existential leap of faith?

    It’s that we are not authentically, “Christian, ” enough.

    After 2000 years, how much longer do we have to wait before Christians become “authentically Christian enough?”

     
  39. The Exterminator

    November 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    chappy:

    I’ll note that atheism is not just a rejection of Christianity; it’s a rejection of all god-claims.

    I don’t think that atheism is a rejection of anything. Atheism is the natural state of the mind. Theism is the rejection of reason.

     
  40. the chaplain

    November 29, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    nal:
    Good answers.

    Ex:

    Atheism is the natural state of the mind.

    Is deconversion from religion a “back to nature” movement?

     
  41. cl

    November 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    I think you’re being coy and dishonest, though.

    Blah, blah, blah… “why can’t atheists lighten up?” I’m joking around with you, Ex! You take yourself so seriously here I’d think you were actually worried about the “Team” you’re “not” on. Chill out, for FSM’s sake!

    Theism is the rejection of reason.

    Now you sound just like your boy, PhillyChief: “we’re the smarty-smarts! we’re the brights! we’re atheists!” [YARF]

    Theism is belief in God(s). No more, no less. Some precision of language you espouse.

     
  42. The Exterminator

    November 29, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    cl:

    Theism is belief in God(s).
    Yes, but the god concept has to be imposed, doesn’t it? So I reiterate: Atheism is the natural state of the mind. No one is born with any ideas about gods. The mammalian dependency, during infancy, on parental nurture has to be translated into religion for the people who choose not to outgrow their need to be mothered and fathered.

    By the way, you can’t resort to “that’s a joke, son,” whenever you’re called out. Jokes are supposed to be funny. Can you provide any evidence that there’s humor in what you write?

     
  43. Ric

    November 29, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    “If it’s believed by all that we are simply highly evolved animals, here based in survival of the fittest…” (Grace)

    Just a note on evolution – it’s not about the survival of the fittest, it’s about what develops to best fit any given ecological niche.

     
  44. Modusoperandi

    December 2, 2009 at 6:31 am

    Mariano “It is also a reprinting of their ads from last year: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-atheist-charity-huge-success.html
    That username. That blog. You just can’t let me go, can you? Face it, it’s over. I’ve moved on. I found a blog that respects me and it isn’t so needy in bed. You don’t know it. It’s from Canada.

    “Yet again, during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are—need any more be said?”
    A tu quoque! Oh boy!


    And on-post, while I’m not a fan of the billboards, I’m an atheist in what is a pretty secular area of a pretty secular country. There’s no real need for one where I am. I’d probably think differently if I thought I was the only person like me*.

    *I am the only person like me, a perfect little snowflake of spectacular “me”ness, but I think you get my gist.

     
  45. Modusoperandi

    December 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Also…woah, de javu. Mariano is a comment spammer (scroll down to that post’s comments.
    On the plus side, he’s not pushing cheap Viagra. On the negative, he’s not pushing cheap Viagra.

     
  46. Modusoperandi

    December 3, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    …and at least two more times. He’s a big whore. Too bad, he used to be such a nice young man. Then he fell in with a bad crowd.

     
  47. truthislight

    December 4, 2009 at 7:25 am

    Greetings: Repent for goodness sake! For people who claim there is no God, they sure spend a lot of time and energy trying too convince themdelves and others He doesn’t exist. That’s like sending an army to a land with no enimies. The fact is God does exist! A carnal (humanist) mind is enmity against God. That’s why they war because their sinful flesh rebels and thus they speak. Gods word long before their slogan said a FOOL in their hearts says there is NO God. Your actions validate Gods truth. Jesus is and shall always be!

     
  48. PhillyChief

    December 4, 2009 at 9:58 am

    Greetings: Repent for goodness sake! For people who claim there is a god, they sure spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince themselves and others it exists. That’s like convincing a nation to send an army to invade another nation because of its alleged WMDs. An ignorant (theist) mind is at odds with humanity and the rest of reality. That’s why they condemn and abandon it all in favor of a fantasy. There is greater human wisdom that was written before their “holy” books and god claims ever came to be. Their actions invalidate their claims but sadly, ignorance is and may always be!

    Btw, a spellchecker would shine some light of truth on your spelling ability. You really shouldn’t rely on faith that your spelling is correct. ;)

     
  49. the chaplain

    December 4, 2009 at 10:54 am

    truthislight:
    Greetings: Reason for your own sake! In the meantime, I want to take this opportunity to let you know that your comment is the front-runner for the most hilarious theist comment of the day. It’s early, but I doubt that you’ll be outdone. Congratulations on your mindless accomplishment. All that remains to be seen is whether you’ll turn out to be a drive-by shooter or a troll.

    FSM is and always shall be, bless his noodly appendage. Ramen.

     
  50. ildi

    December 4, 2009 at 11:40 am

    Why are we so willing to adopt Santa/Rudolph/Frosty imagery, and so unwilling to accept Christian iconography.

    Because no one actually believes Santa, et. al are real. (Duh.)

    Why are the freethinkers wearing Santa Claus caps?

    Cause they’re hot.

     
  51. nal

    December 5, 2009 at 11:33 am

    truthislight :

    For people who claim there is no God, they sure spend a lot of time and energy trying too convince themdelves and others He doesn’t exist.

    Actually, it is the believers that spend a lot of time and energy trying too convince themselves and others that He does exist. It is believers that must constantly reinforce their beliefs lest they fall prey to reason. It is a lifelong struggle and a lifelong waste of time. But you are an adult and this is the path you’ve chosen.

     
  52. Goran Cobanovic

    December 5, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    Great read, will come back for more soon, thanks

     
  53. Jaym

    December 6, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    I certainly understand the belief system and thought process humanists maintain that result in such a sign, and it does not force an atheist belief system down anyone’s throat, so there is no problem whatsoever in allowing that sign to appear alongside those signs promoting belief in God or whatever may be the case for any other faiths and religions.

    In other words, there’s no excuse for a Christian to be complaining about it being an attack on their beliefs, as it clearly is not.

    However, there is a major problem many (not all) humanists have, and that is a built-in assumption of others’ beliefs- and often they are quick to assume you hold certain views on matters without first asking of which your actual beliefs consist.

    For instance, I guarantee that if I truly did not believe in an afterlife, then I (based on existing factors regarding how my life is going, which is terrible due to the actions of others and circumstances out of my control) would reach a point in the not-too-far future where I would simply “take” that which is being denied me. I can not date and am desperately lonely, and angry that lesser men are with women while I am not due to those circumstances thrust upon me by the actions of others.

    If I were to believe nothing existed upon death, I would find a girl I found overwhelmingly desirable and find a way to take her by force-kidnap/rape her, since upon death nothing would exist, and my actions would be meaningless (the fact that those alive still “exist” becomes meaningless, as I only can view life from my viewpoint, and if it doesn’t exist for me, it no longer exists! Her suffering would no longer exist upon her death, etc. Basic philosophy.) And yet, because I believe there is more to life than just “this”, I would never perform such an act, because I do not see life as meaningless or random. I’ve never broken so much as a traffic law- I’m the poster-child for a “squeaky clean good guy”. But if you could prove to me there was no afterlife (which you can’t), then I would indeed perform some bad acts.

    “But that’s evil, so you’re a bad person! You can be good without threat of eternal damnation or reward!”

    THAT is the problem humanists have. I DO believe in an afterlife. I do NOT believe in Hell (it disproves itself). And I do not believe there is a connection between being “good” in life and existing in an afterlife- In other words, no “rewards” for being good. And, most importantly, I’m not Christian (I’m a Druid.) I do believe in God, but not in any form Christians do- such a concept is beyond the ability for us to comprehend.

    See- most times I run into humanists, when I mention belief in an afterlife, or the fact that disbelief in one would cause me to take different actions in life, it’s assumed I fear Hell or seek Heaven- and this is not true in my case. Yet it happens constantly.

    I just wish those who held the humanist/”free-thinker” attitudes would not be so quick to jump to conclusions when dealing with others. Certainly Christians do this as well. As a Druid, I am a master student of wisdom, and this allows me to keep an exceptionally open-mind that accepts and embraces the fact that we all think differently.

    Everyone has the faith they need this lifetime… let those who need none be satisfied with such a notion, and let those who need various beliefs- whatever they may be- have theirs.

    It’s such a simple concept- it’s too bad we can’t come together as a whole and embrace this mentality!

     
  54. cl

    December 6, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Nice comment, Jaym. As far as your troubles with women, the grass is always greener on the other side.

    If I were to believe nothing existed upon death, I would find a girl I found overwhelmingly desirable and find a way to take her by force-kidnap/rape her, since upon death nothing would exist, and my actions would be meaningless (the fact that those alive still “exist” becomes meaningless, as I only can view life from my viewpoint, and if it doesn’t exist for me, it no longer exists! Her suffering would no longer exist upon her death, etc. Basic philosophy.) And yet, because I believe there is more to life than just “this”, I would never perform such an act, because I do not see life as meaningless or random.

    This gets right to the meat of the “atheist morality” discussion, in my opinion: if humans are the measure of all things, and there’s no God, no afterlife, and no retribution for actions, what makes any one human’s word more worthy of obedience than the next? One might say I “shouldn’t kill” because it pains the victim’s survivors. So? What if I kill them, too, so nobody suffers? How do we define good?

    I just wish those who held the humanist/”free-thinker” attitudes would not be so quick to jump to conclusions when dealing with others.

    I second that, to the umpteenth power.

     
  55. PhillyChief

    December 6, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Again, why do theists always ASSUME this billboard is for them? It’s quite comical, Jaym, to see you write such a lengthy comment about the “major problem” of Humanists “quick to assume” the beliefs of others, in this case yours, when here you are assuming this billboard is for you. LOL! As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, this billboard is more for non-theists than theists, possibly being only for non-theists.

    Btw, I think that if your personality is one that allows for women to easily tell that you’d really rather abduct and rape them if not for some pesky afterlife belief, then they’re not passing you over for “lesser men”. You are the lesser man, oh master student of wisdom.

    Have a nice day :)

     
  56. Ric

    December 7, 2009 at 8:26 am

    I can see the poster in the post office now.

    Wanted for Rape and Murder
    JayM
    aka The Solipsistic Slasher
    Blames others for his problems
    Emotionally immature
    Takes refuge in religious fantasy
    Sociopathic personality
    Associates with rogue oak trees

     
  57. Ric

    December 7, 2009 at 8:50 am

    cl
    “what makes any one human’s word more worthy of obedience than the next”

    Well, nothing, once a person learns to think critically and take full responsibility for his choices and actions. If some clown in a god suit, say, a Pope, says ‘Kill that heretic’, do you obey because the Pope is recognized as a running buddy of god? Religionists can posit all the religious apparatus they want in order to foster obedience (why are religionists so big on that word?) but following orders is no defense for harming another being.

    Generally speaking, atheists make rational critical choices about their interactions with other entities (humans, animals, governments), and theists make choices based on authority and ‘obedience’. Neither has a lock on moral good, neither has a lock on good action. And given the history of humans, the theistic crowd is far more likely to engage in violence against others. Why? Because they reject personal responsibility in favor of unquestioning obedience to authority (or the appearance thereof). Humans appear to be wired that way; the unified group has a better chance of survival in a harsh world. Hitler is a charismatic, godlike figure; let’s follow him because he says we’re better than anyone else. The Pope has god’s ear, or vice-versa, so if he says burn some heretics alive, we’ll do it, and Pope/god will reward us in Heaven.

    Frankly, it’s a hell of a lot harder being a committed atheist than being a committed theist of any stripe. Atheists have to figure it out for themselves. Theists have only to accept what they’re told. Not that all atheists do think things out, nor that all theists blindly play follow the leader. But when it comes to effective critical thinking and reasoning about choices, I’d put my money on the atheist (but I’d still figure out the odds myself).

     
  58. PhillyChief

    December 7, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Theists have only to accept what they’re told.

    I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think we’ve all heard some colorful rationalizations over the years for not having to follow some of those rules and if need be, they simply change to a church which tells them what they want to hear. Imo, they mostly only accept what they’re told IF it’s either something they already agree with or something that they haven’t a reason to disagree with.

     
  59. Ric

    December 7, 2009 at 10:28 am

    philly -

    I agree, it’s not necessarily true. But they can do so, in essence accepting a canned morality and not having to really think about it. Or as you say, they can shop around and buy into a different can, one that lets them beat their wives or marry children or push their morality through legislation or have sex in weird positions in the swimming pool when the moon is full. Theists, or religionists, I believe, are always looking for permission, and failing that they figure on forgiveness and absolution to make things right with themselves. “I can kill you because Jesus Christ will forgive all my sins and let me into heaven no matter what I do. Hell, I might as well rape you too. And your little sister.” There are those, of course, for whom that is ludicrous, but the fact that such thinking exists and is put into practice suggests one of the weaknesses of relying on texts, obedience, and authority – anything is possible if all is forgiven, and texts can be massaged by authorities seeking obedience.

    Atheists on the other hand are more willing to have weird sex in the swimming pool no matter what the phase of the moon or the Pope’s (or Falwell’s or Robertson’s) pronouncements. Which is to say, in my own odd way, that atheists don’t have an out. They can be just as morally irresponsible as any believer about anything, but they can’t blame it on a priest or a book or a king or a god. You break it, you own it. In any event, an atheist, not believing in an afterlife, generally places more value on life than most religionists, particularly those of the Abrahamic monotheisms and their history of slaughtering each other. When you’ve only got one go-around, you tend to respect life more than if you think you’re going to live forever, and I think that sort of attitude leads to a more thoughtful, rational life. (Sociopaths excluded, of course, in case anyone wants to introduce Stalin et al to the discussion. Besides, Stalin was a seminary student…)

     
  60. PhillyChief

    December 7, 2009 at 11:17 am

    The main gripe I have is with their argument against atheists for lacking an absolute standard for morality. My main objection is they lack an absolute standard as well, and they’re kidding themselves when they claim they do for an absolute standard would not require debate and perpetual reinterpretation. Furthermore, the changing of churches to find the right “fit”, telling you exactly what you want to hear (or giving you permission to do exactly what you want to do) completely submarines that claim of an absolute standard. It’s just as arbitrary as any morality without a claim to having an absolute standard can be.

    Those moral codes which don’t make a claim of having an absolute standard are superior, imo, to those which do for without one, you have to justify it whereas with one the justification is by fiat.

     
  61. Modusoperandi

    December 9, 2009 at 5:15 am

    Jaym “But if you could prove to me there was no afterlife (which you can’t), then I would indeed perform some bad acts.”
    Then, by all means, keep your druishness (not: probably not a word).

    cl “How do we define good?”
    Philosophers have been arguing about that (as well as arguing about everything else) for ages. How does positing God add anything of value to the equation?
    I’m part of a discussion (I’m using that word loosely) with a Christian Presuppositionalist-slash-Divine Command theorist in another corner of the interweb, and his “good” is whatever God wants at the time (which he oddly seems to think is absolute morality). Have you read the Tanakh? God wanted a lot of crazy shit, but it’s not evil if God commands it.
    If I say, “Go kill those people and take their land, keeping the virginal girls that catch your eye”, I would rightly be declared a monster (or a Republican Party presidential candidate for 2012). If God commands the same thing, *bamph*, it’s good.
    “I second that, to the umpteenth power.”
    *Pbbt!* Typical Christian…

    PhillyChief “Btw, I think that if your personality is one that allows for women to easily tell that you’d really rather abduct and rape them if not for some pesky afterlife belief, then they’re not passing you over for “lesser men”. You are the lesser man, oh master student of wisdom.”
    Really? He sounds more like an Objectivist to me.

    Ric “Atheists on the other hand are more willing to have weird sex in the swimming pool no matter what the phase of the moon or the Pope’s (or Falwell’s or Robertson’s) pronouncements.”
    Yeah. Um. That party you’re throwing this weekend? I can’t come.

     
  62. Ric

    December 9, 2009 at 10:42 am

    modus -

    Sorry you can’t make it to the party. The virgins were looking forward to meeting you. They’ve even got a nickname for you already – Modi O. I think they were planning something with Jell-O. Maybe next year’s bash…?

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers

%d bloggers like this: