Dawkins Faith Head thread Page 2

8/3/2019 Dawkins Faith Head thread Page 2

1/17

Login RegisterUsername: Password: | Log me on automatically each

visit

Go to RichardDawkins.net | Social | Store | OUT Campaign | Disclaimer |Search the Forum

Andrew Brown whinges some more about DawkinsForum rulesPost a reply

85 posts Page 2 of4 1, 2, 3, 4

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958817)by Electric Sheep Sun May 03, 2009 11:47 am

Faith-heads I am not sure about using this as a debating tactic. Just because theists say

insulting thing about atheist does not mean that we should return in kind.

The problem is the theism not so much the theist, though there are always exceptions. Raycomfort could be one of the exceptions. But is the problem Ray Comfort or the particularbrand of theism that he is promoting? Will calling Ray Comfort a Faith-head help to

convince him, his followers, even the people sitting on the fence that atheism is the logicalposition. It may well have the effect of convincing people that atheists are just out tocause offence. Attacking the religion(s) and question the individual for following their

specific religion is for them is extremely insulting. I dont see how adding to that insult isgoing to strengthen our position.

We must also be cautious of how we determine the level of insult that the term faith-headwill give. While I understand the logic of comparing religion to a drug, however for manypeople this will be as good as calling them drug addicts. Considering the prejudice that drug

addicts face from society the insult of implying someone is a drug addict should not beunderestimated. While the term faith-head is not meant to be taken this way it is likely tobe interpreted this way. My concern is that when you call a theist a faith-head that theist

will hear drug addict and be incredibly insulted and just stop listening.

Edit: I think that I would go for supernaturalist for the same reasons that Durro has stated

in his post viewtopic.php?f=14&t=80648&p=1958772#p1958772

(http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=80648&p=1958772#p1958772)

Last edited by Electric Sheep (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=65433) on SunMay 03, 2009 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958821)by Paula Kirby Sun May 03, 2009 11:51 am

RichardDawkins.net Forum View topic - Andrew Brown whinges ... http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=80

of 17 5/5/2009 2


2/17

Durro wrote: I would prefer to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and choosea term that is respectful while still clearly inferring the irrationality of religion and possiblygrouping it with other irrational belief systems, hence the suggestion of "supernaturalist".

Durro

Yes, I like that, for all the reasons you have given, Durro.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958823)by Spinozasgalt Sun May 03, 2009 11:53 am

Others be aware that not all name-calling and labelling is done from cruelty or withinsulting intent. I for one would never cast about pernicious titles in seriousness. They'reonly ever a kind of jest. Let's not jump to the conclusion that name calling can only be done

to injure.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958824)by rationalmind Sun May 03, 2009 11:54 am

The Gerin Oil article is here BTW.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,122,G ... rd-Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net

/article,122,Gerin-Oil,Richard-Dawkins)

It explains the problem well. We could do with something like the "imaginary friend"

concept. I recently saw it used

in a New Scientist article. I like Faith-head but it is capable of being turned into aprofanity. Gerin Oil addiction

seems to have the additional property of making people suffering from the delusions itcauses the ability to takeextreme offence at the simplest of things. Some Jehovah's witnesses who tried to convert

me recently (fat chance!)took extreme offence at being told they have an imaginary friend, poor things. :-) I don'tthink they liked the idea of s

"sky fairy" very much either :-), but then I was trying to ridicule them.

How about faith addict or religion addict? If you want something technical I'd suggest

Theophrenia by analogy with schizophrenia which comes from the Ancient Greek Szchizeinto split and phren mind.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958828)by besleybean Sun May 03, 2009 11:58 am


of 17 5/5/2009 2


3/17

The other thing is(and I don't know about anybody else), I never use terms such as ' fundie'or 'theist' in my everyday life. I'd never really encountered ' fundie' until I came on here.This is a safe haven for atheists and I occasionally come on here and let off steam like

others. But in my normal conversations wih people, I may refer to them as Christian(as thisis what they usually are) or even by their denomination...but I wouldn't dream of callingthem anything else. I do sometimes whinge about ' papes', but would also use' Calvinists' for

some kind of balance!

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958839)by Durro Sun May 03, 2009 12:07 pm

Thanks Paula. When you look at it,

* The magical popping into existence of the earth, Adam/Eve, plants, animals

* Noachian flood and viability of a wooden boat containing all animal species that returnedto their unique habitats* Jonah in the whale

* Parting of the Red Sea* Assorted burning bushes, manna from heaven and walls coming tumbling down, healing theblind, etc, etc,

all invoke magical powers to achieve them. Alleged miracles, faith healing and cryingstatues are all works of the supernatural as a matter of faith, despite being debunked as

fraudulent. They have no "earthly explanation" according to the faithful and by definition,have to be the work of otherworldly, non-physical spooky agents.

Despite religion having a "respectable" place in our society, I see it as no better than tarot

cards, astrology, water divining, palm reading and fortune tellers at the end of thetelephone who charge $3.95 per minute to share their vague ambiguous predictions.

Religion should be assigned its rightful place as an ancient set of irrational beliefs in thesupernatural with little or no good reason to respect it anymore than Filipino faith healerswho pull chicken guts out of your abdomen and leave no "scar".

Scooby Doo and the mystery machine gang always seem to find the true source of thealleged supernatural as fakery, deceit and wishful thinking on the part of the gullible. If a

talking dog and his friends can do it, then so can we.

"Curses ! I would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for that darn Richard Dawkins

and his collection of reasonable rationalists".

Durro

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958850)by seals Sun May 03, 2009 12:13 pm


of 17 5/5/2009 2


4/17

Paula Kirby wrote:

Durro wrote: I would prefer to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and choosea term that is respectful while still clearly inferring the irrationality of religion and possibly

grouping it with other irrational belief systems, hence the suggestion of "supernaturalist".Durro

Yes, I like that, for all the reasons you have given, Durro.

I like it too, though as it points out something they are quite at pains to avoid confronting,does that count as "needling"?

How about Occultists

(only kidding!)

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958851)by EeekiE Sun May 03, 2009 12:14 pm

Mythologists?

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958854)by wiz5 Sun May 03, 2009 12:18 pm

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but doing this is opening us/you up to

"lowering the tone" or claims of irrational name calling.

I see Melanie Phillips use the method, she will be inane and dense until her opponentsresort to saying vaguely insulting and then accuse them of smearing. I imagine it workswonders on people who don't understand the issues involved.

Top


seals wrote: I like it too, though as it points out something they are quite at pains to avoid

confronting, does that count as "needling"?

Perhaps it's more of a case of "the truth hurts".

Magic acts are the fundamental basis for religious belief. Why not respectfully and calmly

point out the illogical elephant in the room ?

Durro


of 17 5/5/2009 2


5/17

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958871)by Janus Sun May 03, 2009 12:32 pm

Durro wrote:I would prefer to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and choosea term that is respectful

By choosing a respectful term, you're implying that their way of thinking is deserving ofrespect. That's precisely the dogma we want to get rid of.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958873)by Electric Sheep Sun May 03, 2009 12:37 pm

Janus wrote:

Durro wrote:I would prefer to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and choose

a term that is respectful


I think that you have got this the wrong way round.

By rejecting the idea of the term faith-head you are not choosing to respect theists. You

are choosing not to show them disrespect thus taking the moral high ground.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958879)by Szymanowski Sun May 03, 2009 12:40 pm


of 17 5/5/2009 2


6/17

Electric Sheep wrote:

Janus wrote:



By choosing a respectful term, you're implying that their way of thinking is deserving of

respect. That's precisely the dogma we want to get rid of.


By rejecting the idea of the term faith-head you are not choosing to respect theists. Youare choosing not to show them disrespect thus taking the moral high ground.

Right. I guess Durro would accept "not disrespectful" too. E.g. supernaturalist, theist,

"religious person".

(a respectful term would be something like "His Holiness")

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958888)by Ian Edmond Sun May 03, 2009 12:43 pm

Janus wrote:



No, by choosing a respectful term, you're implying that people are deserving of respect. Itdoesn't follow that their way of thinking deserves the same respect.

I don't really see that there is a problem here that needs addressing. They are "religious", or"the religious" if you need a group term. We are "atheists". Both are neutral, accurate

identifiers. Then you go on to the issues.

Top



of 17 5/5/2009 2


7/17

Janus wrote:




Quote mining is a wonderful thing. I actually wrote,

I would prefer to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and choose a term that

is respectful while still clearly inferring the irrationality of religion and possibly grouping

it with other irrational belief systems, hence the suggestion of "supernaturalist".

I'm not for respecting their position. I am for us rational, well educated atheists acting in arespectful manner toward our fellow human beings so that we are viewed as the logical,rational, persuasive ones rather than just evil atheists trying to do Satan's work or

whatever dumbass label we are assigned. I want to maintain the high ground while labellingtheism as irrational and pointing out many of the deceitful, fraudulent tactics employed bysome leaders of the various faiths to persuade the gullible and ill-educated.

"Atheist" seems to be thrown out as a dirty word by many theists. The more that we stoopto their level of name calling and petty bickering, the more this characterization gains

momentum. We largely stop this in its tracks if the voice of atheism is mature, consideredand logical, particularly while the theist side so often seems illogical, lacking in evidenceand appealing to a belief in magic perpetrated by imaginary invisible friends.

It's nearly 11pm on a Sunday evening here, so I'm probably not articulating myself thateffectively. I'll sign off for now and I look forward to seeing this conversation continued

tomorrow.

Regards,

Durro

Top



of 17 5/5/2009 2


8/17


Janus wrote:





By rejecting the idea of the term faith-head you are not choosing to respect theists. Youare choosing not to show them disrespect thus taking the moral high ground.

Uh, and what's the practical difference between respecting theists and not showing them

disrespect?

Frankly, your post is equivalent to telling a gay rights activist to call homophobes

'traditional marriage advocates' in order to "take the moral high ground". It's blatantlyidiotic.

Ian Edmond wrote:No, by choosing a respectful term, you're implying that people aredeserving of respect. It doesn't follow that their way of thinking deserves the same respect.

That's a popular saying, but it's deeply flawed. Beliefs don't exist independently of theminds that hold them. To say that you don't respect someone's beliefs means that you don't

respect part of what makes the person who she is.

Of course, you could respect this person as a whole despite feeling contempt for part of

what she is, but using the word faith-head doesn't negate that, for the same reason thatyou can call someone a homophobe and still respect (most of) her.

Durro wrote:Quote mining is a wonderful thing. I actually wrote,

I would prefer to maintain the moral and intellectual high ground, and choose a term thatis respectful while still clearly inferring the irrationality of religion and possibly grouping itwith other irrational belief systems, hence the suggestion of "supernaturalist".

I'm not for respecting their position.

But you are for showing respect for their position. Your beliefs are irrelevant if you don'tturn them into actions and words in a social setting. One of the major factors that keep

religion in power is the undeserved respect that everybody shows, in words and in actions,


of 17 5/5/2009 2


9/17

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958926)by Paula Kirby Sun May 03, 2009 1:07 pm

Janus wrote:





I have no wish to convey respect to the religious. There are a number of religious people Ido respect, but in those cases the respect is invariably for their other qualities, certainlynot for their religious beliefs. On the contrary, the fact that they are religious rather

detracts from the overall respect I otherwise have for them. So I am not advocating an

inherently respectful term; just the avoidance of an inherently abusive one.

We are talking here about a term that we would adopt to refer to religious people ingeneral; a term that Richard and others will use in lectures and TV interviews andnewspaper articles. It will be read and/or heard by large numbers of people, including

those who are religious and those who are not but who think religion is a good thing - i.e.the very people we need to convince. Terms of abuse are not convincing: they areoff-putting. They just make the person using them look rather unpleasant. They also

weaken the abuse-user's position, because those who have strong arguments tend not tofeel the need to do this.

Politicians talk of "winning people's hearts and minds" and it sounds corny and trite, butnevertheless any campaign does need to do both. The most successful politicians, the mostsuccessful businesspeople, the most successful campaigners, are the ones people warm to.

People are hugely swayed by their emotions and whether they LIKE the person who is tryingto persuade them. That's just the reality. We may find it satisfying to vent our frustrationin the relatively safe environment of this forum from time to time (I do too), but that

shouldn't be the guiding principle behind how we present ourselves publicly. We need to besavvier than that.

We have the strongest POSSIBLE arguments on our side. Let's use THOSE. It's not out ofrespect for the other side, it's simply because it's the rational thing to do. If we disrespect

someone's beliefs, we can EITHER abuse them for holding them OR we can try to get themto see why their beliefs don't stack up. Which will be more effective?

This isn't about being respectful to the religious (sorry - 'supernaturalists' ). It's about not

weakening our cause by giving potentially persuadable people an excuse not to listen.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958942)


of 17 5/5/2009 2


10/17

by Lorcn Sun May 03, 2009 1:16 pm

Re: Gloves-off policy.

I say they stay on !

Lorcn.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1958946)by lordpasternack Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 pm


0 of 17 5/5/2009 2


11/17

Durro wrote:We seem to have to culturally respect people who believe in drinking the bloodand eating the flesh of a man-god who was born of a perpetual virgin and died for theweekend before he raised himself to be with himself as an indivisible holy trinity...

Not to mention those who see the performing of permanent amputative body modifications

on the genitals of male and female minors as a sacrament to their god. In fact - not tomention a fair number of the religious rites where people, particularly children, areactually physically hurt in some way.

Paula Kirby wrote:We have science on our side, we have logic, we have rationality, wehave proper arguments, we have ethics, we have history, we have plain common sense, wehave the whole of the universe - we have so many arguments for atheism, we don't need to

resort to name-calling.

I agree completely Paula. There is absolutely no need to resort to puerile argumenta adhominem, or to turn this into an "Us Vs Them" slagging contest, when we have several muchbetter weapons in our armoury.

I do approve, absolutely, of a gloves-off policy, but that doesn't have to mean being rude tothe other side! Lets absolutely go for it and be utterly tireless in exposing their beliefs as

both false and morally repugnant, lets not let them get away with any nonsense, letsexpose their tricks and their lies and their distortions. Yes - absolutely - let's point out thattheyre being ridiculous, but lets do it through the force of our arguments, not through the

use of childish taunts.

Calilasseia (a stalwart veteran of this site's Evolution and Natural Selection forum)immediately springs to mind. He pokes interminable fun out of the creationists he's exposing- but not in place of sound argument - he first demonstrates amply that the particular

person in question is deserving of ridicule. As he also states - it's only an argumentum adhominem if the personal ridcule is used in place of rational argument. (Read his beautifulposts here (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/search.php?author_id=9692&sr=posts) )

But there are many more who we MIGHT persuade, but not if we've started out by callingthem names - why should they even listen to us after we've done that? I'm not talking about

the people who feel insulted the moment we challenge their beliefs. I'm talking aboutpeople who wouldn't feel insulted by that (which is the important bit), but would, quitereasonably, feel insulted by, well, insults!

Yes - it seems quite odd that for all Richard knows about how starting off nice is the best

policy - he has on a few occasions started off sardonic in the extreme with some of thevisitors who've come to this site (some of which were sincere - probably to Richard'sembarrassment) - and is now suggesting that perhaps rolling out sardonicism as a broad

policy is a good idea. Fence-sitters and tentative doubters are, IMHO, a lot more likely to


1 of 17 5/5/2009 2


12/17

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959016)by adamd164 Sun May 03, 2009 2:03 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote:What do you think? Is 'faith-head' a good meme, worthy ofspreading? Or can you think of a better noun to replace 'religionist'?

Richard

For what it's worth, I use this expression all the time now, and have done for the last year

or so. I really like it, rolls off the tongue.

I've also used the "I'm-an-atheist-but-head" expression you suggested on here previously (it

replaced Dan Dennett's "believers in belief" in my everyday vocabulary), to highly comicaleffect for the most part.

As an aside, in my experience the latter category are no less irritating than the former,

perhaps even moreso as they're uninfected with the virus of faith themselves but passivelydefend its spread. Neither group shows us much respect so I don't really take the point

about worrying that these phrases cause them to get their knickers in a twist; all thebetter I say!

Top


Paula Kirby wrote:We have the strongest POSSIBLE arguments on our side. Let's use THOSE.It's not out of respect for the other side, it's simply because it's the rational thing to do. If

we disrespect someone's beliefs, we can EITHER abuse them for holding them OR we can tryto get them to see why their beliefs don't stack up. Which will be more effective?

False dichotomy. We can do both. Not that I think that using the term faith-head counts asabuse.

As for the rest of your post, I'd be curious to know how you feel about the use of the word

'homophobe' in service of the cause of equal rights for gay people. Nowadays the term iswidely accepted, but a decade ago it certainly wasn't, and those we now call homophobes

fought pretty hard against the appellation. Back then, 'homophobe' had all the potentiallynegative effects that you attribute to 'faith-head', and yet it's difficult to deny that itsoverall effect was a beneficial one, by binding the concepts of opposition to gay marriageand of irrational fear and bigotry. "Winning people's minds", as you put it, can also be

accomplished by slipping into people's minds the notion that there is something wrong withfaith.

Top


2 of 17 5/5/2009 2


13/17


Janus wrote:


Janus wrote:






By rejecting the idea of the term faith-head you are not choosing to respect theists. You

are choosing not to show them disrespect thus taking the moral high ground.

Janus wrote:Uh, and what's the practical difference between respecting theists and notshowing them disrespect?

The practical difference is this: if I say to a theist that their position of believing in god is

irrational I am not disrespecting them. But at the same time I am not respecting theirposition. However if I was to say they are blundering irrational idiot for believing in godthat would be disrespectful. And in all likelihood gain you nothing in other than alienating

people. What you are proposing is a false dichotomy of respect or disrespect and nothingelse. This is clearly a false position because you can speak to someone in a neutral manor.In my experience it is best you use a neutral manor when disagreeing with someone as they

are more likely to listen to you and your argument.

Janus wrote:Frankly, your post is equivalent to telling a gay rights activist to call

homophobes 'traditional marriage advocates' in order to "take the moral high ground". It'sblatantly idiotic.

Youre correct that would be idiotic because that would be reinterpreting the position of

the homophobes. What I am saying is that you can attack an opponents position whilemaintaining and aura of respectability, thus people are more likely to listen to yourarguments.

It is possible to object to a position or belief without resorting to name calling. Saying thatsomeone has an irrational position might sting, but thats because the truth hurts.Ultimately if you dont behave in a dignified manor yourself any argument that you propose

will be weakened by you own behaviour. Furthermore just because you are behaving in arespectful manor does not mean you respect the individual or their position.


3 of 17 5/5/2009 2


14/17

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959097)by Paula Kirby Sun May 03, 2009 2:59 pm


4 of 17 5/5/2009 2


15/17

Janus wrote:

Paula Kirby wrote:We have the strongest POSSIBLE arguments on our side. Let's use THOSE.It's not out of respect for the other side, it's simply because it's the rational thing to do. If

we disrespect someone's beliefs, we can EITHER abuse them for holding them OR we can tryto get them to see why their beliefs don't stack up. Which will be more effective?

False dichotomy. We can do both. Not that I think that using the term faith-head counts asabuse.

I disagree. We can't do both. This is what happens when we publicly use a term of abuseagainst the religious: the religious hear the abuse and switch off. They are beyond the

reach of argument at that stage, in PRECISELY the same way as I would beyond the reachof argument if someone were to knock at my door and say, "Switch to British Gas, bitch". Iwould know at that precise moment that this was not a company I wanted to listen to for

another moment. End of conversation.

Furthermore, we alienate those who are currently - in the UK - keeping the religious in

power: those who believe religion is a force for morality and atheism is a force fordisorder. By using terms of abuse, we simply confirm their fears about atheism: that itwould lead to a general decline in moral standards.

And what do we GAIN to offset those losses? A fleeting moment of satisfaction? A snigger? Abrief vent for our very understandable frustration?

As for the rest of your post, I'd be curious to know how you feel about the use of the word'homophobe' in service of the cause of equal rights for gay people. Nowadays the term is

widely accepted, but a decade ago it certainly wasn't, and those we now call homophobesfought pretty hard against the appellation. Back then, 'homophobe' had all the potentiallynegative effects that you attribute to 'faith-head', and yet it's difficult to deny that its

overall effect was a beneficial one, by binding the concepts of opposition to gay marriageand of irrational fear and bigotry. "Winning people's minds", as you put it, can also beaccomplished by slipping into people's minds the notion that there is something wrong with

faith.

Well, I am not aware of the phenomenon you're describing, so I can't say whether it really

did have the effect you're attributing to it. I'm not saying it didn't - just that you're askingme to comment on something I have no experience of. The word "homophobe" does notstrike me as being as offensive as "faith-head". It strikes me as a pretty neutral coinage.

What was the word or term it replaced? Was there one at all? New words are forever beingcoined to fill gaps in language, but in this case there's no gap that needs filling. There is aword for the religious already: i.e. "the religious".

There just isn't a word that conveys "the contemptibly stupid religious", and that's what"faith-head" would do. It's no good saying it's not really offensive - if it doesn't add a layer

of offensiveness to "the religious", you don't need it at all because you have a perfectlygood word already.

I agree 100% that we need to change society's attitude towards religion, and we need to


5 of 17 5/5/2009 2


16/17

Top


Paula Kirby

I think that you have raised a very good point there.

How many atheists are comfortable with debating theists? I am guessing but I would imagineit is the minority. But we need the number of atheist that are willing to debate and openly

question religion to increase. This will not happen if atheist becomes synonymous withabusive terms and people. Also we need the in the closet atheist to come out. This againwill not happen if atheist becomes associated with disrespecting people.

As atheist we have to behave in a dignified manor. We have to retain the moral highground, because we cannot maintain that we have the logical and rational position

otherwise.

Top

Re: Andrew Brown whinges some more about Dawkins (#p1959127)by TEP Sun May 03, 2009 3:18 pm

Why not just use a nice, simple neutral term such as "faithist"? It simply expresses that aperson holds faith to be valid, without coming across as being overly insulting - the onlyway someone could consider use of that term to be insulting is if we are successful in

promoting the view that dogmatic faith is a bad thing to have. And of course, if they wereto act insulted, as the term used is a neutral one, then by acting offended they'reconceding that they consider being accused of the very act of having faith to be insulting.

What we should be trying to do is instead of coming up with insults like 'faith-head' orwhatever, is trying to simply continually point out the indefensibility of the concept of faithsuch that to accuse someone of having it practically becomes an insult, because the

perceived respectability of it is diminished. If you can get a neutral term to be considered aperjorative it can go a long way towards diminishing the perceived legitimacy of theopposing position - as such, phrases such as "such and such demonstrates typical faithist

reasoning here, making these critical errors . . ." probably do a lot more than somethinglike "such and such demonstrates typical faith-head thinking, making these particular badarguments". The former comes across more as an attack on the position, whereas the latter

is more an attack on the person.

TopPreviousNext Display posts from previous: Sort by

Post a reply85 posts Page 2 of4 1, 2, 3, 4Return to Richard Dawkins

Jump to:

Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: fryall, rationalmind and 9 guests


6 of 17 5/5/2009 2

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	matt-wardman
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Dawkins Faith Head thread Page 2

Documents