| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 11:08:15 PM |
| Object: |
Is Atheism viable? |
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God'
s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
20 Sep 2006 06:29:11 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
Yep.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism.
That's right - non existent things dont leave evidence of their non
existence - its basic logic.
There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles
Which is fine as none is needed.
No problems for atheism then.
Good.
Misleading title then wasnt it?
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
28 Sep 2006 10:55:09 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God'
s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
youngopinions@aol.com
Al wrote:
Are our observed truths generalized truths or specific truths? Are
"general" and "specific" and "broad" and "narrow" not terms that are
relative? What thoughts would we think, if there was no imagined
visual/formative capacity in our neurological processes? Would words
exist or be communicable if there were no neruo-symmetric synergistic
links and formations being associated with the words?
Because there is a dependence on imagined form, are the myriad forms
and sequential matrices of thought each one obtains from their own
pathways' interactions truely effectively communicable? Do we see an
actual universe or is it restricted to our own tinted, "contented"
realm?
Why do we expect accuracy as our organisms energies attempt to transmit
"information" to another entities "generally" similar system of
thought organization?
And do we expect anything universally "right-on" knowing that
these formations are probably not accurately transposed from largely
"energy- interplay" to an entirely archaic system of visually sensed
"letter and number symbols; frozen notations?"
Are these lines and dashes we have developed thoroughly depicting our
electric, fractionalized, dancing, inner interplay?
We sure seem to think so, and so, were ARE something special!
We are children of the universe in child's play. We are proud. We
know because we think we know. Our thoughts are OUR thoughts. BUT, they
may not be the thought or thoughts of another being in time-space with
substantially dissimilar interpretations of imaginary form.
There may well be, a being, able to communicate synergistically laden
words and concepts against other synergistically propelled concepts
easily, but it is not us.
Our colored ideas smear into grey quickly as we ascribe confidence to
them.
Tear off the lens of the eye and the forms we have labeled so
confidently cease to be perceived. There is only bright light. In such
a reality the stars were never there to discuss or measure if there was
no mechanism constructed to witness them. The ideas of infinity, of
flight, of color would not exist; to us.
If there is purpose for our discussions, if there is sensible humane
benefit potential present in them, then we must continue with what
skills we have. If there is no perceivable purpose then we might well
discuss, with our god-like skill, another venture.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
18 Sep 2006 11:58:28 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
]
<snip>
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
Nope. They've all been comprehensively debunked.You know they have, and
if you have to pretend you haven't seen or heard the rebuttal and hope
that none of your audience (which the person you stole this piece from
never intended to include any atheists) have, then you know that you
are being dishonest.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
18 Sep 2006 11:23:09 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Now you're quoting good ol' "Bible John"? Who could be more pathetic
than someone who wishes he was Jason Gastrich?
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 03:20:14 AM |
|
|
On 18 Sep 2006 21:23:09 -0700, wrote:
J Young wrote:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Now you're quoting good ol' "Bible John"? Who could be more pathetic
than someone who wishes he was Jason Gastrich?
Someone who wishes he was Ken Pangborn. <G>
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 04:11:10 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 21:23:09 -0700, wrote:
J Young wrote:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Now you're quoting good ol' "Bible John"? Who could be more pathetic
than someone who wishes he was Jason Gastrich?
Someone who wishes he was Ken Pangborn. <G>
What the hell is the end of this fencing foil doing in my chest
protector? ;)
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Is J. Young Viable? |
19 Sep 2006 05:46:48 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position.
I'll take that debate. Are you up for it or are you going to shrink
away like a limp Peter at the passion like you do *every single time*
I challenge you? Let's see.
Nope, atheism *isn't* a negative position. Here's what
www.dictionary.com says:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
So a-theism is without theism - without a belief in gods. Yeah, some
atheists insist there is no god, but this is a postive claim based on
the **FACT** that there's no scientificly valid evidence whatsoever for
any god.
So the true negative position is the claim, with negative "evidence",
that there's a god. Atheism is simply saying "where's the evidence?".
How is that negative?
It's actually positive. It invites theists to present their best
arguments. It's what Jesus would have wanted according to Bible fable.
Yet here we are after years of asking, and I 'm still waiting.
This is strong evidence that either you have no proof, no evidence, and
no good arguments, or there is no god.
But by insisting that atheists as a whole or in general blindly insist
there's no god, you're simply lying. Is this what Jesus would do?
It is not believing in a
god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any
belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
As I've shown, you've failed to demonstrate this. You've simply
asserted it and the evidence is against you.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism.
The atheist isn't required to prove the position. The onus for proof
is entirely on those who make the positive assertion, without a shred
of valid evidence, that there's a god. Where is *your* evidence
supporting this claim?
There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard
Try these reasons:
Parts 1-5 at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
Parts 100-119 at: http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
Parts 120-139 at: http://tinyurl.com/bp8za
Parts 140-155 at: http://tinyurl.com/72vlr
Parts 156-170 at: http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb
Parts 171-174 at: http://tinyurl.com/8jcja
Parts 175-189 at: http://tinyurl.com/cuvxb
Parts 190-199 at: http://tinyurl.com/9uo6f
Parts 200-219 at: http://tinyurl.com/8tsrg
Parts 220-235 at: http://tinyurl.com/a9rc2
Parts 236-245 at: http://tinyurl.com/b9of7
Parts 246-254 at: http://tinyurl.com/cz9yq
Parts 255-280 at: http://tinyurl.com/aze8x
Parts 281-299 at: http://tinyurl.com/7dn3s
Parts 300-325 at: http://tinyurl.com/bj4mu
Parts 326-360 at: http://tinyurl.com/8unme
Parts 361-400 at: http://tinyurl.com/89tdu
Parts 401-500 at: http://tinyurl.com/8un3t
Parts 501-550 at: http://tinyurl.com/8snjp
Parts 551-600 at: http://tinyurl.com/nakgj
Parts 601-640 at: http://tinyurl.com/lrzuz
Parts 641-666 at: http://tinyurl.com/pjjg7
Having said that, the atheist doesn't need to disprove something for
which there is no proof. Without proof, any claims for a god are just
that: blind-faith assertions.
Where is your proof? Where is your evidence? You supply the evidence
and then I will offer evidence or argument against it, but until you
actually supply some, there's no response, let alone "proof" required.
-- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
There's no negative to prove. The burden of proof is upon you to
establish that there is a god. Right now you're starting with this
"god's existence" as a given. That's nothing but *****.
And it's pretty hypocritical to pretend there's somehow something wrong
with atheism for not proving a negative, especially when you cannot
offer a shred of valid positive evidence to establish your position in
the first place.
Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient.
Oh, now you dismiss arguments by fiat? You don't list these purported
arguments and then disprove or out-argue them, you simply state they're
insufficient and that's supposed to clinch it?
Nope!
List the arguments. List your disproof or counter-argument and let's
discuss. Unless of course you blasphemously think you're a god who can
simply overpower atheism by fiat.
After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe?
Show that there is one, then I'll address that.
How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God?
Show that there is one, then I'll address that.
You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it.
There's no need to use anything to disprove the nothing that is the
scientific case for a god.
But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
Nope, it's the default. It's the natural posiiton to adopt in the
absence of evidence to the contrary.
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Nope, by 100% complete lack of scientific or rational evidence for any
gods.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position.
Nope, atheists just don't like idiotic and juvenile arguments. They
like to show how vacuous the arguments are. The problem is that
theists cannot stand this, which is why theists post harassing messages
in atheist groups, and then hypocritically accuse atheists of attacking
Christians.
If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
That wouldn't be a bad paragraph if it actually said something and you
supported it. but if this is the best you can do, my job is easy.
C'mon. Can't you do *better* than this?
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God.
Where is your support for tthis claim, that a god is the default? In
order ot establish that, you'd have to offer evidence for this god. I
see none so far, which is why you're losing this exchange pretty badly.
Can you do better in your reponse? Or will you run from me as you've
done so many times before?
But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position.
Exactly my feelings about these god claims you're making. Now where is
your evidence?
If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility?
No, but no one in their right mind is claiming that, just like no one
in their right mind claims there's a big magic giant in the sky.
Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
Where is your evidence for this god? What is the basis of your belief?
Because right now all you have is a belief that there's some god. In
this belief, you're in precise and exact agreement with all atheists
except for one small detail.
We all agree there is a universe, in which planet Earth exists, with
humans upon it. And when we review the list of gods which humans have
created over the centuries, we all agree that they are mythical; we
agree on every single one of them right down the list until we come to
that last god - the god of the Judaists and the Christians and the
Moslems.
Here the atheist is consistent. The atheist is logical. The atheist
says that there is no more evidence for this god than for any of the
others. The atheist takes exactly the same position that the theist
has taken on *every single god before*: this is a false god. There's
no reason to accept its existence.
But the Judaist, the Christian and the Moslem balk at this. They
insist that this god is somehow an exception. They offer no logic for
this, no consistency, no reason, no evidence, no proof. They simply
blindly insist that all the other gods are false, but this god, this
particular god, is real.
What are your reasons for that and how is it that do they apply to this
god instead of to some other god?
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
List those and let's discuss them.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God'
s existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible.
LoL! Let's see your responses to my challenges, and then we'll
determine whose position is indefensible. But you might ask yourself
what is indefensible about requiring evidence vs. what is indefensible
about insisting upon the reality of something in the absence of such
evidence.
At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world.
But you can know there are absolutely no evidences against gods?
At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice.
And the same applies to defeating the theist position. But you're not
willing to allow that, are you?
In the meantime, we need to look at what the evidences *are* for your
god. What are they? List the best ten and let's discuss, because in
the absence of proof, it is only the validity of the evidence which has
any currency at all.
The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible.
Why would there be such a thing? What reason would the Chrsitian god
have for keeping his existence a secret?
This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
An agnostic insists there is insufficient evidence either way. But
this is a lie. There is *NO* evidence for the existence of any god
that can withstand scientific scrutiny. Why is this?
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity.
This from someone who regularly posts inflammatory diatribes in a.a.?
Who insults atheists routinely, including in the present thread?
That's hypocritical at best. Does your god smile favorably on
hypocrisy? I rather thought, according to Biblical legend, that it was
the opposite way round.
It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum.
Examples, please. I could use a laugh after this drivel.
They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
LoL! Nice try. When you can respond to my challenges, we'll actually
have a discussion instead of a desperate, unsupported, juvenile
assertions that your opening thrust consisted of.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
25 Sep 2006 09:06:15 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Given the current environment, I don't know if it is viable, but it
sure is starting to look preferable.
MM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 02:26:32 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:08:15 -0400, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard
Just as there is no proof Santa Claus does not exist. or any other god
that man has chosen to create.
This is why I am appalled by Christianity, it makes you leave all
common sense behind and make the most dumb statements possible.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 03:22:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:08:15 -0400, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Gotta hand it to you, Young. Just when I think you couldn't possibly
be any more pathetic...you prove me wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "george" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Sep 2006 12:00:14 AM |
|
|
Yes.
Don't leave home without it
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
