Proof that God does not exist.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 26, 2018.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,675
    (A) Believe and have faith in no God

    IS NOT THE SAME AS

    (B) I don't believe in god

    (A) could be framed as "I believe i do not believe in god" which is nonsensical

    (B) is a straight forward statement

    I doubt the conversation would go like that

    More like - "This is god" "OK prove it"

    Noooooooo

    It's your belief, faith AND lack of evidence vs non belief

    OK I can live with that. Just keep it to yourself or share with like minded

    Don't step into my arena and try to make rules and regulations based on your beliefs which would require me to follow your beliefs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    You do what you wish.

    It seems you want to believe so as not to exclude an opportunity to go to heaven.
    Only a few will go to heaven and they are only from the 12 tribes of Israel as I understand it...so if in that group I say give it a go...heaven is not for everyone and I think they are selling places that wont be there.

    Say the religion offerred no promise of heaven would you be still as keen to believe?

    I have faith there is no God which is not motivated by any prospect of a reward.

    I look at the story and how nothing adds up and points to nothing more than a collection of misguided beliefs in excess of 2000 years old all poorly evidenced and most derive from heresay...not something that inspires confidence that it is beyond question and certainly for me something I would not put faith in.

    And as I said earlier ..really if there was a God why would it not be made absolutely clear.

    And it is not made clear.

    The scriptures are far from correct so for me it is not difficult to regard the whole story as very much suspect...if there was a God would not the stories be more credible, would not Gods word be beyond the necessity of belief in an unsupported concept?

    You believe what you wish but if you do it for the reward of another life you risk not getting the best out of your current life...do you really think it makes sense to live and suffer then die and then live again in the exact opposite in bliss and perfection apparently.

    If you can buy that I say great so go ahead it will be your loss after all ..not mine.

    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,396
    Atheism is simply the not holding the belief that God exists. It doesn't need to incorporate the belief that God does not exist.
    It is also not a religion, unless you stretch the meaning of the word and apply it to the militant atheist variety who try to push their agenda with "religious" fervour etc.
    One needs more than simply a belief and/or faith in something for it to be a religion.
    I don't think I've met anyone who honestly believes in God due to something akin to Pascal's wager. If God exists, do you not think He would know whether you believe because that is what you honestly do, or whether you simply assert you believe because you are effectively hedging your bets?

    If you honestly do believe in God then Pascal's wager is not the underlying reason you do so.
    If you honestly do not believe then Pascal's wager is not a convincing argument to do so.
    It thus becomes something some believers feel may be convincing to the non-believer. But it isn't. It's a tease based on the acceptance of premises that one already either believes or not. It is also based very much on the notion that if you simply act as though you believe then this may lead to actual belief. It doesn't, as belief built solely on action collapses when actual thought begins. If belief is to be genuine and lasting it must be built on a core / foundational perspective that Pascal's wager simply won't alter, in my view.

    Or maybe you are the exception.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    I agree with what you say about Pascal's wager. But I want to extend it a bit. 1) it implies choice in belief. I will belief this because of these benefits. I don't think beliefs work like that. 2) beliefs build up over time (if they do that is). This may happen as one grows up in a culture. This may happen via more private or individual experiences, or combinations. But one very rarely changes a belief via decision or in a short period of time. Negative beliefs, like no woman can beat me in tennis, might get knocked out quickly. But paradigm-level ones are going to take time. And here's where Pascal's Wager could be considered potentially useful. Not as an argument to believe, but rather as an argument why it might be good to build up that belief and/or explore it. One could decide that the downside of attending religious rituals, reading the Bible, becoming part of a religious community in a variety of way, praying, might be outweighed by not suffering eternal damnation. You could argue that skills are necessary to have beliefs and also experiences, setting aside whether these are skills that are leading to correct conclusions or not, likewise the social connections.
     
    Sarkus likes this.
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,383
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    And after sidestepping any call for evidence in their next breath they demand support for any opinion you offer calling it a claim...if truth is on their side why are they so sneeky...are they arogant or dishonest or both.
    Thank goodness less people are religious than in the past and that sensible humans are waking up to the untruths and sneekyness.
    Their numbers become less, their influence becomes less hopefully it wont be long before religions have to pay tax just like any other business.
    All athiests should demand of their political representatives to put taxation of religions before anything else...and once the polies realise they have fat sheep for the shearing tax them they will.
    I propose not only income tax but also a capital holding tax...and a tax on crosses and holy water.

    I cant wait.
    Alex
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    I think we should produce t shirts...and the message.

    Tax all religions.

    And some popular music.
    Tax the religions.
    And a face book page.
    Once the polies realise it is becoming a popular movement they will seize the prize as a matter of public duty.

    Great.

    Alex
     
  11. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

    To ''reject'', or to place yourself in a ''position'', is to think about what you are doing.
    You believe in what you are doing, or you wouldn't do it. You believe you are correct in your position.
    You reject and deny God, because of this belief you hold.
    Atheism is nothing but a belief (a bad one at that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    I don't recall him bringing religion into the discussion.
    Care to try again?

    What honestly makes them believe in God ?

    It is, but you reject it, because you reject God.
    You believe there is no evidence for God, or what is regarded as evidence is not convincing.
    You've basically erected a wall around you, so you can keep God out.

    It is based on ''God Is'', not whether or not God exists.
    You have nothing to lose, in this life, or the next, if we live as though God exists.
    That's just basic common sense.

    No it doesn't.
    If you live as though God exists, your spiritual, and material existence, will be enriched.
    Ultimately you will come to accept God, whether it is desired or not.
    The problem is, you don't want to accept God, so I suppose that would not be an option for you.

    Huh?
    Belief is gained through experience, and experience requires thought's and actions alike.
    Never heard of anyone carrying out an action without some kind of thought. What kind of action would that be?

    Can belief be not genuine?
    Apart from that, the wager isn't about belief.

    jan.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,626
    Did you ever hear of the four squares of faith in God? Your statement reminded me of this graphic.

    There are two options offered across the top of the graphic:
    Column one: There is no God ....... Column two: There is a God

    There are two options offered down the side of the graphic:
    Row one: You don't believe in God ....... Row two: You do believe in God ...

    Therefore there are four squares in the graphic:

    Square 1 - Row 1 Column 1: There is no God ... You didn't believe in God ...
    You were right, but in the circumstances there is no God-driven life after death, you will never know you were right (If there is some life after death in accord with the invariant natural laws of the universe, the after-death realization would be an interesting development).

    Square 2 - Row 1 Square 2: There is a God ... You didn't believe in God ...
    You were wrong, and if there is a God-driven life after death, this isn't the best square to be in (If there is some naturally driven existence or awareness after death, you might face some natural consequence like remedial education).

    Square 3 - Row 2 Square 1: There is no God ... You did believe in God ...
    You were wrong, but in the circumstances that there is no God-driven life after death, you will never know you were wrong (If there is some naturally driven existence or awareness after death, that would be an interesting realization after death).

    Square 4 - Row 2 Square 2: There is a God ... You believe in God ...
    If you lived your life in line with your beliefs, you should be in a good position in the line for whatever God-driven benefits might await you after death. (This square could be in accord with the concept that God and the Universe are one and the same, a naturalist perspective).
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,396
    Indeed, Jan. An absence of a belief that a proposition is true, which is a far cry from the belief that the opposite proposition is true.
    Ah, your semantic journey continues, I see.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To reject X is not the same as believing not-X. One might reject X as true simply because one has insufficient convincing rationale to believe it is true. No doubt you will want to argue that this is based on a belief, so go ahead and please tell me what belief my atheism is built upon?

    Furthermore, even if one person's atheism is based upon a specific belief, can you show that every atheist shares that belief. If not then atheism can not be argued to be a belief. It might be based upon any number of beliefs but unless there is a shared belief then it fails to be comparable to theism (the shared belief that at least one God exists) that you are arguing it to be.
    And what belief is that, Jan, that all atheists share?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I suggest you read a touch more carefully, Jan.
    See post #191
    Only the individual will know if their belief is honest or whether it is mere lip service.
    Jan, unfortunately you do not get to decide what is or is not convincing to a non-believer. Only they can tell you that. But if you want to ask them questions and then give their answers for them, just let us know and we can set up a thread just for you to argue with any strawman you care erect?
    As a believer that is what you might think should be basic common sense.
    If only belief was a choice.
    As a simple wager, though, it can also be applied to any fictitious character who offers sufficient benefits for belief in them and what they require of you. Those that would use it to justify belief in God somehow fail to use it to justify belief in the infinite other possible benefactors.
    Yes it does.
    So having said "no it doesn't" you then proceed to show how it does. Back to your inconsistencies again, Jan?
    No, experience simply requires stimulation. Thought comes afterward as one interprets the experience.
    Oh, I'm sure there's some thought behind it, just not necessarily the right type of thought. If it helps, I'm talking about thinking critically, and not simply accepting what has been told.
    Yes. It can be lip service.
    I know, thanks. But since the poster was using the wager as a means of justification for their belief, it is pertinent to focus on that aspect rather than discuss the wager in more detail. If you want to, I'm sure there are threads about it, or set up a new one.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,675
    Can you set up a thread where he could argue with himself? or himself and his god?

    The rest of us could only read not post

    I would take him off iggy just for that thread none of the others

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,763
    False choices. There are thousands of ways to be wrong, one for each religion you disbelieve. Maybe it was the Muslim heaven you failed to enter, maybe it was Valhalla.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  16. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    But you have reasons for your absence, and you believe in those reasons, and the process that it takes to form them.
    If you think there is currently no evidence for God, then there is a reason why you think that. If you think that the evidence, given by thinking theists, past and present, is lacking. Then you must have some way of coming to that conclusion. That is the belief.

    So you're saying that to reject God, is not the same as not believing in God (I don't get this ''believing not-X)?
    If that is what you're saying, then you're right. But that then begs the question. If there is currently no evidence; Why do you reject God?

    As for what your atheism is built on? A pointless question. You are atheist, whether you think about, and build upon, or not. Like you said, you are absent of the belief in God, and as such the description ''atheist'' fits. ''Atheism'' is kind of like a broad range of people who are all absent of the belief in God. The opposite is true with theism also.

    Every thinking atheist shares the belief that the process they use to come to the conclusion that their position is correct, as opposed to the opposite, is rational, reasoned, and in step with good logic. You believe in yourselves.

    My bad.

    If you can say you've never met anyone who honestly believed in God, because of Pascal's wager, why don't you have ideas about why people honestly believe in God?
    Isn't it the same process?

    You're the one who keeps saying there is currently no suitable, or convincing evidence of God.

    Huh?
    So you're saying, the reason you don't believe in God, is not absence of evidence?

    No it doesn't. Because you cannot act as though you believe. You will always know that you don't believe.
    But you can act as though there is a God, by learning about God, and act in a way that is conducive, That way there is a chance that you may accept God.
    If you don't live as though there is a God, you can live how you like, which tends to gravitate toward chaos.
    You may be judged (if there is a God) on the weight of your transgressions. But if you have lived as though there is a God, you can not be judged on transgressions that weren't committed. It's a win win situation, both in this life, and the next, or not.

    You should look at your own inconsistencies.
    I said you cannot pretend to believe in God, or anything for that matter.
    Maybe that's where your point of contention lies.

    We are talking about the experiences that we are consciously aware of. Not every moment of our lives.

    That's not belief.
    That is simply lying.
    So can a belief be not genuine, or, dishonest?

    I'm not sure he was using it as justification. It seems he used it vthe way it was intended to be used.

    Jan.
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,396
    Even if I accept this (and to go into the matter of belief would require another thread entirely) there is no pt necessarily a shared belief among all atheists that would thus make atheism a religion. I.e. what attracts the label of "atheist" is simply the lack of belief that God (or gods) exist.
    So despite years of explaining it to you you still don't get it? Wow.
    Right...
    What this boils down to is this: there is a difference between "not believing that God exists" and "believing that God does not exist".
    If X = "God exists" then not-X = "God does not exists"
    Thus there is a difference between "not believing X" and "believing not-X".

    For example, you are either wearing a hat or not. If I do not have the belief that you are wearing a hat, this does not mean that I therefore believe you are not wearing a hat.

    Got it?
    Hopefully the above has now clarified.
    For you, perhaps. Not for some actual atheists. But your evasion is noted.
    No, I am atheist precisely because I do think about it. Because I have thought through it, and continue to do so. Atheism is an effect, not a cause.
    Yes, the opposite is true: you all share a specific belief: God exists. Whether this manifests as "God Is" or anything else, ultimately one is asserting that God exists (even if not in the manner that pots and pans exist).
    Unfortunately you are simply describing what it means to consider oneself rational. This undoubtedly applies to (most) theists as well, even if what we might consider to be "good logic" is different.
    So no, while what you describe certainly links most atheists, it also links them with most theists. It is almost as useful as saying that the thing that links all atheists is that they are human.
    Or are you suggesting that theists do not have the belief that "the process they use to come to the conclusion that their position is correct, as opposed to the opposite, is rational, reasoned, and in step with good logic."
    Do you not believe in yourself? Do theists abdicate responsibility for what they do, for what they achieve, for what results from their actions?
    Non sequitur, Jan. I have some ideas, sure, of why people may believe in God, but only they can know if their belief is honestly held. If I say that some people might believe because of X, and then someone says "I believe in God because of X", my point is that only they can know if their belief is because of X or whether they are just giving it lip service.
    Indeed. I have no doubt that the evidence you put forth is convincing to you, but when I talk of being convincing it is implicit that I am referring to myself.
    Given the number of times you've asked me what I would consider evidence of God to be, and I've told you that I don't know, I thought it would have been obvious. The absence of convincing evidence is really only a by-product of the underlying reasons.
    Thats my point, Jan.
    Sure, brainwashing works like that. Jump on the cycle of believing to believe, and whatdoyaknow... you believe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It does??? According to who?
    Yes, Pascal's wager. Simply repeating it using different words doesn't change it or its flaws.
    Such as?
    One can not just live as though God exists without actually believing that God exists. While there is that non-belief there is no ability to truly live as though God exists. Thus one will never jump on the cycle of belief.
    You can be talking about any experience you want: I stand by what I said.
    It's not necessarily lying unless there is intent to decieve. There may simply be an unthought expression of belief without having actually truly examined one's position. There may be an apathy, a herd mentality, a cultural inclusivity that hinders examining the truth of the belief. Not necessarily lying. If one is getting to the point of lying then one must be in a fairly miserable position about it.
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,601
    May be is way too kind, theists even call themselves the flock and there are various references to them being sheep so lets call them a herd of sheep...and sheep always have a lead sheep and where that sheep goes good or bad the flock follow...The mentality is most strange follow the leader without thought or question.
    Good luck in the discussion so far you are winning and scoring all the points.


    Alex
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  19. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    And what attracts the labelled "theist" is simply the belief that there is a God.
    So what's your point?

    Yes. But it is nothing more than word salad. You are assuming that God may, or may not exist.

    From where you stand, there currently is no God, but there could be. Right?

    You could simply ask if I am wearing a hat or not. But you cannot ask God, if God exists.
    Why?
    Because for you, there is no God to ask.
    If there is no God for you to ask, you cannot believe therefore you are atheist.
    Right?

    The notion that God could reveal itself to you (that's what it would take, given what you have said), is simply an idea, or construct you have, and not based on any theistic understanding of God.
    This "God" that may just turn up one day, will come from the same place in your psyche, that held to the atheist idea, moments before. IOW, you're not discussing God, which theists believe in. You are concocting a straw god which you have under your control.

    In reality, there is no God, as far as you're aware, and that's all it is.

    Jan.
     
  20. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    So an atheist is such because a atheist thinks about God, then concludes there is no God?

    So was this person an atheist before they came to this conclusion?

    Atheism is neither effect or cause. It simply describes your position in relation to God.

    So there is no significant difference between theist an atheist other than one is absent of belief in God.
    Theists share a common foundation, and atheists share their common foundation.

    Nope. I'm describingdwhat atheist such as yourself, think is rational.

    Remember you're the one who is creating distinctions. The only difference between theist and atheist, is that one is absent of the belief in God .

    Theists believe in God.
    We all have to act, despite what we believe, and in that, we do the best we know how, and hope others do the best they know how.

    To do that requires belief in oneself and others.
    As this all seems natural, there is little point in exercising a special belief in oneself.

    No problem. I only asked because you seemed to be aware of why people "honestly" believe in God.

    My bad.

    So what are the underlying reasons why you are atheist?

    How is it brainwashing?
    Don't you act differently depending on the situation?

    Just saying there are flaws does not make it so. What "flaws" are you referring to?

    Why? It doesn't mean you have to worship, or go to any religious meets.
    You could use the appropriate parts of the Ten Commandments as a basic principle, then take it from there. No brainwashing required.

    Maybe so but it serves no purpose to bring in every moment.

    To believe, one has to accept, and to accept one has to think.

    According to me.

    Then that's where the belief lies.

    The reality is that one cannot pretend, or fake a belief. Take Jim JonesJas an example.

    Jan.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,396
    Recall, Jan, that this was raised with regard atheism being called a religion. Now if a atheists do not even have a shared belief, how can it be called a religion. A religion undoubtedly requires a number of things to be a religion, and a shared belief is such a thing. But not even simply a shared belief would be sufficient in and of itself, with theism being a good example: it is a shared belief but is not itself a religion.
    So how can one argue that atheism is a religion if it is absent that one rather important aspect?
    I've explained my position to you numerous times, Jan: I don't know if there is a God or not. I can't say that there currently is or that there currently isn't.
    One can ask, but how will one know the veracity of any answer?
    I don't know that.
    And yet in your next post you state: "atheism is neither effect or cause" and here you are stating it to be an effect. What's that word... Begins with C...
    Who says the theistic understanding is correct? Oh, yes, the theists. On what basis?
    I have no control over God, if God exists. I have no idea how God might reveal himself, if indeed he does, if he can, if he even exists to be able to do so. But I concoct no straw God. I have no fixed notion of what God is, might do, has done. All I currently work with are concepts of God that others bring forth, and I see nothing convincing in them, in their arguments, in what logic they might bring to the table.
    I don't know that, Jan, and I can't say that. But it is certainly your view of the atheist position, irrespective, it seems, of what they might tell you.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,396
    Not necessarily concludes that there is no God, no. I have not made such a conclusion. Many self-proclaimed atheists on this site have not concluded as such.
    Speaking for myself, I was a theist for a while. Then entered a prolonged period of skepticism while still believing, then became atheist.
    Atheism can be either effect or cause, but it is certainly not neither. My atheism, as cause, led me to this website. My questioning of what I had been told led to my atheism (effect).
    Not necessarily. Theists and atheists come in many shapes and sizes. But, again, recall that this isn't a discussion between atheism and theism but between atheism and religion. Do you feel that atheism is a religion? If so, on what basis?
    You merely described a generic viewpoint, attributable to both theist and atheist alike. I.e. if I replace "atheist" with "theist" in what you wrote then the same would be true. I.e. It applies to most people, theist and atheist alike.
    I'm not creating anything: I am describing a distinction that is already there. But that is neither here nor there with regard what I wrote. Or perhaps you can explain why you wrote this?
    And remove the top line of this and you are again describing everyone: theists and atheists alike. Do you not have anything else to offer?
    For another day, perhaps.
    One would hope so, but when everything is continually reinforced without the ability to think critically about it... that way brainwashing lies.
    Other than those already raised here, can I suggest you look at the wiki page on the matte. That will highlight what are seen as a few for you.
    If there is no action resulting from the change then it is just lip service. If nothing changes in action then there will be no change in belief. And I am not referring to merely the trappings of a religion.
    Society is already fairly well based upon those, Jan. I would also go so far as to say that I lead a pretty good Christian life already, merely absent the belief that God exists, and without the trappings of any religion.
    I didn't, Jan, you did by the assumption that I did. As said, I stand by what I said on the matter.
    I actually find that to accept I would have to stop thinking. When I lacked the mental capacity to think sufficiently (I.e. when younger) then acceptance came far more easily, and belief did indeed follow. Switch on the thinking, though, and my acceptance faded.
    And duly treated as such.
    In ignorance?
    Again, I am not asserting simply. pretence of fakery, but simply of not holding it genuinely, as previously explained. I am not going down the route of asserting no true Scotsman. If you wish to assert that all stated beliefs are to be taken as genuinely held, that is your prerogative, but I don't agree.
     
  23. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    I don't recall him saying that atheism is a religion. IfII remember correctly, he said something like belief in no god is a religion. What is your objection to that?

    They believe, have faith, preach, teach, indoctrinate, hold meetings conventions, produce pamphlets, endeavour to change people's minds, write songs, books, make movies, plus other stuff.

    Sorry Sarkus, but that is nonsense, and you know it.. Either there is a God, or there isn't, your either theist or atheist. There's no in between. That's something it appears atheists can't or won't comprehend.

    You already have an answer, and you would be asking me to confirm it. Otherwise there would be no need to ask me. If you believe I am wearing a hat, then you need to explain why believe.

    It could be that legend has it that I wear my hat every Thursday, and you ask to see if it is true. The answer you get, would be the correct answer.

    Would you say that me not having a billion pounds is an effect.?
    How is your position of being absent of the belief, an effect, or cause? A word, atheist, simply describes, not prescribes, your position in relation to God.

    It doesn't matter what you say or think about God, you are fundamentally an atheist, and all that it entails. Until, of course, you're not. At that moment you will be a theist.

    Try asking, and see if you get a reply.

    Correct as in what? A theist is a person who believes in God If someone is a theist, how can they be incorrect?

    The problem is, for you, there is no God, so you are forced to be very skeptical of people who believe in God. But that is exactly what one would expect of an atheist, in that circumstance.

    Things are what they are, Sarkus.

    You're right that you have no control over God. But you do have control over the straw god. You know, the one that always gets a bum rap from atheists.

    This is nothing but atheist expression.
    You have always been in this position. Now you can express it.

    This what atheist is, and always will be. As an atheist, you cannot proceed any further.

    Try it. See if you can have a discussion about God (not atheist concoction), that theistst even deists, believe in. See how long before it takes you to get to the natural atheist position.

    Those concepts are trying to explain God in a way that other people can understand. God Is, despite that.

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018

Share This Page