Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

What scares the new atheists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What scares the new atheists

    John Gray has a new article in The Guardian on what he believes is scaring the New Atheist movement. His opinion is that "Evangelical Atheism" is waging a losing war against religion since it is not dying, but getting stronger the world over. He seems to also believe that this new strain of Atheism is detrimental to Atheism as a whole. So I would like to ask our Atheist friends, what is your take? Do you think New Atheism (I would place Atheism+ in here as well) is doing more harm than good? I didn't post the article here because it is too long, but I think it is well worth the read.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

  • #2
    Well one thing that I've noticed happening in the last few years is how the average NA has a rather nasty stereotype attached to it now; a misogynistic, amoral, potty mouthed basement dweller with poor hygiene and social skills. For example, I would be watching a gaming video on Youtube and a NA makes a run of the mill nasty comment about religion/God. True, you get several "me too!" comments but you now also see stuff like...

    "Dude, keep it to yourself. I'm here for the video not your religious banter"
    "I'm an atheist and I think you're nuts"
    "*fedora tipping intensifies*"
    "Run out of Cheetos, neckbeard?"

    This is the face of New Atheism nowadays:
    3f3.jpg


    I never saw this kind of response when I first encountered apologetics in the late 2000s.
    Last edited by Knowing Thomas; 03-03-2015, 10:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
      John Gray has a new article in The Guardian on what he believes is scaring the New Atheist movement.
      I saw that article myself and (skim) read it earlier today. It's absurd. He's wrong about everything he says. It surprised me that The Guardian, which is usually a good paper, would embarrass itself by printing such tripe.

      I guess the first place to start is that the fundamental premise of the article is demonstrably false: He's just plain factually wrong in his claims that religion is generally getting stronger and atheism is diminishing. Checking any census data, or large-scale-survey results from anywhere in the Western world will show you that's just factually false. In most Western countries, the rate of religion has been declining over the last few decades by around one percentage point per year (some much more, some much less). His historical analysis is just as imaginative and fantasy-based.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        I saw that article myself and (skim) read it earlier today. It's absurd. He's wrong about everything he says. It surprised me that The Guardian, which is usually a good paper, would embarrass itself by printing such tripe.

        I guess the first place to start is that the fundamental premise of the article is demonstrably false: He's just plain factually wrong in his claims that religion is generally getting stronger and atheism is diminishing. Checking any census data, or large-scale-survey results from anywhere in the Western world will show you that's just factually false. In most Western countries, the rate of religion has been declining over the last few decades by around one percentage point per year (some much more, some much less). His historical analysis is just as imaginative and fantasy-based.
        How do you feel about New Atheism (and/or Atheism+)? Do you feel it is a good or bad thing for Atheism as a whole?
        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          I saw that article myself and (skim) read it earlier today. It's absurd. He's wrong about everything he says. It surprised me that The Guardian, which is usually a good paper, would embarrass itself by printing such tripe.

          I guess the first place to start is that the fundamental premise of the article is demonstrably false: He's just plain factually wrong in his claims that religion is generally getting stronger and atheism is diminishing. Checking any census data, or large-scale-survey results from anywhere in the Western world will show you that's just factually false. In most Western countries, the rate of religion has been declining over the last few decades by around one percentage point per year (some much more, some much less). His historical analysis is just as imaginative and fantasy-based.
          Religion growing/decreasing goes beyond just Western Countries.
          "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
          "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
          Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

          Comment


          • #6
            No kidding. Going by sheer numbers, if Christianity is anything, it's a Chinese religion.*






            * - At least within a decade or so, given current growth rates.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jesse View Post
              How do you feel about New Atheism (and/or Atheism+)? Do you feel it is a good or bad thing for Atheism as a whole?
              I don't think "New Atheism" is a coherent enough notion to usefully discuss. It's mostly used by theists who want to color in their own goblin to snub.

              The article itself is all over the place. It works better as an Internet forum rant than a published essay.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                I don't think "New Atheism" is a coherent enough notion to usefully discuss. It's mostly used by theists who want to color in their own goblin to snub.

                The article itself is all over the place. It works better as an Internet forum rant than a published essay.
                Okay. What I am looking for are the opinions of Atheists whom feel whether New Atheism (and Atheism+) is a good or bad thing for their community as a whole. If it is coherent enough for some of them, those are the ones I would like to hear from. If you don't think it exists, that's great.
                Last edited by Jesse; 03-04-2015, 02:24 AM.
                "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                  How do you feel about New Atheism (and/or Atheism+)?
                  Popular atheist writers like Dawkins and Harris tend to annoy me. I haven't read any of their books, but I cringe when they're quoted for two reasons. (1) They often say things I consider stupid, or that I strongly disagree with. A lot of what they say seems to owe more to their personal opinions than anything else. (2) The idea that certain people somehow get to "speak for" atheists in general irks me. I'm an atheist and they certainly don't speak for me.

                  Do you feel it is a good or bad thing for Atheism as a whole?
                  I would say that they slightly damage atheism in general by gifting Christians with a punching bag. Christians then come on forums like this one and say "Dawkins said X, therefore all you atheists must believe X and defend X" and my general response is to roll my eyes at the silliness of the person asserting that I am in any way obligated to believe whatever idiocy Dawkins happened to write, and mentally curse Dawkins for writing stupid stuff.

                  But, overall, what I feel most about New Atheism is that it's totally and completely irrelevant. What I consider relevant is the social, demographic, and generational trends that are resulting in a gradual but massive shift within the Western world about how people are viewing religion. New Atheism is a product of that, not a cause: The vastly increased number of atheists that now exist simply means that atheist quack writers sell more books because their target audience has grown bigger. Those writers themselves are not the cause, however, of the gradually increasing number of non-believers, which is due to generational and societal shifts.


                  [warning] Rampant speculation about the causes of inter-generational and societal shifts:

                  In previous generations, the Church, as an institution was viewed with respect, even among non-believers there was a general deference to and respect for the ancient institutions of the Christian church and its therefore authoritative role in society and morality. The general attitude of the millennial generation (born ~1980-2000) towards authority is that respect has to be earned, it cannot be inherited by status or position or tradition. The Christian church is therefore by default treated as something worthy of neither respect nor authority unless it does something to demonstrate otherwise - quite a different starting point to previous generations which put the church on a pedestal by default. As a consequence whenever the Church makes any faith claims about God or morality, those claims are judged according to the standard of everybody else and not according to some special standard accorded to the Church. So when the Church says "X is immoral" instead of responding "Yes, but...", people now increasingly responds "No, you're wrong. Your position is immoral." The Church is simply no longer granted the moral high-ground and no longer treated as a moral authority.

                  There's also an increasing removal of religion from public life and a focus on it as "something private", meaning that millennials who haven't grown up in Christian homes are much less likely to know much about any particular religion, nor to have seen anyone they respect doing anything religious. This varies by country, of course, but to give an example - if my country's leader were to pray in public for the nation, people's jaws would drop and it would probably be pretty scandalous that a politician was publicly expressing their "private religion" (although it's been 15 years since we last had a political leader here who was religious). I suspect this is a significant cultural difference between Western countries (eg in the US basically all politicians need to pretend to be professing Christians, and in Australia it is still very much okay to publicly talk about religion) that greatly affects differences in the rates of growth of lack-of-religion, because in those countries in which religion is frequently endorsed by respected people it propagates the idea that being religious is a good thing and respectable. I think public-endorsement or lack of public endorsement of a religion probably has a very large effect on resulting rates of professed religious belief in the general populace, as people who otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to religion can get the idea that it's a good thing by seeing respected figures engaging in it.

                  There's also been impact from two formative international sources: Islamic terrorism, and gay rights. The millennial generation in the West has grown up seeing religion terrorizing the world in the form of Islamic radicalism. Likewise seeing Christianity gradually losing the fight against gay rights has driven many away from Christianity. (I recall seeing survey results last year that showed that one in three people who had left Christianity cited gay rights issues as the primary factor in their deconversion.) So between Islamic radicalism and Christians being very publicly very anti-gay-rights, many millennials only experiences of religions have been negative ones (assuming they didn't necessarily grow up in a Christian home and so only see what's in the public sphere).

                  I guess you could add to all of that the general background factor of increasing education levels meaning that people now question things they are told more and have the logical skills to think critically for themselves about things they are told instead of just taking them at face value. Plus the influence on the Internet can hardly be overstated, as it has so hugely affected the availability of factual information and the ways people share ideas. Globalization has also brought people of other religions into the West and so kids growing up will tend to have friends in their classes who have various different religions, and this will naturally inspire them to wonder "why ought I to think the religion of my parents is any more likely to be right than the religion of my friend's parents?" As a result 'comparative religion' becomes a much more practical matter than it ever was in the past when Christianity was pretty much the only serious option within the West.

                  Anyway, my point is that for all those reasons and more, society has changed and gotten less religious over the last 20-30 years and (looking at the demographics) that trend seems likely to continue for the next 20-30 or so. The rise of more outspoken and more popular atheist writers and speakers is simply a result of the fact that the number of non-religious people has increased and the amount of respect and status the public is willing to give to the Church has gone down.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Popular atheist writers like Dawkins and Harris tend to annoy me. I haven't read any of their books, but I cringe when they're quoted for two reasons. (1) They often say things I consider stupid, or that I strongly disagree with. A lot of what they say seems to owe more to their personal opinions than anything else. (2) The idea that certain people somehow get to "speak for" atheists in general irks me. I'm an atheist and they certainly don't speak for me.

                    I would say that they slightly damage atheism in general by gifting Christians with a punching bag. Christians then come on forums like this one and say "Dawkins said X, therefore all you atheists must believe X and defend X" and my general response is to roll my eyes at the silliness of the person asserting that I am in any way obligated to believe whatever idiocy Dawkins happened to write, and mentally curse Dawkins for writing stupid stuff.

                    But, overall, what I feel most about New Atheism is that it's totally and completely irrelevant. What I consider relevant is the social, demographic, and generational trends that are resulting in a gradual but massive shift within the Western world about how people are viewing religion. New Atheism is a product of that, not a cause: The vastly increased number of atheists that now exist simply means that atheist quack writers sell more books because their target audience has grown bigger. Those writers themselves are not the cause, however, of the gradually increasing number of non-believers, which is due to generational and societal shifts.


                    [warning] Rampant speculation about the causes of inter-generational and societal shifts:

                    In previous generations, the Church, as an institution was viewed with respect, even among non-believers there was a general deference to and respect for the ancient institutions of the Christian church and its therefore authoritative role in society and morality. The general attitude of the millennial generation (born ~1980-2000) towards authority is that respect has to be earned, it cannot be inherited by status or position or tradition. The Christian church is therefore by default treated as something worthy of neither respect nor authority unless it does something to demonstrate otherwise - quite a different starting point to previous generations which put the church on a pedestal by default. As a consequence whenever the Church makes any faith claims about God or morality, those claims are judged according to the standard of everybody else and not according to some special standard accorded to the Church. So when the Church says "X is immoral" instead of responding "Yes, but...", people now increasingly responds "No, you're wrong. Your position is immoral." The Church is simply no longer granted the moral high-ground and no longer treated as a moral authority.

                    There's also an increasing removal of religion from public life and a focus on it as "something private", meaning that millennials who haven't grown up in Christian homes are much less likely to know much about any particular religion, nor to have seen anyone they respect doing anything religious. This varies by country, of course, but to give an example - if my country's leader were to pray in public for the nation, people's jaws would drop and it would probably be pretty scandalous that a politician was publicly expressing their "private religion" (although it's been 15 years since we last had a political leader here who was religious). I suspect this is a significant cultural difference between Western countries (eg in the US basically all politicians need to pretend to be professing Christians, and in Australia it is still very much okay to publicly talk about religion) that greatly affects differences in the rates of growth of lack-of-religion, because in those countries in which religion is frequently endorsed by respected people it propagates the idea that being religious is a good thing and respectable. I think public-endorsement or lack of public endorsement of a religion probably has a very large effect on resulting rates of professed religious belief in the general populace, as people who otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to religion can get the idea that it's a good thing by seeing respected figures engaging in it.

                    There's also been impact from two formative international sources: Islamic terrorism, and gay rights. The millennial generation in the West has grown up seeing religion terrorizing the world in the form of Islamic radicalism. Likewise seeing Christianity gradually losing the fight against gay rights has driven many away from Christianity. (I recall seeing survey results last year that showed that one in three people who had left Christianity cited gay rights issues as the primary factor in their deconversion.) So between Islamic radicalism and Christians being very publicly very anti-gay-rights, many millennials only experiences of religions have been negative ones (assuming they didn't necessarily grow up in a Christian home and so only see what's in the public sphere).

                    I guess you could add to all of that the general background factor of increasing education levels meaning that people now question things they are told more and have the logical skills to think critically for themselves about things they are told instead of just taking them at face value. Plus the influence on the Internet can hardly be overstated, as it has so hugely affected the availability of factual information and the ways people share ideas. Globalization has also brought people of other religions into the West and so kids growing up will tend to have friends in their classes who have various different religions, and this will naturally inspire them to wonder "why ought I to think the religion of my parents is any more likely to be right than the religion of my friend's parents?" As a result 'comparative religion' becomes a much more practical matter than it ever was in the past when Christianity was pretty much the only serious option within the West.

                    Anyway, my point is that for all those reasons and more, society has changed and gotten less religious over the last 20-30 years and (looking at the demographics) that trend seems likely to continue for the next 20-30 or so. The rise of more outspoken and more popular atheist writers and speakers is simply a result of the fact that the number of non-religious people has increased and the amount of respect and status the public is willing to give to the Church has gone down.
                    tldr
                    at least you used paragraphs!
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                      Okay. What I am looking for are the opinions of Atheists whom feel whether New Atheism (and Atheism+) is a good or bad thing for their community as a whole. If it is coherent enough for some of them, those are the ones I would like to hear from. If you don't think it exists, that's great.
                      That's "atheists" in lower-case and "who" in the nominative case. "Whether" is simply redundant.

                      So, you're looking for the opinions of atheists who feel New Atheism (and Atheism+, whatever that might be) is a good or bad thing for their community as a whole, and especially the opinions of the hordes from RationalWiki proudly boasting of this year's $7100 fund-raising prowess. I'd imagine you'd prefer participants willing to parse sense out of your novel grammatical constructions as well.

                      Good luck with that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                        John Gray has a new article in The Guardian on what he believes is scaring the New Atheist movement. His opinion is that "Evangelical Atheism" is waging a losing war against religion since it is not dying, but getting stronger the world over. He seems to also believe that this new strain of Atheism is detrimental to Atheism as a whole. So I would like to ask our Atheist friends, what is your take? Do you think New Atheism (I would place Atheism+ in here as well) is doing more harm than good? I didn't post the article here because it is too long, but I think it is well worth the read.
                        Great piece. He made points I have been making for years - except he does it much better.

                        In fact there are no reliable connections – whether in logic or history – between atheism, science and liberal values. When organised as a movement and backed by the power of the state, atheist ideologies have been an integral part of despotic regimes that also claimed to be based in science, such as the former Soviet Union. Many rival moralities and political systems – most of them, to date, illiberal – have attempted to assert a basis in science. All have been fraudulent and ephemeral. Yet the attempt continues in atheist movements today, which claim that liberal values can be scientifically validated and are therefore humanly universal.

                        For secular thinkers, the continuing vitality of religion calls into question the belief that history underpins their values. To be sure, there is disagreement as to the nature of these values. But pretty well all secular thinkers now take for granted that modern societies must in the end converge on some version of liberalism. Never well founded, this assumption is today clearly unreasonable. So, not for the first time, secular thinkers look to science for a foundation for their values.

                        It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism.
                        Last edited by seer; 03-04-2015, 08:47 AM.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlight
                          Popular atheist writers like Dawkins and Harris tend to annoy me. I haven't read any of their books, but I cringe when they're quoted for two reasons. (1) They often say things I consider stupid, or that I strongly disagree with. A lot of what they say seems to owe more to their personal opinions than anything else. (2) The idea that certain people somehow get to "speak for" atheists in general irks me. I'm an atheist and they certainly don't speak for me.

                          I would say that they slightly damage atheism in general by gifting Christians with a punching bag. Christians then come on forums like this one and say "Dawkins said X, therefore all you atheists must believe X and defend X" and my general response is to roll my eyes at the silliness of the person asserting that I am in any way obligated to believe whatever idiocy Dawkins happened to write, and mentally curse Dawkins for writing stupid stuff.

                          But, overall, what I feel most about New Atheism is that it's totally and completely irrelevant. What I consider relevant is the social, demographic, and generational trends that are resulting in a gradual but massive shift within the Western world about how people are viewing religion. New Atheism is a product of that, not a cause: The vastly increased number of atheists that now exist simply means that atheist quack writers sell more books because their target audience has grown bigger. Those writers themselves are not the cause, however, of the gradually increasing number of non-believers, which is due to generational and societal shifts.


                          [warning] Rampant speculation about the causes of inter-generational and societal shifts:

                          In previous generations, the Church, as an institution was viewed with respect, even among non-believers there was a general deference to and respect for the ancient institutions of the Christian church and its therefore authoritative role in society and morality. The general attitude of the millennial generation (born ~1980-2000) towards authority is that respect has to be earned, it cannot be inherited by status or position or tradition. The Christian church is therefore by default treated as something worthy of neither respect nor authority unless it does something to demonstrate otherwise - quite a different starting point to previous generations which put the church on a pedestal by default. As a consequence whenever the Church makes any faith claims about God or morality, those claims are judged according to the standard of everybody else and not according to some special standard accorded to the Church. So when the Church says "X is immoral" instead of responding "Yes, but...", people now increasingly responds "No, you're wrong. Your position is immoral." The Church is simply no longer granted the moral high-ground and no longer treated as a moral authority.

                          There's also an increasing removal of religion from public life and a focus on it as "something private", meaning that millennials who haven't grown up in Christian homes are much less likely to know much about any particular religion, nor to have seen anyone they respect doing anything religious. This varies by country, of course, but to give an example - if my country's leader were to pray in public for the nation, people's jaws would drop and it would probably be pretty scandalous that a politician was publicly expressing their "private religion" (although it's been 15 years since we last had a political leader here who was religious). I suspect this is a significant cultural difference between Western countries (eg in the US basically all politicians need to pretend to be professing Christians, and in Australia it is still very much okay to publicly talk about religion) that greatly affects differences in the rates of growth of lack-of-religion, because in those countries in which religion is frequently endorsed by respected people it propagates the idea that being religious is a good thing and respectable. I think public-endorsement or lack of public endorsement of a religion probably has a very large effect on resulting rates of professed religious belief in the general populace, as people who otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to religion can get the idea that it's a good thing by seeing respected figures engaging in it.

                          There's also been impact from two formative international sources: Islamic terrorism, and gay rights. The millennial generation in the West has grown up seeing religion terrorizing the world in the form of Islamic radicalism. Likewise seeing Christianity gradually losing the fight against gay rights has driven many away from Christianity. (I recall seeing survey results last year that showed that one in three people who had left Christianity cited gay rights issues as the primary factor in their deconversion.) So between Islamic radicalism and Christians being very publicly very anti-gay-rights, many millennials only experiences of religions have been negative ones (assuming they didn't necessarily grow up in a Christian home and so only see what's in the public sphere).

                          I guess you could add to all of that the general background factor of increasing education levels meaning that people now question things they are told more and have the logical skills to think critically for themselves about things they are told instead of just taking them at face value. Plus the influence on the Internet can hardly be overstated, as it has so hugely affected the availability of factual information and the ways people share ideas. Globalization has also brought people of other religions into the West and so kids growing up will tend to have friends in their classes who have various different religions, and this will naturally inspire them to wonder "why ought I to think the religion of my parents is any more likely to be right than the religion of my friend's parents?" As a result 'comparative religion' becomes a much more practical matter than it ever was in the past when Christianity was pretty much the only serious option within the West.

                          Anyway, my point is that for all those reasons and more, society has changed and gotten less religious over the last 20-30 years and (looking at the demographics) that trend seems likely to continue for the next 20-30 or so. The rise of more outspoken and more popular atheist writers and speakers is simply a result of the fact that the number of non-religious people has increased and the amount of respect and status the public is willing to give to the Church has gone down.
                          Thank you for your opinion on the matter, Starlight. I was wondering how many believed the same.
                          Last edited by Jesse; 03-04-2015, 11:37 AM.
                          "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                            That's "atheists" in lower-case and "who" in the nominative case. "Whether" is simply redundant.

                            So, you're looking for the opinions of atheists who feel New Atheism (and Atheism+, whatever that might be) is a good or bad thing for their community as a whole, and especially the opinions of the hordes from RationalWiki proudly boasting of this year's $7100 fund-raising prowess. I'd imagine you'd prefer participants willing to parse sense out of your novel grammatical constructions as well.

                            Good luck with that.
                            Thank you for posting something completely useless.
                            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                              Thank you for posting something completely useless.
                              I'm a great fan of unwitting irony.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Today, 04:56 PM
                              17 responses
                              70 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Juvenal, Today, 11:08 AM
                              8 responses
                              54 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 08:52 AM
                              6 responses
                              57 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 10:59 PM
                              11 responses
                              276 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:50 PM
                              24 responses
                              154 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X