RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 11:58:18 PM)

About the concept of religion.

I won't check the dictionary for this one, but my POV on religion is that it is a gradual thing. Philosophies are more or less religious, it is not a binary value yes/no.

What makes a religion? IMO:
  • A set of beliefs about the cosmos as a whole - a cosmology.
  • A set of beliefs about the supernatural - a "theology".
  • A concept of "good" and "evil" - a morality.
  • A set of rites.
  • A professional hierarchy, dedicated to these morality, rites and beliefs.
Atheism, the lack of belief in a God (and even strong Atheism, the belief that God does not exist) are a very, very small set. It is a unit, the least possible non-void set. And Atheism as such has nothing of the rest - no morality, no conception on the cosmos, no concept of "good" and "evil", no rites, no hierarchy. Therefore it is "so few a religion" as the sentence "killing is evil" (morality) or "I work in McDonalds" (a profession).

Nonetheless...

There are people which I consider "Atheism supremacists". They believe that Atheism implies inevitably many things. For example, some say that you have to be a "free spirit" or that you arrive to Atheism always "though reason" and therefore, the ones how do not accomplish this are no "true Atheists" - for example, if you are Atheist just because your Chinese parents tough you that "God" is a crazy western idea and you trust them.
There people tend also to be very militant, and they consider that they are only "true Atheists", that they are not introducing anything which is not implied in the concept of Atheism. Often they do develop a morality (which they think is "natural" o "logically derived" from rejecting the existence of God or gods).

And they are absolutely wrong, in my opinion. Nor do you need universally any characteristic to be Atheist (I congratulate Western converts, not Chinese born Atheists), nor can you logically derive any morality from Atheism, nor are you forced to use logic just because you are Atheist. These people, even not being IMO plenty "religious", have made Atheism to a philosophy, and therefore are scoring much more in many of the aspects. And, unfortunately, sometimes their zeal strongly reminds me religious fanaticism.

Other kind of militants are, for example, the radical humanists. They also do score in many of those characteristics! They have a cosmology (science), a morality (freedom, democracy, human rights), professionals dedicated to them ("intellectuals")... but they do not this in the name of Atheism, but in the name of humanism, which is indeed a full philosophy and therefore much more near to a religion as the simple statement "there is no God". Unfortunately, also some of those have developed some fanatic zeal (but not so much as their "enemies" often pretend).

I am a radical humanist :) . I do not feel uncomfortable with the fact that philosophies are like "religions without some things". It is ok, and I do not hate religion as a whole, so what gives. However, when a zealot tries to convince me that "we Atheists" are the only "complete free humans", or that priests are "deceivers" who deserve imprisonment... well... I answer them shortly and let them
[image]http://www.allmystery.de/i/t0DjcNd_read-between-the-lines.jpg[/image]



PS: From "As the Collar Turns:", I guess RealOne as he is the only who answered after me... "RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion read this again. Its not about splitting hairs over the word. B..." I am sorry I would not read it once. "Hide", remember? Read between the lines...




Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 12:33:55 AM)

read this again.

Its not about splitting hairs over the word.  Belief is a process. 

You need to defeat the process not the word.

here read it again.


to believe requires a mental decision.

to not believe or disbelieve requires a mental decision.

In either case you accepted a position based on a mental decision.

The acceptance of "any" position by definition "is" a "belief", in this case one is simply positive the other is negative.

Absence of belief requires that no mental decision process was involved and no outcome determined.  That is the only instance one could legitimately claim "no belief".  (or change the definition of belief)

The acceptance of a position or premise by some mental process as correct or true "is" or creates a condition of belief.

To believe or not to believe are both an acceptance of a conclusion.

Hence either way it is a belief.

Therefore it is impossible to be with out belief if a person takes a position on a matter. 

To believe is a position, to not believe is a position, to be without a belief is to be without knowledge or thought process hence without a position.

Example of "NO" belief:
Absence of belief:  Do you believe in the existence of God?  I dont know I never heard of God.


The atheist claim that "I do not believe" is the same as "no belief" fails reason on its face by definition.

So to add; that belief by definition is based on the acceptance or non-acceptance of some premise as true or false.  The 3rd option is no knowledge of the matter.  Atheists conclude and accept a premise of non-belief, no belief, disbelieve whatever as being correct and true.  Hence with that acceptance an atheist believes God does not exist.


"I do not believe" is a determination made "with subject matter knowledge" whereas "no belief" is without determination or knowledge or similar circumstance.

The whole (modern) atheist argument with respect to belief and religion frankly falls apart.





feel free to outline any argument to the contrary.




Someone really should quote me so he stops with this rhetoric or outlines how he can say this inverted meaninglessness.

quote:

Atheism, the lack of belief in a God (and even strong Atheism, the belief that God does not exist) are a very, very small set. It is a unit, the least possible non-void set.



Lack and void are direct synonyms.

How does one express their "lack of belief" in God? 

They say "I do not believe in God". 

More like people playing that " lack of belief" card by stating it in a non-personal manner because they do not want to own the fact that they do not believe in God.

They want to disbelieve without any liability for their disbelief so by non-personalizing it its not quite so uncomfortable.  LMAO




quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster


What makes a religion? IMO:
  • A set of beliefs about the cosmos as a whole - a cosmology. (what religion is that?)

  • A set of beliefs about the supernatural - a "theology".

    HUH?
    quote:

    Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary. [1]


    I dont see supernatural in there? 

    Where do you dredge that up from?


  • A set of beliefs of "good" and "evil" - a morality.

  • A set of rites.  (not necessary)


  • A professional hierarchy, dedicated to these morality, rites and beliefs. (not necessary)

If you are trying to claim those are a "REQUIREMENT" to be considered a religion you are incorrect.   However you will find most of those attributes in "FORMALIZED" religious organizations. 

(well with exception to the crazy ones you added for drama)


Atheism, the lack of belief in a God (and even strong Atheism, the belief that God does not exist) are a very, very small set. It is a unit, the least possible non-void set. <-that doesnt even make sense.

And Atheism as such has nothing of the rest - no morality, no conception on the cosmos, no concept of "good" and "evil", no rites, no hierarchy.

Yep you see it in all the adds on here.  Everyone is seeking someone with poor character, no morals, no concept of good and evil.

Religion goes beyond the formal corporate structure you know.  Each living man and woman has religion regardless of the substance of their "beliefs" that make up that religion and all that corporate crap you mentioned only applies to those whose religion is part of a specific and usually organized group, most people however it is strictly personal and without the corporation dogma that you are attaching.

Nonetheless...

There are people which I consider "Atheism supremacists". They believe that Atheism implies inevitably many things. For example, some say that you have to be a "free spirit" or that you arrive to Atheism always "though reason" and therefore, the ones how do not accomplish this are no "true Atheists".

and you do not arrive at morals or knowledge of good and evil through reason huh?  News to me



There people tend also to be very militant, and they consider that they are only "true Atheists", that they are not introducing anything which is not implied in the concept of Atheism. Often they do develop a morality (which they think is "natural" o "logically derived" from rejecting the existence of God or gods). These people, even not being IMO plenty "religious", have made Atheism to a philosophy, and therefore are scoring much more in many of the aspects.

Yes they are a contradiction in terms.


snip

the rest goes off on so many tangents I cant make sense of it.



You might want to reassess and revise your beliefs or lack there of on what makes a religion.





DeviantlyD -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 2:46:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 LAW OF THE LAND

NEWS OF THE DAY

The decision in this case was handed down August 19, 2005.

In other news, the current year is still 2011. [:D]

K.



*LOL*




DeviantlyD -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 3:51:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

BTW, I aced my exam. It was almost all to do with the periodic table and I know that forwards and backwards and inside out


If that's all your exam was about, your chemistry class must be extremely elementary. Not to mention the idea that you would get your grade back that quickly.





quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

[snip]

I am not approaching this from a philosophical or theological or even a semantic point of view, I am looking at it purely in the context of the 1st Amendment.

[snip]


Perhaps it's more accurate to say you started off looking at it from a theological viewpoint, because better than halfway through this thread you suddenly brought up the idea of religion in the constitutional and legal sense. Prior to that point, you hadn't even hinted that your posts were only related to the First Amendment. And there were definitely posts prior to crazyml joining in the thread. But I'm not surprised by your change in direction.





Endivius -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 5:33:08 AM)

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread. It has given me much to ponder over. I suspect more shenanigans will ensue, but I will probably not return here until I have had more time to decide where I fall on several of the points that have been made on all sides. Thanks again, this is a very interesting thread.




crazyml -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 6:09:04 AM)

OK... I'm going to have another go at this!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

read this again.

Its not about splitting hairs over the word.  Belief is a process. 

You need to defeat the process not the word.


Ok, you can put it that way - seems perfectly reasonable.

It seems to me that the outcome of the process is the states -

I believe X is true
I believe X is false
I don't know whether X is false or true.



quote:



here read it again.


to believe requires a mental decision.

to not believe or disbelieve requires a mental decision.

In either case you accepted a position based on a mental decision.

The acceptance of "any" position by definition "is" a "belief", in this case one is simply positive the other is negative.

Absence of belief requires that no mental decision process was involved and no outcome determined.  That is the only instance one could legitimately claim "no belief".  (or change the definition of belief)

The acceptance of a position or premise by some mental process as correct or true "is" or creates a condition of belief.

To believe or not to believe are both an acceptance of a conclusion.

Hence either way it is a belief.


I think I disagree. I don't think that an absence of belief requires that no mental decision process was involved.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to ponder the truth or falseness of X and come to a considered conclusion that you don't believe either that X is true or that X is false.


quote:



Therefore it is impossible to be with out belief if a person takes a position on a matter. 



So I contest this. I absolutely can take a position on a matter - be it the existence of Pixies, God, or the presence of a tin of Campbells soup in your cupboard.

quote:



To believe is a position, to not believe is a position, to be without a belief is to be without knowledge or thought process hence without a position.

Example of "NO" belief:
Absence of belief:  Do you believe in the existence of God?  I dont know I never heard of God.


The atheist claim that "I do not believe" is the same as "no belief" fails reason on its face by definition.



Well I completely agree with you, and you wont find anything I've posted that argues that "I believe X is false" is the same as "I have no belief whether X is true or false"

My argument with you is based on the difference between these statements -

a) I believe that you have a tin of campbells soup in your cupboard.
b) I believe that you do not have a tin of campbells soup in your cupboard.
c) I do not believe that you have a tin of campbells soup in your cupboard.
d) I do not believe that you do not have a tin of cambells soup in your cupboard.

A and B are unambiguous. In case A, I definitely believe that you have a tin of soup. In case B I definitely believe that you do not have a tin of soup.

In cases C and D however - you cannot logically make a conclusion about my belief. You can make an assumption about it, and things like context and tone will help you.

But if you were to ask me whether I believed that you had a tin of campbells soup in your cupboard, what could I truthfully say?

I can only say that, no, I don't believe you have a tin of cambells soup in your cupboard. It is also equally true for me to say that I don't believe that you don't have a tin of campbells soup in your cupboard.

It would be logically wrong for you to conclude that I believe you do not have a tin of soup in your cupboard in the first case - Because I have said no such thing, I have said that I have no belief.







xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 6:29:59 AM)

quote:

An atheist wrote that, you can tell because atheism is not rejection of belief, but rejection of the existence.
Good catch RO, the existence of deity/deities can be empirically neither proved nor disproved, but a belief in deity/deities is empirically verifiable - although the classic problem here from a political standpoint, is that there is no way to establish belief other than by claim - people lie about everything else, there is no reason to suspect they don't lie about that too.

i.e., as a test, anecdotally, when the perqs vanish, so does much of the congregation.

If you make it all about morality and spiritualism, it loses much of it appeal, since "spirituality" is in it most basic sense, a set of beliefs that an individual constructs for themselves, rather than something handed down from on high, and you don't need a religion to have spiritual beliefs.

We are stuck with the Framers original words, but the spirit of the 1st amendment protects any sort of consensus formation.

And, the establishment clause is designed to protect religion from the corruption of politics, not the other way around, see "liars" above.

Still a big issue with evangelicals who inherited a lot of their ideals from the Puritan great migration, and heir to the various schisms of European Christianity - i.e., it's a big deal to them whether Romney is a Mormon or not, whereas from the outside, it's less easy to tell what exactly that difference might be.

i.e., prior to the adoption of the constitution and the free practice and establishment clauses, what your religion was was very much a cogent political issue, with often bloody reprecussions: wars were fought over this stuff, mass murder committed - as a particular religion signifies specific political alignments.




xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 6:35:33 AM)

Of course, as a result of the Romney thing, we're already behind the curve on this whole subject, we should be debating whether or not atheism is a "religion" or a "cult". [:D]




xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 7:16:18 AM)

Naturally, I can't leave that alone, "religious belief" is distinct form "spiritual belief" in that "religious" implies religion, and religion can then be defined by contrast as an "organized system of spiritual beliefs".

In a sense, it's the organization that makes it a religion, rather than it's concerns with spiritual matters per se, including belief in deity or deities. Many of your profile quizzes include the option, "spiritual, not religious", implying you have some spiritual beliefs but do not subscribe to a particular organized religion.

Whether or not there is a god is often the criteria used within religion to distinguish between a cult and a religion, i.e., a cult is typically characterized as organized around a particular individual rather than a particular set of more generalized ideals.

I think elsewhere, Heather said "religion is a cult", or words to that effect, and it is something of a subjective distinction - the cult of personality definition would make Buddhism a cult, although we think of it as a religion, it's an organized set of spiritual beliefs, not necessarily worship of Buddha himself - it's actually more like a classical school of philosophy, like Stoicism, Socratic, Aristotelian, etc. (the religious right, and the right in general tends towards the Aristotelian school).

Ironically, by making a professed belief in Jesus Christ as personal savior the litmus test salvation, American Protestantism essentially turned itself into a cult, which Catholicism sidestepped by making him a demi-god, the earthly representative of god, an avatar of sorts.

Fascinating stuff, it's actually something Caesar brought over from Egypt, the Egyptian Pharaohs were considered earthly gods, an Oriental thing, the Emperor of Japan is considered a child of gods, as were the Chinese emperors I believe (I think it actually begins in Mesopotamian religion, though multiregionalism cannot be discounted), whereas the Roman heads of state were just big swinging dicks.

Caesar had to be a God to compete, and was assassinated for that very reason. His successor Augustus was the first Roman God-King, and the whole thing just spread from there, presumably the Roman Catholic church needed an earthly god to gain credibility, and we get a sort of abstract/earthly deity, an anthropomorphic incarnation of god.

Hence he Trinity, which of course many other Cristian sects denounce as polytheistic, so on and so forth.

It appears to all be an attempt to reconcile everything with the Zoroastrian conceptualization of an abstract, non-anthropomorphic deity, and co-opt competing religions. Ahura Mazda is described as "time itself", and is symbolized by flame in some sects, which is where the misconception about Persian "fire worship" comes from.

Christianity itself borrows heavily from Mitharism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, and incorporates a number of elements of cosmic dualism, the "war between good and evil", etc., which has technically been re-conceptualized as an internal struggle, our struggle with our inner natures, but is still frequently projected and externalized.





HannahLynHeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 7:23:47 AM)

quote:

If that's all your exam was about, your chemistry class must be extremely elementary.
no shit. what gave you the idea it wasn't?
quote:

Not to mention the idea that you would get your grade back that quickly.
nobody mentioned grades but you.
quote:

Perhaps it's more accurate to say you started off looking at it from a theological viewpoint
not unless you are being deliberately fucking obtuse. she has never mentioned anything related to a theological viewpoint.

so what's your deal weasel breath? you are so fucking desperate to try make us look stupid that you post the most inane shit and instead of making us look stupid you just make yourself look stupid. what the deal? you enjoy making yourself look like a fucking twit? i don't think i've ever seen you post an actual argument against anything posted, just niggly little snipes at how it was said or imaginary bullshit like the grades thing.

christ on a cupcake! i got it!!! you're fucking jealous!! oh fuck that's a rich cream sauce to swim in.




truckinslave -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 1:03:52 PM)

I long ago ruled that the Cult of Global Warming was a religion.
Good to see that SCOTUS is trying to keep up.




slvemike4u -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 1:52:09 PM)

Seriously truckin....who gives a shit what you ruled?




GotSteel -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 2:31:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
Great! So, using the generally accepted definition <the Oxford definition RO posted earlier is adequate>, you would be an atheist. Is that a fair statement?


I'm afraid that just isn't so. There isn't a single generally accepted definition, if there was then this thread wouldn't get spawned again and again.

Sure you can find a dictionary that supports your definition and I can find dictionaries that disagree with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
http://www.leoyan.com/century-dictionary.com/cent2jpgframes.php?volno=01&page=0362
Atheism according to century dictionary has the following definitions:
  • The doctrine that there is no God; denial of the existence of God.
  • The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person.
  • A practical indifference to and disregard of God; godlessness. [In the first sense above given, atheism is to be discriminated from pantheism, which denies the personality of God, and from agnosticism, which denies the possibility of positive knowledge concerning him. In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism.
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheism?rdfrom=Atheism
    Noun Singular
    atheism
    Plural
    atheisms atheism (plural atheisms)
    1. Absence of, or rejection of, belief in the existence of a god or gods.
    2. The stance that a deity or deities do not exist.

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheism

    athe·ism (āt̸hē iz′əm)noun
  • the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist
  • godlessness
    http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text=

    atheism n. ['eɪθiːˌɪzəm]
  • 1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
  • 2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God; Synonyms: godlessness. Etymology Cf. French athéisme. Related to Atheist.


    http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=atheism
    • noun:   a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
    • noun:   the doctrine or belief that there is no God

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
    Atheism The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.  Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult. For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best evidential support.... 




  • In this case it's also irrelevant whether or not atheism would constitute an actual religion because it's the legal definition of religion not common use definitions that the court made it's ruling based on.




    gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 2:54:49 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: GotSteel
    Sure you can find a dictionary that supports your definition and I can find dictionaries that disagree with it...
    In this case it's also irrelevant whether or not atheism would constitute an actual religion because it's the legal definition of religion not common use definitions that the court made it's ruling based on.


    There's a legal definition of religion?

    pam




    HannahLynHeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 3:29:49 PM)

    quote:

    What i meant by that is religion can be defined as "not atheism"
    buddhism, jainism, confucianism, taoism, samkhya & mimamsa hinduism, unitarian universalists, shamanists. they are religions and are, or can be, atheistic. so no, religion can't be defined as "not atheism" unless you're choosing to ignore reality.




    gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 4:39:28 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather
    buddhism, jainism, confucianism, taoism, samkhya & mimamsa hinduism, unitarian universalists, shamanists. they are religions and are, or can be, atheistic. so no, religion can't be defined as "not atheism" unless you're choosing to ignore reality.


    i may be digging myself into an ever deeper grave, but here goes. Those certainly all can be atheistic. Personally, i would also consider them all to be religions. But is it possible to make ANY valid argument that they're not? Is it possible to find some definition of the word "religion" under which those don't qualify as "religions", but rather "philosophies" or "belief systems"? i think it's at least possible to make a good case that they're not religions.

    pam




    xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 5:11:44 PM)

    As I say I believe organization is really the key element, you can be religious implies "spiritual", but spiritual doesn't' necessarily imply "religious, although none of the definitions so far mention that.

    Strikes me that the court here did not redefine atheism as religion, so much as it redefined religion as any set of firmly held beliefs.

    I could amend that to, "deeply held beliefs that defy reason", but that's probably just my cynicism talking.

    quote:


    I dont see supernatural in there?

    Where do you dredge that up from?
    If it ain't natural, it can only be supernatural - angels and demons are supernatural by definition, for example.




    gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 5:53:02 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: xssve
    Strikes me that the court here did not redefine atheism as religion, so much as it redefined religion as any set of firmly held beliefs.


    i think that's exactly what they did, and while i agree with that decision, it opens up the field for someone to say: THEIR religion is that they have to eat lobster every night, or that they can't share a cell with another inmate, or they're not allowed to wear orange, or they must be given a job sorting mail because they're forbidden from scrubbing pots, or that racial supremacy is their religion, or that not being in jail is, etc. Redefining religion as "any set of firmly held beliefs" could cause a new set of problems.

    pam






    HannahLynHeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 6:11:06 PM)

    quote:

    Is it possible to find some definition of the word "religion" under which those don't qualify as "religions", but rather "philosophies" or "belief systems"? i think it's at least possible to make a good case that they're not religions.
    i'm sure it is, but fuck, who cares. we all know what a fucking religion is, so finding one specific definition to twist shit to mean what it doesn't is a fucking fool's game, and i'm not a fool, so i'm not going to fucking play.

    i'll leave that shit to you and the others on here. hell, maybe heather will be feeling particularly foolish again tonight and will play with you guys again. have fun.




    GotSteel -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 6:32:40 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: gungadin09

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: xssve
    Strikes me that the court here did not redefine atheism as religion, so much as it redefined religion as any set of firmly held beliefs.


    i think that's exactly what they did, and while i agree with that decision, it opens up the field for someone to say: THEIR religion is that they have to eat lobster every night, or that they can't share a cell with another inmate, or they're not allowed to wear orange, or they must be given a job sorting mail because they're forbidden from scrubbing pots, or that racial supremacy is their religion, or that not being in jail is, etc. Redefining religion as "any set of firmly held beliefs" could cause a new set of problems.

    pam

    xssve's statement is what I was getting at in my previous post. However their definition of religion has a little more to it.

    "Without venturing too far into the realm of the
    philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a
    person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate
    concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that
    filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons
    ,” those
    beliefs represent her religion." http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/C4176HER.pdf

    That link is to the court ruling that we're discussing in it's entirety by the way.






    Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.0625