Another Documentary

This looks like it might be a much better documentary to check out.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Gnutopia and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Another Documentary

  1. Ichthic says:

    What? How can atheism be blamed for atrocities? Atheism is merely a lack, but even if we accept the defunct definition of “There is no God,” there would still be no grounds at all for blaming atheism, because that belief system makes no particular behavioral prescriptions or proscriptions the way that religious systems do. That belief system is just composed of one belief. An atheist can be full of hate (e.g. Stalin), or he can be full of love (e.g. me), and either of those is logically compatible with the view of there being no God.

  2. Bilbo says:

    Richard Wurmbrand’s Tortured for Christ was one of the most influential books in my life.

  3. Crude says:

    How can atheism be blamed for atrocities? Atheism is merely a lack

    So could a person’s negative actions be blamed on a lack of morals?

    because that belief system makes no particular behavioral prescriptions or proscriptions

    A materialist atheism would have certain behavioral prescriptions and proscriptions falling out of it. More than that, I never understood why atheists put up so much of a fight on this one, aside from the obvious ‘bad PR’ reason. You could switch atheism to ‘anti-theism’ and still pick up the lion’s share of historical political atheists, and the Cult of Gnu along with it.

    An atheist can be full of hate (e.g. Stalin), or he can be full of love (e.g. me)

    When you write something like that out, does it ever occur to you how obnoxious or absurd it sounds? I mean, I ask this as an extremely intelligent, wise, love-filled person. 😉

    Further, if you want to really split hairs, the belief in the existence of God or gods – bare theism or deism – doesn’t come with prescriptions or proscriptions either.

  4. iblase says:

    Ichthic, yes it’s true that an atheist regime doesn’t need to be murderous (though the track record isn’t so hot). The problem is that the Dawkins’ of the world suggest that an atheistic society would not or maybe even cannot be murderous; atrocities are reserved for the religious only.

  5. Ichthic says:

    So could a person’s negative actions be blamed on a lack of morals?

    The actions should more specifically be blamed on the nasty moral framework that the individuals let govern their lives. Practically, I think it’s impossible to lack a moral framework.

    A materialist atheism would have certain behavioral prescriptions and proscriptions falling out of it.

    Such as? Atheism – using the traditional definition – consists of one proposition: “There is no God.” Materialism consists of “the material world is all there is.” That’s all. Neither of those two statements, either individually or together, cheers or prohibits any particular way of living. From those two claims alone, how can you derive a further claim that “materialist atheists should do X”? You can’t.

    Compare that with the Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, etc., and the difference is infinite. Religious theism is fundamentally constituted out of both “is” claims and “ought” claims.

    Just as atheists cannot credit our praiseworthy actions to our atheism (“I helped the old lady bring her groceries to her car because of my atheism” sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?), we cannot credit vile actions to it, either. Praise and blame go hand in hand.

    the belief in the existence of God or gods – bare theism or deism – doesn’t come with prescriptions or proscriptions either.

    True, but that’s not what’s at issue (and I never disputed that). The two issues are atheism and religious theism, not bare-boned theism.

    —-

    The problem is that the Dawkins’ of the world suggest that an atheistic society would not or maybe even cannot be murderous; atrocities are reserved for the religious only.

    I think Dawkins is a catastrophically stupid man and an embarrassment to atheism, and I agree with virtually nothing he says. No matter what he ventures into, he continually reminds me of a dolphin trying to tap-dance. But the link in the OP has nothing to do with Dawkins or his nonsense. The video is claiming that 20th century mass murder was caused by atheism. But how can you go from “There is no God” to “You should exterminate the religious” without smuggling in a whole host of other philosophical positions that have no necessary connection to atheism?

  6. TFBW says:

    I posted a longer comment here, but the “you must log in again” request ate it. Fortunately, Ichthic has affirmed much of what I would have said. My only point of contention with his analysis is that it simply leaves atheism detached from all moral responsibility as a matter of definition. I think we might well point the finger of blame at atheism for being motivationally impotent — i.e. for failing to be a positive influence.

    To understand what I mean by this, consider the worst that atheists have done when put in positions of great power, versus the worst that various kinds of theist have done when similarly empowered. Consider the crusades, the inquisition, the Taliban — whatever outrage or group is your preferred standard for the evils of religion. Compare them with the great atheistic Marxist butchers of the 20th century, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Maybe I don’t know enough about history, but the way those leaders slaughtered their own people en masse seems pretty hard to beat, as atrocities go. Even if we can’t blame atheism for those atrocities, the data strongly suggests that if you put a person in a position of great power, you’re far better off with a theist of any stripe than not.

    People like Dawkins want to promote the view that a world without religion is a better world, and point to the atrocities committed in the name of religion as evidence. Let me put it to you that those atrocities could have been worse: they were obviously arranged by very evil people, given what transpired, so imagine how much worse it could have been if those people were atheists. People like Dawkins claim that religion motivates people to do bad things, and that we don’t need religion in order to be good. Maybe it does, and maybe we don’t, to some extent, but it seems from historical example that if you give a person power and impunity, theistic beliefs will restrain their outrageous excesses at least somewhat, while atheism has no effect.

    We might not be able to say that atheism causes bad behaviour (or any kind of behaviour, for that matter), but judging from history, it fails to rein in the worst excesses of human nature, relative to theism. Contra Dawkins, theism has a positive influence.

    Now, Ichthic, you have made your lack of respect for Dawkins quite clear. If you would merely affirm that Dawkins is completely misrepresenting the evidence again, and that the truth of the matter in relation to the influence of theism is quite the opposite of what he says, at least as far as people in positions of great power are concerned, then I think we are in agreement. That being so, we can agree that atheism is not the cause of harm — the blame for that lies in the vague thing we call “human nature” — but atheism is nevertheless passively harmful in the sense that it fails to mitigate the problem in the way that theism does.

  7. Mr. X says:

    That “atheism can’t cause bad behaviour” argument has always seemed to me to be something of a double-edged sword, since it means that atheism can’t cause good behaviour either, nor can it stop evil (as TFBW says).

    (Incidentally, I’ve often thought that this is an explanation for why, contra what we’d expect from reading the New Atheists, public discourse in the West seems to be becoming more anti-intellectual and emotional at the same time as organised religion is declining. Materialism essentially rules out the possibility of any objective, binding morality from the get-go, so the only real reasons a materialist can have for acting virtuously are that it makes him feel nice or that it’s in his best interests. So when a moral debate arises — about same-sex marriage, or abortion, or whatever — it’s pretty much impossible for a materialist to have a rational debate about such things, for the simple reason that he doesn’t believe that there’s anything which it is possible to have such a debate about in the first place. That just leaves trying to play on an opponent’s emotions to make them feel bad for holding their current position — “Look at these two men, how could you get in the way of their love?” — or trying to coerce them into shutting up — “Ban hate speech NOW!”. And, because morality now comes from subjective feelings rather than reason and logic, a lot of materialists are very inconsistent in their reasoning; so, for example, they’ll argue against the idea of objective morality when they think that admitting of its existence might lead to theism, before implicitly appealing to it when they want to criticise some aspect of Church teaching or behaviour.)

  8. Crude says:

    The actions should more specifically be blamed on the nasty moral framework that the individuals let govern their lives. Practically, I think it’s impossible to lack a moral framework.

    First, under atheism and materialism, you know more let one or another moral framework govern your life than you let gravity exert a pull on you.

    Second, a ‘moral framework’ here isn’t some acknowledgement of objective evils and goods. It’s some set of rules, any set of rules, and under a+m it ultimately boils down to immediate preferences at the moment. What you’re trying to argue is that there are no practical repercussions or fallout that stem from certain beliefs about the universe, and I think that’s obviously mistaken.

    Such as? Atheism – using the traditional definition – consists of one proposition: “There is no God.” Materialism consists of “the material world is all there is.” That’s all. Neither of those two statements, either individually or together, cheers or prohibits any particular way of living. From those two claims alone, how can you derive a further claim that “materialist atheists should do X”? You can’t.

    I don’t need to, because that’s not the argument I’m making. I’m pointing out that given atheism and materialism, you’re left with certain inescapable conclusions. Talk of morality ultimately is a statement about preferences at the moment, and which can change at any time in principle.

    Tell me, on materialism and atheism, why it is wrong to engage in mass slaughter and genocide, in a way that doesn’t ultimately reduce to person preference. You can’t. Now, you can get there by abandoning materialism – say, appeal to platonic ideals, etc – but by then you’re embracing a flavor of materialism that simply isn’t represented by modern atheists.

    Praise and blame go hand in hand.

    Pointing out what follows from a worldview that eradicates any possibility of ultimate right or wrong, good or evil, is entirely fair game.

    True, but that’s not what’s at issue (and I never disputed that). The two issues are atheism and religious theism, not bare-boned theism.

    No, they’re not. Bare-boned atheism and bare-boned theism are entirely relevant here.

    But the link in the OP has nothing to do with Dawkins or his nonsense. The video is claiming that 20th century mass murder was caused by atheism. But how can you go from “There is no God” to “You should exterminate the religious” without smuggling in a whole host of other philosophical positions that have no necessary connection to atheism?

    First, by pointing out what follows from the worldview.

    Second, as I said – even if you dug in your heels on this point, you could switch the blame from ‘atheism’ to ‘anti-theism’. Do that and, surprise – you’ve just scooped up the entirety of the Cult of Gnu movement anyway.

    I’m reminded that one move Dan Dennett made regarding communists was “Well, communism was a proto-religion. It wasn’t atheism that was at fault.” What Dennett didn’t appreciate was that making that move – in an effort to absolve modern atheists from blame – also made it a live question as to whether modern atheism functioned as a proto-religion. He traded one problem for a similar one, but worse.

  9. Ichthic says:

    TFBW,

    Now, Ichthic, you have made your lack of respect for Dawkins quite clear. If you would merely affirm that Dawkins is completely misrepresenting the evidence again, and that the truth of the matter in relation to the influence of theism is quite the opposite of what he says, at least as far as people in positions of great power are concerned, then I think we are in agreement.

    I wouldn’t say that I’m showing him a “lack of respect;” more like, “the amount of respect he himself has established he deserves.” In short, I don’t identify with the Gnu movement, and think Dawkins is mistaken. He is hopeless on philosophical and social issues.

    And BTW, I actually like living in a predominantly religious society, not least because my tastes coincide extensively with Christian morality; I’m not convinced though that the alternative will usher in the nightmares that people like you and Crude describe.

    That being so, we can agree that atheism is not the cause of harm — the blame for that lies in the vague thing we call “human nature” — but atheism is nevertheless passively harmful in the sense that it fails to mitigate the problem in the way that theism does.

    I see your point. I’m just not sure how forceful it is. Is it something like this?

    “Children growing up in a negligent household with no discipline will, given human nature, most likely turn out badly. Hence the parents passively harm the children. Similarly, the absolute metaphysical/moral void hollowed out in human civilization by bare-boned atheism, will, given human nature, most likely usher in the widespread germination and growth of oppressive, murderous political ideologies that will in all likelihood become the dominant form of governance. Hence, atheism passively harms humanity.”

    I agree with the parent scenario, and with the second scenario I agree that there is that metaphysical void. But the sufficiently bleak view of human nature and the other assumptions necessary for the conclusion are things that I’m not yet convinced of, given the lack of arguments for them and the tendency to rely instead on nothing but brute intuitions.

    Crude,

    What you’re trying to argue is that there are no practical repercussions or fallout that stem from certain beliefs about the universe, and I think that’s obviously mistaken.

    That’s not my position at all. I’m not saying “There exist no practical repercussions on atheism.” Rather, it’s that atheism in theory doesn’t necessitate any specific, well-defined set of repercussions regarding lifestyle, and that atheism in practice doesn’t tend to generate certain kinds of people (e.g. lazy hedonists, murderous anti-theists, etc.), and that practically there is and has been too much behavioral variance among atheists to make confident pronouncements about the future.

    I’m pointing out that given atheism and materialism, you’re left with certain inescapable conclusions. Talk of morality ultimately is a statement about preferences at the moment, and which can change at any time in principle.

    I agree with you insofar as you claim that atheism creates a metaphysical void that renders talk of “moral facts” unintelligible, and that morality on atheism is a matter of taste (as I first said, I think Stalin’s actions are compatible with atheism). However, I think you haven’t argued enough to claim, justifiably, that such tastes cannot be principled — that orienting one’s life around a set of preferences must necessarily mean acting on a whim, moment to moment, without any real unity. That my interior is somehow a swirling hurricane of tastes presenting my consciousness with a different taste from moment to moment, on which I then indulge in. That’s a big leap. Theoretically, atheists can have ordered sets of tastes, and they can show restraint. And practically, they often do. An atheist does not need to be an unprincipled spasm.

    Theoretically, yes, preferences can change, but practically it’s safe to say that many self-described atheists won’t ever have the urge to gleefully slaughter people, violate corpses, etc.

    I’m reminded that one move Dan Dennett made regarding communists was “Well, communism was a proto-religion. It wasn’t atheism that was at fault.” What Dennett didn’t appreciate was that making that move – in an effort to absolve modern atheists from blame – also made it a live question as to whether modern atheism functioned as a proto-religion. He traded one problem for a similar one, but worse.

    You and I both know that modern Gnu atheism isn’t simply atheism. It’s atheism plus scientism plus a borderline incoherent blend of unscrupulously optimistic political ideologies. I am not a part of that mixture, I am not defending that, it’s not my problem, so I don’t know why you attribute it to me.

    All I’m contesting is the notion by you all that a bare-boned atheistic society will inescapably produce death camps. Instead I make a modest claim: Given atheism in theory and atheism in practice, I just don’t know what an atheistic civilization will look like (because I don’t think it must necessarily culminate in a defined set of concrete things), and neither does anyone else, really.

  10. Crude says:

    That’s not my position at all. I’m not saying “There exist no practical repercussions on atheism.” Rather, it’s that atheism in theory doesn’t necessitate any specific, well-defined set of repercussions regarding lifestyle, and that atheism in practice doesn’t tend to generate certain kinds of people (e.g. lazy hedonists, murderous anti-theists, etc.), and that practically there is and has been too much behavioral variance among atheists to make confident pronouncements about the future.

    And my position is that atheism and materialism, once decidedly embraced, has an obvious if broad intellectual effect on issues of morality – and the past track record isn’t very encouraging. Nor is the present one, for that matter.

    I can appreciate you knocking Dawkins, but let’s take a step back and notice something. You say Dawkins is catastrophically stupid, you agree with very little he says, etc. But, funny thing – you’re in an apparent minority among atheists. Dawkins is, like it or not, the de facto leader of the atheist movement. He’s been lauded with praise. He is the lead speaker. He’s been given awards. So too has PZ Myers.

    Now, with Christianity, there’s far more diversity. You can point at the Westboro Baptist Church, and I can point at people, even orthodox Christian leaders, who detest them and who are themselves quite well known. Now, your response here may be ‘Well, I’m not defending Dawkins, I’m defending atheism-in-principle and atheism-in-practice.’ I’m saying, atheism-in-practice – by your own measure – is pretty damn discouraging. The track record is not only historically bad, it’s presently bad.

    An atheist does not need to be an unprincipled spasm.

    Theoretically, yes, preferences can change, but practically it’s safe to say that many self-described atheists won’t ever have the urge to gleefully slaughter people, violate corpses, etc.

    How is it practically safe to say that given the track record? When their leadership compares a Catholic upbringing unfavorably to sexual abuse? When other leaders openly angst for the days where religious belief gets one placed on the DSM? When Sam Harris writes about killing people for what they believe? When ‘Blasphemy Day’ is a freaking holiday for atheists? And more.

    You tell me. Do you find the trajectory of public western atheism at all encouraging? That’s on top of the historical government history. Really, we’re barely a century out of genocide and mass atrocities against not just religious people but the insufficiently intellectually pure from predominately atheist social and political movements – but we should be calm about the practical effects? Especially when said atheist groups refuse to even come to grips with that history?

    You and I both know that modern Gnu atheism isn’t simply atheism. It’s atheism plus scientism plus a borderline incoherent blend of unscrupulously optimistic political ideologies. I am not a part of that mixture, I am not defending that, it’s not my problem, so I don’t know why you attribute it to me.

    Because you’re arguing that atheism has no ill practical effects, but the modern atheist movement is a shitpile by your own view – and there is no counterweight to them. Dawkins is not a controversial figure among modern atheists, except in the far recesses of the internet. Humanist groups, atheist groups, etc are almost universal in their praise of him and the rest, and the ones who are sharply critical tend to be even MORE nuts.

    Does this not worry you? Does it not make you question the stability of your ‘atheism doesn’t really lead to moral or intellectual ills more often than not’ view? Keep in mind, Dawkins and company praise guys like ‘Hey infanticide isn’t so bad’ Peter Singer. But hey, let’s have faith in their moral trajectory?

  11. TFBW says:

    I wouldn’t say that I’m showing him a “lack of respect;” more like, “the amount of respect he himself has established he deserves.”

    I gather, from comments like, “Dawkins is a catastrophically stupid man,” that the amount of respect you think he deserves is less than zero. I find it kind of funny that you want to characterise your atheism as a lack of belief, but you’d rather not describe your attitude towards Dawkins as a lack of respect. I’m sure there’s a good punchline to follow that observation, but I’m far too tired to think of it right now.

    I’m not convinced though that the alternative will usher in the nightmares that people like you and Crude describe.

    All I’m asking for is recognition that the worst of past nightmares have been ushered in by atheists. I’m not asking you to commit to a causal relationship between the atheism and the evil acts: I’m happy to blame human nature for that. I’m merely asking for recognition, contra Dawkins, that theism seems to have a net positive influence. Dawkins likes to point out this or that atrocity as representative of the evil caused by religion, while ignoring the data offered by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, on the basis that they (allegedly) weren’t motivated by their atheism. I simply want recognition that, regardless of whether or not those people were motivated by atheism proper, they represent the data set against which the evils committed by theists should be compared, and they are worse. Ergo, Dawkins has it completely backwards: the evils of theism are not as bad as the evils of non-theism — just on the data considered, of course.

    Do you agree?

    I see your point. I’m just not sure how forceful it is.

    Considerably less forceful than your paraphrase suggests. I’m not asking for a lot of extrapolation — only recognition that Dawkins has interpreted the above data in a way that reaches the exact opposite conclusion of what it ought to do. His method is to consider only the data relating to theism, deem it “evil” through emotional response, and conclude that religion (theism, specifically) is evil. My analysis uses a differential comparison between theist and non-theist atrocities. If we consider the non-theist sample to represent “baseline” human behaviour (for people in positions of power), then theism is seen to be a positive influence.

    From there, all I’m saying is that atheism is a lack, but a harmful lack. The evidence in question suggests that it is morally deleterious, much like a lack of sunshine, vitamins, or exercise can be deleterious to one’s health. I’m not utilitarian about theism, and I have no wish to promote it simply because of these beneficial effects. Nor am I claiming specific effects in specific cases, but only a general correlation. Some atheists may outshine some theists, morally speaking, just as some smokers might live to a ripe old age in good health while some non-smokers die of lung cancer.

    This is all in response to your first post, where you granted atheism immunity from blame on the basis of its motivational impotence, and pointed out that atheists can be good or evil. The point which I think still stands, and which I would like you to acknowledge, is that we can justly accuse atheism of lacking the positive benefits of theism. We can blame it for failing to do what theism does. Disregarding the history of atheists in power smacks of rationalisation to shield atheism from scrutiny. Let’s have none of that.

  12. Ichthic says:

    Crude, TFBW,

    Just letting you both know that I won’t be able to give detailed replies to your posts this week (medschool exams). It’s good that we seem to agree that atheism-in-practice, and not atheism-in-theory, is what can potentially catch blame. To Crude, I’ll say that, yes, if we were to currently hand over the reigns of power to people like Dawkins, Harris, Myers, Coyne, and their apologists, there would likely be blood. That seems to be true of this particular historical moment (as it was also true of the 20th century), since the lot of them are trigger-happy buffoons. I don’t think there’s enough data, however, to justifiably conclude that public atheism, from the practice standpoint, is highly likely to be oppressive at any given point in the future of humanity. Neither do I think that the vocal, obnoxious atheists like Dawkins, Coyne, et al., are far more numerous than old fashioned atheists like myself. More vocal? Yes. More numerous? Not enough investigation has been done to settle that question. Given the faces of public atheism that we’ve seen, scrupulous pessimism is certainly warranted, but unscrupulous pessimism (as well as unscrupulous optimism) is not. To TFBW, I’d say that I am not disregarding the history of atheism via some sort of self-absorption in a flaky rationalization. I agree with you that Dawkins and co. cannot tarnish Christianity-in-practice without completely impaling atheism-in-practice on their own analytical standards, and that a Christian society would generate a far more pleasant, gentle social environment than one in which atheism is the predominant worldview, given the demotion of “moral fact” into “moral taste.” So yes, we can “blame” atheism for its metaphysical impoverishment. What we’re disagreeing on is how bad that atheistic society must be. “Less pleasant than a Christian society” doesn’t have to mean absolutely unpleasant, anymore than “burgers are less pleasant than steaks” needs to mean that burgers are nasty in themselves. I claim that, when you take a long view of human history, it doesn’t seem that atheism-in-practice needs to necessitate an objectively deleterious society (because the record is inconclusive), whereas you and others seem to think it must, thinking that that metaphysical impoverishment isn’t just a pesky obstacle to the formation of a stable society, but rather a complete incapacitator of any possible stability.

  13. Crude says:

    Icthic,

    No problem on the slow replies.

    I don’t think there’s enough data, however, to justifiably conclude that public atheism, from the practice standpoint, is highly likely to be oppressive at any given point in the future of humanity.

    You’re widening the scope of possibilities to a degree I think is unreasonable to discuss. Even granting that the history of atheism is pretty rotten, and the modern iteration of it is also rotten, goes a long way. Talking about an in-principle hypothetically imaginable atheist culture detached from everything we’ve seen historically and current-day is just getting so far out there as a topic.

    Neither do I think that the vocal, obnoxious atheists like Dawkins, Coyne, et al., are far more numerous than old fashioned atheists like myself. More vocal? Yes. More numerous? Not enough investigation has been done to settle that question.

    I don’t think this helps your case.

    Can you name a single atheist organization that has anything but praise for Dawkins, Coyne, PZ Myers, etc? I don’t think you can, and if you can, it’s either going to be even worse (atheism+ people), utterly miniscule, or their criticisms amount to worries about effectiveness as opposed to correctness. So let’s assume for a moment that the Dawkins, Coyne, etc style atheists are outnumbered by ‘your type’ of atheists. So Dawkins and Coyne and their supporters are more vocal, but they’re a minority, even a small minority, of convinced atheists.

    But what that means is that those atheists are entirely tolerant of Dawkins, Myers and the rest. They may disagree, but not enough to actually do anything about it, for whatever reason. And that just makes the ‘practical’ case for atheism that much worse: it indicates that even when the radical, dangerous atheists are in a minority, the majority will just accept their rhetoric, their behavior, etc. They see no need to speak up, and this is consistent with an atheist/materialist view besides. That’s not encouraging from a practical standpoint, no matter how you slice it.

    So this goes beyond worry about the mere public faces of atheism. I’m pointing out that it’s not just Dawkins, Myers, etc who are the problem, but the celebration of and tolerance of them by pretty much every atheist group of note. If there’s a silent atheist majority who disagree with Dawkins and company but don’t care to so much as lift a finger or raise a voice against them, it only further erodes faith in the practical results of atheism.

  14. TFBW says:

    I suppose that an atheistic society could be relatively benign in principle, although I suspect that it would be an unstable equilibrium in practice, lacking, as it would, principles to prevent its members from slowly succumbing to the baser human tendencies. It might be stable if human nature were other than it is. As Crude has observed, however, the benign atheists aren’t the ones that press for social change. It’s the militant atheists who do that, and the kind of change they push for is not benign.

    If atheism is as motivationally impotent as we’ve allowed, then what’s with militant atheism anyhow? Militant atheists seem to have motivation in abundance. Are we simply wrong that atheism is motivationally impotent? What motivates them, if not atheism, allowing that there might be more than one possibility? I’m inclined to think that Dawkins, for example, is a misotheist, rather than an atheist. He usually presents himself as anti-religion (rather than anti-God), and draws attention to the harms of religion to justify his activism. As I’ve said, however, his analysis in that regard is back-to-front, so it smacks of rationalisation. I’m certain he’d deny the charge of misotheism, but it would explain his anti-theistic enthusiasm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s