American Atheist President Insists “there are no gods”

Dave Rubin is an atheist who does one of those internet talk shows. In a recent show about atheism, he spends the first five minutes telling his atheist viewers what atheism is using the same set of atheist talking points you have heard of before, including the one where “Atheism is just a lack of belief.” For some reason, atheists seem to need continued reminders of what it means to the be an atheist.

Anyway, after the sermon, Rubin turns to his two atheist guests. One is David Silverman, the New Atheist who is president of the American Atheists. Silverman immediately goes off script at 5:50 (video below the fold):

Everybody is godless, there are no gods, so everybody is godless, I’m just aware of it, there are NO gods, everybody is godless, every single person.

There are no gods, eh? But Rubin just got done preaching that atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods. To insist (twice) there are no gods goes beyond the “lack of belief” claim and makes a knowledge claim – claiming to know there is no God and thus claiming that atheism is objectively true.

Of course, atheist activists and evangelists can’t defend such a knowledge claim, which is why they retreat into the “i just lack a god belief” stance.

Paul Provenza, the other atheist guest, immediately tries to get back on message and gives us the standard talking point at 7:10:

Reason tells me there is no God…if there was evidence or a reason to believe, then certainly I would consider it.

Realizing he has just contradicted Silverman, Provenza engages in some damage control at 7:50:

When atheists say there is no God, it’s shorthand for saying I don’t believe there is a God.

Yeah, right. When a New Atheist says “There is no God,” that’s called a Freudian slip where they blurted out their true beliefs, probably because they felt too comfortable at the moment. But that belief is counterproductive to atheist activism, because a) it is easily neutralized with one question – How do you know? and b) it makes the atheist come across as a closed-minded know-it-all. The movement is built around the “no reason to believe” posture because a) it creates the impression the atheist is just a open-minded skeptic and b) allows the activist to frame the debate such that the activist is the judge and jury.
Look, I am sure there are many atheists who are quite sincere about their atheism amounting to a lack of belief in God because of a lack of perceived evidence. But when it comes to the New Atheists and atheist activists, I don’t think it wise to take such posturing at face value. The chances are very high they are doing exactly as David Silverman – pretending they merely lack god belief when in reality, they believe, “Everybody is godless, there are no gods, so everybody is godless, I’m just aware of it, there are NO gods, everybody is godless, every single person.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, Deception, New Atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to American Atheist President Insists “there are no gods”

  1. notabilia says:

    I am enjoying your blog – you continue to make a great case for atheism being the defining philosophical movement of our time. Keep searching it out – it’s a fun, winning position! By the way, like you, I do “know” there is only projection and fantasy in the “god” term – as Silverman says in his little book, there is not a single piece of evidence for it, so we are fully justified in stating its non-existence. Next problem?

  2. Michael says:

    I do “know” there is only projection and fantasy in the “god” term –

    I see. So you acknowledge that if we are to be honest, the true position of the New Atheist is “There is no God!” So why do New Atheists hide their true position?

    as Silverman says in his little book, there is not a single piece of evidence for it, so we are fully justified in stating its non-existence. Next problem?

    Three simple questions for you.

    1. What would you count as “a single piece of evidence” for God?

    2. Do you have any evidence that you or Silverman can approach this topic objectively?

    3. Do you also deny the existence of extraterrestial life, intelligent and non-intelligent, since there is no evidence for such things?

  3. Crude says:

    there is not a single piece of evidence for it, so we are fully justified in stating its non-existence.

    Mike’s asked some good questions. I’ll throw in a comment of my own:

    No, the lack of evidence doesn’t ‘fully justify’ stating something’s non-existence. You’d need arguments or evidence that it doesn’t exist. A complete lack of arguments or evidence either way justifies a lack of belief. The claim ‘it doesn’t exist’… is a claim that must be supported, and requires arguments and evidence itself.

    The prospect of having to support one’s claim is something New Atheists, practically to a man, flee from in absolute terror. Because, when you get down to it – they can’t support their central claim.

  4. Dhay says:

    Allallt > British culture is very different. People offer, as defence of their belief, “I just believe” and will take umbrage with the question “why?”

    Just a few threads back, Allallt was complaining that British Christians generally do not engage in argument with him, but instead politely dismiss him with a “I just believe” (backed up with a little anger when he won’t go).

    It occurs to me that “Atheism is just a lack of belief” (or, rephrasing it, “I just don’t believe”) is similarly a refusal to engage in argument.

  5. notabilia says:

    1. A ridiculous question, doesn’t need any consideration. Zero is zero, so where can can you go from there?
    2. What does “objectively” mean to you? We use our rationality, which is based on all sorts of biases, unconscious and conscious, but that should not stop us from using wordpress to get to the truths that conform to our best efforts. You are doing this using some fantasy terms and vacuous suppositions, which you seem to acknowledge.
    3. Extra-terrestrial “life,” has not yet been produced via physical evidence, but there is theoretical justification (evidence) aplenty for speculating that it’s out there, but it’s not coming to theater near you anytime soon.
    Keep up the fight – atheism needs its concerned theists such as yourself to continue to advance up the charts.

  6. Michael says:

    1. A ridiculous question, doesn’t need any consideration. Zero is zero, so where can can you go from there?

    Having been stumped (thus defeated) by the question, notabilia tries to spin it as a “ridiculous question.” From his closed-minded, know-it-all perspective, nothing could ever possibly count as evidence for God. Thus, those of us who value critical thinking recognize that when notabilia was posturing, ” there is not a single piece of evidence for it,” this is just ideology speaking, not the result of some type of open-ended investigation.

    2. What does “objectively” mean to you? We use our rationality, which is based on all sorts of biases, unconscious and conscious, but that should not stop us from using wordpress to get to the truths that conform to our best efforts. You are doing this using some fantasy terms and vacuous suppositions, which you seem to acknowledge.

    Atheism is a subjective opinion. But you are pretending to know things you don’t know. You claim to know that God does not exist. Yet I think this “knowledge” is just an expression of your own biases and desires. So I was wondering if you had any evidence that you can approach this topic objectively that might suggest I am wrong. As for Silverman, he claims in that video to get his spirituality out of his activism, so his opinions are worthless, given they are aligned with his agenda.

    3. Extra-terrestrial “life,” has not yet been produced via physical evidence,

    And according to you, no evidence = does not exist. So I take it you deny the existence of extra-terrestrial life the same way you deny the existence of God, right? But of course you don’t.

    but there is theoretical justification (evidence) aplenty for speculating that it’s out there, but it’s not coming to theater near you anytime soon.

    Nice illustration of the subjective dimension to evidence. When his back is to the wall, for notabilia, “theoretical justification” = evidence.

    Keep up the fight – atheism needs its concerned theists such as yourself to continue to advance up the charts.

    No problem. If you know of any other atheist activist leaders who proclaim “there is no God,” let me know. I’d be happy to help advance it up the charts.

  7. notabilia says:

    You do not “value critical thinking” – what a preposterous statement.

  8. Kevin says:

    Atheist: Atheism is a rational position. There is no evidence for God.
    Theist: What would count as evidence for you?
    Atheist: Nothing, since there is no evidence. By golly I’m so smart.

    With ironclad arguments like that, how is it that anyone is still a theist? Then again, I wouldn’t expect a nihilist to ACTUALLY care about using reason and evidence to come to valid conclusions. All I saw was a bunch of atheist propaganda, statements of atheism and nihilism as fact with zero supporting evidence, and obvious bigotry toward people who don’t agree with you. A sad, yet common, mix of traits among atheist activists today.

  9. Kevin says:

    You do not “value critical thinking”

    You do not value critical thinking.

  10. Crude says:

    With ironclad arguments like that, how is it that anyone is still a theist?

    What they lack in argument, evidence and rational thoughts, New Atheists make up for in posturing and vapidity.

    I’d say we should be ‘advancing that one up the charts’, but the Cultists of Gnu have have been helping out happily on that front.

  11. Kevin says:

    I believe what we have in notabilia is the personification of New Atheism. Pedal to the floor, all cylinders firing, oblivious to how utterly absurd his propaganda sounds. Claiming to know the truths of a negative, which New Atheists also believe but most are too chicken to actually admit it. Claiming nihilism on his blog, but then investing effort in combating religion, which casts a spotlight on his bigotry. Throwing out statements with zero supporting evidence, only able to engage in offense and completely deflecting any question that would result in having to defend his own beliefs.

    Yes indeed, we should advance this one up the charts.

  12. Michael says:

    You do not “value critical thinking” – what a preposterous statement.

    Of course I value critical thinking. That is how I was so easily able to defeat all your claims thus far. How do you explain the fact that my three simple questions stumped you? You don’t have to answer it; just ponder it when you get a moment to yourself.

  13. Dhay says:

    notabilia > … atheism [is] the defining philosophical movement of our time …

    Ah, atheism is a “movement“, it is a philosophical movement”, indeed it is the “defining philosophical movement of our time”. Wow, that’s really talking-up atheism, and making claims for high intellectual status.

    But contrast:

    Atheism is a rejection of a line of thinking, a nihil to the positive assertions made by deluded religionists, but that’s it …

    https://mjosefw.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/how-to-be-an-atheist-nihilist/

    The which describes atheism not as a movement, not as a philosophical movement, not as a defining philosophical movement of our time, but as a “No”.

  14. Dhay says:

    notabilia > … atheism [is] the defining philosophical movement of our time …

    Religious theism is the dominant mode of philosophic expression in this country.

    https://mjosefw.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/atheism-identity-politics/

    Possibly there’s some subtlety in one or the other that I’ve missed (eg the wider world contrasted with “this country”); otherwise, they look inconsistent or contradictory.

  15. notabilia says:

    You need to stop this incessant nonsense. Your questions are simple-minded, not “simple.”
    The first question was decisively answered for you – there has never been a single piece of evidence for this stone-age concept you’ve advanced. You’re wasting your time thinking of how some Big Boss in the sky is going to show him or herself to you. You are also wasting your time expecting ET to come to your front door. You have all the atheist books and explanations available to you to stop your irrational, maddening delusions, yet you choose, with all the stubbornness that a stuck brain can produce, this ridiculous and fully “uncritical” fixation.

  16. Michael says:

    You need to stop this incessant nonsense.

    Ah yes, so many Gnu atheists are control freaks. It bothers you that I don’t think like you do, right?

    The first question was decisively answered for you – there has never been a single piece of evidence for this stone-age concept you’ve advanced.

    But that’s a vacuous answer. Since you are hiding the goalposts, no one knows what you are claiming or talking about. We know that you personally feel there is no evidence for God, but no one knows what you mean by evidence.

    You’re wasting your time thinking of how some Big Boss in the sky is going to show him or herself to you.

    Here you could be projecting. That is, you demanded the Big Boss appear before you and he didn’t. Ergo, there is no evidence for God. Is that what you have in mind when you thump your chest?

    You are also wasting your time expecting ET to come to your front door.

    Do you believe ETI exists?

    You have all the atheist books and explanations available to you to stop your irrational, maddening delusions, yet you choose, with all the stubbornness that a stuck brain can produce, this ridiculous and fully “uncritical” fixation.

    You have it backwards. YOU have all the atheist books and explanations available to you. Yet you can’t answer my questions. If all those all the atheist books and explanations fail you, what it does it say about those all the atheist books and explanations?

  17. notabilia says:

    Thank you for quoting my words correctly back to me. They look quite nice. Enjoy!

  18. Crude says:

    Thank you for quoting my words correctly back to me.

    Stop hitting yourself, notabilia. 😉

  19. Kevin says:

    You need to stop this incessant nonsense.

    Are you responding to yourself? An odd tactic, but thus far the only nonsense that has been uttered has been from you.

    Simple question: What makes something evidence for a proposition?

  20. TFBW says:

    All this strutting and posturing from notabilia in lieu of any cogency. I fear that he might be right when he describes New Atheism as, “the defining philosophical movement of our time,” though. That would simply mean that our time is defined by something smug, arrogant, vacuous, pseudo-intellectual, anti-philosophical, and boorish, among other choice adjectives. Hopefully it’s a passing phase, but I fear that widespread ignorance and contempt of philosophy is a hard trend to reverse.

  21. Crude says:

    TFBW,

    I fear that he might be right when he describes New Atheism as, “the defining philosophical movement of our time,” though.

    I think it is to philosophy what ALF was to sitcoms. From ‘suddenly trendy’ to ‘cultural detritus’ in a very brief stretch of time.

  22. keithnoback says:

    May I ask, what the hell is God? A disembodied mind, i.e. a mind without discreet identity? How does that work?
    If not a disembodied mind, then what?

  23. Doug says:

    @notabilia,

    You have all the atheist books and explanations available to you

    Please suggest one of the better “explanations”? Perhaps we’ve been underwhelmed by them for irrational reasons… for example: they don’t actually address the issues; they typical substitute ridicule for argument; they demonstrate a confidence well beyond any actual evidence? Hold on. I just described all your comments here! You’re a good student!

  24. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    You ask “how does that work”? It is a good question. But “a mind without discreet identity” isn’t exactly well-defined. What do you mean?

  25. FZM says:

    May I ask, what the hell is God?

    David Bentley Hart has written a book about the idea of God presented in different religious traditions. I haven’t looked at it myself yet but I have found he is usually pretty good on this kind of thing:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300209355/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462287354&sr=1-3&keywords=david+bentley+hart

  26. keithnoback says:

    I’m thinking about something along the lines of Descartes’ unextended mental substance. In other words, by disembodied, I mean a mind without a perspective (I think that is what would count as disembodied in philosophy of mind).

  27. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    …trying to see the problem with a disembodied mind — after all, we hear testimony of people with severe medical issues having quite lucid thoughts without being about to participate with their bodies (and that’s long before we approach the territory of NDEs — NB: I’m not going there, and won’t, unless you insist). So there couldn’t be an issue with a mind “without a perspective” (unless you count memories of perspective) — perhaps you (really?) have an issue with a mind “without a platform”?

  28. keithnoback says:

    Oh, I don’t think NDE or anything like that supports the idea of an unextended mental substance. After all, the person still is somewhere. They have intentions toward this thing and that – their physiological self, if nothing else. That’s not disembodiment; it’s just a more complicated embodiment. The mind still stands in relation to other things, has a sense of self and other, and so on down the line of dependent qualities which make up our conscious experience in time and space.

  29. TFBW says:

    @keithnoback, it sounds like you have a problem with the general concept of a supernatural being. The best analogy I know of is the computer simulation analogy. If this universe is a computer simulation, then whoever is responsible for the simulation is an intelligent being of some sort, but we make a category error if we demand an explanation of that being in terms of the internals of the simulation, because that being is outside the simulation, inhabiting a domain of which we have no direct experience. If you’re demanding an answer to “what is God” in terms of the internal workings of the universe, you’re making the same kind of category error. If you’re not demanding such an answer, then it’s not clear what your problem is, exactly.

  30. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    Why did you decide to talk about NDEs? I called it out as a distraction, not as a point of reference… And why do you suppose that “standing in relation to other things” and “having a sense of self and other” (“and so on down the line”) depends upon a body (apart from your extrapolated personal experience?)

  31. keithnoback says:

    TFBW: An apt analogy when it comes to our knowledge. No one within the simulation could have the means to know that they were in the simulation. Not an apt analogy from an ontological standpoint. It assumes a system of standard causal dependence – a ‘natural’ system. I don’t see how we can imagine anything else.
    So if you are saying that God is what’s ineffable, OK. But I think you are then done talking about God.
    Doug: The above goes to the salient points of embodiment for minds, too. If a mind is something which has an explanation in terms of events in the world, then it is part of the world, if anything is. It is the case even if the mind in question is running the simulation.

  32. GRA says:

    Exhibit A: notibilla. A fine example of a douche. Who so happens to be a Gnu. Any connections?

  33. FZM says:

    I’m thinking about something along the lines of Descartes’ unextended mental substance. In other words, by disembodied, I mean a mind without a perspective (I think that is what would count as disembodied in philosophy of mind).

    Some theists (those who hold to some form of Classical Theism for example) may not except Cartesian metaphysics and the res extensa and res cogitans division. In this case I guess God might be described as something like ‘that whose nature is described by Aquinas’ Five Ways and similar/related arguments’. There you end up with an idea of God as the First Cause, Pure Act, subsistent existence etc. God seems to include something like human intelligence but I don’t think that in the context of this approach you end up with God as being something like a kind of disembodied human mind.

  34. Dhay says:

    keithnoback: One of “some theists” appears to be Edward Feser. As regards the res extensa and res cogitans division, I see eg http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/brentano-on-mental.html, though that’s just a recent post out of the many there that you might browse through to find thoughtful informed views on your subjects of interest.

  35. TFBW says:

    @keithnoback:

    No one within the simulation could have the means to know that they were in the simulation.

    Maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t affect my point either way.

    Not an apt analogy from an ontological standpoint. It assumes a system of standard causal dependence – a ‘natural’ system.

    I have no idea what you mean by this: it seems that you’ve leapt from begging an explanation as to “what the hell is God?” to some kind of advanced rebuttal of an argument I haven’t offered. My only point is that if you want an explanation of God expressed in terms of the laws of nature (the internals of the simulation, as it were), then you are committing a category error. This, as far as I can tell, is not based on any such assumption as the one you mention. On top of that, you haven’t clarified what sort of explanation you were after.

    So if you are saying that God is what’s ineffable, OK. But I think you are then done talking about God.

    I made a rather more specific claim: namely, that God can not properly be described in terms of the natural world. If all you came to do was quickly ascertain that we can’t prove the existence of God to your satisfaction, then you may leave forthwith, because it’s unlikely that anyone here believes otherwise, and it would be off topic even if it weren’t futile. It takes only modest amounts of firmly directed scepticism to be unmoved by every argument for the existence of God that has ever been offered, and you seem to be exhibiting the necessary qualities so far.

  36. Doug says:

    @Keith,

    If a mind is something which has an explanation in terms of events in the world

    That’s a big “if”. Why should it be so? Minds (to my knowledge) have no “explanation” whatsoever (says the guy with 20+ years experience in AI). Explaining them “in terms of events in the world” isn’t going to happen. Are you familiar with Deb Roy’s famous experiment? How is it that the “events in the world” that his son experienced were insufficient to explain his son’s mind?

  37. keithnoback says:

    TBFW: Simply addressing your analogy. What would constitute a non-natural explanation, in your estimation? I am actually interested in what people think about these things, whether I agree or not.

  38. TFBW says:

    “Non-natural” (supernatural, specifically) is part of the explanation. God is supernatural — not to be found within the confines of space-time, although able to act in it. Similarly, God is a Necessary Being, not a contingent one — nothing caused Him to exist, and He cannot be anything other than what He is, any more than pi needs a cause to obtain its value, or could be anything other than its value. That sort of thing.

  39. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    The whole concept of “explanation” requires an “other”. There are only two classes of entities: those that can be explained by “something else”, and those that have no explanation. There does not exist an entity that is self-explaining. If you would seek an “explanation” for the universe, you have only those two options (i.e., it has no explanation or it can only be explained by “something else”). In the second option, the “something else” must necessarily be “non-natural”, because the explanandum (i.e., the universe itself) comprises the “natural”.

  40. FZM says:

    Dhay,

    keithnoback: One of “some theists” appears to be Edward Feser. As regards the res extensa and res cogitans division, I see eg http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/brentano-on-mental.html, though that’s just a recent post out of the many there that you might browse through to find thoughtful informed views on your subjects of interest.

    Yes, I think Ed Feser provides a great (and readable) contemporary introduction to Classical Theism and the Thomistic tradition. I’m planning to get hold of a copy of David Bentley Hart’s book on God because he also identifies as a Classical Theist, though coming from the Orthodox tradition.

  41. keithnoback says:

    TBFW: I think that you are getting into the realm of the interaction problem in substance dualism. It begs for a mechanism, or at least a positive characterization.
    Doug: I think that’s a coherent position, though I think there is still the question of how we know about the something else, and so what we can really know about the something else beyond the fact that it is something else.

  42. TFBW says:

    keithnoback, do you have anything to say which is actually related to the original post, or have you come here to solicit apologetic arguments for the sole purpose of expressing your dissatisfaction with them, thereby diverting the discussion?

  43. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    As you are likely aware, it is impossible to prove that there are other minds. But only the most impoverished souls operate as if there are no other minds. If you are willing to hypothesize (for example) that the cute person making eyes at you from the other end of the room possesses a mind, “there [are] still the question[s] of how we know about [that] some[one] else, and … what [can we] really know about [that] some[one] else beyond the fact that [they are] some[one] else”. I’m hoping that this does not pose an insurmountable problem for you.

  44. keithnoback says:

    I thought that the topic was confusion over what the fellows in the video claimed: that they believed something wasn’t true or that they hadn’t been presented with something in which they could believe – or not. The author seems to dismiss the latter possibility out of hand.
    I think the fellows in the video can be forgiven their confusion. There are some things lumped under the God label which are not believable, like the notion of a truly disembodied mind. There are others which are not apt for belief, like the ‘something else’ which cannot even hope to be functionalized (unlike other minds), much less characterized. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t something else, but it remains unknowable.
    So, these guys may be motivated by secondary gain, but they may also just be confused. And it may not simply be their fault that they are confused.

  45. Doug says:

    @Keith,
    When you say that the notion of a truly disembodied mind is not believable, you are using the words in a way that is uncommon. The fact of the matter is that the (vast) majority of the human beings throughout history, and even the majority of the human beings alive today have no trouble believing in a truly disembodied mind. So in what sense is it “not believable”? Are you merely describing your own ability to believe it? If so, is this inability due to emotion or reason? If reason, please share?

  46. TFBW says:

    keithnoback said:

    So, these guys may be motivated by secondary gain, but they may also just be confused. And it may not simply be their fault that they are confused.

    I’d call that a charitable interpretation, but I doubt that the atheists in question would take so kindly to being characterised as “confused”. Nobody is suggesting “secondary gain”, though, so I don’t know where that came from (unless that’s your way of saying, “wanting to avoid the need to defend a knowledge claim”). The key problem exhibited here is that they can’t quite seem to agree on whether atheism is a lack of belief, or a belief in a lack. If they’re confused over something as basic as that, then they’re probably not the kind of intellectual giants you want to be going to for advice on the subject.

  47. Michael says:

    I thought that the topic was confusion over what the fellows in the video claimed: that they believed something wasn’t true or that they hadn’t been presented with something in which they could believe – or not. The author seems to dismiss the latter possibility out of hand.

    I see no confusion. The “fellows” happen to be atheist activists – more so with the fellow who insisted (twice) “there are no gods.” That fellow happens to be the president of the organization which tells us:

    Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

    It’s not confusion. Like I said in the OP, it’s a Freudian slip made by an activist who let his guard down in a friendly discussion with other atheist activists.

    Look, the focus of this blog is not atheism. The focus of this blog is the New Atheist movement. While the “God can’t exist because disembodied minds can’t exist” claim might make for an interesting philosophical “atheisms vs. theism” discussion, it’s not all that relevant to the New Atheist movement. The movement doesn’t build on such arguments because the movement wants to position itself as if it has the authority of science, not philosophy.

  48. keithnoback says:

    Yes, even the narrowest question about intentionality is a post of its own, at least. However, to say that the new atheist movement has traded philosophical integrity for politics is simply to say that it has learned its lesson well.
    Religion, on the whole, made that same exchange long ago.
    But I don’t think that people veer towards politics in these matters purely on the basis of group identity or simple psychology.
    At least some of the motivation comes from the difficulty we have in characterizing the notion at the core of the contention. Difficulty means discomfort, and discomfort begs for quick and simple resolution.

  49. Kevin says:

    “Difficulty means discomfort, and discomfort begs for quick and simple resolution.”

    Perhaps, but only if one forsakes reason and evidence to draw conclusions, which again blows the New Atheist movement out of the water.

    And that’s sort of the point of the blog and those of us who frequent it. New Atheism is distinguished by being primarily an emotional movement that talks the talk but rarely walks the walk.

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