02-16-2014 01:50 AM
146 ... 23456
tools
  1. anon(4903109)'s Avatar
    I wonder if nonreligious people also promote violence and war. I don't know if there are any statistics that show differences between religious and nonreligious people and their attitude for these things.

    If forum poster xceeder (whom I was replying to) used the word "religion" as a shorthand for "Christianity, Islam, and Judaism," I would ask that he or she put a clarification in a future post.
    No no you misunderstand me. I never said religious people promote violence and war, I said religion does. The distinction is very important!

    Religion is a core motivator and many people commit violence in the name of religion. You can do no such thing with atheism.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    01-10-2014 08:43 AM
  2. palandri's Avatar
    This goes way back, but I remember when the original Kung Fu series with David Carradine started, there was a major uproar over him portraying himself as a Taoist (I think that was the sect) They are spiritual but don't believe in Gods, but rather immortalize men.
    01-10-2014 08:56 AM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    No no you misunderstand me. I never said religious people promote violence and war, I said religion does. The distinction is very important!

    Religion is a core motivator and many people commit violence in the name of religion. You can do no such thing with atheism.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    You are really splitting hairs on the definition of religion while also making vast generalizations for what religion promotes.

    Atheism, depending on which definition you use, is a religion. In the grand scheme of life and human interaction, all religions and sub sets are just special interest groups. Just like political parties, clubs, ect. Just ideologies and activities that tie people together.
    01-10-2014 09:45 AM
  4. anon(4903109)'s Avatar
    You are really splitting hairs on the definition of religion while also making vast generalizations for what religion promotes.

    Atheism, depending on which definition you use, is a religion. In the grand scheme of life and human interaction, all religions and sub sets are just special interest groups. Just like political parties, clubs, ect. Just ideologies and activities that tie people together.
    Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. There is no religion or religious dogma.

    As far as religion promoting violence and war, generally this is true. That's not to say that every single (there are thousands) religions promote it. Please go back to the part where I said "most people who refer to religion are referring to the "big 3"." Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

    I'll go ahead and further define that I am speaking of Abrahamic religions.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-10-2014 10:07 AM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    No no you misunderstand me. I never said religious people promote violence and war, I said religion does. The distinction is very important!
    I'd like to explore the distinction between religion and religious people. Can you give an example where religion promotes violence and war without having religious people (i.e. the people following the religion in question) promoting violence and war as well? To me, they go hand in hand, which is why I am very interested in your take in the matter. If you prefer, you can select any religion you want to use in your explanation.
    01-10-2014 02:26 PM
  6. anon(4903109)'s Avatar
    The religion is the idea, the center of that which manipulates the people who follow it. The danger is in those who are susceptible to the idea and without question. People who take into the fairy tale have accepted the ideas and are then susceptible to modified behavior in the name of their religion.

    For instance, people who have killed others because they thought the big man in the sky told them to do it. Wars that have been had in the name of religion (Inquisition, Witch Hunts, Crusades etc). Then there is just straight violence (Islam Jihads, Buddhist Burmas, Thugee Murders, Roman Persecutions).

    Today's issues are more violent on the Islamic extremist front (currently), however, when it comes to Abrahamic religions in general you have the persecution of homosexuals, women, Atheists and other minority groups.

    Religion has such a strong grapple-hold on society that it has drastically slowed down our progressions in science and has been the tool for indoctrination across the world. All of these ideas, pushed onto children and ergo society as a whole.

    Of course all of the above only applies to those which allow themselves to cater to the whim of these ideologies.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    01-10-2014 02:59 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    The religion is the idea, the center of that which manipulates the people who follow it.
    Thank you for your post. Could you please elaborate on the second part of my question? That deals with religious people. How is that distinct from religion itself? You seem to separate religion from religious people. Do religious people promote violence and war? If not, what do they promote?
    01-10-2014 04:10 PM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    What has me scratching my head from time to time is how is a cult much different than a lot of mainstream religions? I've heard a lot of people insist that an organization is a cult if it has certain components to it, such as some outlandish "leap of faith" aspect that no one is to question, but just believe in, or if anyone outside of your organization is considered a threat. I've seen a lot of people that are really into cults dig their heels in when they're questioned about their faith and I see the same reaction from people that believe in the big religions.

    The song "Imagine" by the Beatles, while I can't say I'm a "Beatles-head", I do sometimes imagine what this world would be like without religion.
    01-11-2014 06:18 PM
  9. gollum18's Avatar
    Imagine is a beautiful song, one of my all time favorites.

    That's besides the point. I do not believe in organized religion, its always skirting the line between being a religion and being a cult. And honestly some religions do it a lot easier than others.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    01-15-2014 05:28 PM
  10. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Ok, so to the point above about atheism being about the lack of a belief, that's where I have to stick a stake in the ground and call nonsense.

    A(anything) where there is an actual alternate legitimate word, is a NEGATION of that word. However, there are no adults I am aware of -- or, frankly, anyone outside of maybe very small children -- who are legitimately without a belief. The moment you are exposed to any concept, you have an opinion and therefore a belief about it. Whether your belief is accurate or not, or even logically founded, is irrelevant.

    Who among you who claim to be atheists can say with a straight face that, if someone asked you whether or not there is a God or Gods, that you would say your view is that you do not have knowledge of the concept of the subject of theology? Who among you, likewise, would actually give the answer "I do not know if there is or is not a God/Gods"?

    No person claiming to be an atheist whom I have EVER met or interacted with has EVER said anything other than "No" to that question. This means you have an opinion on the matter, which means (given you can't prove a negative and there is thus far no actual evidentiary proof one way or another) you have no factual knowledge, and therefore even if you are correct, technically it's just a belief. Incidentally, there are those who might take the argument futher and state that we have only observational inferances of the universe around us and therefore can only operate on a belief in reality, but that's a topic for a completely different discussion.

    Anyhow, the point I'm making is that there are no atheists here; you are in fact antitheists. You have a belief: that belief is that there is not a God or Gods. And even if there was factual knowledge to be had on the matter, you still can't claim neutrality because you have factual knowledge of the matter.
    01-15-2014 10:32 PM
  11. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Anyhow, that being said, can we get back to the discussion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendage? Pastafarianism is, after all, such a riviting discussion...
    01-15-2014 10:35 PM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    Ok, so to the point above about atheism being about the lack of a belief, that's where I have to stick a stake in the ground and call nonsense.

    A(anything) where there is an actual alternate legitimate word, is a NEGATION of that word. However, there are no adults I am aware of -- or, frankly, anyone outside of maybe very small children -- who are legitimately without a belief. The moment you are exposed to any concept, you have an opinion and therefore a belief about it. Whether your belief is accurate or not, or even logically founded, is irrelevant.

    Who among you who claim to be atheists can say with a straight face that, if someone asked you whether or not there is a God or Gods, that you would say your view is that you do not have knowledge of the concept of the subject of theology? Who among you, likewise, would actually give the answer "I do not know if there is or is not a God/Gods"?

    No person claiming to be an atheist whom I have EVER met or interacted with has EVER said anything other than "No" to that question. This means you have an opinion on the matter, which means (given you can't prove a negative and there is thus far no actual evidentiary proof one way or another) you have no factual knowledge, and therefore even if you are correct, technically it's just a belief. Incidentally, there are those who might take the argument futher and state that we have only observational inferances of the universe around us and therefore can only operate on a belief in reality, but that's a topic for a completely different discussion.

    Anyhow, the point I'm making is that there are no atheists here; you are in fact antitheists. You have a belief: that belief is that there is not a God or Gods. And even if there was factual knowledge to be had on the matter, you still can't claim neutrality because you have factual knowledge of the matter.
    This is generally my answer. The way I see it is we aren't given any guarantees after we die, so we may as well enjoy this life. I personally think that religion is just a prison without walls. Sacred rules put in place to keep us behaved, that sounds exactly like something that someone in power would devise in order to keep the masses at bay. And lets not forget, back in the day, the King used the Church to keep himself in power, and the Church benefited by telling the King's subjects that the King was chosen by "God" himself and that any act against the King was an act against God. Definitely sounds like a nice little symbiotic relationship, Church and State....
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-15-2014 11:21 PM
  13. anon(4903109)'s Avatar
    Ok, so to the point above about atheism being about the lack of a belief, that's where I have to stick a stake in the ground and call nonsense.

    A(anything) where there is an actual alternate legitimate word, is a NEGATION of that word. However, there are no adults I am aware of -- or, frankly, anyone outside of maybe very small children -- who are legitimately without a belief. The moment you are exposed to any concept, you have an opinion and therefore a belief about it. Whether your belief is accurate or not, or even logically founded, is irrelevant.

    Who among you who claim to be atheists can say with a straight face that, if someone asked you whether or not there is a God or Gods, that you would say your view is that you do not have knowledge of the concept of the subject of theology? Who among you, likewise, would actually give the answer "I do not know if there is or is not a God/Gods"?

    No person claiming to be an atheist whom I have EVER met or interacted with has EVER said anything other than "No" to that question. This means you have an opinion on the matter, which means (given you can't prove a negative and there is thus far no actual evidentiary proof one way or another) you have no factual knowledge, and therefore even if you are correct, technically it's just a belief. Incidentally, there are those who might take the argument futher and state that we have only observational inferances of the universe around us and therefore can only operate on a belief in reality, but that's a topic for a completely different discussion.

    Anyhow, the point I'm making is that there are no atheists here; you are in fact antitheists. You have a belief: that belief is that there is not a God or Gods. And even if there was factual knowledge to be had on the matter, you still can't claim neutrality because you have factual knowledge of the matter.
    Wrong.

    There is a difference between stating that there is no god (unsubstantiated) and stating "I reject your assertion of Gods existence"

    If you stated that pink unicorns lived in a garden across the street and I stated that I didn't believe you then I would not be making a positive assertion that pink unicorns DON'T exist.

    Recap:
    Stating God does not exist = positive assertion

    Not believing god exists = neutral


    Atheism is a rejection of theistic claims, it is not a claim that god doesn't exist. Some atheists will claim god does not exist, but I am not one of them!



    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    01-16-2014 12:22 AM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    Ok, so to the point above about atheism being about the lack of a belief, that's where I have to stick a stake in the ground and call nonsense.

    A(anything) where there is an actual alternate legitimate word, is a NEGATION of that word. However, there are no adults I am aware of -- or, frankly, anyone outside of maybe very small children -- who are legitimately without a belief. The moment you are exposed to any concept, you have an opinion and therefore a belief about it. Whether your belief is accurate or not, or even logically founded, is irrelevant.

    Who among you who claim to be atheists can say with a straight face that, if someone asked you whether or not there is a God or Gods, that you would say your view is that you do not have knowledge of the concept of the subject of theology? Who among you, likewise, would actually give the answer "I do not know if there is or is not a God/Gods"?

    No person claiming to be an atheist whom I have EVER met or interacted with has EVER said anything other than "No" to that question. This means you have an opinion on the matter, which means (given you can't prove a negative and there is thus far no actual evidentiary proof one way or another) you have no factual knowledge, and therefore even if you are correct, technically it's just a belief. Incidentally, there are those who might take the argument futher and state that we have only observational inferances of the universe around us and therefore can only operate on a belief in reality, but that's a topic for a completely different discussion.

    Anyhow, the point I'm making is that there are no atheists here; you are in fact antitheists. You have a belief: that belief is that there is not a God or Gods. And even if there was factual knowledge to be had on the matter, you still can't claim neutrality because you have factual knowledge of the matter.
    What you just said here is really confusing, and I am not sure anyone else really understood it. Maybe you can break it down to a few bullet points so it's easier to understand. Here is where I am really confused reading it:

    A theist is one who believes in a deity (a god or gods). Adding an "a" (which means without) in front of theist means without a deity (a god or gods). Adding an "anti" (which means against) in front of theist means against a deity (a god or gods).

    I believe in science, and science deals with proven facts and you're trying to tell me what I actually believe isn't actually factual, but rather an opinion. That doesn't make any sense.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-16-2014 12:56 AM
  15. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Ok, I'll try again.

    blah = blah
    [a]blah = not blah

    Ergo, a "theist" is one who believes in God. An "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in God. (Or, in either example, Gods, etc.)

    People presently claiming to be "atheists" in practice -- and, I'd argue, of necessity -- believe there is no God/Gods, having come to the personal determination that that position is the correct one to hold, regardless of their reasoning and other causative factors. That means they have a belief, which is that there is no God. If they want to argue that they believe that there is no God to believe in, it's still a belief.

    All I'm saying is that it is my view that the actually correct term for them to use is "antitheist" because of their belief against the belief in God, or their belief against the existence of God.

    People whose belief is legitimately neutral are agnostics. However, they still are within the realm of belief-holders because they are, to make it as simple as I can, aware of the argument (for and against) and are not, in fact, unaware of the argument as well as the concepts about which the argument exists in the first place.

    Newborns up through whatever age at which they first are made aware of the concepts are legitimate atheists. After all, until one knows of something about which to have an opinion, one naturally lacks such an opinion.

    If there was such a thing as a belief in the existence of books, then those who believe books are real could be called Bookists, and those who believed books were not real would be antibookists, and those who had not yet been exposed to concept of books would be called abookists.

    wolf39us: Are you sure you're not actually an agnostic?
    01-16-2014 01:17 AM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    Re: Flying Spaghetti Monster
    Ok, I'll try again.

    blah = blah
    [a]blah = not blah

    Ergo, a "theist" is one who believes in God. An "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in God. (Or, in either example, Gods, etc.)
    I see your point but I don't think it applies here, as it's not simply a positive - neutral _ negative (semantically) argument. It could be applicable as many atheists are probably antitheists as well, because as indicated below, one could make the argument for 5 based on 4, but in this case there would be five categories and I think you're representing the 5th as encompasing the 4th and 5th positions. The 5 categories are as follows:

    1. I believe in one or more deistic gods, who either do or did exist, but have no personal involvement with modern affairs - Deist
    2. I believe in one or more theistic gods, who either do or did exists and have personal involvement with human affairs - Theist
    3. I have no idea if any God or gods exist - Agnostic (this is a spectrum)
    4. I do not believe in any God or gods - Atheist
    5. I believe that no God or gods exist - Antitheist

    To take it out of theology and put it in the solar orbiting teapot example:
    (Analogy where someone makes the unprovable claim that there is a teapot locked in orbit around the sun) (Associated with Russell's Teapot, which is relevant to the FSM because it places the burden of proof upon one who makes an unfalsifiable claim, rather than those that do not ascribe to it without cause)

    1. I believe there probably was, or could have been, a teapot orbiting the sun
    2. I believe there probably is a teapot orbiting the sun, and it loves me
    3. I have no idea if there is a teapot orbiting the sun
    4. I have no reason to believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun
    5. I think there is probably not a teapot orbiting the sun

    4 and 5 are very different arguments, as 4 is saying there is no evidence to suggest that the hypothesis of a teapot (or a god) exists, and thus there is no reason to believe it (obsevation), whereas 5 is making the claim that there probably is not a teapot (assertion, possibly based on observation). On this spectrum, 1, 2 and 5 are very weak positions in traditional philosophy and logic exercises but that seems to be where most people live.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-16-2014 01:37 AM
  17. palandri's Avatar
    Ok, I'll try again.

    blah = blah
    [a]blah = not blah

    Ergo, a "theist" is one who believes in God. An "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in God. (Or, in either example, Gods, etc.)

    People presently claiming to be "atheists" in practice -- and, I'd argue, of necessity -- believe there is no God/Gods, having come to the personal determination that that position is the correct one to hold, regardless of their reasoning and other causative factors. That means they have a belief, which is that there is no God. If they want to argue that they believe that there is no God to believe in, it's still a belief.

    All I'm saying is that it is my view that the actually correct term for them to use is "antitheist" because of their belief against the belief in God, or their belief against the existence of God.

    People whose belief is legitimately neutral are agnostics. However, they still are within the realm of belief-holders because they are, to make it as simple as I can, aware of the argument (for and against) and are not, in fact, unaware of the argument as well as the concepts about which the argument exists in the first place.

    Newborns up through whatever age at which they first are made aware of the concepts are legitimate atheists. After all, until one knows of something about which to have an opinion, one naturally lacks such an opinion.

    If there was such a thing as a belief in the existence of books, then those who believe books are real could be called Bookists, and those who believed books were not real would be antibookists, and those who had not yet been exposed to concept of books would be called abookists.

    wolf39us: Are you sure you're not actually an agnostic?
    Well, I'll disagree and will leave it at that.

    I believe in science and through science we know the universe is about 14 billion years old and to me that's a fact, to you it's an opinion. By studying meteorites, and using radioactive dating techniques, specifically looking at daughter isotopes, we have determined that our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old, and to me that's a fact, to you it's an opinion. We also know the basic 93 elements on earth are common throughout the universe, and to me that's a fact, to you it's an opinion.

    ...and we'll leave it at that.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-16-2014 02:01 AM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    Anyhow, that being said, can we get back to the discussion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendage? Pastafarianism is, after all, such a riviting discussion...
    So, let's examine the idea of religious freedom. Are people allowed to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a serious religion? Would Pastafarians be allowed to practice their religion as much as Christians (for example) do?
    01-16-2014 02:26 AM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    So, let's examine the idea of religious freedom. Are people allowed to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a serious religion? Would Pastafarians be allowed to practice their religion as much as Christians (for example) do?
    I can't think of any legal reason to treat the two religions differently, but I still have a hard time believing that anyone seriously believes in noodly appendages. But, then again I know quite a few practicing Christians and Jews that don't believe most of what their organized faith teaches, but attend for different reasons and have a pretty wide range of beliefs that they actually do participate in.

    From a freedom to practice, public display, employment protection and taxation standpoint, I see no differences at all between those two churches as legally (and/or morally) enforceable.
    01-16-2014 02:31 AM
  20. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Hey NothingIsTrue!

    Not that we were actively talking about it, but thanks for bringing up the point about Deists and Theists. I've heard the term before, but have never bothered to research what the differences are between them.

    What I do not see as being possible is for someone in wolf39us's position (that is, having knowledge of the possibility that either God/Gods exist or that God/Gods do not exist) to truly lack a belief.

    It's like trying to say "I have an absence of money in my hand." Either you have money in your hand, or you don't have money in your hand. How do you have less than no money in your hand? Would that be like trying to show a three dimensional object in two dimensional space? I don't know.

    Oh, and hey wolf39us, understand I mean and intend no disrespect. I take you at your word; I'm just trying to see how it's physically possible to hold a position that is outside of the continuum of possibilities that you are, from my perspective, inherently a part of.
    01-16-2014 02:34 AM
  21. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    palandri:

    Hey bub! I think you may misunderstand me.

    I wasn't trying to take a public position here on the argument; I just am arguing for a clarification of the definition of the terms of that argument.

    When one can establish a verifiable evidentiary process, then I would call the sampled results of that process facts. However, I would also argue that there are different kinds of things which use the same word, "facts", so let's also be clear about that.

    Gravity exists. We can prove that it exists, even if we do not understand how it works. That's one kind of fact. Last Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. your local time, you were at Starbucks ordering a grande chai tea. That is a different kind of fact.

    Now, I'm not saying that we don't in actual fact have a clue how gravity works; I just meant that we can establish as fact that it exists.

    Age is not a fact in the same sense of the existence of gravity. It's more like in the sense of your activities last week. We can assume the universe around is is much older than us. It's an assumption, but in no way an unreasonable one. To say how old it is is at best a guess. The age of the universe, assuming it has one, is not a fact to which we really are yet (or may ever be) privy. If, on the other hand, it were possible to say that the Universe started on what would have been Thursday, January the 8th, in 14,002,916,413 BCE at 03:27:46.00102922000011101020 EST, then yes, that would be a fact. One would naturally presume you had a way to know that and equally well had a way to definitively demonstrate that, but nevertheless, that would be a fact.

    However, there's other factors here, some of which include the possibility that space-time is infinite, in which case the Universe isn't 14 billion years old or any other number, it's infinitely old and will continue on for a further stretch of infinite time; or that the universe is not infinite, but it's actually a big multi-dimensional honeycomb structure and the thing that we call the big-bang was the result of the reaction between two (or more) dimensional planes intersecting and bam! there was a reaction.

    I would never call any of these sorts of things facts, because (at least as of yet) none of them are really determinable. There are lots of unknowns in the universe; that doesn't stop them from being real.

    You could say I "believe" in the existance of the universe, because I am capable of perceiving it, and that would be a true statement. But I also hold the position that the existence of the universe is a fact.

    Anyhow, I've nattered on long enough, and as neither of us is really in disagreement with anything of significance here, I should probably shut up.

    (Yeah, and you-know-where may freeze over, too....)
    01-16-2014 02:53 AM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    The observable universe and everything that physically interacts with it being such and such age can be argued based on the concepts of defining a universe, defining time, etc, however 13.789 billion years +/- 37 million years or .037 billion is as close to a fact as anything that we "know". The dispute isn't about that time period or that all of the matter that we are originated there, but the exact mechanism of orignation and what, if anything preceded it. The definition of "age of the universe" is the amount of time that has elapsed dince the Big Bang, so anything that preceded the Big Bang, if anything did, in the sense of our physical spacetime, is irrelevant to the meaning of the term, although it's probably relevant to the philosophical question of origination of all things, if those are possibly different. While the number may grow more precise over time, the estimate is substantiated by numerous independant methods of calculation. In the words of GoT, "this is known".
    01-16-2014 03:14 AM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    Anyhow, that being said, can we get back to the discussion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendage? Pastafarianism is, after all, such a riviting discussion...
    LOL




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-16-2014 03:46 AM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    I can't think of any legal reason to treat the two religions differently, but I still have a hard time believing that anyone seriously believes in noodly appendages.
    What would it take for Pastafarians to prove that they are sincere in their faith?
    01-16-2014 05:06 AM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    What would it take for Pastafarians to prove that they are sincere in their faith?
    I'd be easy enough to establish with a psychological study of believers, but the population of people who believe in unicorns and the population who could believe in the FSM are probably roughly equal, and I have a feeling that the majority of both of those populations are not exposed to the pastafarian religion, which is clearly, to most of it's members, a spoof making fun of the absurdity of believing in ridiculous things, without any evidence, that contradict common sense and/or existing evidence. The entire point is that they do NOT want pastafarianism taught in schools and they do not want things that are not based in science to be taught in schools, for the exact same reason that we should not learn about pastafarianism other than as a social commentary.

    From Wikipedia:

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent designand creationism in public schools.[3] Although adherents maintain publicly that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion,[3] it is generally recognized by the media as a parody religion.[4][5]
    01-16-2014 05:17 AM
146 ... 23456

Similar Threads

  1. Free Android Games: Monster Killer: Shooter Mayhem
    By peaksel in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 07:12 AM
  2. [FREE][GAME][4.0+] Monster Burger - Burger Maker Game
    By SmilingDragon in forum Android Games
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-22-2013, 12:17 AM
  3. Amazing Flying Hearts LWP
    By Precept Software Creations in forum Wallpapers, Ringtones, and Themes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2013, 07:33 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-27-2013, 03:44 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD