What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?

Posted by Spocko on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 06:47 AM. Read 4866 times. Tags:
{name} pic

The guys at MemeTherapy have been running a series of interesting threads about Strange Beliefs over the last few weeks. It’s a fun read. I thought the kind folks here at the Bastard’s might like to give it a try.

Their question:
“What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?”

My response…

At first glance this question appears simple enough. I can think of many fascinating subjects I have read about over the years; nanotech, “gray goo”, 11-dimensional space, relativity, the possibility of time travel, quantum entanglement, wave particle duality, virtual reality. There flows a never ending stream of ideas that wells up from the spring that is the Mind of Man. I could have selected any item from this list, or more, and would have provided a reasonably interesting response. How does one choose from such a fantastical array of knowledge? Technology can indeed appear strange or magical to one unfamiliar with a particular field of study. Some feel that medical wonders, from stem-cell research and genetic engineering to face transplants, are the definition of the word “strange”. Others may perceive the political and ideological mindset of their “enemies” to be the pinnacle of the eldritch.

But to ask an atheist what he “believes” to be true introduces quite a different “texture” to the question posed. The meaning of the word “believe” may easily be misconstrued. I am often bewildered by the multiple usage of some words from the English language. To some, “belief” is only given to that which has overwhelming evidence to support it, such evidence that there is no point to even use the word “believe”. Does one say: “I believe the sky is blue”? No. We say: “The sky is blue”. We can test this statement through many types of observation, experimentation, and verification. We know the sky is blue. Some use the word “believe” in the same manner that they use the word “think”, e.g. “I believe I’ll have another beer!” - the two words are interchangeable here. Then we come, of course, to the most common meaning of the word “believe”, that equivalent to “faith”; acceptance of a proposition without any need, or desire, for supporting evidence whatsoever.

I avoid the use of the words “believe” and “belief” because of their imprecise usage. There are, however, certain words I’ll use in spite of their misuse. For example, I have no qualms stating that I’m an “atheist” even though that word has been intentionally misused and demonized, perhaps since its inception. An atheist is simply one who does not believe. To be an atheist one need only answer “no” to the question “Do you believe [in god(s)]?” No further assertion is made.

I prefer to use the verb “know” instead of “believe” and, like Great Lady Science, accept that knowledge can be transitory and must evolve as new evidence is discovered. Ironically, my answer to the question “What is the strangest thing you know to be true?” would bring me back to the issue of faith.

The strangest thing I know of is the ability of the human mind to accept the most incredible of statements by the simple application of the magic word “faith”. How is it that, in the 21st century, we still have people that believe the world is only 6000 years old in light of the evidence from various fields of science in support of its vastly older age? How can one ignore mounds of fossil evidence for the progression of evolution and only see the “gaps”. What is it that allows the brilliant scientist who, otherwise, demands empirical data to advance his theories, to assert that there is a god when no one has presented any evidence to corroborate the existence of said deity? Is it a mental blind spot, a type of intellectual laziness used to avoid investigating fully the reason one believes one fable over another?

This strange thing called faith intrigues me. I have studied several of the mythologies of various civilizations throughout history and I find the subject fascinating. The majority of us appear to be so desperate for answers that we will accept any concept of reality that we are subjected to at an early age. We indoctrinate our children into a system of thought handed down by our progenitors and our children will usually teach their own children the same vision; the meme propagates. The evolution of religion presents the prime example of this strange ability to close the mind to healthy skepticism and reason. I wonder if we have herein evidence for the existence of a parasitic meme, one that propagates from the pulpit and lives in symbiosis with those that hunger for its anesthetic affects.

I look forward to a future where such strange ideas as faith and belief have faded into obscurity and disrepute as have the gods of old. A future where the unknown is regarded as an opportunity, not an enemy to be feared and obscured by the blinders of myth.

What’s the strangest thing you “believe”?

Comments:

Page 7 of 9 pages « First  <  5 6 7 8 9 >

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 11:38 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Again, wow.  You go to bed for a few hours, and in the morning your computer spews a high-speed ribbon of self-important gibberish from a Raven.  I had thoughts of trying to answer him but there’s no point.  He wanted to control the terms of the debate - ludicrous in itself - and confuses asserting a thing with its truth.  I only hope he meant what he said that he was “done with this”.

~ End of that nonsense ~

I think life probably did come from nonlife, with emphasis on “probably”.  But that probability is shaped by the probability of a god/creative_alien which I consider to be less than 1.  Of course that is a question of abiogenesis which is quite separate from questions of evolution vs. conscious design.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 11:45 AM

Sadie Jane pic

Geez, KPG, you must have struck one hell of a nerve. Nearly all of GR’s subsequent posts have revolved around the two of us.

Cyberchildren, GR asks? Nope--I don’t like children. And that “photo” of me was a brilliant touch. I don’t know how to even respond to such a clever, sophisticated takedown. All I can say is that I am humbled in the extreme.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 11:47 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Double-dipping because Consi and Zilch were typing while I was typing

The abiogenesis question presupposes that dead matter interacts with energy to acquire a mysterious property called “life”.  Many people believe in an omnipotent - and sentient - energy called “God” who is responsible for that transformation.  Others look up into the sky and see the sun, pouring a broad spectrum of radiations into the turmoil of the young planet.  Over enough time, enough molecules (and thats very, very many instances) it seems reasonable to some of us that molecules could emerge that have unusual properties.

Consigliere United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 12:14 PM

Consigliere pic

it seems reasonable to some of us that molecules could emerge that have unusual properties.

Book Title:  “The Little Molecule that Could”

Author: Unknown

Synopis:  Abbey Ammonia becomes Abbey Amino Acid by hooking up in heretofore forbidden ways with that swinger Mr. Hydrogen.  The raw power of coupling and posiive thinking at a cellular level are revealed in dramatic fashion when lightning strikes twice.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 12:35 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Gah!  Were those molecules cohabiting without the sanction of matrimony?!  Oh noes!!!  LOL

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 12:46 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

hehehehehe

hehehehehe

Still half asleep, can’t really formulate thoughts yet, but jeez, that was great. Had himself a little cyber-meltdown, didn’t he.

hehehehehe

Sadie: Geez, KPG, you must have struck one hell of a nerve. Nearly all of GR’s subsequent posts have revolved around the two of us.

I really wasn’t expecting anything like that, but it sure made me laugh a lot. I bet he’s dreaming about us now. Like Elmer Fudd in that cartoon where he’s having nightmares about Bugs....

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Les United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 12:58 PM

Les pic

My my, but GR sure has been busy. I considered his challenge for a moment until I scrolled down further and saw the eight consecutive spittle flecked barely coherent tirades he posted about KGP, Webs, and Sadie. He strikes me as someone who has a definite anger control problem and a very thin skin which isn’t a good combo if you plan to debate things on the Internet. It’s also clear that for all his claims that he doesn’t have an ulterior motive that he does, in fact, have an ulterior motive.

Then there’s the terms of the debate itself which he requests. He doesn’t want me to make use of the NIST report, but the truth is just about anything I say would be a reflection of what’s in the NIST report so he could just claim I was using the report in violation of the rules. The simple fact is I can’t find anything in the NIST report that I have a problem with and I think they’ve done a good job of answering the criticisms that have been raised against it. Of course, as I’ve already admitted, I’m not a scientist so much as a science enthusiast so it’s entirely possible that the NIST investigators have successfully pulled the wool over my eyes, but he’s not given me a good reason to believe that possibility might be true.

In the end I’m left shaking my head in amazement at such a public meltdown.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Webs United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 01:10 PM

Webs pic

I woke up the same way DOF did, check my email and just scrolled down the unbearable list of posting by GR good gads man. 

I think talking to him would be like a Jim Carey routine, “[talks for a ridiculous amount of time] huuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh [breaths in finally]” Couldn’t find a supporting video clip, so I hope you all know what I am talking about.

Just out of curiosity has a meltdown like this occurred before on SEB?  I mean I was there for the other 9/11 one, but that was nothing compared to this.

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

Les United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 01:13 PM

Les pic

We’ve had some similar ones before, hell I’ve had a couple of meltdowns on SEB, but nothing that’s carried on as long as this one has.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

zilch Austria Posted on 09/30/2006 at 01:27 PM

zilch pic

That you need one [a rational alternative]lumps you into the same category as a True Believer, just with a different god.

No, it lumps me in with the scientists, consi.  What are the alternatives when confronted with the problem of the origin of life? As far as I can see it, there are two rational positions:

1) Somehow, matter and energy produced life
2) Not caring how it happened

and one irrational position:

Some intelligent being did it.

I choose the first rational alternative.

You might argue (and you wouldn’t be the first) that the “intelligent being” alternative is also rational.  It is if you don’t know much about science, and if you’re willing to live with an area of belief absolved from rational inquiry.  But that doesn’t meet my standards for rationality.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 02:10 PM

Consigliere pic

zilch:

it lumps me in with the scientists

Certainly not Mr. Yockey, who is a scientist. Repeated:

Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. Hubert Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336,

You ignore an explanation that hasn’t yet been encountered.  Simply because you or I can’t think of a better explanation does not negate the possiblity, or even probablity of another alternative explanation being set forth down the road. (I’ve ignored the planting of life seeds from outer space, (and I don’t mean aliens) as that just pushes the problem out) That is what makes such a statement so similar to that of believer jaw agape. “Er, can’t think of nuttin’ better so God did it"="Er, can’t think of nuttin’ better so it just happened with no God or nuttin’” wink

You are right that I would maintain that at the earliest of stages there was a Higher Power involved. 

You might argue (and you wouldn’t be the first) that the “intelligent being” alternative is also rational.  It is if you don’t know much about science…

For shame on you zilch.  If I’m not mistaken, I believe a large number, likely even a majority of scientists (don’t hold me to that though) actually have a belief in a supernatural being that they choose to call God.  Guess all THOSE scientists are dumb as a box of rocks huh?

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Patness Canada Posted on 09/30/2006 at 02:44 PM

Patness pic

guess all THOSE scientists are dumb as a box of rocks huh?

Nope - more likely just playing favorites about applying the scientific method. This thread brings all that out, I’m sure.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

Les United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 03:14 PM

Les pic

Consi writes…

For shame on you zilch.  If I’m not mistaken, I believe a large number, likely even a majority of scientists (don’t hold me to that though) actually have a belief in a supernatural being that they choose to call God.

It’s a good thing you put that qualifier in there, Consi, because you’re wrong.

The majority of scientists do not believe in God(s) and this has been the case for around a century now.  There’s been a few surveys done of scientists’ beliefs over the years—the most recent being in 1998—and there’s a pretty good summary of the findings in an entry on theoretical physicist Mano Singham’s Web Journal. A sampling:

    These surveys were done early in the twentieth century (in 1914 and 1933) by James H. Leuba and repeated at the end of the century by Edward J. Larson
 and Larry Witham who published their findings under the title Leading scientists still reject God in the journal Nature (Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998)).

    What the earlier Leuba studies found in his survey of 1,000 scientists in general, selected randomly from the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS) was that in 1914, 58% of scientists expressed “doubt or disbelief” in god, with the number rising to 67% in 1933.

    Larson and Witham’s repeat of this study in 1996 using the current edition of the same source (now called American Men and Women of Science) to select their sample and found the number to be 60.7%. So these numbers have remained fairly steady.

    In fact, the 1996 survey found that about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God as defined by the statement “a God in intellectual and affirmative communication with man ... to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer.” This is a sizeable number (close to the figures in the 1914 and 1933 surveys), indicating that, at least empirically, there seems to be little problem with being a scientist and also believing in the existence of even an activist, interventionist god who directly answers individual prayers.

    But the really interesting changes have come from the beliefs of a more elite group of scientists. One criticism about the studies quoted so far was that perhaps the selecting of the sample of scientists was not discriminating enough. Larson and Witham quote Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins as criticizing their 1996 study on these grounds saying: “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.” (my emphasis)

    But how does one define a “real” scientist as opposed to, presumably, a run-of-the-mill scientist. It turns out that Leuba had also surveyed the beliefs of “greater” scientists, using as his sample those scientists designated as such by the editors of the AMS. He found the rate of “disbelief or doubt in the existence of God” to be higher that that of the general scientist population, being 70% in 1914 and as much as 85% in 1934. So it seems as if the more eminent one becomes, the less one believes.

    In repeating this particular aspect of the study in 1998, Larson and Witham were hampered by the fact that the editors of American Men and Women of Science stopped designating people as “greater scientists.” So Larson and Witham used as their sample source the member list of the highly prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS). What they found was that the number among this group who expressed “disbelief or doubt in the existence of God” was a whopping 93%.

Oddly enough it seems that belief in a God is highest among Mathematicians.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Julian India Posted on 09/30/2006 at 03:59 PM

Julian pic

Oddly enough it seems that belief in a God is highest among Mathematicians.

Not really odd. Mathematicians generally dont bother with the “real world”. As they dont spend their time investigating evidence of how the world/universe actually operates I would expect them to more or less follow whatever their families believe in.
By the way should computer programmers be considered mathematicians? After all programming seems more like Math (specifically Logic) than like Science.

 Signature 

“I know you, Kingslayer, I have been here all the time, waiting for you to come to me. “

DWangerin United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 07:07 PM

DWangerin pic

should computer programmers be considered mathematicians?

No, computer science falls into the broader category of engineering.  It doesn’t study pre-existing systems (science) and it doesn’t work with non-physically based rule sets and properties to discover other properties (mathematics).  It uses mathematics to model and optimize existing systems under constraints (engineering).  So computer programmers are more akin to engineers than mathematicians (although technically programmers are considered to be technicians and not computer scientists unless they have the education, almost like the difference between mechanics and mechanical engineers).

zilch Austria Posted on 10/01/2006 at 07:14 AM

zilch pic

Thanks for documenting the belief in God among scientists, Les.  Okay, consi, if you insist, I will revise what I said: my belief in abiogenesis lumps me in with the majority of scientists.  That’s what I meant anyway, obviously.

You and I apparently have different standards for rationality.  By your standards, inventing a supernatural being to do stuff you don’t understand is rational.  I realize there are plenty, if not a majority, of scientists who do the same, and probably most of these know more about science than I do, and some are smarter than I am.  But by my standards, they are being irrational, at least on this one point.

Consider- we watch a magician perform a trick.  Right before our eyes, she pulls a duck out of a hat.  You can’t explain it; I can’t explain it.  But I say “even though I have no idea how she did this, there must be a rational explanation- a hidden compartment, or trapdoor, or something”.  Do you say “It could be magic”?

The situation with abiogenesis is exactly analogous.  We don’t know exactly what the conditions were back then, we can’t create life ourselves.  But we know that first there was no life, sterile conditions being ubiquitous, and then there was life.  So what rational alternative is there to abiogenesis?

What is it about life that requires an explanation over and above the explanation for the existence of the Universe?  The fact that it’s obviously very orderly.  The problem with positing a God to kick start life is that it simply postpones the question of where the order comes from, and thus explains nothing.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 11:49 AM

Consigliere pic

Les,

The qualifier was intentional.  Leave it to you to have actually looked it up previously.

zilch:

I’ll take the retraction and restate in positive terms your prior statement:  It is possible to know quite a lot about science and still believe in God. Thank you sir. smile

By your standards, inventing a supernatural being to do stuff you don’t understand is rational.

Just because a theory is cloaked in theological terms or scientific terms does not make it irrational, or rational for that matter, on its face.

Admittedly, there is no proof that establishes the existence of God.  Nor am I aware of one that can be devised.  It is a belief that is untestable.  Believers are subject to criticism for the “irrationality” of their belief because the existence of God can’t be “tested” and established.  Theists haven’t got the market cornered on beliefs that are not testable though. Science has several untestable beliefs that have been incorporated into their respective catechism.

Life coming from non-life is but one example of this.  String theory is another. (I’m not bright enough to discuss string theory at length, but the concept is interesting) Neither of these theories are even close to established as more likely than not the explanation for particular problem sets. Neither is testable. Yet, we don’t see widespread criticism of the irrationality of these “belief systems” because the language in which they are cloaked is different. 

Eliminate the scientific jargon from string theory and the theological mumbo jumbo for the existence of God and the bottom line for both beliefs is: A belief with no ability to establish any basis, other than conjecture, for the belief.  They are either both rational or both irrational.  Personal preferece is not a license for labeling.

I’m not a believer in magic either, zilch.  I believe in the rational “or something” as a rational person would.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Patness Canada Posted on 10/01/2006 at 12:08 PM

Patness pic

String Theory doesn’t have any actual evidence going for it. Nice mathematical model, no hard evidence. It IS a theory in the mathematical sense, but it’s not a theory of physics, which is where it’s impact is directed. I don’t know anyone that’s given String “Theory” any grounding. Other potential models are coming out of the woodwork; these are testable.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 12:13 PM

Sadie Jane pic

String Theory doesn’t have any actual evidence going for it. Nice mathematical model, no hard evidence.

It’s pretty cool, though. Imagine how freaky it would be if there actually were eleven space/time dimensions.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Patness Canada Posted on 10/01/2006 at 12:30 PM

Patness pic

It’s pretty cool, though. Imagine how freaky it would be if there actually were eleven space/time dimensions.

Oh, for sure, for sure… Even if there were 11 dimensions, we’d need the ability to monitor those dimensions - an effect from the 7th dimensional space could just as well be an effect from the 4th dimension. Our view in a mere 3 dimensional universe would be indistinguishing. At least I think so - I’m no expert.

QM and relativity have very screwed up implications. It’s the nerdy rockage of Strings plus the fresh taste of mint, er, science. O’course I’ve played favorites with QM since I was in high school raspberry. Bad science can be fun, too, but I prefer the good stuff.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

zilch Austria Posted on 10/01/2006 at 02:38 PM

zilch pic

I’ll take the retraction and restate in positive terms your prior statement:  It is possible to know quite a lot about science and still believe in God. Thank you sir.

What retraction, consi? I said I was lumped with the scientists.  Then you found one scientist I wasn’t lumped with.  So, I revised my statement and said I was lumped with most scientists, which was what I meant in the first place, pretty obviously.  Not a retraction.  And I never said you couldn’t know quite a lot about science and still believe in God.  I said you couldn’t be completely rational, know science, and believe in God.  I’ll stick with that.

Science has several untestable beliefs that have been incorporated into their respective catechism.

Life coming from non-life is but one example of this.  String theory is another. (I’m not bright enough to discuss string theory at length, but the concept is interesting) Neither of these theories are even close to established as more likely than not the explanation for particular problem sets. Neither is testable.

Here you go again, comparing apples and onions.  Life coming from non-life is not a theory as such, any more than “the formation of the Solar System” is a theory.  Particular hypotheses for how life came from non-life could be considered theories as soon as they start (tentatively at first to be sure) to fit the facts; for instance Darwin’s “warm little pond” (the Miller-Urey experiment or Graham Cairns-Smith’s clay theory.  Life coming from non-life is simply an observation, even if at a great distance: there was non-life, and then there was life, and that demands an explanation, a theory.  Plugging God in is not really a theory, any more than invoking magic for an unexpected duck is.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 06:47 PM

Consigliere pic

zilch:

Revision or retraction? I say tuh-mey-toh, you say tuh-mah-toh.  Your wording changed and I was appreciative.  So, I expressed my appreciation for the change as is only proper amongst genteel folk.

Life coming from non-life is simply an observation

But it isn’t.  Nobody has observed it.  It hasn’t been reproduced.  Millions want to see it.  Sound familiar?

Sounds to me like its the same as nobody I know having observed God in His Full Glory.  Just as nobody I know has observed the ubiquitious Pink Unicorn many are fond of here. 

Life from non-life is that Pink Unicorn.  It is a belief about what happened without any evidence. A belief in the Pink Unicorn would be the same; a belief without evidence. Just like a belief in God is without any hard evidence, just circumstantial. Same with that String Theory. 

You need to go to that fruit stand more often partner.  You seem to have forgotten what apples look like.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 06:48 PM

Consigliere pic

I misspelled ubiquitous. Damn it!!  I’m downloading that new mozilla thingymajigger tonight.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 07:03 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

I misspelled ubiquitous. Damn it!!  I’m downloading that new mozilla thingymajigger tonight.

Be wary, Consi - spell checkers happily approve egregious homonyms as long as they’re correctly spelt.  Better to sufer an occasionel misspeling than to grow still more dependent on the machine for your thoughts.

Someday, there will be a logic checker that will spot unsupported assertions, fallacies, etc.  While useful as a teaching aid, I predict it will be absorbed into the flaccid brains of users who will simply stop writing altogether and a bunch of machines will post comments on peoples - uh, “blogs” or whatever they’ll be called then.

/grouchy

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 10/01/2006 at 07:13 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Consi: Just as nobody I know has observed the ubiquitious Pink Unicorn many are fond of here. 

Oh, but I have! She’s appeared to me before. wink

Then again, I was stoned at the time…

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Page 7 of 9 pages « First  <  5 6 7 8 9 >

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main

Stupid Evil Bastard