All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:55
502 Agnosticism (Continued on 511)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You're doing well, it's Steph. It is the 10th of November 2006, out for my noon walk, and I wanted to do a slight warm-up to a debate that I would like to have this Sunday.
We have a fine gentleman who joins us from time to time from Montreal, who is not so much interested in the psychology or the philosophy, but is very interested in the theology.
And it's a question that I've seen debated a number of times before, so I'd like to have that debate on Sunday.
So I thought that I would spend a little bit of time laying out some of my thoughts on the topic, because I do think that it's essential that we keep darting randomly between the three pillars of persecution and false moral ideologies that state the family and the church.
So I wanted to talk about this question as I dodge...
The wind tunnel, that is.
The area around the place that I work.
But I wanted to talk about this question, which is often sort of posed, or often comes into play, which is agnosticism versus atheism.
And yeah, yeah, we can go all over the whittling down of these definitions, but I would sort of define them as agnosticism being the proposition that Having any opinion for or against the existence of a God is the only logical approach that a scientist or a rational person can take to this question of God's existence.
And atheism is the positive proposition that there is no such thing as a God.
And this is a very powerful and dense and complicated subject, so I'll I'll simplify it in a rush and throw in some jokes, as I generally do, so that it's all become perfectly unclear.
So the question sort of is around the positive proposition that there's no such thing as a god and the logical ways in which that is established.
And so I'm going to take sort of the following approach, and you can let me know what you think, because I am an atheist and not an agnostic, and I view agnosticism...
As a reprehensible form of intellectual cowardice.
So I'm going to put my biases and prejudices right out there so that you can see whether or not I'm allowing irrational emotions to influence my rational judgment, but I view agnostics as perhaps the most irritating intellectual group in history in the world.
I view them as more annoying than fundamentalists, but So, you know, this could be because I've worked through all of the issues and have them all nailed, or I have a prejudicial slant on the question because my emotions run high in this area.
So, I'm not doing this in the car, so I don't end up raising my voice, except in song.
So, the idea that I'd sort of like to work with is that really asking questions about the existence of God I would suggest sort of a futile way to approach the question of the existence of a deity.
And what I'd sort of suggest instead as an approach is that you need to have methodologies for accepting or not accepting the existence of an entity or the truth value of a proposition that have nothing to do with God, right? This is the fundamental problem with the criteria of And why atheists get a little twitchy, and understandably so, when people say to them, well, so you're just against God, right?
You're an atheist, so you're against God, or you're whatever.
And then, of course, atheist means opposed to religion or religiosity.
And that, of course, is a fairly nonsensical formulation or proposition.
And it's kind of an aesthetic cheat.
An aesthetic cheat that...
You will often see in arguments, right?
So, you know, an example of somebody on the board yesterday said that my position was extreme passivity, right?
There's a question about whether or not it's a good idea to yell at cops, right?
Whether that's a sensible thing to do.
Oh, must cross the street because somebody is working away here and I don't want to end up having to walk past the leaf blower and have you miss even a single syllable.
Of the minor public rants involved in my daytime works.
Right, so somebody will say something like extreme passivity.
He's saying, I was sort of questioning the wisdom and the maturity of sort of yelling at cops and stuff like that.
And this gentleman, who I have enormous respect for, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but he characterized what he did as standing up for himself versus what I do.
Which is, I'm very pleasant to cops and, you know, get them out of my way as quickly as possible.
He sort of characterized my approach as extreme passivity and his standing up for himself.
And, of course, there's quite a strong aesthetic cheat in that as well, right?
It's not to say he's wrong. It's just that it's a bit of a non-rigorous way to argue.
Which, of course, I never do.
Well, that's yours to judge, of course.
But what you...
What you're going to find with the term atheist is that because it connotes being against God there is a sort of argument from psychology which is very common in these kinds of situations.
There's an argument from psychology that is involved in that which is always a little bit tricky to oppose, right?
Whenever you say that you're against God Then there's a kind of personal motivation, a sort of defensive reaction formation type motivation that is kind of embedded in that concept.
Like if I said I really hate God, then one would not particularly say that that would be a very rational argument to make.
So when you say atheist and this idea that you're against God and so on, it's picking out...
One irrationality among a near infinity of rationalities and saying that this is the one that I oppose, just this one about God.
Not the one about unicorns or leprechauns or pegasus or griffins or orcs or Nazgul or anything like that.
That this is the one that I'm against.
And as you're probably aware, if you sort of type randomly into a computer...
You know, you're very unlikely to come up with any coherent sentences.
And so, if you say, if sort of, you know, there's 10,000 incoherent sentences and then just by sort of accident with the sort of monkey typing situation, you end up with a sentence that is coherent, right? Then you would have some sort of grammatical or rule structure which would say, well, this sentence is correct.
And all these other ones are not correct because they're random and include special characters in wingdings or whatever.
Now, if you were then to sort of pick out one of those 10,000 nonsensical sentences that come out of the random typing scenario, and you were then to say, I am against sentence number 5002.
Right? Right? I am going to define my study of grammar and logical syntax and so on, and I'm going to define that as I am against random sentence number 5002.
Do you see that there's sort of an aesthetic cheat involved in that that isn't particularly helpful in understanding the whole process?
If you're going to single out a single or particular irrationality and say that you're defined by your opposition to that particular or singular irrationality, then you're going to have lots of logical problems in defending why you would just be against that particular irrationality.
Hi! Some kids in a cot.
So, the problem with the term atheist is that The number of propositions that are false in this world is almost infinitely greater than the number of propositions that are true.
Just as most scientific methods and most ideas fail, right?
Most novels don't sell very much.
Most movies don't make a lot of money.
Most propositions are false.
90% of everything is crap, as I think Theodore Sturgeon said.
So... The number of things that are incorrect in the world is vastly greater than the number of things that are correct.
Except here! Because of your kind participation, oh, my wondrous listeners.
And so singling out one thing that is incorrect and saying that I define myself by being against random sentence number 5002 is not a particularly helpful categorization.
So the problem with atheist versus agnostic is...
Is that there's a cheat involved by saying that you are against one particular irrational statement, i.e.
there is a God, versus all the other irrational statements.
Or that the question of God should be given special consideration relative to things like unicorns and leprechauns and so on.
So... That's sort of the first thing that I would talk about.
The next thing I think that's important to understand is that a general methodology of determining random sentences from coherent sentences would not really be to sort of look at each one and say, well, that doesn't really make much sense to me.
Oh, that sentence doesn't really make much sense to me.
Oh, here's a sentence that, you know, the words are composed of, you know, they're recognizable words, but they're kind of jumbled.
I think I can puzzle out some sense from this and You know, you don't sort of step through each one of them.
You come up with rules of grammar and capitalization and so on.
Punctuation. And you then look for...
You can then apply rules to find out whether sentences are coherent or not.
You don't just sort of say, you know, this sentence makes me feel purple and assume that you've come up with something sort of rational.
And the same thing is sort of true when it comes to establishing the viability of a proposition.
The idea behind a God, from an agnostic standpoint, is to say that since there is no criteria by which God may be disproved, then we cannot say anything about the concept of God.
I mean, that's the fundamental agnostic position, that whenever somebody says, there's a God, and you say, well, why?
You say, because he shows up at this cafe on Tuesdays.
At noon, and you go to the cafe on Tuesdays at noon, and you say, well, there's no God here, so God doesn't exist, and the person says, no, it's every second Tuesday, and then you go every second Tuesday, there's still no God, it's like it's every second Tuesday, on every 4th November, on every full...
Like, if the person just keeps moving the bar with the proposition that God exists, and then you disprove each particular instance of the proof by which they claim that God does exist, and they just keep moving the bar, then...
The agnostic says, well, since there's no criteria by which God can either be proven or disproven, then to say God does not exist is a nonsensical statement.
It's a nonsensical statement.
It's like saying, my fish has two aglets.
And getting very passionate about the statement, my fish has two aglets, and...
Then ending up, oh my heavens, look up here.
There are a whole bunch of geese crossing the road and everybody's stopping to let them cross.
How nice. If only that were the case with pedestrians, that would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.
And here comes a truck to interrupt my podcast.
I will wait for it to pass by.
So the agnostic then looks at the question of the existence of God and says, well, I can't come up with anything sensible about this concept at all.
And so, I'm simply going to refrain from discussing the question in any way, shape, or form.
I'm not going to oppose those who say there is a God, and I'm not going to support those who say that there is no God, and vice versa.
And that's a fascinating question.
Because we have created this world of special rules just for gods, or gods, Singular, it's almost always in a monotheistic sense, right?
People don't say, I'm agnostic about the existence of Zeus, you know, or of, I don't know, some Freya, or some other deity, Osiris, Satan, or, you know, the angel, Archangel Gabriel.
It's always around God singular, God monotheistic, and it's sort of hard to understand why there would be a separate category other than sort of rank Intellectual cowardice and a desire to appear superior and rising above the fray of a very necessary intellectual battle about whether or not we apply rationality to propositions or not.
But there is this tendency to create this case, this special world, where the question of the existence of God sits in its own little corner and is not subjected to the same sort of beliefs That every other proposition in the world would be subject to in any rational philosophy.
So, it's sort of a case of special pleading or...
You know, well...
Okay, leprechauns is one thing.
I don't believe in leprechauns, although leprechauns are far more logical than a god.
But in the question of god, I'm simply going to not answer it, right?
And that's just because people...
I mean, they wish to avoid controversy...
I understand that, believe it or not.
I really do.
They wish to avoid controversy, and that's not to me the irritating part.
Like, if someone were to say, you know, I don't really talk about religion with people.
You know, it's too hot a topic, and you never get anywhere, and so I just don't talk about religion with people.
Right, that's not irritating to me.
I mean, that may be a little bit cowardly, but, you know, you can at least respect the The honesty with which that is presented.
No, no, no. The problem with agnostics, in my humble opinion, is that they claim that they are both right and tolerant and virtuous and better for not getting involved in topics with religion.
Right, so they turn their cowardice into a virtue.
That, to me, is the annoying aspect about agnostics.
That's the part that drives me A little baddie.
Because they say that it is illogical to assert that there is no God, because there's no way of proving or disproving it, so you can't say anything about it, and therefore a vaguely wise and benevolent withdrawal from the question is the only logical and sensible alternative.
But if it is the case that one can logically Withdraw from any question where a proposition is put forward without the possibility of a negative proof or a disproof.
If that is a valid approach, just using the basic scientific method and the basic argument from logic and morality, if it is a valid thing to do, to simply withdraw in haughty and superior silence and wise withdrawal from the question in the manner of,
A mother who is tired of her children bickering, who simply asks them to go to their separate corners without troubling herself as to the virtue of their dispute, or the nature of their dispute.
If it is wise to do that with regards to God, it's very hard to understand why it would not also be wise to do that with every other proposition.
You can't create a special category called God Wherein you simply put in widely divergent moral views that you would never hold in any other situation.
I mean, you can do that, but just recognize you're setting up a little camp of cowardice in your mental life.
You are not doing anything noble.
You're simply justifying yourself in a greasy moral manner.
You're justifying vices of cowardice and superiority and a lack of willingness to confront the dangerous irrationalities in this world.
And calling it a virtue, of course.
So, if I put forward a proposition that blacks are inferior, or, you know, whites are inferior, or whatever, and I say I strongly believe this, that whites are inferior, which I think, cognitively, with respect to orientals, this may in fact be the case, who knows?
But, if I say whites are inferior, and somebody says, well, what's your proof?
And I say, my proof is that Whites are taller.
And they go out and do the measurements, they say whites aren't taller.
And then I say, well, they're balder.
Whites aren't balder.
I keep sort of coming up with these criteria to people then say, well, the proposition that whites are inferior, I'm not going to argue against it because there's no criteria by which it can be judged because the criteria keep changing.
Or being removed. And therefore, I'm going to let this belief remain unmolested.
And I'm sorry to bring the phrase molestation into a religious context.
Forgive me. I don't really think that that would be the case.
I don't think that that's the approach that people would take with regards to the proposition that whites are inferior.
They would say, the proposition is proven false.
And in fact... The fact that you keep changing the measuring stick and keep moving the goal post, so to speak, doesn't mean that I now can't figure out whether or not your proposition is true or false.
Because you simply can't have a proposition which is supposed to denote something about reality, especially ultimate metaphysical reality as in the existence of a deity.
You simply can't have a proposition That something exists which is not subject to critical examination.
And if every criteria by which someone claims that something exists is then withdrawn, then that thing does not exist.
Not for all intents and purposes.
Not until something better comes along.
Not until some proof comes along.
The existence of that thing simply does not exist.
If I say I'm walking an invisible dog, I got one of those Joke leashes with, you know, sort of a stiff leash with a collar at the end and I say that I'm walking an invisible dog, right?
And somebody says, oh, invisible dog, huh?
And I say, you bet!
Invisible poochie von poochieville.
And you then reach down and say, cool, I've never seen an invisible dog.
I'm going to pet it, right?
And I say, well, no, it's not only invisible, but you can't feel it either.
It's like, wow, okay, can I smell it?
No, can't smell it. Can I... Taste it?
Nope, can't taste it. Not that you'd want to taste dog, especially when it's wet.
And then you say, okay, well, can I get an infrared scanner?
Nope, doesn't show up there either.
Right? The question of the existence of the dog is not in question.
Right? I mean, what conceivable criteria could you have for the existence of something except for its impact on some physical device, whether it's your eyes or a spectrograph or a Infrared or x-ray receiver.
What other criteria could you have for the objective existence for something other than that it objectively exists in some measurable manner?
Because how on earth would you then be able to tell a psychotic from a sane human being?
And of course, just because it's common doesn't mean that Christianity and other religious is not a form of social psychosis.
But how then would you...
Differentiate between an imagined entity and a real entity.
There would be no criteria.
You'd just believe anyone who said anything, right?
I just, you know, love to go up to an agnostic and say, I'm going to sell you an iPod.
I mean, this is just the fundamental crap and cowardice at the root of this philosophy is not that hard to see.
You go up to an agnostic and you say, dude, I'm going to sell you an iPod for only a hundred bucks, 60 gig iPod, color screen, 100 bucks only.
They give you 100 bucks. Right?
And it's on eBay. And you ship them an empty box.
Right? Special for agnostics only.
iPods for 100 bucks.
Thank you for your 100 bucks.
I ship you a box. It's empty.
Right? But they open the box and they go, holy shit, an invisible iPod.
And then they reach in and they go, wow, it's invisible and incorporeal.
Wow, fantastic. And it has imaginary earbuds and imaginary music.
And then they phone me and they say, you know what, I'm actually not sure.
You know, on second thought, I don't think you actually shipped me an iPod.
And I say, well, sure I did.
They're like, well, I can't see it.
Well, it's invisible. I can't touch it, but it's incorporated.
But it's there. I would just love to know how many agnostics would say, okay, I'm satisfied.
I'm not going to ask for my money back because I can't establish whether or not this iPod exists or not.
There's no possibility of saying anything that Logical or coherent about whether or not this iPod exists or not.
I mean, all I'm asking for is a little frickin' common sense here, people.
We're not asking for people to solve quadratic equations while running up a hill and juggling.
We're just asking for a little common sense.
I ship you an empty box, you don't say, huh, well, there's nothing I can say about whether or not this iPod exists or not.
It's indeterminate.
And anybody who says that the iPod does not exist...
It's basically as crazy and irrational as anybody who says the iPod does exist.
Right? You'll have to go to a married agnostic, you know, and then his wife leaves him, and he says, well, no, I can't tell whether she's here or not.
She's packed up and she's moved out, so you could make an argument that she's no longer here.
Right? But she's here in spirit.
She's here invisibly and incorporeally.
She may be in Puerto Rico with a strapping Spanish sailor named Raul, but she's also here as well.
Not the inflatable kind, but the incorporeal, invisible, non-tangible, spiritual kind of wife.
So she's still here. Now, if somebody launched into that conversation at a dinner party, wouldn't she sort of say, maybe I'll skip the dessert?
Or maybe I'll give this guy dessert with a little bit of Prozac mingled in and some antipsychotics.
You wouldn't say, huh, well, so your wife is in Puerto Rico with Raul currently applying jello and maple syrup to his six-pack abs and she's also at your house invisibly in a way that could ever be detected.
I guess I don't know whether she's there or not.
I guess there's no There's no real way to answer that question.
I mean, I don't think that you would say that.
And this is sort of what I mean when I say that there's a special case, a special corner of crazy that's set up for the question of the existence of God.
People don't believe in invisible dogs and invisible iPods and invisible wives.
But you bring up God and suddenly everyone's like, oh, wait, hey, whoa, we can't talk about that.
That's indeterminate. Bullshit.
If you believe that agnosticism is valid, I really do have some invisible iPods to sell you.
And if you won't buy my invisible iPods, then get off the goddamn fence about God, alright?
Stop screwing around with this essential question.
And stop copping out and calling it courage.
Because we're just asking for a little consistency.
I mean, that's all. It's not asking for the world.
Just asking for you to apply the same criteria to this question of God as you do to every other thing in your life.
Do you work for an invisible paycheck and then say, well, I don't know whether I'm getting paid or not?
Right? Do you get your leg, if your leg gets amputated, do you then walk around and say, well, I don't know if I need a crutch because I don't know if my leg's there or not?
Of course not. I mean, it's hilarious.
The amounts of contortions that people will go through Just to call cowardice courage and weaseliness wisdom.
Astounding! I mean, just be honest and say, I don't like conflict.
I don't like it when people who are religious get mad at me.
I don't want to confront people with the truth.
I just prefer to retreat to this high bullshit supposed chair of wisdom and say that I'm above all this petty wrangling.
That's all that's being asked for, is a little integrity and a little honesty.
Nothing major, nothing magical, nothing that is beyond the realm of comprehensibility.
And you will see a lot of scientists who hang on to this kind of stuff, right?
You will see a lot of scientists, and I've certainly met a lot of scientists who have this vague me-ism going on, this vague spirituality, this...
And you know, they're real betrayers of the cause, frankly.
The cause of truth and rationality.
Because they're scientists, right?
So when they say, I can't tell whether there's a God or not, well, they're putting on their white coats, right?
And they're saying to a bunch of people, yeah, I got the scientific method, and I apply it to everything but not God.
See, if somebody says, I mean, this is the last thing that I'll sort of say about this, and we can talk about this more on the weekend, but if somebody says, That a god exists.
And we assume...
If we say, well, it's just an imagination.
It's just their imagination.
They're just making stuff up. Then, of course, we don't believe that that god exists, right?
Any more than a man who says, I'm Napoleon, that we sort of go, huh, well, maybe, maybe not.
Well, no. Napoleon's dead and gone.
Expired in Elba, I think it was.
But we don't sort of put that...
Open to doubt and questioning.
So, if somebody says, well, there's a God, and we just assume that they're making it up, that they're deranged or lying, then we don't say, well, the question can't be answered.
But, if somebody says, there is a God, And there is some reason for us to believe that there is some truth in what they're saying, then they must have had some intervention.
God must have done something to them in order for them to believe that there is a God.
Because if God didn't interfere at all in human nature, or human affairs, or the human heart, if God didn't speak to or communicate with or have any effect on the human soul whatsoever, then anybody who said there is a God would obviously be Making something up.
So the only reason that somebody could even remotely credibly say as a testable proposition that there is a God would be somebody to whom God has had some sort of effect on.
Has intervened in some manner.
Gave them a dream. Gave them a vision.
Spoke in their ear. You know, gave them an erection at 80.
Who knows? Whatever divine hand is at work.
Divine handshake? Anyway.
It must be the case that somebody who claims that there is a God and claims that there's an objective reality to that proposition that there is a God, that that person must have experienced something outside of just his own imagination, because otherwise he'd say, I imagine that there's a God.
Which is quite a very different thing to do than to say there is a God.
So, the moment that God has intervened in a human being's life and experience, then...
It goes from subjective to objective.
Right? And the moment it goes from subjective to objective, then criteria of proof come into play.
Because you're not saying, I have a belief that there is a God, which is untestable, of course, but they're saying there is a God, and that's why I believe in it.
Right? So suddenly we go from subjective to empirical, which is a very different place to be.
Right? That person has put forward a proposition.
Of existence outside the mind, which means that God must have intervened in their minds to make them believe that it was something external to their own mind.
Right? That's how we know the difference between dreams and waking.
So, the moment that somebody is saying that there is a God, then they're saying that God is measurable.
God has impacted my consciousness from outside my consciousness, and that's how I know of her objective existence.
Which means God does intervene, and does, you know, tickle our medulla with his divine finger, and Awaken us to his glorious existence.
Right? And so if that is the case, then the effects of God are measurable.
Must be measurable. Logically, must be measurable.
So again, this is just using the basic scientific method to take this approach to the existence of this being.
Which is really, I don't think, is the absolute sin qua non, the world to ask for sort of evidence in this.
In this kind of area.
Alright, okay, one last little thought.
There's another thing which I think is important to understand about the existence of a deity.
And we talked about this very briefly before, but not in this context, which is that the proposition that a deity exists is the proposition that there is consciousness without matter, consciousness without form, life without corporeality, a mind without a brain.
Which is the exact equivalent of saying that there is gravity without mass.
That there is light without photons or wavelengths.
That there is electricity without energy.
Well, these things are one and the same, two sides of the same coin.
Gravity is mass.
Mass is gravity. Right?
Electricity is a form of energy.
It can't exist without energy. It's a form of energy.
Life is corporeal.
There is no mind without a brain.
Mind is an effect of matter.
And so, when you propose something as absurd and contradictory as life without material form, then you get one step even further from the absurdity of asking people to believe in something with no logic or empirical evidence, which is that you're asking someone to believe in something That A has no evidence and B is completely self-contradictory.
So if I were a biologist and I were to propose the existence of a fish with wings and feathers that flew in the air and lived in trees, then I think a lot of my other fellow biologists would,
I think, be of the opinion that if it's got Wings and feathers, and it lives in a tree, and it flies through the air, then it's not a fish.
If a fish has no wings, well, I guess flying fish, no feathers, it lives in the water.
That would be gills and so on.
It doesn't need to come up for air in the mammalian sense.
But what I would be doing is proposing a directly contradictory definition.
And... There's just no possible way that that could stand.
It would be like saying that energy exists in the absence of energy.
That gravity exists in the absence of gravity, which is the same as saying gravity exists in the absence of mass.
That matter exists in the absence of matter.
That atoms occupy totally empty space and are themselves empty.
Well, then they're not an atom, right?
This is just the basic logical definitions of reality.
So if I propose a feathered flying fish that never lives in water, biologists are going to say, I'm sorry, that's not the definition of a fish.
You're proposing a completely contradictory definition.
If I go to a physicist and say, something exists that is neither matter nor energy, and yet it has existence, then...
The physicist is going to say, I'm sorry, but the very definition of existence is some combination of matter and energy.
And so when you say that life exists without corporeality, without a body, that mind exists without a brain, then you're proposing a...
I mean, this is just one of the many contradictions, but you're proposing a completely contradictory definition of existence, of the reality of something.
And I don't think that if you go to a physicist and say something exists in the absence of matter or energy, or any recordable metric whatsoever, I don't think that the physicist says, well, I can't answer whether that exists or not.
The physicist is going to say, no.
It doesn't exist. I'm sorry.
I mean, any physicist with any integrity is going to say that.
Certainly, there's not much doubt about the invisible iPod, right?
And, you know...
This is all I'm really talking about in general when it comes to philosophy, that the abstract principles by which we organize the world and our minds and that exist in reality, or exist describing the behavior of material reality, they're not that much different.
It's one of the reasons why people hate commerce.
It's a whole lot of common sense stuff, right?
So, you know, if you're agnostic about the invisible iPod, then obviously you're not telling the truth, because nobody's agnostic about the invisible iPod.
And yes, I am getting subsidies from Apple, but all we're saying in the realm, all I'm saying in the realm of philosophy is that philosophy is really just an extrapolation of everyday principles.
We know that a child's friend is imaginary if there's no evidence that that child's friend exists.
Someone comes into a psychiatrist's office and says, I'm here with my posse of invisible Friends that, you know, don't have any measurability.
They're invisible and incorporeal and so on, but they're here.
The psychiatrist doesn't say, well, I can't answer that.
I don't know. I don't know if this person's mentally ill or not.
I don't know if they're healthy. I have no idea.
Because there's no criteria for disproof.
They say, look, in one form or another, I need to get you a medication because you imagine things are there that are not there.
All right, so this is how we live our life.
This is the decisions that we make in general.
You go, you go, run it.
You're on some sort of dating site and you say, oh, let's meet at this place at 8 o'clock and she doesn't show up.
You don't say, well, she was there, but she was invisible.
You say, hey, she didn't show up.
She wasn't there. Wasn't there.
Didn't see her. She didn't call.
Didn't hear her. She's not even the invisible woman.
It didn't whisper in my ear. So, this is how we live our life and why should the principles be any different for the existence of God?
Why should we focus on being anti-sentence 5002 and not just say, That according to the rules of grammar, this stuff's all nonsense.
Well, vanity, fear, and cowardice, I would say.
But I could be wrong. Certainly let me know what you think.
▲
Export Selection