User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Which "Commandments" make more sense?

Which “Commandments” make more sense, ... the first four “God” commandments,<br /> ... or the following (shorter) commandments adapted from the four Rules of<br /> Reasoning in Philosophy that appear at the beginning of "System of the World",<br /> Book Three of Newton’s Principia?<br /> <br /> I. Thou shalt admit no more causes of natural things than such as are<br /> both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.<br /> <br /> II. To the same natural effects thou shalt, as far as is possible,<br /> assign the same causes.<br /> <br /> III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor<br /> remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within<br /> the reach of experiments, thou shalt esteem to be the universal qualities<br /> of all bodies whatsoever.<br /> <br /> IV. Thou shalt look upon propositions inferred by general induction from<br /> phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary<br /> hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur,<br /> by which the propositions may either be made more accurate, or liable to<br /> exceptions.

Mark,<br /> <br /> While you might market some set of commandments as making more sense than some alternative set, the word "commandments" carries the wrong sort of baggage. Commandments from whom? Under what authority? Humans have "orders" (which are situational) and "best practices" (which are evolving). Neither of these have the same connotations as "commandments". No human has an absolute lock on truth, so no human should be issuing commandments. It goes without saying that commandments from God have their own set of problems.<br /> <br /> There's a great quote from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that hits this on the head:<br /> <br /> "If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts not commandments."<br /> <br /> --Don

Hello Don ---<br /> <br /> Q: Commandments from whom?<br /> A: I adapted these “Commandments” from Newton; for example, in Rule I, Newton wrote “We are to” instead of “Thou shalt” -- that’s the only difference.<br /> <br /> Q: Under what authority?<br /> A: As far as I’m aware, Newton did not attribute the Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy to any other authority.<br /> <br /> I don't see how Newton’s rules, or these commandments, come close to implying that anyone has a “lock on truth”.<br /> <br /> Thank you for Ann Rand’s quote. Do you think her quote applies even though Newton’s rules, and these commandments, are understandable and are not being forced on anyone?<br /> <br /> Kindest regards,<br /> <br /> --- Mark

My question is this:<br /> you obviously beleive in science and the physic laws. But did you know that the Bible has always proven science before science even knew it was science.<br /> <br /> Existence of Atoms : way before scientists discovered the atomic structure of things, Scripture has always told us in Hebrews that : "...things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." <br /> The Wind: Science proclaimed once that wind blows straight.Scripture has always told us in Ecclesiastes that, "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about to the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again sccording to his circuits."<br /> <br /> If read, the Bible can show us that what we now know to be true today (science,physics,hygiene) has always been here for us to attain. My point is this, If atheism is correct, then you have nothing to worry about. Nothing whatsoever to lose, you wont even have the joy of saying you were right because when we die, thats it. It's over. Nothing else afterwards. But if you are wrong then all those to defy God and live and die in their sins will be tormented eternally "..into the fire that never shall be quenched: where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched(Mark 9:43-48)" You're playing Russian Roulette with six bullets. Please don't take this as an attack. I'm generally concerned for those living without Christ. Please email me with any questions or comments.

Your assertion that there is science in the "Wholly Babble" is simply not true. Science is not a "list" of discoveries, but more of a methodology, a system, an approach based on observation, experiment, and a sort of institutionalised scepticism. But even if it weren't, I don't recall reading any passage refering to the human brain, or hinting that the earth may in fact be round. Have you? And when did science proclaim the wind blows straight?<br /> <br /> But I don't think either one of us care whether the bible has anything about science in it. You and I both care about whether or not it is true in any meaningful way, and on that we again disagree. Sure, the bible has some stories about kings and places that may have actually existed, but all these stories are told with "spin" to sell some religious idea or another. There's lots of magic and miracles and a god that tells his people to murder their neighbors. Believe it all if you want, but it just doesn't have the ring of truth to me. Besides it's not good for you to buy into this stuff.<br /> <br /> And thank you for being concerned about my soul. (And I believe you are.) But let me assure you that I am not worried at all. I feel pretty confident that supernatural entities like the god you believe in cannot exist. If I am wrong, then I can't see where I would have anything to fear from a "good" one, and I'll have no truck with a "bad" one. <br /> <br /> I'll let someone else tell you the problems with Pascal's Wager.

I'm on the case, Don. I've often found that in debating with Christians, I often take on the role of educator moreso than debater. To have a real debate, both participants ought to be on a roughly even playing field, at least in terms of their skill at arguing and their ability to think critically and mount sound arguments that can be backed up with facts. Most often, though, we get guys like Mr. FIshandBread, who show up completely empty-handed, with "facts" that just aren't true and feeble arguments like Pascal's Wager, utterly clueless that such arguments have been blown out of the sky as surely as the Hindenburg. I'll quote myself directly from another post on Pascal's Wager to save time:<br /> ----<br /> Pascal's Wager can be applied to ANY GOD of ANY RELIGION. Why not believe in Zeus? Hey, if he doesn't exist, you have nothing to lose, but if he does, you have everything to gain! Why not Shiva, or Bast, or Amon-Re, or Odin, or Thor, or Wotan, or Kali? If they don't exist, you've lost nothing, but if they do, you've gained everything! Right? Isn't that how it works? If Pascal's Wager were valid, a person would have no reason not to join every religion on Earth, just to cover his bases! You'd even have to join the Indian Thugee cult and go around strangling people! After all, the goddess Kali might not exist, BUT LET'S SAY YOU'RE WRONG. YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TO LOSE FOREVER!<br /> <br /> A lot of newbie Christian debaters, inexperienced in arguing with atheists, often make the mistake of using foolish and discredited arguments like Pascal's Wager. So I won't criticize you too harshly for the kind of mistake rooted in naivety. I understand you are sincere in what you wrote, and this is why I am sure you don't realize your post reflects the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your religion. <br /> <br /> Not only does Pascal's Wager demonstrate the flaws I illustrated above (experienced Christian apologists know better than to use it anymore for those reasons), but it shows that fear is one of Christianity's main selling tools. <br /> <br /> "You have everything to lose forever." What exactly does this mean? Simply put, it is an appeal to fear, specifically regarding the Doctrine of Hell, the idea that non-believers in the Christian faith deserve an eternity of torture as punishment. The Doctrine of Hell alone renders Christianity immoral and unworthy of consideration by anyone with a shred of respect for reason and human dignity. Any belief system that threatens horrible punishment for non-compliance is evil by definition. Even if your God exists, Christian doctrine shows he is unworthy of respect, much less worship. Unfortunately, most Christians have had their rational faculties so damaged by their faith that they see the Doctrine of Hell not as threatening but as an expression of their God's "love"! But there is NOTHING loving about someone, even your God, who says, "And if you don't love me back, YOU'RE IN BIG TROUBLE!" To claim this is loving and good is to strip the terms "love" and "goodness" of any meaning they could possibly have. But the intent of the Doctrine of Hell is merely to keep believers afraid, and thus compliant.<br /> ----<br /> Back to Mr. FishandBread's claims. (And please don't take this as an attack, if you're reading.) I'm curious to know where he came up with such inane drivel as "Science proclaimed once the wind blows straight." Of course, no such claim has ever been made in science, especially as the art of SAILING has been in existence for millennia, and no scientist would ever be so idiotic as to contradict an observable fact every sailor would know. (And you don't even have to be a sailor. Just look at your washing hanging on the line.)<br /> <br /> It's probable that FishandBread got these notions by reading Christian anti-science literature, or while hanging out with other Christians like himself, who were talking amongst each other and pooling their ignorance on what they think they know about science. I know Christians do this; I 've seen it take place. <br /> <br /> As I always used to tell Christians who'd call our show with similarly clueless claims, if you're going to make claims about what science says, be sure to do your homework. Literally EVERY creationist who called us made some claim about what he thought evolution was, and their claims simply WEREN'T TRUE. They had obviously gotten their talking points not from reading actual scientific texts on evolution, but from creationist writings, ALL of which are filled with misinformation and often outright disinformation. Thus, these guys embarrassed themselves tremendously. <br /> <br /> I also recall getting an e-mail from a Christian claiming that Earth's "perfectly circular" orbit proved that the hand of an all-powerful designer God was at work. I had to point out that, for one thing, Earth's orbit is NOT a perfect circle but an ellipse (and linked him to several online references, giving him accurate info he could have gotten himself in 2 seconds using Google). But also, even if it WERE a perfect circle, old fashioned Newtonian physics would be enough to account for it. The problem with divine design is that anything could qualify, rendering the concept non-scientific as it cannot adhere to standards of falsifiability. What would a perfectly circluar orbit matter to an all-ppowerful God? If God wanted to, he could have made the Earth's orbit a figure-eight. The ironic flaw in the Anthropic Principle is that believers find themselves using LIMITS (perfectly explicable by natural laws) as a means of proving the existence of their UNLIMITED God.<br /> <br /> Anyway, two passages from scripture, plucked from context, do not help Mr. FishandBread with his claim that all science is contained in the Bible. If modern scientific ideas do in fact exist in Scripture, they clearly did no one any good at the time. If people 2000 years ago weren't DOING the kinds of science that are cutting edge today, which Mr FishandBread implies they could have been doing as the material was there, then its inclusion wasn't good for much. And if correct science is in the Bible, why did the church see fit to arrest (Galileo), suppress (Darwin), or outright murder (Giordano Bruno) scientists whose work -- not accepted as correct -- they felt defied Biblical teachings?<br /> <br /> The truth is, Mr F&B is doing what so many believers do: reinterpreting scripture to make his Bible seem meaningful and relevant to a rationalist society. Real scientists have always achieved their discoveries by the scientific method: research, experimentation and careful observation, NOT by looking things up in ancient holy books. The reality of science is that the more it teaches us about the world we live in -- facts that can be confirmed independently -- the less need we have to resort to the supernatural and the divine to explain anything.

Well, it is obvious that you don't believe in Christianity, or the Ten Commandments!

What laws do you believe we should follow? City, State, Government Laws? Why, because another man says so? That makes NO sense what so ever! Who says that I should have to do what another man says I should? What makes him better than I? What if I believe in murder, and you don't? What makes you right and me wrong? If the world happened by one big accident of things in space crashing together, then there is no laws other than the laws of man!

Andy, You should really think about this more. Several thousand years of legal history show that civil and criminal laws grow and evolve in the social environment, while they often contain generous lip service to the deity(s) de jour.

What bothers me is that you seem to imply that you have no obligation toward the laws of this country, because they are just "man-made" laws. You on the other hand, are obedient to a higher law, GOD's LAW, which you think is superior. So I guess I can assume that since it says in Exodus "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live." that you think you must murder people who call themselves witches, for not to do so would be to be disobedient to your master. Right?

This is nuts. One of the foundations of a modern society is the rule of law. But not for you. If your god says you need to kill me, then you have to. If your god says you must do what you can to instigate nuclear war, then you must. What about people who work on Saturday? God said kill 'em. I sometimes mow my lawn on Saturday...

There are plenty of morally mature Christians around; I was raised by two of them. But they understood that both the law and the Bible was written by men. They were inspired by the Word, but they steered clear of the stupid stuff in there, and Witches were perfectly safe around them.

Martin Wagner,

If you do not mind I would like to respond to some of your comments.

You are mistaken that the "Doctrine of Hell" is for those who do not comply. Hell was created for satan and his demons to be banished to upon judgement day. Those humans who choose to will go there. I have known several atheists who have stated that they would rather be in hell for eternity than be with the Christian God forever, and I have seen and heard many more make this very same statement on television.

It is not a matter of complying, but of choice, and they have certainly made a point of making that choice. Hell is for those who choose it, who choose to have no "truck" with God, as you put it. God sends no human to hell. Humans send themselves there, and God will respect your right to choose it. He gave you that right, and when you choose hell over Him, He honors your right. Love has nothing to do with it. You can choose this moment to commit a crime and go to jail. If you do, then you CHOSE to go to jail, and no Judge just because he is loving and compassionate should let you out of your sentence just because he is compassionate.

Furthermore, when a person becomes a Christian, they become a new creature. They become a being who can survive in heaven, and in the presence of God. When you refuse to take that road, you literally cannot go there, it would be "physically impossible."

By the way, your reply seemed very condescending, as you spoke about how Christians are ignorant of science, but I assure you, I have spoken to as many atheists who are equally ignorant.

All science is not contained in the Bible. But it IS scientifically accurate, and has shown many, many instances of this, especially when it comes to God's laws of hygiene and disease control, far, far, beyond the practices of the cultures of that day.

According to those laws the Jews WERE DOING and practicing medicine and disease control and hygiene that we now practice today, and it showed that someone, (God,) had a knowledge of germs several thousand years before mankind caught up. If you would like some examples of this, I will take the time to post them for you.

You also make a grave mistake when you equate the Catholic Religion of the Middle Ages with what the Bible says. The catholic religion of the Middle Ages was based on corrupt power for certain individuals, not on the Bible. In fact, they had actually outlawed the Bible as well as certain scientific premises. They locked the few copies of the Bible away into monastaries, and made certain the people could not learn the language it was written in.

Not till many years later, did a certain catholic monk by the name of Martin Luther, who read the only copy of the Bible he knew of, chained in the monastery library, actually read the Bible, and found out what it said.

After the way you had spoken of Christian ignorance, I would have expected you to know this.

You are absolutely correct however, that scientists generally do not go to the Bible to learn scientific truths. More is the pity - think of the millions of lives that might have been saved through the millenia had they only gone to the Bible to see how disease is controlled.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I am very interested to hear your opinion on my reply. I hope to have a long and fruitful discussion. I am certain we can both learn from one another.

NO COMMANDMENT makes sense! You're just going to die anyway. What's your use for them?

You are starting to make sense finally (in a way), but are very flawed. The commandments make sense in trying to get people to follow the laws of the land. It helps that they think that there is an eternal punishment awaiting them if they don't follow these things. However, the laws are not totally nonsensical. They are societal things that if held in check can help ease tension and cause society to flow better when followed. You don't need a law to show you how much tension can build up from lying to someone or how much pain you can cause by killing someone. There are laws built from humans for humans with an added mythology to keep people in line, because some people need extra convincing. I would rather it be that you would be able to stop yourself from killing me without a threat from your mythology, but if that isn't the case then I promote that you follow your own mythology.

We are going to die just like everyone else is, but that doesn't give us the reason not to follow societal laws. Our species will still be living after we are dead. Little things we do throughout life affect those around us and they will in turn affect others. We don't inherently have a 'duty' to do anything for anybody, however we are going to die anyway and it would seem to be in our best interest to help our society to do the best it can since it is what will remain after we are gone. I don't do good deeds because I think I will be rewarded from them. I won't even exist in a number of years. Will my good deeds even matter? Of course they will, even if very indirectly, I have just made society better in whatever little way that I could. You go fight the fight you think is right, as will I.

Isaac Newton was born into the Anglican Church and publicly conformed to it. At about age 30 he came to believe that (Trinitarianism was a fraud and that Arianism was the true religion.) While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism. The original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism, which were eventually absorbed into Christian dogmas. 'Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it'

Newton held his views, very privately, until the end of his life. On his deathbed he refused to receive the sacrament of the Anglican Church. (Most of the texts in both the Hebrew bible and the New Testament were forged in the names of their authors to give them authority.)

In June 1661 Newton arrived in Trinity College, Cambridge. At that time, the movement now known as the scientific revolution was well advanced, and many of the works basic to modern science had appeared. Astronomers from Copernicus to Kepler had elaborated the heliocentric system of the universe. Galileo had proposed the foundations of a new mechanics built on the principle of inertia. Led by Descartes, philosophers had begun to formulate a new conception of nature as an intricate, impersonal, and inert machine. Yet as far as the universities of Europe, including Cambridge, were concerned, all this never happened. They continued to be the strongholds of outmoded Aristotelianism, which rested on a geocentric view of the universe and dealt with nature in qualitative rather than quantitative terms. Previously the Inquisition was a permanent institution. The Holy Office had an international group of consultants, experienced scholars of theology and canon law, who advise it on specific questions. In 1616 these Holy consultants deliberated on the scientific propositions that the Sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy," and the first to be "formally heretical" and the second "at least erroneous in faith" in theology. This assessment led to Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium to be placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, until revised and Galileo to be admonished about his Copernicanism. It was this same body in 1633 that tried Galileo. (There are many more examples that religion held back science.) "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are raving wolves. Matthew 7:15 Take heed that no man deceive you."

During Newton's undergraduate career the new philosophy was not in the curriculum, but it was aloft. Newton discovered the works of the French natural philosopher René Descartes and the other mechanical philosophers, who, in contrast to Aristotle, viewed physical reality as composed entirely of particles of matter in motion and who held that all the phenomena of nature result from their mechanical interaction. A new set of notes, which he entitled Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae (Certain Philosophical Questions), begun sometime in 1664, usurped the unused pages of a notebook intended for traditional scholastic exercises; under the title he entered the slogan "Amicus Plato amicus Aristoteles magis amica veritas" ("Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth").

At that time, the college's teachings were based on those of Aristotle, but Newton preferred to read the more advanced ideas of modern philosophers such as Descartes and astronomers such as Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler. Newton picked up the concept of a mathematical science of motion from Galileo Galilei.

Newton believed that the ancient mysteries contained true revelations and divine secrets, but that they had largely been corrupted over time by the editors of the Torah and the Holy Bible. "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my LIE unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7) It is obvious that Newton was an enthusiastic embracer of heresy. He denied the existence of the Trinity, the divine nature of Jesus, and the veracity of the New Testament. He also avidly studied and wrote about Gnosticism. There was another Gnostic-oriented, Cathar-like group in whom Newton, along with his friend Fatio de Duillier, held considerable interest: the Camisards, also known as the Prophets of Cevennes, a group that arose out of the same areas of Southern France as the Cathars, and just like their predecessors had been driven out by the Christians with military force, escaping into Geneva and London in the early part of the eighteenth century. They too hated the Church and denied the divinity of Jesus.

Isaac Newton's life was interesting, and so was his death. It was discovered after his death that large portions of his private papers were missing. And in an eerie parallel to the death of Berenger Sauniere, who was refused Last Rites, Newton specifically requested that he not receive Last Rites.

Commandments are still seemingly useless even if it brings comfort (or do they?). Whether we follow rules or not, we live we die in a life that's like a lie. That goes the same for those whom you pass these "rules" to. Life is such an absurdity isn't it?

Henry David Thoreau (July 12, 1817 - 1862) was an American essayist, poet, and naturalist. Among his lasting contributions were his writings on natural history and philosophy. Henry David Thoreau said "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." In 1845, writer and naturalist Henry David Thoreau moved to Walden Pond in Massachusetts. In the two years and two months that he was there he wrote Walden, his most important work, a chronicle of his communion with nature. The message of Walden is living simply, deliberately, in harmony with the natural world around us. In a well-known passage, Thoreau stated his purpose: "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation." (But my favorite quote of his is.) "Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something." Henry David Thoreau

Nobody man said, "Commandments are still seemingly useless even if it brings comfort (or do they?). Whether we follow rules or not, we live we die in a life that's like a lie. That goes the same for those whom you pass these "rules" to. Life is such an absurdity isn't it?" Even if I were to correct all of your grammatical errors, your post would still make no sense. I think "life is like a lie" when you choose to believe something without evidence. I think it is "absurd" to disregard common sense and facts when they contradict your "faith." Also, if "commandments" were so conducive to maintaining morality and social order, you wouldn't have had all of these religious holy wars that have been ravaging the world-all of which were inspired by "faith."

Whay should I even listen to this? I'm going to die anyway.

Anyone who believes in an (omnipotent God, who creates defective Humans, and then blames them for his mistakes) is not going to be swayed by a rational argument they've already abandoned logic.

This your shortest post I've seen yet.

But W.E.

There are other atheists on this message board who write as long or longer posts, and you don't complain about them. Are you afraid to go after them? Or did we infuriate you? It's much easier to read the lengthy incoherent drivel of fanatics with no literacy skills. They don't write too much! In fact I can read their crap in a hot minute, because it takes longer to read something of substance. What really puts their nose out of joint is pointing out all the chinks in their pious ravings. People who use their OWN brain for thinking so little of the time don't read all that much anyway. Almost anything that is worth knowing does not agree with the bible.

There are other atheists on this message board who write as long or longer posts, and you don't complain about them. Are you afraid to go after them? ------------- No. Not at all. And besides I'm not complaining about the length fo your posts, I'm just telling that it's the shortest one I've seen from you.


Or did we infuriate you? ------------- No. Just admiring your superior reasonsing skills. But sorry I'm way too biased to listen to them. And the reasons behind that...well you know them more than I do.


Almost anything that is worth knowing does not agree with the bible. ------------- Is this a claim?

No! It's a fact!

So If I say likewise, my statement will be a claim.

There will always people who are more interested in the next life than they are in the real life. It's easier to flee from reality than it is to work to change it.

This reality you're saying is much easier than you think it is compared to what I believe.

Oh yeah! If you claim to believe by faith that the accounts of Genesis are factual. It would be damn near impossible to believe. It has been established that they are false by both Christian and Atheist scientists. How did these lies set anyone free? If can't pass the smell test accept on faith.

[Genesis accounts] established false by scientists... =====================================================

Don't you also mean "claimed" instead of "established"?

Quote: - "Don't you also mean "claimed" instead of "established"?

No I mean it's a farken fact!!! The Christian religion first came into direct conflict with science when Copernicus (1473-1543) proposed the heliocentric view of the Universe. According to this view, the Earth revolves about the Sun, and not vice versa.

Both the ancient Hebrews and the Medieval theologians, however, had always believed in a stationary Earth and a moving Sun. Joshua 10:12-13 recounts Joshua as commanding the Sun to stand still in Gibeon, and that "the Sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day." He did not tell the earth to stand still, because whoever wrote this didn't know it was turning.

The Genesis version of the birth of the Sun: On the Fourth Day the sun was created, after the Creation of the plants. We all know that plants depend upon sunlight and hence the process called photosynthesis for the sustenance of life. How then could life be possible for them if they were created before and not after the Sun, as Genesis has it?

Geologists discovered that our planet was infinitely older than the four thousand to six thousand years deduced from the Book of Genesis. Shortly thereafter, Charles Darwin proposed his Theory of Evolution and suggested that the various species then dwelling on the Globe actually evolved from a common ancestor.

The earth is, and the universe is possibly fifteen billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion years before the earth, but according to the biblical description of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created at the same time. As a matter of fact, according to the Bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning, whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day.

The Bible is very uncertain about seeing or not see god: John 1:18 and (John 6:46) No one has ever seen God; But Exodus 24:9-11: Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. Well did anyone see god are not - too many discrepancy! If you can't read and answer every issue forget about it!!!!

Nowhere man - He's as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see..….

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup