Please define "religion" and "religious"

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Please define "religion" and "religious"

A post in Hamby's blog got me to thinking since most atheists here want to erdicate, yet I haven't really seen a consistent definition of what it means for something to be a "religion" or a person to be "religious"

 

I'll just repost part of the comment I'm talking about here

 

Alison wrote:

 

Under many of the definitions of religion from anti-religious atheists I see, religion will still be here even if everybody was atheist. Since religion by definition entails God belief, then this just doesn’t pan out.

i.e some will persist that Marxism/Nationalism/911 conspiracies/ etc…. are religious

Do you see how if you say “Religion is a scourge upon the Earth” different people will think different things? They may think “Yeah X Y Z is religious and a scourge upon the Earth” while you may or may not think X Y Z could fit into YOUR definition of religious. Take the three examples I listed above.

You see? So now you think Q W T are religious, Kevin thinks L T N are religious, Joe the anti-religious atheist thinks A B T are religious etc…..

You are bound to overlap somewhere, but you could still be talking about totally different things.

 

 

 

So tell me, is there a consensus of the definition of "religion" and "religious"  at least here?

 

 

 

For example:

 

Was Martin Luther King religious? Malcom X? Adolf Hitler? Stalin?

 

Is Buddhism a religion? Marxism? 911 conspiracies? New age crystal healing?

 

 

Of course, you don't have to answer all of them, but the point is some will consider some or all of those above religious

 

and some will consider all or some of the list religions.

 

 

But the main issue I do want answered is

 

What makes you say people are either religious or non-religious? If you thought some of the people were religious why? If you didn't why not?

 

Same with the religion part, what makes it a religion?

 

 

It just seems to me that there is no clear consensus on what exactly people want to eliminate.

 

 

 

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Just from the dictionary, a

Just from the dictionary, a religion is a set or body of rituals and beliefs which usually center around a core belief in a supernatural deity. Personally, I think the whole "eradicate religion" cry is somewhat misleading. What people here are really aiming for is to create a culture where propositions are subject to the strictest tests of rational inquiry, and that no propositions or bodies of beliefs and doctrines are exempt. The reason that they go after religion in pursuit of this is because it is the most obvious and most powerful example of a group of institutions which fit the definition above, and which enjoy this very exemption. Oftentimes today people use the word "religion" as an insult, sometimes in the completely wrong context to say things that are patently absurd such as that "science/logic is "your religion"" . Under this very loose and useless definition, they would be referring to "religion" as really any set of principles and then attempting to use that very vague pretense to put on equal epistemological footing real scientific inquiry and vapid "spiritual" nonsense. But back to the point. Religion, as defined above, is merely a subset of a larger problem, that larger problem being institutionalized absurdity protected from rational criticism. I'm sure everyone would agree. There are several means by which an institution could accomplish this. It could, for example, crack down and kill dissenters, as a totalitarian state. Religion has employed this technique in the past. In the Islamic world, it still does. Vastly more insidious, though, is to create a culture where people are derided for not clinging to vague, ultimately meaningless notions of supposed "higher powers" and "spirituality" and encouraging a state where the most absurd, meaningless and unjustified propositions are put on equal epistemological footing with real ones gleaned through real methods, such as rigorous scientific investigation.

The real problem, then, which most people here seek to "eradicate" (myself among them) is not religion per se. Religion is just an obvious, lumbering target. An insidious example of a larger and more dangerous opponent, namely anti-intellectualism. This expanded criteria of what we then seek to eradicate would thus include everything you mentioned. Actually, I have a post on this that may interest you. I'll see if I can find it. Here it is:

Quote:

I've never discussed this with anyone before, but ironically, it was partially the study of precisely these dictatorships that pushed me to active atheism, and to science as a profession. The fact that it was the study of history that led me to this may seem odd, but let me try to articulate. I first studied modern history in detail at the ages of 15 and 16 and then in more detail at 17. My study focused entirely on the single party states of the 20th century: the USSR, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, China, Japan, Iran and Italy. In the course of my studies, the common link between them that interested me was not atheism (certainly not in the case of Iran or Japan) but anti-intellectualism. Even today, it chills my blood to think about the collective insanity of the Red Guards during the cultural revolution, or the savage and deliberate murder of anyone even remotely suspected of being educated at all in Cambodia. Not all the dictatorships of the 20th century were atheist. Some, like that of the Taliban and that of the Iranian theocracy, are quite the opposite. But if you want something to link the many single party states of the 20th century, look no further than anti-intellectualism. During the course of my study of these dictatorships at 15-17, I was so horrified by the countless examples of collective insanity that gripped people under the barrage of absurd propaganda and groupthink. From the book burnings of Nazi Germany to the denouncement of professional education as bourgeois by the lunatic Red Guards, the deliberate and calculated assault on learning, rationality and thinking in the case studies I encountered made me sick. I swore to myself that I would do everything in my power to inoculate myself against the mass psychology, and to firmly commit myself to the principles of intellectualism and learning. Because I was simultaneously discovering a talent for science and mathematics, the course I embarked on was natural. I had always been atheist, but the study of modern history was a key factor in pushing me toward active dislike and then disgust with religion since it is grounded on the very same corrosive nonsense discussed above.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
http://dictionary.reference.c

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Quote:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

There's too many definitions for religion now, but in this context, I think of it as an organized belief based on conformity or dogma. Of course, there's no clear line as to when these conditions are met, so it's still difficult to distinguish what is religion and what isn't. Thus, for many of your questions, my answer is simply, I don't know.

Aside from that, I completely agree with DG.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I think there are a couple

 I think there are a couple of very legitimate and worthwhile ways to use the words "Religious" and "Religion."  In the broadest sense in which I use the word, it means, "The practice of theism or the practice of a belief in a supernatural or otherwise non-scientific view of the universe."  By this definition, a religion need not be organized -- a person can invent their own woo-woo and be the only practitioner in the world, and they're still practicing religion.  Also, it includes non-thiest practices, such as Buddhism.  I separate theism and religion.  That is, one can be a theist and not practice a religion.  I'd say you fall into this category because you apparently don't have any actual practices directed at your fuzzy god who doesn't actually do anything anyway.  (I still suspect you are suffering from some residual Christian morality, but that's not from the practice of religion so much as exposure to the culture that does.)

Of course, "religion" can also refer to the codification of the practice.  So the Catholic documents of Vatican Law are the religion, and the congregations are also the religion.  So, I can say, "The Catholic religion is causing this or that," and I can mean either that the laws doctrines themselves are the cause, or the people practicing the laws.

Typically, when someone is described as "religious," it means they practice a religion as defined above.  However, I think there is a legitimate use of the word to mean, "adhering to a principle with unrealistic zeal or blind faith."  We can say that someone religiously waters their garden, and we might be talking about the fact that they water their garden even after a heavy rain.  For obvious reasons, I am not a fan of using the word "religiously" to mean, "with constance."  Even so, it's a common usage.  We can say that Bob religiously works the NY Times Crossword every Sunday.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Deluded, I agree that

Deluded, I agree that irrational thought is what should be fought against, but I was talking specifically about what can be determine to be religions or who can be considered religious. While I think your definition is a good one to determine that, I wonder if other people would use that definition.

 

 

 

 

butterbattle wrote:

There's too many definitions for religion now, but in this context, I think of it as an organized belief based on conformity or dogma. Of course, there's no clear line as to when these conditions are met, so it's still difficult to distinguish what is religion and what isn't. Thus, for many of your questions, my answer is simply, I don't know.

Aside from that, I completely agree with DG.

 

 

Like this. I mean buying $300 jeans because you think they're cool is based on conformity. Everybody conforms one way or another.


 

 

Hamby wrote:

 

(I still suspect you are suffering from some residual Christian morality, but that's not from the practice of religion so much as exposure to the culture that does.)

 

 

Another pet peeve of mine.

 

 

Hamby wrote:

 However, I think there is a legitimate use of the word to mean, "adhering to a principle with unrealistic zeal or blind faith." 

 

 

Wouldn't this mean an atheist can be religious?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Wouldn't this mean

 

Quote:
Wouldn't this mean an atheist can be religious?

Yes.

Haven't you read my stuff enough to know that I'm an atheist as a consequence of my worldview.  Atheism is not the foundation of my worldview.  As you can tell from my discussions with people like EXC and Luminon, I'm opposed to a number of atheists for various lapses in critical thinking.

But yeah... I'd say that a lot of Buddhists are atheists, and also religious.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Wouldn't this mean an atheist can be religious?

Yes.

Haven't you read my stuff enough to know that I'm an atheist as a consequence of my worldview.  Atheism is not the foundation of my worldview.  As you can tell from my discussions with people like EXC and Luminon, I'm opposed to a number of atheists for various lapses in critical thinking.

 

 

 

Do you think either of them are religious? I can see Luminon, but EXC? From what I can tell, he seems to be a adhering Capatilsm.

 

 

 

Which I think opens up another kettle of worms in terms of calling political ideologies "religions"

 

For example, if somebody dogmatically adheres to Marxism say and you say their Marxism is their religon, then are ALL Marxists religious regardless of their adherene to it? I mean I think we have some Marxists on the forums. [ibeik I think if I spelt his name correctly.]

 Christianity is a religion regardless of how much the person adheres to it. But something like Marxism or Nationalism, can be taken to extreme levels, doesn't mean that all people who are Marxist or Nationist are "religious" under your very definition! They don't adhere to it like in the definition but some do.

 

That to me creates a problem and is inconsitant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I don't know that I'd call

 I don't know that I'd call either of them religious.  That wasn't my point.  I meant to say that I do not advocate atheism.  I advocate good critical thinking, which is something neither of them are very good at.  In the case of Luminon, bad thinking manifests in a kind of ultra-gullibility.  He'll believe anything as long as it sounds woo-woo enough.  In EXC, I see a kind of dogmatic thinking similar to a lot of religious people:  "X is true.  Therefore, any evidence against X is false, or based on a political agenda, or both."

To put my main point more clearly, I don't really contrast atheism with religiosity.  As I said, some theists are not particularly religious, and some don't belong to a religion.  Atheism can only be contrasted against theism, for that is the only place where it has any relevance.

Quote:
Which I think opens up another kettle of worms in terms of calling political ideologies "religions"

Like I said, I don't particularly mind if someone calls a political ideology a religion, but I would object if they were talking about a political system that at least tried to be rooted in the scientific method.  In other words, if a particular political ideology has the characteristics I've described as belonging to a religion -- blind faith in the system, or a leader, or a rigid adherence to nonscientific dogma -- I think it is at least very religion-like, and the comparison isn't so bad.  I would say that some, but not all political ideologies could be called religious, at the very least.  If someone tries to muddy the water by convoluting non-religion-like politics and religion, you just have to be very clear about what is and what is not religious.

Quote:
For example, if somebody dogmatically adheres to Marxism say and you say their Marxism is their religon, then are ALL Marxists religious regardless of their adherene to it? I mean I think we have some Marxists on the forums. [ibeik I think if I spelt his name correctly.]

It's a valid point.  I would certainly hesitate to call all Marxists religious.  But then again, technically speaking, all Catholics are not religious.  Though they belong to the Catholic Religion, some do not practice a significant enough part of the Catholic Religion to be called religious.  They probably are theists... just not very religious theists.  So, perhaps if Marxism is a religion-like ideology, not all of its adherents are particularly religious-like.  (How does one practice Marxism in America?)

Quote:
 Christianity is a religion regardless of how much the person adheres to it. But something like Marxism or Nationalism, can be taken to extreme levels, doesn't mean that all people who are Marxist or Nationist are "religious" under your very definition! They don't adhere to it like in the definition but some do.

 

That's why we have different words.  One can be a part of a religion but not religious.  One can be atheist and religious.  One can be theist and non-religious.

Quote:
That to me creates a problem and is inconsitant.

I don't see why.  Just draw out some truth tables and you'll understand.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
How then can a Theist not be

How then can a Theist not be religious under your definition? They still believe in God and you say belief in God is blind faith.

 

Anyway

 

I think it's affirming the consequent

 

q is a religion -> q is adhering to a principle with unrealistic zeal or blind faith.

q is adhering to a principle with unrealistic zeal or blind faith.

q is a religion.

 

 

You would have to reverse it

 

q is adhering to a principle with unrealistic zeal or blind faith. -> q is a religion

 

but that's merely re-defining religion [which is principally seen as related to a belief in God/supernatural]

 

 

I have yet to see a reason how a religion can't include a God or the supernatural.


I mean you said that some Catholics aren't religious! ALL Catholics are religious.

 

So exactly how much of the dogma do they have to accept, and which dogmas?

 

You can't be part of a religion and not be religious in some form or another. I'm sorry, that's a condratiction.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:How then can a

 

Quote:
How then can a Theist not be religious under your definition? They still believe in God and you say belief in God is blind faith.

Hi.  I'm a theist.  I believe there is a god, and he never fucks with earth, and doesn't ask a damn thing of me.  I do not go to church, and I don't follow any "God rules" because god didn't make any rules for me to follow.  For all intents and purposes, we're on our own.

Quote:
q is a religion -> q is adhering to a principle with unrealistic zeal or blind faith.

q is adhering to a principle with unrealistic zeal or blind faith.

q is a religion.

I see where you're getting confused now.  Religion can have two uses, and you're using the wrong one.  "Joe practices religion" means that Joe adheres to principles within his religion.  "Joe is a non-practicing Catholic" means that Joe identifies as part of the Catholic religion, but doesn't engage in the practice of Catholicism."  He probably does believe in God, but doesn't bother with all the other stuff, feeling like God will cut him a break, or let him into heaven because he's good to his mother, or whatever.

Quote:
You can't be part of a religion and not be religious in some form or another. I'm sorry, that's a condratiction.

Look, if you want to use religion that way, fine.  Most people don't use it that way.  Just define your terms carefully whenever you opine about religion, and everything will be fine.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 But what about


 

But what about "Secular"?  Since political stances are secular [ie don't invoke God] how could they be Secular and religious at the same time? Or are you re-defining Secular too?

 

 

 

Also

 

Quote:

(I still suspect you are suffering from some residual Christian morality, but that's not from the practice of religion so much as exposure to the culture that does.)

 

 

What do you mean by this?

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
I believe he means that

I believe he means that you're suffering negative influence from a current sociological zeitgeist that sees traditional 'Christian' values as the height of moral excellence.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I believe he means that you're suffering negative influence from a current sociological zeitgeist that sees traditional 'Christian' values as the height of moral excellence.

 

Well since he knows virtually nothing about my upbringing or personal life that's rather a stretch isn't it?

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Uh, not really, seeing as he

Uh, not really, seeing as he knows that you lived/grew-up in Canada, and Canada has said zeitgeist.

 

You'll have to take it up with him, though. Personally, I just think you're one of those fat & ugly chicks that hates all of the rest of the Earth for being beautiful.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Personally, I just think you're one of those fat & ugly chicks that hates all of the rest of the Earth for being beautiful.

 

Nope, insert quarter and try again.  I'm 5'3 and about 115-120 pounds. Depending on how much junk food I've had.

 

But then again, you wouldn't know what an actual woman looks like eh?


 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I know about your beliefs

 I know about your beliefs on dating, sex, abortion, drinking, drugs, and lots of other moral issues.  Since you've never given me compelling reasons for these beliefs, and you seem to get stumped when forced into rationally defending your beliefs... well... 

I'm not a big fan of the word secular, and try to avoid using it.  It seems like a lot of times, it's offered as an "alternative" to religion, as if religion is the default.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Personally, I just

Quote:

Personally, I just think you're one of those fat & ugly chicks that hates all of the rest of the Earth for being beautiful.

Quote:

But then again, you wouldn't know what an actual woman looks like eh?

Christ, what is it with you two? Can't you just shut the fuck up and play nice for once?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I'm not a

Hambydammit wrote:

I'm not a big fan of the word secular, and try to avoid using it.  It seems like a lot of times, it's offered as an "alternative" to religion, as if religion is the default.

 

 

 

 

It's not an alternative so much as the opposite.  Something is either secular or religious. If it's not secular, then it's religious.

 

 

I still think you're merely generalizing everything that has alleged similarities to religion as a religion without considering a third factor.

 

 

 

 

 

 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Kevin R

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Personally, I just think you're one of those fat & ugly chicks that hates all of the rest of the Earth for being beautiful.

Nope, insert quarter and try again.  I'm 5'3 and about 115-120 pounds. Depending on how much junk food I've had.

But then again, you wouldn't know what an actual woman looks like eh?

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I'm

Hambydammit wrote:
I'm not a big fan of the word secular, and try to avoid using it. It seems like a lot of times, it's offered as an "alternative" to religion, as if religion is the default.

 

+1

 

The real question that we are dancing around in if it is possible to be an atheist and religious at the same time. The answer to that question is YES. If you believe that there is no god, then you are a member of the secular religion.

 

OK, that is actually bad logic. Even so, it is a charge that the bible thumpers lodge against us constantly. We are “Darwinists” and we have set an agenda of “scientism”.

 

Well, I don't even know what those terms mean apart from setting us up as parallel to the bible thumpers. Let me run with that one for a moment. If we are the same as them and we are unreasonable then so are they. They are offering yet another unreasonable claim that cannot be supported by any facts. Our challenge to them is identical to their challenge to us.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Several bullet points:* To

 Several bullet points:

* To say that atheists can be religious is not to say that all atheists are religious.  Many buddhists are atheists and religious.  Atheists who don't adhere to a religion (see my definition above) are not religious.

* While secular may indeed be the opposite of religious, it has connotations in ordinary speech that I don't like.  That is why I don't call myself secular.  Plus, there's that whole "secular humanism" thing, which... almost smells like religion to me...

* Kevin and Alison need to get a room and get it over with.  Shouldn't take long.  Renting by the hour would be overkill.

That is all.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:* Kevin

Hambydammit wrote:

* Kevin and Alison need to get a room and get it over with.  Shouldn't take long.  Renting by the hour would be overkill.

 

I wonder how big Kevin is?

 

I'm reasonablly sure that he'll just close his eyes and flail his arms around while running towards me or start biting and pulling hair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Awww.I smell love in the air!

Awww.

I smell love in the air!