Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence

[Bella-Angelique]

The common debate concerning the needs for or against spirituality and religion is often between an atheist and religious fundamentalist. Very seldom are the actual beliefs of an agnostic presented. I think this video is an excellent presentation of an agnostic's beliefs. I did not pick out the title of the subject. The title is that of the video itself.

I submit this video not as a confrontation to atheists or to religious fundamentalists, but as what I consider an excellent view on the thought process of many agnostics.

 

[XenoFish]

As an apatheist I don't know and don't care. The only thing that bothers me about religion and religious beliefs is using it to abuse others. Interesting video though.

[eight bits]

Bella

It's been a while. Welcome back.

Quote

Very seldom are the actual beliefs of an agnostic presented.

Is the video maker an agnostic?

The only self descripiton he provides is "agnostic theist," and he does not define how he's using the phrase. Other people I've run into who use phrases like that mean, "I do (or don't) believe God exists, but I don't know that."

The second clause is, speaking of vacuity, vacuous. Nobody knows; belief is the strongest confidence there can possibly really be. If that is what he meant, then he's a theist. Nothing more need be said. But he's not an agnostic in any sense that's unavailable to an atheist (or indeed, differerent from what everybody on this rock is: not knowing).

Also, he seems to have some issue with Islam. What's wrong with atheists seems to be that their growing popularity in the West will somehow result in the triumph of ... something to do with Islam. Is that where we're going?

Finally, and this is probably just me. His accent sounds like something machine-generated. I mightn't have remarked on that except for the cyclon reference in your user title line .

All the same, it is an interesting video, thank you for posting it.

[freetoroam]

2 hours ago, Bella-Angelique said:

Very seldom are the actual beliefs of an agnostic presented.

Well as a non believer in religion... i have no actual beliefs to put forward.

as a non believer i do not say the bible is bs,  (said in video)  i have read worse books, i say the bible is a pretty good read in parts...its the people who allow a novel, be it bible or quoran etc, to control their lives and thoughts which is a touch disturbing.

I chose to follow my own mind and not what a book or preachers tell me...and i do not like when people think they know what non believers think...not believing does not mean not understanding why some chose religion, it does not mean i am anti religion, it means i do not worship  a god or the stories which go with it.

and did he just waste most of that cigarette in the video?

 

[Bella-Angelique]

Just now, XenoFish said:

As an apatheist I don't know and don't care. The only thing that bothers me about religion and religious beliefs is using it to abuse others. Interesting video though.

I understand what you mean. Treating people badly because of what they believe about spirituality is no different really than treating them badly because of their taste in literature or music. It is culturally a part of who they are and they are that way most likely, not always but often, for a cultural reason. 

[Bella-Angelique]

Just now, eight bits said:

Bella

Also, he seems to have some issue with Islam.

If you look at it as long term cultural traditions of west and east it is easy to get what he implies. It is basically one culture displacing another and historically all the breakdown and chaos that has historically happened when that takes place. Change it in your mind to a foreign culture replaces native beliefs in areas colonized in history. If a strong spiritual cultural foundation of the natives stays in place, such as when China was was dominated by the west or Korea was taken over by Japan, the culture remains intact and the people and civilization remain strong, where as other native structures in other lands were decimated by a more aggressive or more populous culture that flooded into them.

So with Islam he is saying the culture that produced it will replace an area it enters where there is a cultural spiritual vacuum and will erase most all of the former native culture, that a blending and mixing will not take place. The part of the video about Japan helps with comprehending having a cultural spiritual vacuum or not having one and its affects to retain the basic cultural foundations of a people.

[Bella-Angelique]

Just now, freetoroam said:

 i do not like when people think they know what non believers think...not believing does not mean not understanding why some chose religion, it does not mean i am anti religion, it means i do not worship  a god or the stories which go with it.

 

That is not the point of the video. The point of the video is that spiritual traditions are like cords that tie a culture together and that when the cords are cut and abandoned there is an effect on the culture and civilization that does it. If you go back and just view the section on Japan you get an excellent sample of that perspective.  

[The Butler]

The video is a great example of vacuous grandiloquence, that doesn't even deliver on the promise implied in the title. 

Agnostic Theism makes about as much sense as carnivorous veganism.

[Bella-Angelique]

Just now, The Butler said:

Agnostic Theism makes about as much sense as carnivorous veganism.

Yet it exists and works excellently for Japan. It has preserved their culture. 

[Kismit]

I quite enjoyed the video, I identify as Agnostic myself. Although  there were a couple of issues that didn't sit well with me. The first issue being, were the creator of the video implied that if you arn't for Christianity you are for Islam.

I am not for either, I can agree with some of the teachings of Budha but that's as close as I get to believing religion is a good thing.

However religous ideals of community and tradition are undeniably good for us. Being part of a religion or a church is not a necessary part of that. These ideals can be achieved within family, friends and neighborhoods without the use of religion. Regular coffee catch ups, street b.b.q's, family Christmas/Birthday/Bar mitz vah, traditions.

It is tradition which keeps communities together not Christian basics and moral definition.

Edited to add... any community gathering for example an internet forum has health benefits similar to religion.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Kismit

[Rlyeh]

It sounds like the Atheism he's describing is Atheistic Naturalism. However the uploader is really pushing religion as a crutch.

[freetoroam]

2 hours ago, Bella-Angelique said:

That is not the point of the video. The point of the video is that spiritual traditions are like cords that tie a culture together and that when the cords are cut and abandoned there is an effect on the culture and civilization that does it. If you go back and just view the section on Japan you get an excellent sample of that perspective.  

I saw all that and that is not something which was not known before. Within  society  something ties people together, be it religion, non religion, spiritual traditions, music, football, fashion, etc. 

Exactly what Kismit has put.

1 hour ago, Kismit said:

These ideals can be achieved within family, friends and neighborhoods without the use of religion. Regular coffee catch ups, street b.b.q's, family Christmas/Birthday/Bar mitz vah, traditions.

It is tradition which keeps communities together not Christian basics and moral definition

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by freetoroam

[The Butler]

2 hours ago, Bella-Angelique said:

Yet it exists and works excellently for Japan. It has preserved their culture. 

Could you explain how?  

[eight bits]

Bella

Quote

So with Islam he is saying the culture that produced it will replace an area it enters where there is a cultural spiritual vacuum and will erase most all of the former native culture, that a blending and mixing will not take place.

Well, he doesn't say that in the video, or at least not so I could figure it out, and so thank you for the heads up.

If we're talking about conquest, then the actual history of conquest is mixed. Conquerors have been known to adopt the culture of the vanquished (Romans from the Greeks), or have simply enacted genocide (a recent-modern concept, but an old strategy, the Jewish Bible has many such stories, both ways). And everything in between.

For example, blending and mixing. Our beloved English language has become what it is by centuries of wholesale borrowings from cultures that were rolled over by English speakers. English itself was born when a kind-of-German speakers turned on their Celtic-Roman clients, and reborn after Norsemen who had picked up a veneer of French culture wolloped the proto-English speakers.

But are we talking about conquest of the West? I don't think the West is bullet-proof or immortal, but...

You're an American. Check out the endgame of the "Cold War" late in the last century. The West was "in decline" and on its deathbed in the face of the vibrant, ideologically coherent Soviet Union and (ironically enough) a newly Islamist Iran. If we were lucky, then our conquerors might allow us to negotiate the terms for our surrender.

That crap ended in one night during the 1980 Winter Olympics. The United States had withdrawn from the Summer Olympics, because that was all the resistance the enfeebled giant could muster to the Soviet Union's advance into Afghanistan. But because we were the hosts, we couldn't withdraw from the Winter Games.

The United States hockey team beat a slew of better teams to play in the championship game against the Soviet Union, by far the best "amateur" team in the world. The night was electric. Just about everybody watched on TV or listened on radio, hoping that the US team would at least put up a good fight and lose with dignity.

We won that night. A bunch of secular kids mopped the ice with the Big Bad Bears. That was about the last anybody in the USA heard of the Decline of the West, or the End of the American Century. The Soviet Union went downhill fast, and ceased to exist within a dozen years.

This is not magic, and it isn't even "Western." When we pull together we are strong. And there are times when we need to pull together.

It is a strength of the West that while it always has enemies, it isn't always on Defcon 2. So yes, you can stage a demonstration on any Western street to promote anything, including anti-Western ideas like that it would be best if women were neither seen nor heard, or that food animals be killed in a way that gurantees that they suffer agony. But so far, the West has come together when it has needed to, and when it has come together, it has prevailed. So far.

God and Jesus are welcome to help out, but devotion to them is peripheral to the energized coherence which gets results. It was the German soldiers in WW II whose beltbuckles read "God is with us." Fat lot of good that did them.

What "spiritual vacuum" anyway? And if there were some vacuum, how is it "spiritual" to hunker down in the Seventh Century, degrade women, mutilate criminals, crucify corpses and torture animals?

[XenoFish]

6 hours ago, Bella-Angelique said:

I understand what you mean. Treating people badly because of what they believe about spirituality is no different really than treating them badly because of their taste in literature or music. It is culturally a part of who they are and they are that way most likely, not always but often, for a cultural reason. 

I think you misunderstand. I see religion as a stumbling block. It separates people and it can also be a tool for religiously motivated horrors. I believe in morality, you don't need an imaginary father figure to go with it.

[+Sherapy]

"Only an irrational person would advocate for the abandonment of the essential functions of religion and the unique characteristics of our species spiritual nature" (1:46). I would say the narrator is arriving at the place in his own " spiritual journey" that he can incorporate what he thinks is essential of religion and apply it in a way ( for him)  that is respectful, and positive about the role  he thinks religion has played in building western culture. He concludes (that for himself) it is irrational to leave religion behind. iI don't have issue with this point of view, in fact, lots of people conclude like this, including those that prefer to stay with the elements of religion, and they manage to. do so and get along and appreciate Atheists. Where I find my eyebrow raise about his view is-- that there is something wrong in the Atheist journey " offering nothing" in the way of a replacement, for which he argues are the essential elements of religion (which are family, social bonding, sense of community etc.etc.).  I'd suggest (for some) atheists this is their point they prefer to go without religious influences, lots of athiests prefer to be introspectively alone ( god free)  andl love it and function just fine. IMO, the narrator sees  a need to fuse his need for theism ( as eighty, I heard nothing about agnosticism) with Atheism because he finds it "offers nothing " for him. Here in lies his own struggle and he answers it with the Japanese example which is a good pull. I'd add that his idea of making a YouTube video and putting it up for discourse is an excellent start, as it will open a dialogue and shed light on the many expressions of the atheistic point  of view,  I personally know Athiests who have managed to find a way to find value in their lives without spirituality, god, formal rituals, etc. etc.. Great thread and interesting video. 

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sherapy

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Am I understanding the point of the OP and the video correctly? That religious environments are positive, because it gives warm, nurturing, and inviting situations to people in a community? And that Atheism is seen as some empty and non-thinking cold singularity? That sounds so simple, but I don't think realistically it is that simple. When a society, a culture, and groups of people who are individual, unique, and varying in points of views and experiences, I don't think you can say how some will definitely thrive in group thinking situations and how some will thrive without it in a sole existence. 

Quote

Bella: 

I understand what you mean. Treating people badly because of what they believe about spirituality is no different really than treating them badly because of their taste in literature or music. It is culturally a part of who they are and they are that way most likely, not always but often, for a cultural reason. 

Are we excusing that type of behavior? Yes, we all have various positives and negatives behaviors ( and the motives behind them ) but I would think that the negative behaviors ( and their reasoning behind it ) should be discouraged. I kind of see in my own way what Xeno is saying. I think he's saying it shouldn't be excused. 

I hope, though, you don't think I'm implying that you are, mostly so when the subject is when some zealots use their belief to hurt others, but I think we need to see how we can tell the difference in what humanity is capable of and what should be something that should be discouraged. 

Quote

If you look at it as long term cultural traditions of west and east it is easy to get what he implies. It is basically one culture displacing another and historically all the breakdown and chaos that has historically happened when that takes place. Change it in your mind to a foreign culture replaces native beliefs in areas colonized in history. If a strong spiritual cultural foundation of the natives stays in place, such as when China was was dominated by the west or Korea was taken over by Japan, the culture remains intact and the people and civilization remain strong, where as other native structures in other lands were decimated by a more aggressive or more populous culture that flooded into them.

So with Islam he is saying the culture that produced it will replace an area it enters where there is a cultural spiritual vacuum and will erase most all of the former native culture, that a blending and mixing will not take place. The part of the video about Japan helps with comprehending having a cultural spiritual vacuum or not having one and its affects to retain the basic cultural foundations of a people.

I might be understanding this incorrectly, but if Atheism is implied as a horrible nothingness, I would think that Atheists can come back and say how they are more intuned with logic and knowledge. I really don't think anyone can say how something else is just as wrong, when the rightness of anything can just be as much produced. 

Quote

kismit: 

However religous ideals of community and tradition are undeniably good for us. Being part of a religion or a church is not a necessary part of that. These ideals can be achieved within family, friends and neighborhoods without the use of religion. Regular coffee catch ups, street b.b.q's, family Christmas/Birthday/Bar mitz vah, traditions.

Book clubs and groups. Role playing live games. Fan based groups in a convention like or gathering style. 

The S.C.A.    

And I would also think it would be different for extraverts and intraverts as well. 

Frankly, considering it's centering on the Agnostic outlook, I think it's just that. Still not sure. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

45 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

"Only an irrational person would advocate for the abandonment of the essential functions of religion and the unique characteristics of our species spiritual nature" (1:46). I would say the narrator is arriving at the place in his own " spiritual journey" that he can incorporate what he thinks is essential of religion and apply it in a way ( for him)  that is respectful, and positive about the role  he thinks religion has played in building western culture. He concludes (that for himself) it is irrational to leave religion behind. iI don't have issue with this point of view, in fact, lots of people conclude like this, including those that prefer to stay with the elements of religion, and they manage to. do so and get along and appreciate Atheists. Where I find my eyebrow raise about his view is-- that there is something wrong in the Atheist journey " offering nothing" in the way of a replacement, for which he argues are the essential elements of religion (which are family, social bonding, sense of community etc.etc.).  I'd suggest (for some) atheists this is their point they prefer to go without religious influences, lots of athiests prefer to be introspectively alone ( god free)  andl love it and function just fine. IMO, the narrator sees  a need to fuse his need for theism ( as eighty, I heard nothing about agnosticism) with Atheism because he finds it "offers nothing " for him. Here in lies his own struggle and he answers it with the Japanese example which is a good pull. I'd add that his idea of making a YouTube video and putting it up for discourse is an excellent start, as it will open a dialogue and shed light on the many expressions of the atheistic point  of view,  I personally know Athiests who have managed to find a way to find value in their lives without spirituality, god, formal rituals, etc. etc.. Great thread and interesting video. 

 

Yeah, I caught that too, and I agree with you on this. 

[+Sherapy]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Bella

Well, he doesn't say that in the video, or at least not so I could figure it out, and so thank you for the heads up.

If we're talking about conquest, then the actual history of conquest is mixed. Conquerors have been known to adopt the culture of the vanquished (Romans from the Greeks), or have simply enacted genocide (a recent-modern concept, but an old strategy, the Jewish Bible has many such stories, both ways). And everything in between.

For example, blending and mixing. Our beloved English language has become what it is by centuries of wholesale borrowings from cultures that were rolled over by English speakers. English itself was born when a kind-of-German speakers turned on their Celtic-Roman clients, and reborn after Norsemen who had picked up a veneer of French culture wolloped the proto-English speakers.

But are we talking about conquest of the West? I don't think the West is bullet-proof or immortal, but...

You're an American. Check out the endgame of the "Cold War" late in the last century. The West was "in decline" and on its deathbed in the face of the vibrant, ideologically coherent Soviet Union and (ironically enough) a newly Islamist Iran. If we were lucky, then our conquerors might allow us to negotiate the terms for our surrender.

That crap ended in one night during the 1980 Winter Olympics. The United States had withdrawn from the Summer Olympics, because that was all the resistance the enfeebled giant could muster to the Soviet Union's advance into Afghanistan. But because we were the hosts, we couldn't withdraw from the Winter Games.

The United States hockey team beat a slew of better teams to play in the championship game against the Soviet Union, by far the best "amateur" team in the world. The night was electric. Just about everybody watched on TV or listened on radio, hoping that the US team would at least put up a good fight and lose with dignity.

We won that night. A bunch of secular kids mopped the ice with the Big Bad Bears. That was about the last anybody in the USA heard of the Decline of the West, or the End of the American Century. The Soviet Union went downhill fast, and ceased to exist within a dozen years.

This is not magic, and it isn't even "Western." When we pull together we are strong. And there are times when we need to pull together.

It is a strength of the West that while it always has enemies, it isn't always on Defcon 2. So yes, you can stage a demonstration on any Western street to promote anything, including anti-Western ideas like that it would be best if women were neither seen nor heard, or that food animals be killed in a way that gurantees that they suffer agony. But so far, the West has come together when it has needed to, and when it has come together, it has prevailed. So far.

God and Jesus are welcome to help out, but devotion to them is peripheral to the energized coherence which gets results. It was the German soldiers in WW II whose beltbuckles read "God is with us." Fat lot of good that did them.

What "spiritual vacuum" anyway? And if there were some vacuum, how is it "spiritual" to hunker down in the Seventh Century, degrade women, mutilate criminals, crucify corpses and torture animals?

Indeed Paul, the use of dissent  to encourage needed change is useful to unity and growth. Even if it is against unity it helps us as a whole see where our issues are and figure out ways to bridge them (not unlike Briebart in recent weeks). It is not inappropriate to use anger as a way to forge change. Anger unexpressed and left to fester turns to resentment and it is resentment that we are in danger of triggering the ugly side of anger which can turn violent and harmful. We have to have productive outlets for anger and we have plenty of examples in History as of late to show this. . Of course, this is my just my humble opinion, open to feedback and other perspectives. 

[+Sherapy]

48 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Am I understanding the point of the OP and the video correctly? That religious environments are positive, because it gives warm, nurturing, and inviting situations to people in a community? And that Atheism is seen as some empty and non-thinking cold singularity? That sounds so simple, but I don't think realistically it is that simple. When a society, a culture, and groups of people who are individual, unique, and varying in points of views and experiences, I don't think you can say how some will definitely thrive in group thinking situations and how some will thrive without it in a sole existence. 

Are we excusing that type of behavior? Yes, we all have various positives and negatives behaviors ( and the motives behind them ) but I would think that the negative behaviors ( and their reasoning behind it ) should be discouraged. I kind of see in my own way what Xeno is saying. I think he's saying it shouldn't be excused. 

I hope, though, you don't think I'm implying that you are, mostly so when the subject is when some zealots use their belief to hurt others, but I think we need to see how we can tell the difference in what humanity is capable of and what should be something that should be discouraged. 

I might be understanding this incorrectly, but if Atheism is implied as a horrible nothingness, I would think that Atheists can come back and say how they are more intuned with logic and knowledge. I really don't think anyone can say how something else is just as wrong, when the rightness of anything can just be as much produced. 

Book clubs and groups. Role playing live games. Fan based groups in a convention like or gathering style. 

The S.C.A.    

And I would also think it would be different for extraverts and intraverts as well. 

Frankly, considering it's centering on the Agnostic outlook, I think it's just that. Still not sure. 

Excellent post S., I did not pick up much of an agnostic view, which (for me) can be summed up in one word, neutral. Which for me is the attempt to be as open and objective as possible (allowing for ones humanness) in analyzing situations, and deciding  the best course of action. The narrrator was arguing for the positive tenets of religion as he sees it as the best course of action.  In order to grow, we benefit from "checks and balances" even when we disagree. For example: in the Helen experience, I was propelled into action by the negative events, had I had not have allowed myself to explore the many perspectives, ( wanting everything to be peaceful) then the outrageous things that happened-- I would have and did (at first) write things off , explained them away, or missed them entirely,  until I opened to "all" the information ( perspectives), then I was able do deal with the reality as it was, not as I wished it to be.. For me, X, Psyche, and Frank keep us on our toes, by contributing their perspective too. I would not want to tune that out, or demonize them as irrational, I would encourage looking at their views to refine ones perspective. 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sherapy

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Quote

Sheri: 

Excellent post S., I did not pick up much of an agnostic view, which (for me) can be summed up in one word, neutral. Which for me is the attempt to be as open and objective as possible (allowing for ones humanness) in analyzing situations, and deciding  the best course of action. The narrrator was arguing for the positive tenets of religion as he sees it as the best course of action.  In order to grow, we benefit from "checks and balances" even when we disagree. For example: in the Helen experience, I was propelled into action by the negative events, had I had not have allowed myself to explore the many perspectives, ( wanting everything to be peaceful) then the outrageous things that happened-- I would have and did (at first) write things off , explained them away, or missed them entirely,  until I got "all" the information ( perspectives). For me X, Psyche, and Frank keep us on our toes, by contributing their perspective too. I would not want to tune that out, or demonized them as irrational, I would encourage looking at their views to refine ones perspective. 

I agree whole heartily.    I think understanding the pluses and negatives on both sides and seeing both sides as just as important and needed, I think helps us grow. I see this happening in where I live and work, and I see this here in the variety of threads and forums on this board. It also gets us, and I am seeing this, new friends.     Learning to see another point of view of one's situation, gives it a different take and probably an answer that wouldn't have been brought up before. 

And here's the thing, I think I have noticed in the video ( if I am getting it right) it seems that everyone in a group or society, seem to be all the same and needs just one thing. I don't think so, because each and everyone one of us is different and have needs for different things. We all need to be a part of something to give and take, and we also need time away to soak in the peace and quiet to recharge. Sometimes, I have seen both situations tend to create creativity.  

 

 

[+Sherapy]

25 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I agree whole heartily.    I think understanding the pluses and negatives on both sides and seeing both sides as just as important and needed, I think helps us grow. I see this happening in where I live and work, and I see this here in the variety of threads and forums on this board. It also gets us, and I am seeing this, new friends.     Learning to see another point of view of one's situation, gives it a different take and probably an answer that wouldn't have been brought up before. 

And here's the thing, I think I have noticed in the video ( if I am getting it right) it seems that everyone in a group or society, seem to be all the same and needs just one thing. I don't think so, because each and everyone one of us is different and have needs for different things. We all need to be a part of something to give and take, and we also need time away to soak in the peace and quiet to recharge. Sometimes, I have seen both situations tend to create creativity.  

 

 

We are all walking different journeys and each poster contributes to the whole, and we help each other refine. And, their are those that prefer a certain mindset, it works best for them, I see no issue with this other then pushing it as the only one and the best one.  Even for myself, my personal approach isn't always the best one. I have had to abandon ship in favor of a better approach to be honest at times. Again just an example: for me the tough feedback in the Helen experience, helped me see the things I couldn't, at times "wouldn't," see as I was "to" in it, clouding my own judgment. Had I have maintained "Sheri knows best or all knowing, or went into ego defense mode or settled for complacency."( Beleive me,  I came with my own baggage and mindset, oy veyI. I would not have grown to effective or productive for myself or Helen or my family.  

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sherapy

[Stubbly_Dooright]

12 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

We are all walking different journeys and each poster contributes to the whole, and we help each other refine. And, their are those that prefer a certain mindset, it works best for them, I see no issue with this other then pushing it as the only one and the best one.  Even for myself, my personal approach isn't always the best one. I have had to abandon ship in favor of a better approach to be honest at times. Again just an example: for me the tough feedback in the Helen experience, helped me see the things I couldn't, at times "wouldn't," see as I was "to" in it, clouding my own judgment. Had I have maintained "Sheri knows best or all knowing, or went into ego defense mode or settled for complacency."( Beleive me,  I came with my own baggage and mindset, oy veyI. I would not have grown to effective or productive for myself or Helen or my family.  

Yup!   

Though, I find it hard for me to 'humble' *ahem* myself. But my head says, it's for the best for growth and understanding. When one doesn't do that, they stagnate. 

[+Sherapy]

7 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Yup!   

Though, I find it hard for me to 'humble' *ahem* myself. But my head says, it's for the best for growth and understanding. When one doesn't do that, they stagnate. 

The point of Amen, Namaste, I don't know, oy vey, ahem, etc. etc...or humility. For me, these are the take always and can be found on many paths. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

Is the path you forge one of your own creation? Using the path of others as but a guide post into unknown territory, yet you do not tread where their feet have lead. My own path, where it leads I know not.

Edited February 6, 2017 by XenoFish