another discussion about religion - Page 6
Old 12-10-2010, 06:47 PM   #101 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,763
Representing:
Default

Santa and the Easter bunny did not put forth principles around which society could be organized. Those that did put forth principles, in all religions, did so with the idea of the best of human traits being required, so that peace and mutual respect could be secured.

Unfortunately, society does not tend to allow itself to be organized that way for long. I have been to places where rulers allowed all religions to co-exist in harmony across the board, and there was a lot of progress made. But fear always tends to pervade our existence, and when that happens, the kings and the king-makers take their places, and all the previous principles are forgotten while society gets organized around duty and dogma. It just seems to be too easy for the kings to look to those who claim to be closer to God than the rest of us, and ask to be given a seal of approval so that a fearful social order can be put in place. But another common factor in all of that - those who made claims of being so close to God have pretty much all been horrible people that deserved the greatest amount of fear. Ligeia is right - human behavior gets things fucked up eternally. The terrible things done in the name of religions are all about twisting those original organizing principles into the complete opposite of what was intended. So maybe we'd have done better to praise Santa from the beginning. And maybe everything will somehow turn out alright now that we do.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 07:05 PM   #102 (permalink)
it is what it is.

Senior Member
 
mb666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,009
Representing:
Default

The principles/institutions were created and put in place by humans... and not "god" or the "son of god." Why should religion get the credit? The bible, for example, is just a collection of stories/myths, recorded by humans, and then described as the teachings of Jesus. One can make a similar book and claim that it was invented by Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Leaders can use religion as a means to organize people, yes. They can make them do things because of fear... exactly as you mention. I don't understand how this is good for society? Is it only during the last ~2000 years that humans have been organized?
mb666 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 07:29 PM   #103 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TORaptor4Ever View Post
Never really understood this debate. Religion is practiced by man (and woman). Man (and woman) are not infallible creatures and thus are subject to "questionable actions and motives". Why should religion be cast down because SOME people make poor examples of themselves? Religion can be a beautiful thing that gives people direction, faith & hope. Is it for everyone? Perhaps not, but I think that it's pretty darn close-minded to say the world would be better off without it.

The world would be better off without the people who pervert religion and use it as a weapon IMO.
The reason you don't understand the debate is because your definition of what religion "is" is, shall I say, disingenuous.

When you define religion done proper as "not harming people" then of course you'll come out with the opinion that there is nothing bad about religion; it simply must be people perverting or corrupting what religion is really about.

But what is religion really about? Isn't it true that many of the "extremist" religious perspectives find justification in their religious texts? Isn't religion, for the most part, about faith and adherence to a particular set of beliefs? Religion includes within it good and bad (which is a simple sociological observation), and for you to suggest that, for example, Imams in Saudi Arabia are not practicing religion....well, we'll just have to disagree about that.

It's kind of like the "No True Scotsman..." fallacy of reasoning (quoted below; crazy to have two Flew references in one thread but not a big surprise when we're talking about religion), where you say
"Well, no true religionist could ever do that." On the contrary, true and sincere religionists do bad things in the name of religion, and derive their mandate and justification from the foundational texts of their beliefs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Antony Flew
- Thinking about Thinking, 1975
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." [Brighton is not part of Scotland.] The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. [Aberdeen is part of Scotland.] This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Last edited by Ligeia; 12-10-2010 at 07:37 PM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 07:36 PM   #104 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
Santa and the Easter bunny did not put forth principles around which society could be organized. Those that did put forth principles, in all religions, did so with the idea of the best of human traits being required, so that peace and mutual respect could be secured.
Where we agree is that comparing all the claims surrounding god to the claims made of Santa and the Easter Bunny is extremely misleading. For starters, very few people sincerely believe it to be the case that Santa and the Easter Bunny actually exist. Further, Santa and the Easter Bunny are not sufficient answers to the questions that god is used as an answer for. It bothers me when atheists compare god to Santa or the Easter Bunny because it completely eliminates all context and looks at it through the scope of only one question: ontology (whether it exists or not). That's incredibly reductive. Even Russell's celestial teapot is a better analogy than Santa or the Easter Bunny (keeping in mind that Russell only used the teapot to make a point about burden of proof, later expanded on by Flew).

Where we disagree is that religion did any "putting forth" of principles. At the absolute best, it formalized principles, but it cannot be considered the source.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 10:15 PM   #105 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,763
Representing:
Default

yeah - you made my point better than I could Ligeia. I have no horse in this thing. I have been personally fucked over by organized religion, but I can respect people that have a vigorous faith in anything that provides meaning for them, while they remain open to doubt. It's quite hard for me to fight both sides, or support either side's need for total rejection.

your observations about texts to Toraps is true to a degree, but the nature of pretty much all religious texts is quite indirect, requiring personal interpretation in ways that relate to living from day to day. the rules and dogma are usually quite external to the actual texts. that's why I think the problem is essentially one of power that gets used and abused, and unfortunately when that happens it happens on a large scale.

Last edited by LX; 12-10-2010 at 10:25 PM.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 07:34 AM   #106 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,160
Representing:
Default

the point of church isnt about learning, it is about fellowiship with like minded beleivers.

That alone is a great thing if the person that goes needs support in some area in there life, at church they are going to get it.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 12:41 PM   #107 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
your observations about texts to Toraps is true to a degree, but the nature of pretty much all religious texts is quite indirect, requiring personal interpretation in ways that relate to living from day to day. the rules and dogma are usually quite external to the actual texts.
Often very true, but I think that adds to my point that he is in no position to say what "true" religion is and what perversion is, because there is no criteria of justification for religious thought; it's all about what you feel is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
the point of church isnt about learning, it is about fellowiship with like minded beleivers.

That alone is a great thing if the person that goes needs support in some area in there life, at church they are going to get it.
The best thing that religion has going for it is the intense community (which is why in countries with high social cohesion there is low religiousity, a la the Nordic countries), but I again think you're defining religion in a way that makes the case you want to make, rather than drawing from how most people actually practice religion. A lot of people I know do go to church to learn and celebrate their religion (particularly when they're younger) and the fellowship is not particularly important to them; I don't think they're wrong to be at church.

Last edited by Ligeia; 12-11-2010 at 12:45 PM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 02:11 PM   #108 (permalink)
Truth

Member
 
Cory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 257
Representing:
Default

The fact is, in much the same way many men need a woman, some people get very depressed and mentally unstable without a religion to belong to. They need the sense of community, immortality, human narrative, and cosmic caretaker.

Evolution by natural selection is utterly apathetic, inhuman and amoral. Religious types see this... and their brains and hearts just aren't strong enough to embrace mortality, an apathetic universe, and a stratified social system where the elites enjoy themselves more than the weak. Without religion, some people would slump in despair or maybe even go on a killing spree.

Genetic engineering will produce a superspecies that will replace current humanity, hopefully. Enough is enough.
Cory is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 02:47 PM   #109 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,763
Representing:
Default

I have heard that there is a gene responsible for religious feelings, or that sense of something larger than ourselves and our own pursuits.

I'm not so sure a superspecies would provide all the answers. I can point to technology being more responsible for all the war and atrocities that people want to pin exclusively on religion. Without the development of some very questionable weapons over the last couple of centuries, history might have turned out very different. we very much need to be able to say find a way to be able to say no to some technological advances. We are giving up the ability to make moral decisions in the face of science and technology. And modern life often leaves people with an identity crisis, something which didn't happen quite as easily when people were organized in extended families, small communities, and holding onto religious traditions.

I come from a line of Germans that went to Russia to farm difficult terrain in return for guarantees that they would not have to join the military, and could keep their language and religion. It all worked very well until the attempts on the Czar's life began. They came to Canada and continued on, but notably had some very difficult times as the prairies were modernized and urbanized. I could see a good number of my aunts and uncles struggling to figure out who they were, even though in general they all had easier, and better lives materially. They had been at the lower end of the social system much more previously. The emptiness, I suspect, comes from losing that sense of interconnectedness that they once had. If modern life can face that problem, there might not be any need to engineer new genes, which in any case would really just be about hollowing us all out to the point where we might as well be machines, and we will have about as much capability of being connected to the non-engineered life around us as an iPad does.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 02:58 PM   #110 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,568
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
the point of church isnt about learning, it is about fellowiship with like minded beleivers.

That alone is a great thing if the person that goes needs support in some area in there life, at church they are going to get it.
there are undoubtedly some good aspects to religion, but these are far outweighed by the bad. also, there are many, many communities that can provide support that don't also insist on a denial of scientific evidence, an obfuscation of truth and reason, and a false telling of history.

humans can and do find support in many different ways. and the fact that a church can also provide these things does not excuse it from the terrible things that organized religion has inflicted upon this world. and it is time for us to stop identifying churches only as a source of good while denying the opportunity to inquire into their sources of power and the ways in which their lies and propaganda are holding back the faithful (and the non-faithful) from properly understanding the real human sources of hope, support, charity, good works, community, etc, and the factual and reasoned examination of human history and progress.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 03:26 PM   #111 (permalink)
x_kaptain_x
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

I'm of the people who believe that organized religion is just a way to segregate people into groups to upkeep the fear and hate mentality. If we could all just live in peace, what a world it would be. Do you really not believe in coincidence far beyond explanation? or that your thoughts do not have an effect on the circumstances you find yourself in? you're not wrong for thinking that but in buying into the train of thought that you create your own destiny and luck it has become more and more apparent to me that we are much influential in the circumstances we find ourselves in.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 04:05 PM   #112 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,160
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
Often very true, but I think that adds to my point that he is in no position to say what "true" religion is and what perversion is, because there is no criteria of justification for religious thought; it's all about what you feel is right.



The best thing that religion has going for it is the intense community (which is why in countries with high social cohesion there is low religiousity, a la the Nordic countries), but I again think you're defining religion in a way that makes the case you want to make, rather than drawing from how most people actually practice religion. A lot of people I know do go to church to learn and celebrate their religion (particularly when they're younger) and the fellowship is not particularly important to them; I don't think they're wrong to be at church.

kids is a differnet story, but just the same they do get to see friends at church and sing songs and stuff, its something to do, i meant more for adults who go.

And in its most basic form religion is nothing more than a public admission of ones belief. And its nice to not stand alone, yes Church is for learning and celebrating, but the fellowship goes hand in hand.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 04:09 PM   #113 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,160
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
there are undoubtedly some good aspects to religion, but these are far outweighed by the bad. also, there are many, many communities that can provide support that don't also insist on a denial of scientific evidence, an obfuscation of truth and reason, and a false telling of history.

humans can and do find support in many different ways. and the fact that a church can also provide these things does not excuse it from the terrible things that organized religion has inflicted upon this world. and it is time for us to stop identifying churches only as a source of good while denying the opportunity to inquire into their sources of power and the ways in which their lies and propaganda are holding back the faithful (and the non-faithful) from properly understanding the real human sources of hope, support, charity, good works, community, etc, and the factual and reasoned examination of human history and progress.

I do agree, however it is the fanaticals that give religion a bad name, i have been invloved in many religions for work and the basic teachings of the ones I have been in contact with all basically preach the same things, love, respect, peace etc. they do teach what they think is wrong but to combat the wrong in the world with compasion and empathy, not violence and ignorance.

And again i agree with you, but i feel the faulty lies with the men and women with "religious power", not with the basis of the beliefs to begin with. I dont agree with organized religion, but i have NO problems with people believing in a higher power.
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 05:12 PM   #114 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,894
Representing:
Default

Too much to respond to.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 06:05 PM   #115 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,894
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
With or without religion, people are, mostly, plagued by the same problems that I think are the root cause of most unhappiness: existential crises', lack of control, lack of success, etc. That's why religion has not disappeared, and why non-religious experiments in the 20th century failed. It is no surprise that, as these sources of unhappiness are mitigated, one's religious beliefs tend to decrease.
I think those problems lead to all kinds of "faith" or irrational ideas beyond religion as well. People will do mental gymnastics to believe a whole bunch of non-sense. A lack of belief in God does not preclude someone from exhibiting the same traits as an extreme religious person. Just hang out on a conspiracy site and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics people will engage in just so they can hold on to a belief in a particular world view. Indeed, you can find quite a few atheists who project their desire for a meta-narrative involving struggles of good versus evil and an all powerful controller on to ideas such as the illuminati and other ill informed views on reality. Now, one might say they are not the same, but they are damn close. Human psychology. There seems to be an impulse in some people to have a narrative that explains. It can lead to the acquistion of immense knowledge when harnessed by the right minds, and it can lead to down right stupidity when used by silly people. This goes beyond religion.

For that reason, I really like how you framed our problems in terms of human psychology in that same post. Religion is just one manifestation of greater problems society faces. If you get rid of religion, you've only eliminated one tool in the tool box of manipulation. You still haven't entirely eliminated fear and other political obstacles.

For the record, I still agree with 'trane on many points regarding this issue. Personally, I treat things on a case by case basis. If someone is spouting off about a relgion that is clearly harmful, I have no problem telling them they are silly little people. However, if an elderly widow, who is attending a church with very moderate views, just wants to believe she will be re-united with her husband some day and goes to church to sustain that hope, I feel compelled to bite my tongue and let her have that (just as an example).

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 12-11-2010 at 06:36 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 06:37 PM   #116 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,894
Representing:
Default

Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 09:39 PM   #117 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooch View Post
kids is a differnet story, but just the same they do get to see friends at church and sing songs and stuff, its something to do, i meant more for adults who go.

And in its most basic form religion is nothing more than a public admission of ones belief. And its nice to not stand alone, yes Church is for learning and celebrating, but the fellowship goes hand in hand.
My point was essentially this: there is no reliable method for determining what "true" religion is and what "perverted" religion is. You and I disagree a great deal as to what religion really is (I think that in its most basic form, it is a subset of beliefs and rituals, public or private, but I also think reducing it to its most basic form eliminates many of the issues that are relevant to religion). What I'm against is people defining religion in such a way as to produce the end results they want to support (ie. defining religion in such a way that it is impossible for a religious person to have done something wrong with motivation and justification from their religion), rather than observing what religion is and how it is practiced by most people.

I'm against people who combine modernity and their religion by going mostly metaphorical, without producing a good criteria for determining what should be interpreted metaphorically and what should be interpreted literally, and then turn around and say that interpreting X literally is a perversion of "true religion", knowing full-well that they could not produce a justification for that claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
I think those problems lead to all kinds of "faith" or irrational ideas beyond religion as well. People will do mental gymnastics to believe a whole bunch of non-sense. A lack of belief in God does not preclude someone from exhibiting the same traits as an extreme religious person. Just hang out on a conspiracy site and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics people will engage in just so they can hold on to a belief in a particular world view. Indeed, you can find quite a few atheists who project their desire for a meta-narrative involving struggles of good versus evil and an all powerful controller on to ideas such as the illuminati and other ill informed views on reality. Now, one might say they are not the same, but they are damn close. Human psychology. There seems to be an impulse in some people to have a narrative that explains. It can lead to the acquistion of immense knowledge when harnessed by the right minds, and it can lead to down right stupidity when used by silly people. This goes beyond religion.

For that reason, I really like how you framed our problems in terms of human psychology in that same post. Religion is just one manifestation of greater problems society faces. If you get rid of religion, you've only eliminated one tool in the tool box of manipulation. You still haven't entirely eliminated fear and other political obstacles.

For the record, I still agree with 'trane on many points regarding this issue. Personally, I treat things on a case by case basis. If someone is spouting off about a relgion that is clearly harmful, I have no problem telling them they are silly little people. However, if an elderly widow, who is attending a church with very moderate views, just wants to believe she will be re-united with her husband some day and goes to church to sustain that hope, I feel compelled to bite my tongue and let her have that (just as an example).
Sometimes I feel like you and I are circle-jerking each other, but I don't mind if you don't mind. Conspiracy theories are actually a marvelous example of how the same sort of thinking can produce different ideas (ie. religious ideas and conspiracy theories). The most striking similarities between the two, I think, is the hyper-agenticity and Aristotelian purpose: everything must be happening for a reason, and there must be someone (something or some mind) behind it.

This relates to LX's post about a "god gene" or a gene that could cause religion (the most popular research in support of this is Dean Hamer's work on VMAT2). Rather, I think that religion is produced by an incredibly complex network of psychological mechanisms that are produced by the structure and composition of the brain, which itself is developed by an incredibly complex network of genetic information and its interaction with the environment. Although Hamer's work might help us in pointing towards a neuroscientific explanation of religious behaviour, it is so, so, so far away from an explanation of religiousity that it was a shame to see how it was bandied about by Hamer in his book (why he published a book before a paper, I'll never know) and Time magazine.

Lastly, I just want to re-affirm that on many, many points about religion, 'trane and I are in complete agreement. Where we disagree is on the extent to which the world would be better or worse without religion; it's not at all clear to me that the world would be significantly better without religion per se.

Last edited by Ligeia; 12-11-2010 at 09:42 PM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2010, 11:00 PM   #118 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,568
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
Where we disagree is on the extent to which the world would be better or worse without religion; it's not at all clear to me that the world would be significantly better without religion per se.
i don't think this is what i am saying.

i think the world would be significantly better if humans channelled their collective faith into reason, science and unrestricted inquiry. this is not to say that there is no option for spirituality and for conceptions of gods, creators, etc, but it does mean that truth is sought, dogma is resisted, and spirituality cannot be associated with power. i think that much of the dogma associated with the main organized religions stands in contrast to the qualities that best support human development. that doesn't mean the world is worse off with many kinds of spirituality and it doesn't mean that religion needs to be altogether eliminated. it just means that it can't stand in the way of truth.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 12:55 AM   #119 (permalink)
is back baby

Large and in charge
 
Snooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All up in there
Posts: 8,160
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
My point was essentially this: there is no reliable method for determining what "true" religion is and what "perverted" religion is. You and I disagree a great deal as to what religion really is (I think that in its most basic form, it is a subset of beliefs and rituals, public or private, but I also think reducing it to its most basic form eliminates many of the issues that are relevant to religion). What I'm against is people defining religion in such a way as to produce the end results they want to support (ie. defining religion in such a way that it is impossible for a religious person to have done something wrong with motivation and justification from their religion), rather than observing what religion is and how it is practiced by most people.

I'm against people who combine modernity and their religion by going mostly metaphorical, without producing a good criteria for determining what should be interpreted metaphorically and what should be interpreted literally, and then turn around and say that interpreting X literally is a perversion of "true religion", knowing full-well that they could not produce a justification for that claim.



Sometimes I feel like you and I are circle-jerking each other, but I don't mind if you don't mind. Conspiracy theories are actually a marvelous example of how the same sort of thinking can produce different ideas (ie. religious ideas and conspiracy theories). The most striking similarities between the two, I think, is the hyper-agenticity and Aristotelian purpose: everything must be happening for a reason, and there must be someone (something or some mind) behind it.

This relates to LX's post about a "god gene" or a gene that could cause religion (the most popular research in support of this is Dean Hamer's work on VMAT2). Rather, I think that religion is produced by an incredibly complex network of psychological mechanisms that are produced by the structure and composition of the brain, which itself is developed by an incredibly complex network of genetic information and its interaction with the environment. Although Hamer's work might help us in pointing towards a neuroscientific explanation of religious behaviour, it is so, so, so far away from an explanation of religiousity that it was a shame to see how it was bandied about by Hamer in his book (why he published a book before a paper, I'll never know) and Time magazine.

Lastly, I just want to re-affirm that on many, many points about religion, 'trane and I are in complete agreement. Where we disagree is on the extent to which the world would be better or worse without religion; it's not at all clear to me that the world would be significantly better without religion per se.
you are confusing religion and relgious beleifs
Snooch is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 03:42 AM   #120 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,894
Representing:
Default

The last video I posted was produced by QualiaSoup (Doug). Here is one produced through collaboration with his bro. These guys are wonderful human beings.

Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24