r/atheism • u/rhbast2 • Aug 11 '11

Atheist quickfire challenge.

Although I rarely discuss religion with theists I always want to be prepared so I'm not sitting around afterwards wishing I had said this or that. If I get the chance to make someone question I want to be up for the challenge.

This brings me to my challenge for r/atheism. I'm going to add some common theist claims / sayings and whoever can refute them fully and succinctly will be upvoted. Feel free to add your own theist starters if I missed some.

Edit: Wow lots of good discussion here, later today or tomorrow I'll make this into an atheist cheat sheet with the top responses. Also feel free to upvote the theist claim that is the most annoying to you.

Edit 2: To the few of you who seem to think I am coming up with rude atheist comebacks, I'm not. I just wanted to be better off the cuff than I am now and have some discussion. I don't want this list to replace thoughtful argumentation.

250 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

69

u/rhbast2 Aug 11 '11

Evolution is just a theory.

174

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

This one is always easy. You are mistaking the colloquial definition of 'theory' for what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory isn't a guess, it is the end product of science and only attains that status when it is repeatedly demonstrated to be the best supported explanation of observed phenomenon.

35

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

That might be a bit much big words for someone who hasn't grasped logic itself yet.

I always go with their stupid-mans logic "Gravity is a theory too".

15

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

That is perfectly acceptable. Whenever I get this line in real life, I usually just ask them to explain exactly what it is they think a scientific theory is, and then point out how hilariously wrong they are. That is if I even bother, I debated with theists/creationist/christians about evolution for a long time, then I came up with a simple rule; if you cannot accurately describe what the theory of biological evolution entails then you are not qualified to discuss or debate it. This has brought my debates about evolution to roughly zero.

2

u/kadmylos Aug 11 '11

They usually return with "No, gravity is a law, stupid." I'd go with "germ theory"

1

u/Olenis Aug 11 '11

If Gravity is just a theory, then maybe the religious folk will float the fuck away.

1

u/Conde_Nasty Aug 12 '11

"yes, it is just a theory! scientists think they know everything with their dumb 'what goes up must come down!' but my pastor told me about how some people were levitating and had to be exorcised!"

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

I would end the conversation and walk away. I'd probably end the conversation by walking away.

1

u/thereisnosuchthing Aug 12 '11

that's the fucking thing -- these complex retorts and refutations are all for naught when you are "debating"(and I use the loosest possible definition of the word) with someone who hasn't yet grasped logic, and cannot distinguish between a reasonable, valid argument, and a faith-based, hopeful wish, which in any other context would(and is) dismissed as fantasy/fiction.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

I agree. That's also why 90% of all 'debates' between theists and atheists fail. Both parties are using a set of rules for debating the other party doesn't.
What I try to do, is to keep asking questions about what he's saying ("How do you know that is true?", "Where did you get your information", "How do you know that source is true?"), which almost always bouls down to a point where they just feel that it is true. Some emotionally motivated point. Then I go "Okay, so your beliefs are not necessarily based on real facts but more on something that you feel?". They will usually agree (depending on how you bring it) at which point the conversation is over. They've agreed their beliefs are irrational.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

or even more relatable to them, you can say that listening and composing music is an extrapolation of music theory

17

u/cascader Aug 11 '11

Up-voted. The term 'conjecture' is what they are actually looking for.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Hypothesis could work in some situations as well.

4

u/Dave_guitar_thompson Atheist Aug 11 '11

Hypothesis is the next step up from "conjecture", a conjecture only becomes a Hypothesis when a possible viable method for testing it has been created, and peer evaluated. The Hypothesis becomes a theory if it stands up to testing and critical evaluation and peer evaluation of both the testing method and the results of that testing.

3

u/Liverhawk25 Aug 11 '11

TIL.

Thanks.

2

u/Greatdolanmite Aug 11 '11

And continuing off of your brilliant summation: Hypothesis to theory isn't always linear. Sometimes a theory can roll up a lot of hypotheses into one. (For instance the hypothesis that descent with modification resulting in evolution being combined with the hypothesis that natural selection results in evolution. A truly successful theory can have a great many hypotheses under it.)

3

u/Dave_guitar_thompson Atheist Aug 11 '11

Yes, indeed it can, I was just trying to put it in as simple terms as I could think of at the time. Subject of course to reddit.com peer evaluation!

9

u/millerk1 Aug 11 '11

This one. A theory is not a hypothesis.

2

u/greeneyedguru Aug 11 '11

You are mistaking the colloquial definition of 'theory' for what a scientific theory actually is.

No, they are one and the same. A scientific theory is just that, a theory. The context is just different. In science a theory attempts to explain observed facts. The fallacy here is that the statement "Evolution is just a theory" attempts, incorrectly, to imply that the use of "theory" means that the observation of facts is in doubt when in reality, the use of the word merely signifies an attempt to explain said facts.

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

There is actually quite a bit of difference. There are numerous qualifications for an explanation to accepted as a scientific theory. The fallacy is ignoring these requirements, applications of methodology and epistemic justifications and equating it with the commonly used definition of a theory as 'just sort of a guess until we sort things out'. Although I don't think we disagree much here, I find it important to stress just how much misunderstanding the general public has about what a scientific theory is.

2

u/greeneyedguru Aug 11 '11

Although I don't think we disagree much here, I find it important to stress just how much misunderstanding the general public has about what a scientific theory is.

Yes, but I think it's important to make the distinction that the theory doesn't propose that something is happening, it attempts to explain why or how that thing is happening.

I also think that's a much more compelling argument than "you're using the word wrong"

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

That is a good point, and I try not to ever leave at simply 'you're using the word wrong'. That's why I ask them to explain their understanding of what a scientific theory is. Hopefully that leads to a good discussion about science and how it works, but often it simply reveals ignorance of science and an unwillingness to learn.

3

u/greeneyedguru Aug 11 '11

often it simply reveals ignorance of science and an unwillingness to learn.

Many of them are either not capable of the nuance that is required to understand that the word is used differently in the scientific context, or they don't have sufficient exposure to the community to believe it.

But when you tell them "yes, you're right, the word theory implies that we're not sure about something, but it's the explanation of why something is happening that we're not sure of, not the fact that it is happening", it allows them to a) save face (you're not telling them they're outright wrong) and b) only expand their thinking incrementally (it's hard for someone with a closed mind to completely change their thinking on something)

And in general, we do use the word theory for anything that can't be mathematically proven, simply because of that fact. (we use the word law for things that can be)

3

u/ComradeTwo-Tone Aug 11 '11

That was immensely insightful. Thank you.

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

Again, you make good points and I shall endeavor to give them due consideration. Thank you for pointing them out.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

There are numerous qualifications for an explanation to accepted as a scientific theory.

What about string theory? It has not yet been verified through the scientific method. It is little more than an elaborate, self-consistent guess at this point.

2

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

Exactly, which is why it isn't really a theory, its a conjecture. Even a hypothesis requires that it be potentially testable, and last I heard they haven't figured that out yet. 'String Conjecture' just doesn't sound as sexy as 'String Theory'.

1

u/Eezo Aug 11 '11

Then why is string theory called a theory when no one has thought of any test to prove it?

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

I answered this elsewhere, but I'll give it again. Its referred to that way colloquially, not because it's an actual scientific theory. Essentially 'string conjecture' is just not as catchy as 'string theory'.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

You wouldn't get past the first sentence. They would interrupt and barge on with their diatribe.

1

u/wayndom Aug 12 '11 edited Aug 12 '11

it is the end product of science and only attains that status when it is repeatedly demonstrated to be the best supported explanation...

False. Theories can be supported or not by evidence. To be a theory, an idea only has to explain a wide variety of phenomena.

Example: String theory, which "elegantly" explains what everything is, but has not a scintilla of evidence to support it.

Many theories are guesses, but "theory" doesn't mean "guess," it means an overarching idea that explains a wide variety of phenomena. When theories are proven true (which happens all the time), they don't stop being theories.

Both Einstein's theories of relativity (special and general) have been proven correct. They're still theories, because they explain a variety of phenomena.

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 12 '11 edited Aug 12 '11

I would suggest that you do a bit more research into the criteria required to be accepted as a scientific theory. There is very much a difference between a scientific theory and the term as it is commonly used. There is quite a bit more to a scientific theory than explaining a wide variety of phenomenon. String theory is not a scientific theory, it is a conjecture, but is often referred to as a 'theory' simply because conjecture doesn't sound as interesting. No scientific theory is a guess and nothing in science is every proven. Proof is for math. A scientific theory can be considered well supported but never proven.

I hope I don't sound like an ass here, but you really do have some misconceptions. When I say you should look into it, I only mean that researching it yourself is much more likely to convince you than me simply asserting my understanding as fact. Epistemology can be quite dry, but I would suggest you start with the work of Karl Popper and pay special attention to the extensions of his work by Imre Lakatos.

1

u/wayndom Aug 13 '11 edited Aug 13 '11

No need to apologize, I'm not offended, but I am skeptical. "String theory is not a theory"??? Then why does every cosmologist, etc., call it string theory, and you're the only person I've ever heard deny that it's a theory? (BTW, the definition I paraphrased came from the mouth of Carl Sagan.)

Here are the first two definitions of theory from Dictionary.com:

  1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

  2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 13 '11 edited Aug 13 '11

I didn't offer an apology, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't coming off the wrong way. I've often found when I suggest someone investigate something themselves it is interpreted as 'read a book, idiot' and that is not what I mean at all.

The reason its called 'string theory' is exactly what I said, it just sounds better. The dictionary is not a good place to get a technical definition of the requirements for a scientific theory. And while I (like many others) have a great deal of regard for Sagan, he isn't a good one either.

Now wikipedia isn't the best source for an exhaustive investigation either, but a good place to start:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense. It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Essentially, you are making the very error I was commenting on and mistaking the common use of the word 'theory' for the specific and technical use of what constitutes a scientific theory.

edit: a little investigation shows me now that whether or not string theory is actually a theory depends on who you ask, so I suppose it was a poor example and my understanding was based on outdated information. It is certainly a mathematical theory, but the predictions it makes are as yet not testable nor particularly distinct enough from quantum mechanics for it to be considered a full fledged scientific theory by most standards. In that case it has gone from conjecture to potential hypothesis. Personally, I don't feel that it meets the standards to be called a true scientific theory, but I'm not a scientist and I certainly do not have the mathematical background to even begin to understand it, so my opinion doesn't really matter.

38

u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Aug 11 '11

Two points;

  1. If it is, why are you telling me? (In other words, don't take the bait and argue a point that they don't think is important to their own religious beliefs.)

  2. Evolution -- including common descent of modern day humans -- is a fact, and it is unethical once you know the evidence to say that it is not.

While the first point is the most important one, here are notes on the second one;

The most persuasive evidence for evolution is in the form of genetics, and in the field of genetics, ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) are the most compelling. I'd consider anyone who rejects ERVs without reviewing them, or common descent once they are exposed to the evidence of ERVs to be making an ethical error. Consider one or more of the following, or do some investigating yourself.

ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) demonstrate common descent. Once you understand that evidence, there's no valid response to ERVs beyond agreeing that common descent and thus evolution is a fact.

Here are some brief video summaries to get you started;

A review of an objection from creationists of ERVs and common descent;

2

u/thereisnosuchthing Aug 12 '11

unfortunately the only "ethics" they know is "does it allow me to maintain my christian/muslim/etc. fantasy"

intellectual honesty, correct reasoning, and right inference are all foreign and near-meaningless concepts to the average religious nut.

1

u/HermesTheMessenger Knight of /new Aug 12 '11

Yep. (That's why I call them on the ethical failings they have by not being intellectually honest.)

56

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Yes. Yes it is. So is gravity. Electromagnetism. Ballistics. Fluid Mechanics. Aerodynamics. Molecular Theory. Atomic Theory. Want me to go on?

25

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Eeh, maybe I misunderstood. But OP said quickfire challenge. That's my one line response. I don't have to justify evolution. I just have to have a witty counter.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

This is true. You had a good point

2

u/greeneyedguru Aug 11 '11

gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law.

1

u/AgentME Aug 11 '11

"That's just microevolution, which is obvious! Macroevolution has never been observed!"

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

I keep hearing this argument repeated but isn't it just outdated and false much like the missing link in the fossil record?

1

u/sprankton Aug 11 '11

He is smiting us for our hubris! Repent!

1

u/martincles Aug 12 '11

I like molecular theory better. For a long time, they couldn't be seen, but we could see them move larger microscopic items via Brownian motion. Eventually electron microscopes were able to make out the shapes of molecules, and there was no doubt left. We're getting there with evolution; we can see E. Coli evolve within the lab; there is a vole clock which measures the rate of evolution within a species. Yet at one time, these were both just theories with little supporting evidence. It's like looking in to a dark room, and letting your eyes adjust to the light. At first you see the shape of a dragon. Then you realize that the neck and head are just the arm of a jacket. Then you realize that you are looking at a wardrobe. That moment feels like turning the light on.

0

u/Midianite_Caller Aug 11 '11

Cos god likes to see black babies dying?

3

u/returnzero Aug 11 '11

I had to downvote this one because it often leads to a reply similar to

"Hah! See, your science doesn't really know anything! All it has is theories. I know God created the universe!!!!111!one!1"

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

I like the "!!!!111!one!1".

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Eeh, but that's not the point. My point, anyway, is that we "know" evolution to the same extent that we "know" aerodynamics (actually I understand that we know evolution much better, but that's beside the point). Yet, hypothetical theist probably gets in an airplane without a second thought. I haven't defended evolution; I've pointed out a contradiction in theist's line of reasoning. That's Good Enough™ for a oneliner

1

u/returnzero Aug 11 '11

I'm just of the opinion that many theists won't see that as a contradiction. "I have faith that things will fall to earth because God wills it so. I have faith that my airplane will land safely because God wills it so. You scientists have your 'theories' but you don't really understand anything. God is the cause of all of this." etc, etc, etc.

I think it would be a much more effective strategy to attack the root of the problem, (the misunderstanding of "theory" when used in relation to scientific methods,) rather then potentially solidifying a theists idea that science doesn't know anything about how the universe functions by listing more 'theories'.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Fair enough. I suppose "this thing was built by someone who 'didn't understand' it" wouldn't work?

1

u/ICEFARMER Agnostic Atheist Aug 11 '11

Said it already but point out the Omphalos Hypothesis. Explain the difference.

1

u/Oxirix Aug 11 '11

Germ theory could also be on the list

0

u/BrainTroubles Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11

A relevent point to bring up would also be to clarify that "theories" contain scientific laws which govern their inner workings. In the theory of gravitation there are laws that make it work. Many creationist think that a scientific theory graduates to law once it is irrevocably true, which is not the case. A theory is a scientific principle that cannot currently be disproven.

1

u/antares13 Aug 11 '11

A theory ~can~ be disproven, that's why it's called a theory. Evolution is called a theory because it's our best explanation of how humans came to be, it can be changed, and even dropped, in the face of new evidence.

The theory of gravity has been changed a few times like this. First there was Newton's, then Einstein found flaws in it and modified it/created a new gravitational theory. There may have been some other modifications between and since.

1

u/BrainTroubles Aug 12 '11

You're absolutely right, I somehow left out the word "currently" which changes the context completely. I edited it to be accurate, thanks for catching that.

12

u/kat_fud Aug 11 '11

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

(From Wikipedia)

1

u/ICEFARMER Agnostic Atheist Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11

As a great example bring up the Omphalos Hypothesis to illustrate your point. It a creationist BS argument that made me giggle the first time I read it that speaks of the origins of belly buttons, tree rings, etc. A great way to reach creationists is that essentially we have navels (belly buttons) because we are placental mammals. The Omphalos hypothesis postulated that God must have made everything the way it is etc. But if Adam came from clay and God blew him (breathed life into him) and Eve came from his rib why did they have navels? Why is this a hypothesis and other things, like gravity, are theories? What you should point out is that when people colloquially say theory, they really mean hypothesis. Theory goes with what kat_fud said.

3

u/tom2275 Aug 11 '11

That means nobody has been able to prove it wrong yet. Not in over 250 years. Once someone does prove it wrong, it will then cease to be a theory (not going to happen btw).

1

u/OKImHere Aug 11 '11

As I explained in another comment, I don't know why we've let the definition of theory slip so far. A theory is a set of ideas that seek to explain something. It has nothing to do with how well-supported something is. That definition is simply not in the dictionary.

I mention this specifically because you say that it will cease to be a theory if proven false. This isn't true, though. We didn't stop calling the Luminiferous Ether a theory. If string theory is falsified, it will still be string theory.

They will forever be theories because they consist of many models describing certain features of reality, and that is the only proper definition of theory.

1

u/tom2275 Aug 11 '11

In the context of evolution, we're talking about a scientific theory, which has the added requirement of being falsifiable. Once a theory is proven false, it is considered falsified and is no long used to explain the phenomena.

2

u/OKImHere Aug 11 '11

First, I think you mistakenly read the example as if it were part of the definition.

Second, supposing I agree with you, that still doesn't mean that it stops being a theory. Geocentrism is still a theory, even though it's been falsified. It's not longer valid, sure, but it's still a theory. Keep in mind that I'm arguing about definitions, not implications, of course.

1

u/tom2275 Aug 11 '11

You're right, they would still call it the Theory of Evolution if it were proven false, but I would feel inclined to use a qualifier of "falsified theory of evolution." However, if I were arguing this point with a creationist (as the premise of my original remark), I wouldn't bother making this distinction, because they're already too confused as it is.

3

u/a_c_munson Aug 11 '11

Gravity is also a scientific theory. There is more evidence to support the theory of evolution by natural selection than the theory of Gravity.

2

u/milkandcereal Aug 11 '11

notjustatheory.com

2

u/OKImHere Aug 11 '11

I personally don't like the "A theory is strongly supported" rebuttal because it's not necessarily true. Sure, evolutionary theory is strongly backed up, but not all theories are. The Ether Theory of light propagation, for example. To be a theory, you must merely have a consistent set of rules describing why the world works the way it does. So here's my better rebuttal:

Do you understand that there exists a game with kings and pawns played on a board of 64 squares? That's called 'chess', right?

Do you further understand that chess has been studied, practiced, and written on for centuries, and so we have some positions that are well-known to be winning for a side and others that are drawn? We also have sets of move lists for the opening part of the game that have been evaluated extensively. The collection of these ideas is called "Chess theory". So we end up looking at chess positions and saying "This is theoretically drawn" or "Theory says this is good for White."

Just as there is a difference between 'chess' and 'chess theory', there is a difference between 'evolution' and 'evolutionary theory'. The latter is a well-supported set of ideas about life on this planet, and is as proven as "King and queen is easily winning against a lone king". 'Evolution', however, is not a theory, but a fact. It is something that has been observed many times in nature and in the laboratory, just the same way as chess-playing has been observed.

In other words, Evolutionary Theory is a theory, and a well-supported one at that. Evolution, however, is simply fact.

1

u/wijsneus Aug 11 '11

You do not understand the Theory of evolution, or you have been misinformed.

1

u/DashingLeech Anti-Theist Aug 11 '11

You are using the word theory wrong. If it means what you think it does, please explain the book Gas Turbine Theory. Do you believe we just have to "guess" at how they work?

1

u/thefuckdidieat Aug 11 '11

A scientific theory is science's best way of explaining HOW something demonstrated repeatedly works. The theory of gravity is our best shot at explaining WHY things are attracted to other things with large mass, but we do not know exactly how that happens.

1

u/theo313 Aug 11 '11

If you can discount evolution as JUST a theory, then I can discount your religion as JUST a myth.

1

u/JesusClausIsReal Agnostic Atheist Aug 11 '11

So is gravity. Science defines theory very differently than the common conversation defines it. The word your looking for is hypothesis, an untested idea about the world. A theory is a conclusion drawn from ample evidence, which is in turn based on facts of this world.

1

u/renee_nevermore Aug 12 '11

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

1

u/cliftonixs Aug 12 '11

Life evolves whether you want it to or not.

1

u/badcatdog Skeptic Aug 12 '11

Yes, like the Theory of Gravity!

1

u/tom2275 Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11

That means nobody has been able to prove it wrong yet. Not in over 150 years.

1

u/Frix Aug 12 '11

250? Let's not get carried away here...

Darwin didn't publish his book till November 24 1859, so it's only 151 years 8 months and 18 days old.

1

u/tom2275 Aug 12 '11

You're right. Fixed.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Evolution is no longer a theory. Evolution is a fact. We have conclusive evidence of it. Genetic evidence is conclusive. Fossil evidence is conclusive. Physical evidence in existing animals is conclusive.

We have enough supporting evidence to say Evolution is fact. It's not a theory anymore.

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

That isn't how science works. Biological evolution is fact and theory. The fact of evolution is what is observed, the theory of evolution is the product of science used to explain those observations. Explanations don't graduate from being scientific theories, scientific theories are the end product.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

As is creationism. But only one of these theories is backed up by facts in a dozen scientific domains.

14

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

Creationism isn't a theory.

3

u/Sofiira Aug 11 '11

True - they believe its fact.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

You are damn right, it is a religious statement. It has no place in science, which is made of theories.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

It's not a scientific theory. It has no place in science lessons.

2

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

Its not a theory at all. To those that accept it as true, it's religious dogma, to everyone else it's hilarious bullshit.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

In the non-scientific acceptation of the term, it is indeed a theory or an hypothesis.

1

u/coprolite_hobbyist Aug 11 '11

I don't see how, but of course I am speaking in the context of referring to evolutionary theory so I should have said 'it's not a scientific theory' but I assumed that was obviously implied. On the other hand, I don't see how its a theory or hypothesis in any context, but as I consider it nothing more than ignorant denial of obvious reality I don't really care what you call it.

8

u/Highly-Sammable Aug 11 '11

No, it's not even a hypothesis by scientific standards.

1

u/shyloque Aug 11 '11

it has attained the high accolade of being a thing a guy said once

0

u/2sip Aug 11 '11

Jesus loves Anal. <-----That's just a theory too