itt: post books that redpilled you

[Anonymous No.15991250]

Pic related made me realize just how much of a sham all religions are

[Anonymous No.15991256]

>>15991250
The Bible

[Anonymous No.15991259]

>>15991250
Hello, 2005.

[Anonymous No.15991272]

>>15991250
Post passages that proved that to you

[Anonymous No.15991409]

>>15991250
I can't think of a book that I would credit 100% with awakening me to something. I usually develop a suspicion, or even a conviction, and look for something to confirm my biases.

[Anonymous No.15991602]

Pic related is basically Redpills: the book.

[Anonymous No.15991629]

>>15991250
The Bible, specifically Robert Alter’s Translation

[Anonymous No.15993066]

>>15991250
Current state of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.15993553]

>>15991250
>The God Delusion redpilled you on atheism
I don't know if this was bait or not but you're unironically the problem with current day atheists. Richard Dawkins is a retard who can't into intro philosophy let alone the ontological argument, so he shouldn't attempt to disprove the existence of god.

[Anonymous No.15993570]

>>15991250
>“In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.”
Quote related made me realize that atheism is so unutterably gay and cringe that I will accept any religion instead on aesthetic grounds alone.

[Anonymous No.15993572]

>>15991250
I had an early run of this book where the cover had a circular hole in it with "God" on the frontispiece behind it. For a long time it sat on my shelf facing cover-out and the sun eventually bleached the "God" ink completely off so it just said The Delusion with a big white circle in the middle. That's my story.

[Anonymous No.15993591]

>>15991250
Dawkins and the New Atheists are fools. Even when Dawkins was asked if he had ever actually read and understood christian theology, he admitted he never did.

[Anonymous No.15993601]

>>15993591
I really liked The Selfish Gene and especially The Extended Phenotype. It's a real shame that he got drunk on the attention from this stupid atheism horseshit because now those antics are all he's known for

[Anonymous No.15993606]

>>15993601
I wanna punch that smug face of his

[Anonymous No.15993615]

>>15993570
>you changed your mind over an ad hominem
god that is weak

[Anonymous No.15993625]

>>15993606
It seems like every scientist who somehow bumbles into mainstream attention gets a horrible case of the smugs. We must remember that they are mostly introverted nerds with mediocre-to-no gf normally.

[Anonymous No.15993630]

>>15993615
Wrong. It is very strong, and very based.

Next!

[Anonymous No.15993643]

>>15993553
This. I never quite understood why someone would resort to mocking religious people for their beliefs if, ultimately, there is no higher reality, no heaven, no immorality, etc. Why tf would it matter?

[Anonymous No.15993654]

>>15993643
because most atheists are crypto-satanists, even if they don't realize it. its never enough for them to not believe in God, they have to mock and destroy all traces of religiosity in order to glorify satan.

[Anonymous No.15993675]

>>15993643
Dawkins is deeply, deeply uncomfortable with the idea of death. You can see it any time the topic comes up especially in interviews. I believe he's locked in on nihilistic depression, and externalizing his trauma for some semblance of control by bashing religious people who dont share his anxieties. The more of them he convinces, the more confident he feels that at least he's depressed for the right reason.

[Anonymous No.15993691]

>>15993675
>>15993654
Sad!

[Anonymous No.15993729]

>>15991250
>we have genes
>we want to preserve genes
>therefore we are selfish and concerned only with our survival and fulfilment of biological needs
Holy fuck, I really hope he didn't mean this, and that it's just some sort of marketing gimmick to get pocket money from book sales.

[Anonymous No.15993784]

>>15991250
Diary of a Wimpy Kid

[Anonymous No.15993785]

>>15993729
you completely misunderstood not only the book, but the title
the property of selfishness is ascribed to your genes, not to you

[Anonymous No.15993816]

>>15993691
A Christian can see angels and fallen angels in pagan deities, demons too. Real and not. It's only a binary retardation with protestants.

[Anonymous No.15993865]

>>15991250
Why are people sometimes selfish?
>To preserve their genetic material, of course
Why sometimes people do care about people around them?
>Oh, well, people care about genetic material of people around them and sometimes can even sacrifice themselves if it helps to preserve genes

haha, classic

[Anonymous No.15993892]

i don't need to read the thread to know there are crying incels in it

[Anonymous No.15993896]

>>15993892
>it was bait all along

[Anonymous No.15993914]

>>15993785
>the property of selfishness is ascribed to your genes
That is a miserable way of trying to use semantics..
Just as you cannot ascribe "craftiness" to your hand, you cannot ascribe selfishness to your genes. Anyway, don't bother responding, I'm not up for schooling you anymore.
I'll let someone astute respond.

[Anonymous No.15993920]

>>15993914
you haven't read the book and you're embarrassing yourself completely

[Anonymous No.15993937]

>>15993643
Because religious people and religious institutions have set back humanity at least 1000 years. I am not talking about tranny "progress", I am talking about real human advancement. They do it to this day.
Religious people should be gassed, together with other degenerates.

[Anonymous No.15993943]

Thanks for reminding me that Amerimutts literally need to read fedora books to realize religion is make-believe, something any child with an IQ above 100 can figure out by himself...

[Anonymous No.15993960]

>>15993937
Nice bait.
>set back humanity at least 1000 years
>real human advancement
>Religious people should be gassed, together with other degenerates

[Anonymous No.15994021]

>>15991250
>how much of a sham all religions are
You're intelligent enough to realize that religions are a made-up thing, but stupid enough not to realize why we have them in the first place. You're halfway there, Anon. I know you can do it, and understand the true material and spiritual purpose of religion. Don't stay a midwit your whole life.

[Anonymous No.15994049]

>>15993937

[Anonymous No.15994061]

>>15993943
Dawkins is from England though

[Anonymous No.15994072]

>>15993937
>Christianity and Islam, religions that have historically lead to multiple advancements in math, the sciences, and culture have held back humanity.
Bad bait.

[Anonymous No.15994110]

>>15991250
is this book just a bunch of ramblings from a seething atheist pseud? Or does it actually try to prove there is no god?

[Anonymous No.15994124]

>>15994110
>does it actually try to prove there is no god?
How?

[Anonymous No.15994142]

>>15994110
Cannibalism creepy therefore eating human meat is bad.

[Anonymous No.15994151]

>>15994142
would you eat human meat, anon?

[Anonymous No.15994155]

>>15994151
Lab grown human meat? Sure.

[Anonymous No.15994170]

>>15994155

[Anonymous No.15994177]

>>15994151
Not who you're replying too, but I wouldn't. Not for any logical reason, just because I would be disgusted by it. I wouldn't care if my friends ate it though, nor would I decry them as evil. It would be a morally neutral act that I wouldn't take part of.

[Anonymous No.15994178]

>>15994124
By providing a metaphysical account of reality that doesn't need a prime mover.

[Anonymous No.15994189]

>>15994110
Hardly anyone here has actually read Dawkins, so be wary of any replies. For example, retard in >>15993914 clearly hasn't read The Selfish Gene, which is a very good book that transcends popsci. The book is very worth reading for the part on memetics. I only found that his dogmatic individualism harmed his conclusions. The Blind Watchmaker sounds far more interesting than The God Delusion, but I haven't bothered with either since I don't find the debate worthwhile. I'd rather spend my time reading books that analyse religion through evolutionary systems. Religion and evolution are not at all mutually incompatible and Dawkins
dogmatism absolutely made him miss the point here.

[Anonymous No.15994193]

>>15994110
>clean meat
Sterile, nutritionless lab slop meant to replace real food, and make us even more dependent on international corporations. I wish a solar flare would swipe half the planet, causing Russia to retaliate in confusion and blow up the other half.

[Anonymous No.15994201]

Why are religious people so easy to troll?

[Anonymous No.15994203]

>>15994178
1.Not a single scientist will agree with you on this
2.Unfortunatly this will just be another point of view and not an actual argument

[Anonymous No.15994210]

>>15994178
It doesn't, Richard Dawkins has a well known distaste for philosophy. His entire book is composed of him debunking retarded arguments by religious retards, not rigorous ontological argument, which to be fair are still incorrect, but still what does it say when he won't debunk the strongest arguments for gods existence?

[Anonymous No.15994298]

>>15994061
British people aren't religious, only Americans are

[Anonymous No.15994305]

>>15994189
>book that transcends popsci
Factually wrong.
It is a popsci by objective standards. He could've published it as an academic book or article if the point was to make it academic.

>Dawkins dogmatism absolutely made him miss the point here
He talks about subjects about which he has no knowledge. Considering he did a lot of research in biology, he should know how to make conclusive (or inconclusive) interpretations of phenomena. Instead he just makes up a narrative, which then suits any and all findings he has made. It's tiring when academics think they know something about philosophy without ever engaging with it. Reminds me of when he said that "Obviously mountains have no meaning." He can't even articulate how he came to that conclusion, which is why he isn't cut out for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15994324]

>>15994210
He also dodged that Craig guy who actually has good philosophical education and was well known for bitchslapping unprepared fedora tippers in debates.

Pretty pathetic.

[Anonymous No.15994372]

>>15994072
Quite honestly I don't give two shits about advancements in culture, if such thing even exists. Also church actively persecuted people who made scientific discoveries, not sure about islam but if it was anything like it is today then it was many times more retarded than the church.

[Anonymous No.15994374]

>>15994201
they literally have a rulebook

[Anonymous No.15994405]

>>15994210
>he won't debunk the strongest arguments for gods existence?
This
Dawkins is hack, he absolutely has no chance when facing strong argument
that is backed by hard science.

[Anonymous No.15994414]

>>15994305
It is popsci but sections of it could've easily been academically published, hence my statement.

>He talks about subjects about which he has no knowledge.
Yes, but my point was that he could've used his novel idea to examine religions as memes as many have since done. Unfortunately, he turned himself into an actual meme lmao

>>15994405
Why don't you actually explain instead of boasting about it with a shitty one sentence reply

[Anonymous No.15994428]

>>15994414
What do you want me to explain?

[Anonymous No.15994435]

>>15994324
>that Craig guy
William Lane Craig is his name, he's an analytical philosopher and Christian theologist who popularized Kalam's cosmological argument, an argument created in the 11th century by the Persian Muslim scholastic philosopher Al-Ghazali, in his work The Kalām Cosmological Argument. It's an interesting read in which Craig attempts to defend the Kalam cosmological argument and argues for the existence of god, with the main idea being the metaphysical impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. I would recommend it for people who are interested in the philosophy of religion, or people who are just interested in the idea of the existence of god.

[hungryman !!5BI0oSV9uvS No.15994439]

>>15994210
This, he’s even explicit about it. Unsurprisingly, this extends to lots of New Atheists and pop scientists. Sam Harris is the only one who engages in debate with actually intelligent people and thinks through issues philosophically, but he’s also the closest to admitting God exists. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.15994445]

>>15994428
Your post has one sentence retard, explain it.

[Anonymous No.15994465]

>>15994414
>Yes, but my point was that he could've used his novel idea to examine religions as memes as many have since done.
He could only if he had some interest in psychology and philosophy.
I'm not a big fan of Peterson, but he is way more articulate and demonstrates that in order to engage with ideas, you have to "think about thinking", and then further discuss things in order to reach a conclusion.
Dawkins is primitive compared to that.

[Anonymous No.15994473]

>>15994439
I wonder how Dennett feels about all his fedora colleagues basically considering his entire lifes work useless nonsense

Harris seems to be the only other guy who takes philosophy seriously, even though he never got past entry level considerations and is not that bright in general.

[Anonymous No.15994493]

>>15994445
It is simple, there is no hidden meaning, take it at face value.

[Anonymous No.15994584]

>>15993937
>set back humanity at least 1000 years
From what?

>I am talking about real human advancement
Advancement towards what?

I'm not going to straw-man you, but you resemble the all to common trend of denouncing "religion" while mythologizing the concept of "progress."

[Anonymous No.15994621]

>>15994439
I've often been curious if those gifted, prominent scientists who came to endorse religiosity - and Christianity specifically - were endorsing the truth value of those beliefs or if they had merely come to understand how valuable faith is in an uncaring, material world where who copes best wins.

[Anonymous No.15994713]

>>15994584
Science. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, engineering, all other STEM fields and related fields.

[Anonymous No.15994805]

>>15994713
Different anon.
What's the purpose of advancement in those fields?

[Anonymous No.15994835]

>>15994805
Advancement and expansion of human race.

[Anonymous No.15994850]

>>15994835
And what is the purpose of this expansion and advancement?

[Anonymous No.15994852]

>>15994835
Anything specific?
>expansion of human race
So, more people and longer life?

[Anonymous No.15994871]

>>15994850
>trying to set up a it's all pointless bro because someone doesn't believe your religion

[Anonymous No.15994885]

>>15994871
Well, " expansion of the human" race sounds like an religious idea too

[Anonymous No.15994891]

>>15994871
Why do you make such a conclusion from my question?
I honestly would like to understand what "human advancement and expansion" mean to you.

[Anonymous No.15994904]

>>15994852
More high quality people, longer life, expansion beyond solar system.

>>15994850
Understanding of universe(using hard science, not mental gymnastics), beyond that I don't know.

[Anonymous No.15994914]

>>15994904
>More high quality people
What constitutes a high quality person?
>expansion beyond solar system
So, necessity for there to be as many people as possible - populating the earth completely and then moving on to populate other spaces?

[Anonymous No.15994915]

>>15994885
An extension of self-preservation is all it ultimately is, which is hardly a religious idea. Anon's goals are instinctual and hardly something you'd ever think about a rational explanation for, no different from wanting to have sex or even to eat and drink.

[Anonymous No.15994989]

>>15994915
>extension of self-preservation
This is too broad of a term.
And I disagree with you. There is nothing instinctual in exploring space. Most of us are fine in our flats with fast wifi.
I think your worldview comes form presumption of progress

[Anonymous No.15994994]

>>15994914
>What constitutes a high quality person?
High iq, white skin, european dna, and very importantly tendency to favour and engage in logic and scientific method when presented with a problem rather than to be 'believe'. I suspect this can be fixed or adjusted in the brain, it is a neurological disorder.

[Anonymous No.15995004]

>>15994994
So, the life then is an endless struggle and war between people who subscribe to your ideology and people who subscribe to different ideology?

[Anonymous No.15995012]

>>15994989
Your mind has been neutered, you have been pacified.

[Anonymous No.15995038]

>>15995004
It doesn't have to be endless. We could just go all out until one side is completely gone.

[Anonymous No.15995049]

>>15995038
The sides are not fixed, plus people in all camps can switch sides at any given moment.

[Anonymous No.15995061]

>>15994989
>. Most of us are fine in our flats with fast wifi.
In the long-term, most of us cannot be fine with this or there wouldn't be an us. Although "most of us" lack the cognitive ability and mental attributes to advance the extended self-preservation and would have to leave it to the others, so perhaps being "fine" with it means very little. My worldview is that I don't care so much about quality or quantity of life rather than life itself. The only way to extend the existence of life itself is to extend our possibilities, which must come through a greater understanding of the universe and its principles.

[Anonymous No.15995088]

>>15993937
>"Because religious people and religious institutions have set back humanity at least 1000 years."
>he doesn't know that most of academia was funded by the church
>he doesn't know most serious academics were religious or thought religion was an important element of society

[Anonymous No.15995096]

>>15995061
I advise you to rethink your position - from what you have said we can conclude that "life" has some higher metaphysical meaning and has full control over you as a person (or even humanity as a whole)

[Anonymous No.15995111]

Dawkins' arguments were so bad they drove me closer to God.
I'm still planning on reading The Selfish Gene. The man can't be bad at everything.

[Anonymous No.15995114]

>>15995088
was that an actual person that existed and went through all that crap in your image?

[Anonymous No.15995148]

>>15995049
Ideologies are fixed. If we win there will be no changing sides after that. If believers win, they can do whatever then, we will be dead and will not care.

>>15995088
>>he doesn't know most serious academics were religious or thought religion was an important element of society
Cultural christians. The only way not be persecuted by church for having/spreading heretical ideas.

[Anonymous No.15995159]

>>15995096
Hardly, as stated with the concept of self-preservation. Unless you think evolutionary biology is a metaphysics

[Anonymous No.15995183]

>>15995012
>>15995061
It's just that there is nothing heroic in space exploration. It will be corporate or government funded. Only special people (cosmonauts and the elite) will be chosen for the missions. You will be in space costumes. Untill there are plants and oxygen on the planet life will be an eternal hell. Only escape from this will be the global web.
If we wil have the technology to terraform other planets, then why wouldn't we use it on earth?

I feel people often talk about space when they are dissatisfied with their life on earth. Calling me "pacified" is just a defence mechanism.

[Anonymous No.15995198]

>>15995148
>Ideologies are fixed.
They are not. Church was anti-gay and nowadays you can have a gay marriage sanctioned by the church. Ideologies are changing over time. Additional point is that majority of people are not interested in the ideology itself. They are (unpaid) hired guns for the purposes of the ideologues who are mostly comprised of smaller number of people.

Active conflicts for hegemony cannot be maintained for long.
War of Three Kingdoms (China)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms
Sengoku - Warring States Period (Japan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sengoku_period

No war is sustainable long-term. Things are bound to change along the way. In fact, they are constantly changing since they are under influence of various contextual factors.

[Anonymous No.15995201]

>>15995159
You are too naturalistic. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.15995213]

>>15994994
That is just a fascist idea

[Anonymous No.15995298]

>>15995159
And there are big problems waitng ahead of you, progressives. You will have to find a way to direct the whole humanity towards your specific goal (good luck with explaing "how natural self-preservation is"). Adding a vector, so to speak. Many have tried (communists, fascists and even liberals). Non have succeeded.

[Anonymous No.15995336]

>>15995213
Yes

>>15995198
You are correct, in the past and also at this point in time, people even in the same ideological camps can have varying views and opinions, but they also have few similar and very strong beliefs, in the end people compromise. A compromise may work for some time but in the end it always fails . I think with eugenics and neurological profiling we can eliminate a need for this.

[jesus No.15995344]

God for all of you un enlightened faggots is a concept. It is either internal or external. Christian church enforces external God, i.e. irresponsibility, you have to pray to get something, not take by yourself. Christ clearly said: you are all Gods. First commandment clearly says: I am God. God is within, within you, and within you is I, "I". I am in everyone. A wise atheist is closer to God, to I, to inner child than any christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15995350]

>>15993553
the ontological argument supposes that it is more perfect (or greater in some versions) to exist than not to exist. this is a case of language leading to a misunderstanding. in reality those two states aren't comparable, they are merely different. also any ontological claim is probably wrong since reality is most likely to be incomprehensable to humans and inexpressable in human language.

also the god that is meant in that argument is in no way anthropomorphic and has none of the human qualities that most definitions of god has like having intent, judgement, personality or intelligence.

i havent read the book but dawkins usually attacks religion as an institute and popular christian conceptualizations of god

>>15993643
i dunno if he actually mocks people in the book but im guessing he attacks those ideas because he wants money and he maybe likes the idea of doing good (his idea of good) for the world.

[Anonymous No.15995354]

>>15995336
No one will give you power

[Anonymous No.15995357]

>>15995344
word

[Anonymous No.15995368]

>>15995336
>I think with eugenics and neurological profiling we can eliminate a need for this.
You still rely on people going along with this, and if they don't, they are an opposition. That way we find ourselves in the same ideological battle all over again. Going from order to disorder and vice versa.
I don't think this going from order to disorder and back would ever change.

[Anonymous No.15995410]

>>15995354
On intellectual and logical level, I do not want anyone to give me power. Together we are stronger. If someone wishes to better himself, he can voluntary become one of us. Those who do not wish to, they are on the other side.

[Anonymous No.15995427]

>>15995368
It is voluntary. Some people will go for it or maybe even a much higher number.

[Anonymous No.15995485]

>>15995114
I don't know if it's based on the travails of one person, or taken bits from the lives of lots of different individuals.
In the second case it could have been riffing on the life of Alcuin who went between york Rom and Tours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin

[Anonymous No.15995539]

>>15995410
Local eugenical, paternalistic commune just like in anarcho-captalist dreams. Spicy

[Anonymous No.15995541]

>>15993691
This argument is so dumb, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc have been filtered through the greatest minds in history for thousands of years, they're more "viable" than some cave scratchings of a cult that didn't even last a century.
Christianity especially got really good at btfoing pagan arguments, which is why the Americas and Africa were converted so rapidly.

[Anonymous No.15995673]

>>15993654
based schizo

[jesus No.15995694]

>>15995357
word with a meaning, a weight. this weight is either yours, or some one elses. second commandment: don't have authority.

[jesus No.15995704]

>>15995541
irresponsibility is a fast spreading cancer, easy to get sick.

[Anonymous No.15995723]

>>15995539
It all depends on science and ability to perform neurological profiling.

[Anonymous No.15995758]

>>15995344
>true salvation comes from within
Based

[Anonymous No.15995807]

>>15993654
>crypto-satanists, even if they don't realize it
Not everything revolves around you, pathetic abrahamite.
Atheism is the endgoal of your desert religion. You brought spiritual desert to the lush forests and clean rivers of Europe.
YHVH is the ultimate atheizing agent with his jealousy and iconoclastic totalitarianism.
Return to the deserts of Iudea and take your semitic demon cult with you!

[Anonymous No.15995921]

>>15995807
>Atheism is the endgoal of your desert religion.
actually Agnosticism is

[Anonymous No.15996187]

>>15995921
Wrong its mysticism.

[Anonymous No.15996481]

>>15994871
holy shit, we are barely two replies in, how are you already coping? give me your secular humanist argument, anon, go on

[Anonymous No.15996507]

>>15996481
my what

[Anonymous No.15996812]

>>15994439
Richard Dawkins isn't that bad in the pic. The rest of the plebs suck though

[Anonymous No.15997985]

>>15995807
what books do you read?
I'm assuming LOTR, but what else?
genuinely interested, seems like they have good folklore

[Anonymous No.15998084]

A reminder that atheism nowadays is a victorious default position and almost all online atheists at least believe what the say. Meanwhile leading a crusade for the christian faith on 4chan is a guaranteed larping (and in the most cases it's not even postmodernist sophisticated neomedieval larping, but just simple edgy trolling against the popular opinion to get some replies).

[Anonymous No.15998144]

>>15994193
>Sterile, nutritionless lab slop
It's literally the same stuff you use to make burgers, same tissue.

[Anonymous No.15998179]

>>15994439
The "mere artisans" as Einstein put it still advance science. You can believe that empiricism and mathematics are the only things that matter and still produce scientific breakthroughs.

[Anonymous No.15998194]

>The "mere artisans" as Einstein put it still advance science. You can believe that empiricism and mathematics are the only things that matter and still produce scientific breakthroughs.

[Anonymous No.15998214]

>>15998179
That isn't Einsteins point, his point is you can advance science but you can't consider yourself a truth seeker if you ignore a field who's telos is finding truth

[Anonymous No.15998249]

>>15998214
I don't disagree with that but people act as if the other approach has zero value. If you discovered an equation to describe black holes, or a method to shrink transistors by 50% I would say you have done more for scientific advancement than someone who knows a bit about the philosophy of science but never produces real life results.

[Anonymous No.15998274]

>>15994989
>There is nothing instinctual in exploring space.
Humans always had an instinctual need to explore new territories - without that they stagnated and perished. Space is only the next logical step after populating the Earth.

[Anonymous No.15998276]

>>15998249
True, but it doesn't have to be either or, you can have scientists well read in philosophy while also advancing science.

[Anonymous No.15999229]

>>15991602
Fake. Animals can't talk. Checkmate, moralists.

[Anonymous No.15999235]

>>15999229
Lion told me that you are lying.

[Anonymous No.15999238]

>>15991256
fpbp

[Anonymous No.15999353]

I don't think God exists, at least not in the theological sense.
But I believe religion plays an evolutionary role due to the fact that almost every civilization, no matter how remote it was, held some form of metaphysical belief.
What is my position called?

[jesus No.15999403]

>>15999353
degenerate it is called.

[Anonymous No.15999411]

>>15999353
it's called being enlightened.

[jesus No.15999415]

>>15997985
funny, but is bible better than lotr? revival of corpses, walking on water, turning it to grog, seems like jesus was sauron to me.

[Anonymous No.16000463]

>>15994405
How is the ontological argument backed by hard science?

[Anonymous No.16000468]

>>15994713
well during apex of Roman Empire, all of those (physics/chemistry kind of made their staging ground during Middle Ages) stagnated and started the slow decline, stop using Family Guy as a history lesson

[Anonymous No.16000487]

>>15999353
Check out "Darwin's Cathedral" or "In Gods We Trust"