The atheist who changed his mind
posted at 12:48 pm on November 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’m technically on vacation but wanted to flag this profile of British philosopher Antony Flew in today’s NYT. A Christian friend mentioned him to me last year as evidence of the turning tide in the debate between believers and nonbelievers: a leading intellectual light among atheists for decades, he declared himself a deist in his old age. The occasion for the profile is his new book, “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.” Times contributor Mark Oppenheimer wanted to find out how someone so entrenched on one side of the divide came to migrate intellectually to the other (a phenomenon that goes both ways, incidentally). He settles on two contributing factors, the first being that Flew, by temperament, was never the sort of bomb-throwing polemicist in the Hitchens mold that so many atheists seem to be. Without that element of intellectual bloodsport compelling him towards loyalty to his own side, he was able to follow the evidence wherever it took him. Which is to say, he wasn’t much “entrenched.”
I’ll leave you to read the piece to find out what the other contributing factor was. Suffice it to say, it calls into question whether, and to what extent, Flew was able to follow the evidence at all, culminating in a gripping scene in his living room between Oppenheimer and the man himself plus a few choice quotes from Flew’s editor which suggest he may be being used — with his publisher’s knowledge — as a sort of ventriloquist’s dummy. The piece begins with Flew’s famous paper on the impossibility of proving God’s existence and ends, ironically, with the impossibility of even proving what Antony Flew thinks about God now. Read it all.
Update: I’m not having any trouble loading the page but others are. Try this if the links above don’t work.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Time for a new travel agent.
sweeper on November 4, 2007 at 1:01 PM
The page cannot be found
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Travel channel went offline for a few minutes :P
lorien1973 on November 4, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Looks like a good book – I might pick it up. There is just one thing holding me on from full-tilt atheism. Granted, it ain’t much, but it looks like it is the same reasoning that Flew may have went through.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 12:09 PM
So in other words he really want an atheist…
doriangrey on November 4, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I could not find the link either, but I read about the book and editorial reviews on Amazon
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Could it be childhood cancer, perhaps? There’s nothing that screams, “God has a plan for us!” like a young child dying a slow and painful death.
Loundry on November 4, 2007 at 12:25 PM
so he can’t be that senile!
AdrianG on November 4, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Go ye forth and chart the unknown, that part which is non virtual.
Have fun.
Speakup on November 4, 2007 at 12:34 PM
An atheist is a person whose faith is their lack of faith.
christophercube on November 4, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Ivan Karamazov said it much better than you do.
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 12:37 PM
frreal on November 4, 2007 at 12:43 PM
by the way, looks like the blog’s clock forget to set itself back, says you posted at 12:48.
or is your vacation…in the future???
AdrianG on November 4, 2007 at 12:45 PM
C. S. Lewis was the same way wasn’t he?
ballz2wallz on November 4, 2007 at 12:45 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ…hic….zzzzzzzzz
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM
What do you mean by ‘the same way’?
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Yes! And fortunately for us all, he wrote it all down in a book he wrote called Surprised by Joy.
Weight of Glory on November 4, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Chris Hitchens states that he can not prove there is not a god. His real argument is against religions of ancient men with ancient minds still holding sway n a time when we have copious scientific knowledge that disproves the foundations of these dubious middle eastern sects.
[Christian, Jude, and Islam]
There may well be a god but the texts and folklore of primitive man is not where we’ll find the answers.
It would be nice to think that this god would have one hell of a scientific mind and appreciate the more reasoned theories.
TheSitRep on November 4, 2007 at 1:09 PM
If you’re gonna disqualify anything that is ancient from being valid then pretty soon will you be calling the Constitution primitive.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 1:15 PM
before i read that, i was an atheist. was.
treyevans on November 4, 2007 at 1:21 PM
There is no comparison.
The U.S constitution has few references of burning bushes, parting waters, Turning water into wine, or women giving birth w/o having done the nasty.
TheSitRep on November 4, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Flew is being exploited, he was never a Christian or theist hater and when Flew became feeble minded enough through age Christianists set upon him intent on his conversion until he gave the slightest credence so they then could write his book of contrition, the people cited in which Flew couldn’t even remember.
Is this the secular disrespect and dishonesty we can expect or can trophy hunting nonsecularists be held in just as much contempt.
Speakup on November 4, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Uh… actually, no.
The only thing keeping me from full-throttle atheism is the apparant order I see in the universe. Anthony Flew, it seems, was similarly persuaded. But as far as I am concerned that tells me nothing about who/what God is or what he/she/it wants from me. So for all practical purposes I keep an atheistic outlook on life.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 1:37 PM
I’m not convinced the Bible’s been disqualified as being inspired by such a God.
Dork B. on November 4, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Another intellectual weakling, fearing death.
God is a fairy tale, and the bible was written by man.
kafiiri on November 4, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Where on earth did all these atheist readers come from?
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Unlike religionists, Atheist have no clergy. We accept or deny arguments based on how “WE” judge the strength of those arguments. We decide for ourselves. To accept the argument in this book as described in the article would be to say that if Mohammad Ali were to lose a match today it would prove that he was never the greatest. It appears to me that unable to dispute the indictment of arcane theological cosmologies, the authors engaged in no small amount of subterfuge.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I was just about to post “this is an odd religion/atheism thread”. What happened to the other side?
Entelechy on November 4, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Really?
So everyone who believes in God is a weakling?
All the scientists, doctors, physicists, educators, political theorists who believe in God are weak minded. Please tell that to the people who rely on their intellectual work. That might be useful information.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:05 PM
That’s what prophecies are for. There’s, oh, a few hundred of them that have come true from the Old Testament. Worth reading.
Don’t you mean “Where the hell did they come from?”
Mojave Mark on November 4, 2007 at 2:05 PM
The guy was senile, or lazy who then became senile.
I agree the Bible was written by man, and has several inaccuracies. Just read the various modern interpretations and compare, often the same verse has seemingly different meanings. Not to mention contradictions found throughout.
Good post, glad I read it.
Hypothetically (for you to accept this argument), if this God with extreme intellect exists, what exactly would our reasoned theories amount to (since we know sooo much) compared to the creator of the universe?
Free Constitution on November 4, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I think many don’t care to get in to a flame war with condescending turds. It’s gotten pretty old.
That’s hilarious.
RightWinged on November 4, 2007 at 2:07 PM
The difference between the god of the philosophers like Spinoza and Aristotle and atheism amounts to nothing from the viewpoint of anyone with a religious agenda–except from what they can make out it politically. Anyway, I could even claim to believe in the god of Spinoza and I suspect AP could also. It’s the politics–not philosophy–that stops me and other atheist from affirming the god of the philosophers. The bottom line is that Spinoza was trying to hid his atheism by calling it theism–a time tested technique now popular with leftists who “support our troops.” (Spinoza had the reasonable excuse that he could have been killed for being too honest.)
My analysis of this little affair is that Flew stumbled before some science he didn’t understand and admitted he didn’t understand, & that his stumble was mistake in the battle against Islam, which Flew understood.
thuja on November 4, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Atheists have a strong presence online, no doubt. I hardly get any comments on my own blog but if I write something against atheism I normally get at least one comment.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Always nice to hear the side that condemns people like me to an eternity of torture complaining about being abused.
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Given the object of this thread, that is hilarious.
Free Constitution on November 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM
The “case for God” presented by established religions is waaaay too littered with superstition, archaic understanding of science, emotion and politics to be taken seriously.
I don’t believe in God. Even without the religious fairy tales, the existence of a creator – even an impassive, stand-off creator, leads to the inevitable question: what created the creator and what created the creators creator (etc.)?
If the answer is “the creator was self originating”, then I wonder why anyone would believe in this, rather than the much more plausible, watertight theory of a self-originating, self-perpetuating universe – powered by its own causal direction and existed from perpetuity.
If the answer is “only God can understand this”, I think “hmm – cop out. You might as well believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure and live in mortal dread of “the coming of the big white handkerchief”.
Jatravartid philosophy aside, it would be illogical to rule out the existence of God (or indeed the Great Green Arkleseizure), but as humans can never know for sure, it’s silly to waste out all too brief lives worrying about it (let alone getting numb bums on church pews, praying to it).
uptight on November 4, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Ghandi once said: Even God comprehends an atheists atheism.
(for anybody still on the fence, or the Gates rather)
christophercube on November 4, 2007 at 2:11 PM
No place to go on Sunday. The rest of us were in church.
CrimsonFisted on November 4, 2007 at 2:11 PM
So what?
You don’t believe in eternity.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Yeah, much unlike telling me my God is no better than Santa Claus, but hey at least eternal nothingness is better than life everafter, oh wait.
Free Constitution on November 4, 2007 at 2:13 PM
They are still at worship. Don’t worry there will be plenty of Ad hominem once the praise and supplications have ended.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 2:15 PM
So why don’t you guys prove atheism, rather than criticize theism, leaving us to try and prove something that cannot be objectively proven.
Free Constitution on November 4, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Nothing wrong with praising and supplicating to something other than myself and human innovation.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:23 PM
You can’t prove a negative. Besides I don’t care what you believe. Do what you want. You don’t see Atheists going door to door, or telling people to send money and God will make them rich, or blowing themselves up on buses. Why are you so threatened by criticism. Worship any god you want just stop trying to shove it down my throat and claiming special status.
If you were so convinced you wouldn’t have to constantly prove it to everyone. Oh! and pay your friggin taxes.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Arguments claiming to prove (or disprove) the existence of god are interesting but invariably faulty. Causality arguments require time (before, after), but a truly omniscient god would have to exist outside of time or else one would have to answer the what caused the first cause question/paradox. (This sort of unsatisfactory “proof” was put forward by Aquinas, Avicenna and others and is often repeated by Sunday morning preachers.)
If an omniscient god created the universe ex-nihilo one might ask “where and when” was he for the creation? Do the rules of logic to be used in the proof of god’s existence depend on the deity for their validity? If not, then they must supersede the divinity making him not all powerful.
Order arguments of the sort that a small change in some physical constants would make our universe impossible ignore the possibility (not provable) that other universes with different physical laws might exist. We just happen to live in this one and, to us, it seems ordered. Order is in no way a universal absolute it comes in various flavors — linear, topological etc. — and can depend on the observer.
Some philosophers have argued that any complete logical system would contain true propositions that cannot be proven within the system: this is known to be the case with he axiomatic systems of arithmetic (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems). It may be that the proposition (or its negation) “god exists” falls in this category.
Annar on November 4, 2007 at 2:33 PM
You’re right atheists don’t go door to door. But they are all over the bookshelves and all up in my TV.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:34 PM
So?
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
They’re everywhere, They’re everywhere!
I read a survey that said 40% of the people who attended church services either didn’t believe a percentage of what was said or didn’t believe it at all.
Of course that could just be liberal media.
Speakup on November 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I’m saying that atheists “evangelize,” just not in the traditional, Christian sense.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:38 PM
The only sense of “evangelize” IS the traditional, Christian sense. Is every book in the philosophy “evangelical”?
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM
v Section
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM
That’s beneath you. My “side” hasn’t condemned anybody. We believe the house is on fire and we’re trying to show you the exit. And you claim we started the fire.
see-dubya on November 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Of course not. Many atheists are PREACHING their atheism as if it were the GOSPEL truth and trying CONVERT anyone who BELIEVES differently.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Still going to hell.
Nonfactor on November 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Not sure what that means. I’m not claiming you’ve started any fire. Maybe Hitchens is, and is trying to show you the exit too, but in that case he’s no more condescending than religious people are. I also don’t see how you can say your side hasn’t condemned anybody. Christian doctrine condemns me for my nonbelief; you follow the doctrine, thus you assent to it. What did I miss?
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
So…We don’t know the house is on fire. You do. We don’t know where the exit is. You do. That’s just condescending. How do you know you’re not just screaming fire in a crowded theater?
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Of course Flew still doesn’t prove a god exists, it seems like he’s more or less given up.
“A god cannot be proven to exist.”
-30 years later-
“Okay, I still can’t prove the existence of god, but it just seems likely to me so I’ll say one exists.”
Nonfactor on November 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Code word there: non-belief.
If you don’t believe anything than its rather easy to condemn no one. So congrats to atheists for being so tolerant in their non-belief.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 2:58 PM
The whole idea of proving or disproving God is so silly, I can’t believe people spend much time on it. This is one of the things I really liked about the Catholicism to which I was exposed as a kid: they never tried to “prove” it. On the contrary, they built the unlikelihood of God’s existence right into the religion via the “leap of faith.” It’s supposed to be hard to believe; that’s the way God tests you, to see how devoted you are. So in a way, the more improbable it is, the more it works to the Church’s advantage. Genius.
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 3:00 PM
I’ve condemned my share of Islamists on this site, have I not?
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
So what you are saying is that you place yourself in the space where others place God. Should the strength of whatever arguments you consider important change, they your view of religion and God could change.
This reflects my general opinion that most self-identified atheists are really closet agnostics.
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Well, that’s not very hard to do.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM
There’s much truth to that. I think the odds of there being a God are a trillion to one, but can I disprove it? No. I can’t disprove Zeus either. So when push comes to shove, the correct answer is “I don’t know.”
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Are you condemning their religion or rather the consequences of their actions?
I can think of no instance were you outright attack anyone’s doctrine just for the sake of disagreeing with the fact they have a belief system.
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM
This is a very fair and honest answer.
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I think what they believe is ludicrous and malignant in a number of ways and I condemn for trying to impose it on anyone.
Allahpundit on November 4, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Sure I’m open minded. Go ahead prove God…
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 3:08 PM
The idea of proof regarding the concept of god is silly, true, but when discussing the Earthly religions proof and disproof are easy things to quantify. The Grecian gods can be disproved, the Islamic God can be disproved, and yes, even the Christian God can be disproved.
Nonfactor on November 4, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Please then do so and disprove.
Bring. it. on.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM
It’s not about me proving it to you, it is about God proving it to you… and if(when) it happens, you’ll know.
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM
AP gave an honest answer. Your response is dishonest in that it is phrased as an attack against religion in general rather than a defense of your own personal beliefs on religion.
I’m not saying you have to prove your position just pointing out the foolishness, whether you believe or not, of mocking God.
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Maybe Hitchens is claiming that I’m shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater.
As for my side, don’t take it so personally. Everyone is condemned. I was (and I can still screw this whole thing up very easily).
But telling me that I assent to your condemnation when I’m trying to warn you away from it is a flat-out misstatement. It’s like some moonbat accusing you of wishing that innocents were beheaded, because you believe there’s this mythical “War on Terror” and tried to warn people about it.
You would be frustrated by that.
see-dubya on November 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Actually, it is about you proving it to me because as far as I know none of the gods post here. Just those who think think they speak for them.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Good article, BTW. I particularly liked this sketch:
A complete worldview! In 444 pages! Available from Amazon! The perfect Nothingmas gift!
(I’ll ding Oppenheimer a bit for “he is young, male, and brilliant.” I had deduces his gender from the name “Richard”.
see-dubya on November 4, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:42 PM
You are the one demanding that a mere human prove something on behalf of God. So, no. It really is not up to me.
Lawrence on November 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I see that many contributing to this site could do well by reading another of Flew’s works – “How to Think Straight”
Ochlan on November 4, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Uh, AP, the Catholicism you were exposed to as a kid was pretty poor, then. That’s actually the exact opposite of the reason I’m attracted to Catholicism. The Church has always emphasized faith AND reason. Never simply a “leap of faith.” That’s a very Kierkegaardian formulation, who I like, but I nonetheless have problems with (i.e. the strict “fideist” position).
Anyways, aren’t you on vacation? You’ve got to sick of arguing about this stuff. I know I do, and I was a philosophy major in college.
WillBarrett on November 4, 2007 at 3:52 PM
(
Don’t mean bring gender and race into this but do you notice that most atheists are white and male (at least here in America)?
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Yes, Terry, you might want to be careful about injecting a controversial topic into this thread on God’s existence. ;-)
dedalus on November 4, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Sorry. I know but I’ve always just been personally curious about that. I apologize.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Did you here the one about the atheist snake-handler that would not eat pork during Lent or Ramadan?
Well, me neither but that would be a funny one.
TheSitRep on November 4, 2007 at 4:26 PM
You are wise.
TheSitRep on November 4, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I don’t know. I was just wondering this the other day.
Enjoy your vacation. I’ve disagreed with you about a million times this week but no hard feelings, hope this cheers you up.
aengus on November 4, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Just teasing. Hard to find a more contentious issue than religion. I should avoid offering an opinion, but my guess would be that atheism or agnosticism is a product of science and philosophy pushing belief further from the day-to-day explanation of things. The make up of atheism and agnosticism may, in part, reflect the make up of the academy in Western universities over the past two centuries.
Wonder if there is a correlation between atheism and wealth?
dedalus on November 4, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Hope you went somewhere warm with a beach for vacation AP. If so, Francis Collins (whom Bryan has mentioned before) wrote a book the Language of God. Collins grew up an atheist, got a Yale Ph.D. in Biochemistry, UNC MD and eventually became Head of the Human Genome Project. Collins first seriously Christianity when one of his terminal patients asked him what he believed in. Collins eventually became a Christian and is active in American Scientific Affiliation, a group of scientists who are professing Christians.
zb42 on November 4, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Like the odds that your sperm and your egg would ever meet.
Like the odds that life could start up from cehmicals by chance.
Like the odds that this planet could even support life.
You’re right it’s all too impossible to imagine.
What are the odds of life on other worlds in this galaxy? In this universe? Do all those absurd UFO sightings, alien abductions and comet cults count as evidence one way or the other?
boris on November 4, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Mojave Mark suggests:
Funny you should say that. I have read them. I am a bit of a religion nut. But Herbert Locker’s book ‘All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible’ inadvertantly convinced me that there is really no such thing as Messianic Prophecy.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Yes, really.
Inadvertently.
Truth to power. Simple minds breed simple superstitions.
Funny that, Allahpundit’s comment:
Where are all the sane, non-religious conservatives at? Seem to be a rare breed. On that note, don’t let Hot Air become a cesspool like that nut Johnson’s blog. I vomit every time I think of it. Barfed quite a few times writing this.
kafiiri on November 4, 2007 at 5:28 PM
I feel kinda sorry for you. You not only have no faith, but apparently you have no hope either. It is because of my faith that I have hope.
FYI – people of my faith do not “go door to door.”
FYI – people of my faith do not “send money and God will make them rich.”
FYI – people of my faith do not “blow themselves up on buses.”
FYI – people of my faith (or any true faith) do not feel “threatened by criticism.”
It is quite obvious that you are the one who feels threatened:
If you truly feel that anyone here is trying to “shove it down your throat,” perhaps you should close your mouth.
leepro on November 4, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Good observation. Have you noticed that a lot of them have very sour personalities and a huge chip on their shoulders…like Ronsfi? AP is an exception in that regard and is remarkably congenial.
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I don’t know that that is really true. I don’t have any statistics, but I wonder if you have any to reference. True, the most prominent of the recent atheist authors fit your description, but I can vouch for many female atheists. I also think most atheists are not religion buffs like me, and would just as soon not discuss their (lack of) beliefs with anyone.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Yes. I am white and male and Danish…I forgive you.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 5:52 PM
No, I do not have any statistics. It would be interesting to find some stats on this though. It has just been my observation from personal experience from meeting people and also I use to visit religion and philosophy chat rooms and Web sites and that is largely what I encountered. So no scientific method applied just my personal (perhaps very wrong) observation.
terryannonline on November 4, 2007 at 5:59 PM
I’m not Danish and if you represent the typical Danish male, I consider myself all the more fortunate to be an American.
I am curious about one thing. When you complain about being hounded by bothersome evangelicals who “shove their beliefs down your throat”, where and when is this happening exactly?
Buy Danish on November 4, 2007 at 6:07 PM
terryannonline says:
I participate/host a blogsite for apostates of religion – mostly Christianity but some Muslims/Mormons/JWs/etc also participate. It seems to be an equal mix of male and female, and I have no clue as to the ethnicity or race of nearly any of the participants. But now I am curious as to what a racial breakdown of atheism in the United States would look like.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I think Allahpundit’s actually posted some demographic stats on US atheists here at some point, but I don’t have time to look right now.
If you find it, please link.
see-dubya on November 4, 2007 at 6:18 PM
see-dubya, I think I saw a recent Allahpundit article that tried to correlate economic status with religious belief. It looked like buckshot with a trendline drawn through the middle. I think Allah said he was on holiday, but I can take a look for something reputable.
HeIsSailing on November 4, 2007 at 6:21 PM
I challenge you to find any personal attacks by me on anyone in this thread or any other. I on the other hand am subject to repeated name calling and insults of a personal nature. All by supposedly fine upstanding Christian intellectuals. I don’t pretend to have unique insights or to be great philosopher but if I post my point of view I am PERSONALLY attacked. I accept this as the price to be paid for standing outside the group think. I am not sure where the Gender/Race bias is coming from but such attacks only betray a weak argument. Pardon me if don’t reply to the inevitable venomous bile to come but it’s Atheist Singles Weekend and we’ve got babies on the grill.
ronsfi on November 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »