Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@FishNChips007: Your impression of Atheism and Agnosticism is nothing but a Straw Man Apologetic.
If you had bothered to read the article, with diagrams, on the home page, all of this would have been clearly explained. Click the link in the lower right corner....
A = Without Theism = belief in god. Atheist = a person without belief in god.
A + Without Gnostic = Knowledge of God (Spiritual mysteries) Agnostic = a person without knowledge of God or gods or other spiritual mysteries.
Agnostic Atheist: An atheist who has no reason to believe in God or gods as there is no evidence or reason to believe. (No knowledge)
Agnostic Anti-theist: A person who claims there is no god based on the complete lack of evidence for any such creature.
Agnostic Christian: (REFERENCE PASCAL'S WAGER) A Christian who claims there is no evidence for God or gods but believes anyway. ("There must be something out there, after all, were did all this come from?")
Either god exists or god does not exist. These are two separate propositions.
1. God exists. You must prove your position with facts and evidence.
(I don't believe you, is a response to the proposition. I have no reason to
believe you until you present facts and evidence. It does not mean, I believe
god does not exist. We have not even talked about that yet.
2. God does not exist? You must prove your position with facts and evidence. As there are over a billion gods, it helps to know which one we are talking about and how you define it. Only then will I be able to take a stand on this issue. At the same time, we probably both agree that most gods do not exist. We just do this out of hat without facts or evidence supporting our claim. Just as you disregard Zeus, Neptune, Apollo, etc.... I disregard other god claims and for the very same reasons. But if you define your god as different from these, well we must take it one step at a time.... I can't really commit until you have defined your god.
I can say, I have never seen anyone's version of a god stand against logic and critical inquiry. I expect your version will not hold up any better than any version that came before.
I am an atheist because I am not convinced of a god.
But if any theist knows of any evidence of a god, please present it.
BUMP:
No,, disbelief is axiomatically not belief, and I find it tedious to have to even answer such an asinine question.
No it doesn't, and again this is an absurdly stupid claim. I have made a decision, but it is axiomatic that someone who never knew about the concept of a deity would lack the belief it existed.
So agnosticism and atheism need not be mutually exclusive, as I said.
Now you're lying again, atheism is not a worldview, and it doesn't deny the existence of a deity, and agnosticism is a statement about the limits of epistemology, not a belief, or the absence of one. They are not opposed, and they are not mutually exclusive. Do you believe invisible fairies exist? Can you prove how you know they do not?
Neither are world views, and as I already stated plainly, I am an atheist, and an agnostic. Since I don't believe any deity or deities exist, but cannot know this if the deity in question is defined in an unfalisfiable way, just as invisible unicorns are unfalsifaible.
I am dubious that this is a scientific claim. However it is an objective fact that the universe exists, and that natural phenomena exist, if you are going to add an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition, then the burden of proof to evidence this is entirely yours, not mine, since I make no claims about the origins of the universe.
Does it, how many universes were in your test group to evidence your claim? Though of course even if you had pretended you could evidence this claim, that does not remotely evidence any deity, why would it? This is argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, or a god of the gaps polemic.
Well I'm not a physicist, or a scientist, so unlike you I am loathe to make sweeping claims, however I will say that my limited understanding is that the universe had a point of origin, that science has evidenced in a scientific theory, called the big bang. Since time (as we know it) could not have existed prior to the existence of the physical universe, or the big bang, then you using words like start and cause seems nonsensical.
I have never had "faith in atheism" I don't even know what that means, since atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. I believe things only if there is sufficient objective evidence to support them. Atheism is not a belief, and you are a fool if you think you can reverse the burden of proof, simply to justify your belief in a deity,, when you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
Now I have answered all your questions, can you please answer mine.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
If the answer is none, then insisting those who who don't share your belief, evidence its non-existence, is manifestly dishonest. Can you evidence the non-existence of invisible purple dragons?
@FishNChips007: Are you certain that you are in fact, an atheist?
Are you certain that you are in fact a Christian?
Your guru wrote nothing down, so all his supposed teachings are based on second- or third-hand hearsay recorded decades after his death by people that never met him. Thousands of Christian sects have arisen, each claiming in mutually exclusive ways to represent the true teachings of Jesus. There are many different versions of the Bible, all of which were written and translated by people who never met Jesus.
So what kind of Christian are you? Are you sure you're really following JC in the right way? Could you perhaps be guilty of believing in a fictional character that bears no resemblance to the first-century figure referred to the New Testament? Are you believing not in Jesus as he really was, but in Jesus as you and your fellow cultists want him to have been?
@FishNChips007
I hardly know any atheists who conclusively assert that there is no god. I'd say the general consensus on here is that there exists NO EVIDENCE that a god exists, and this is a response to the theistic claim that A GOD EXISTS. You'd be hard pressed to find atheists who claim NO GODS EXIST. Your OP is kind of a strawman.
That being said, can you demonstrate and/or present evidence that your deity exists?
Ok, There are a lot of issues to be discussed. Firstly, Sheldon, I am sorry you feel that I lied to you. I can assure you, I presented you no lie. I was under the impression that atheists do not believe in God. I still believe that. However, most people here have shared that atheists do not state that there is no God, but rather disbelieve because of a supposed lack of evidence.
If that is the case, then let's begin to address the evidence.
Within the laws of physics, we have the law of cause and effect. This law states that if something happens (the effect) there must have been something to cause said effect.
By that law, if we agree that the universe began to exist, there must be a cause. This is not fallacy, but fact. Simple logic will bring any rational thinker to this conclusion. Simple logic, Modus Ponens; if P is true, then Q is true.
Therefore, if the universe began to exist, it must have a cause.
The universe did begin to exist (to evidence that, look out your window) therefore, it had a cause.
Now, let's address the cause and take it from there. What do you believe to be the cause of the universe? You stated that you believe the cause to be the big-bang.
If so, where did the super-dense collection of matter come from which exploded? If that super-dense collection of matter began to exist, what is the cause for it? And if it exploded (effect) what was the cause of that?
@delusionNchips007
Why singularity matter existed? Don't know...yet.
Singularity ignition? Supersonic flame turbulence causing spontaneous acceleration, and transition into detonation. UCF's propulsion physicists discovery, early 2019. Although explosion or rapid expansion, is just semantics.
Your argument is a classic fallacious god of the gaps, argument. Inserting a god into the gap of knowledge needed to explain something occurring, is not evidence that the event occurred because of the god...nor evidence of the gods existence.
As I originally suggested, please provide clear demonstrable objective evidence of your version of a god's existence...and please learn the functional difference between subjective and objective evidences.
A god of gaps is neither subjective or objective evidence...it is a laughable fallacious un-evidenced assertion.
Might I suggest you evidencing the existence of your god first...this way you can insert him anywhere you want.
Thank you, come again.
@Fishbait
1. Re: "I was under the impression that atheists do not believe in God."
Wow, you catch on quick. Bingo! Give that man a cigar! I do not believe in the god of the bible or in any other gods in the same way I do not believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. The entire concept is just too ridiculous for me to believe. Granted, there are indeed a few atheists out there who will hardcore state, "God does not exist." That is their problem, not mine. By all means, feel free to ask those individuals for their evidence/proof. I'd be curious to know myself, in the same way I would love to know YOUR evidence/proof for YOUR particular god concept.
Speaking of which, what exactly IS your personal god concept? Many have asked so far, but if you answered somewhere I apologize if I missed it. Still, inquiring minds want to know.
2. Re: "Therefore, if the universe began to exist, it must have a cause."
Therefore, if your god began to exist, it must have a cause.
3. Re: "...where did the super-dense collection of matter come from which exploded?... And if it exploded (effect) what was the cause of that?"
Marvin the Martian lit the fuse of his Illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator, and the rest is history. What's your point? I'm not an astrophysicist, and my lack of belief in your god has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Perhaps you should join an astrophysics chat site and ask somebody on there. Pretty sure folks there would be much better at answering those questions for you.
Bumped to end...
Oh look, more doubling down on duplicitous apologetics.
Let's tale a look at this shall we?
Let's see how far your playing apologetics with science gets you this time, shall we, boy?
Apparently you're unaware that quantum physics tossed classical causality into the bin a long time ago. Which is merely the first of the problems with your lame apologetics (though an extremely serious one).
Indeed, numerous experiments covering entanglement, and how this exerts an effect upon the outcome of the double slit experiment, reveal to those of us who paid attention in class, that "causality" in the quantum world is difficult even to define. For example, physicists have been able to send photons of light through double slits, one single photon at a time, which should, if classical causality is correct, result in the disappearance of the interference pattern that appears when many photons are sent through the slits at once. But, oops, the interference pattern continues to be built up over time.
Then there's an interesting experiment that can be performed using supercooled rubidium atoms, and sending them one at a time through the slits. This becomes even more interesting for the following reason: it's possible to change the energy state of the rubidium atomic nuclei, by suitable means, before sending the atoms through the slits, without affecting the position-momentum relation applicable to the atoms in question. However, if you try using this information to find out which slit the atom passed through, the interference pattern is again destroyed. If you don't bother trying to use this information in this way, the interference pattern appears as expected. This even works when one is using single atoms at a time in the interference experiment, and classical causality has no means of explaining these results.
For that matter, classical causality breaks down every time that one has operators working in tandem in any system, in such a manner that the commutator of those operators is non-zero (in which case the operators are entangled).
Since quantum effects would have been hugely significant in the first microsecond after the Big Bang, including effects that involve entangled operators, this utterly destroys any attempt to apply classical causality to the relevant events.
This, of course, isn't the only problem with your fatuous attempt to resurrect the tiresome Kalam cosmological apologetic bilge. Another problem centres upon the fact I presented in an earlier post, namely, that cosmological physicists don't think that the Big Bang was the "beginning" of all that exists, merely the "beginning" of the current observable universe in its current form, a little detail that pedlars of this weak apologetics always fail to notice.
See above for why this simplistic view renders your apologetics null and void ...
See above for why this simplistic view renders your apologetics null and void ...
Wrong. See above.
Wrong. See above.
And I can tell at this point, that you've never encountered Willard Van Ormand Quine, one of the foremost analytical logicians of the modern era. Whose textbook Methods of Logic has been a seminal text in undergraduate and graduate classes on the subject. Part One, Section 3, The Conditional on its own immediately introduces the reader to a wealth of reasons why naive consideration of conditionals is in serious need of revision, even before venturing into the troublesome world of contrafactual conditionals, which has been a troublesome subject for analytical philosophers for the best part of a century, a simple but illustrative example thereof being provided in that section for the reader's education. But I digress.
One of the central points that Quine presents in his exposition on conditionals, is that for the construct known as the material conditional (from which implication, or modus ponens, arises) only makes sense if there exists a well-defined relational connection between the antecedent and consequent. The breakdown of classical causality alone destroys that connection in your fatuous apologetic misuse thereof, even before we consider the cosmological physics literature in full.
Except that my above exposition tells us that we need to be extremely careful about terms, such as "universe", "began to exist", and "cause", care which is completely absent from your regurgitation of this well-known ex recto apologetics.
Which once again brings us back to the fact, which I notice you ignored completely when I presented it earlier, that modern cosmological physicists regard the current observable universe and its contents to have been the product of testable natural processes. Some of those processes involving entangled quantum operators, which as I've illustrated above, presents huge problems for naive views of "causality".
Correction: The current observable universe in its current form had a "beginning", and the consensus among people who paid sufficient attention in class to become cosmological physicists, is that said "beginning" was launched by testable natural processes.
Since I dispense with "belief" for reasons I've already stated, I'll remind you that my view at this juncture consists of "proposals from actual cosmological physicists, particularly when testable, are more likely to play a part in this than unsupported mythological assertions". This isn't a matter of "belief", it's a matter of taking note of the vast number of precedents already set with respect to other classes of entities and interactions, previously asserted to require an invisible magic man, but which were found later to be within the remit of testable natural processes. No one who paid attention in class expects this precedent to be broken any time soon.
I recognise that you're addressing someone else here (who will doubtless deal with your assertion accordingly), but as I've already stated in a previous post, which you appear to be pretending does not exist, that the Big Bang is considered in the cosmological physics community to be merely yet another testable natural process. And as a corollary, once again, does not require "belief".
Ahem, do learn the elementary concepts applicable here. The Big Bang wasn't an "explosion", and I'm becoming rather tired of seeing idiot mythology fanboys regurgitate this risible error. If you had bothered to pay attention in the requisite classes, you would have known that the Big Bang was an expansion of the space-time metric.
Plus, I've already covered at least one pair of scientific papers offering a solution to the above problems. Which doesn't require a fatuous cartoon magic man from a ludicrous pre-scientific mythology.
@C: Awwww Fuck! "Methods of Logic" Another book on my bucket list!
@FishNChips007
"Within the laws of physics, we have the law of cause and effect. This law states that if something happens (the effect) there must have been something to cause said effect."
>>>This isn't always true. Retrocausality and other concepts might disagree with you here.
Plus I don't think logic is a strong determinant for objective truths. It can demonstrate the possibility of a phenomenon, sure. But I'd rather believe an assertion backed up with hard empirical evidence than inductions and/or inferences.
"If so, where did the super-dense collection of matter come from which exploded? If that super-dense collection of matter began to exist, what is the cause for it? And if it exploded (effect) what was the cause of that?"
Leaving aside the (correct) 'god of the gap' Argument, and assumed you were r99ight - which god did it? As said already, there are millions of them - not all claim to have made the universe, but a good deal of 'em do - if I worship the wrong one, and the right one is as jealous as JHWH...
@fISHncHIPS007
"Within the laws of physics, we have the law of cause and effect. This law states that if something happens (the effect) there must have been something to cause said effect. By that law, if we agree that the universe began to exist, there must be a cause. This is not fallacy, but fact. Simple logic will bring any rational thinker to this conclusion. Simple logic, Modus Ponens; if P is true, then Q is true.
Therefore, if the universe began to exist, it must have a cause."
A. We can not know if the laws of physics existed before the big bang. The laws of physics is what we observe in the current universe.
However before the big bang the current universe did not exist, so what you are postulating has no relevance to what existed before the big bang, because the laws of physics we observe now may not have existed before then.
It is impossible to go back in time to before the big bang, so it is probable we will never know the cause. If you want to make a claim that you know what happened, then you need to provide evidence that you know what happened, not just make the claim!
RE: "I was under the impression that atheists do not believe in God. "
That would be correct. This is not the same thing as asserting "There is no god." To make that assertion we need you to identify your god. Many gods do not exist. Some gods are just useless. No god has EVER been demonstrated to exist. If there was such a God, all the Christians would be using the same God claim and there would probably be one religion instead of millions.
RE: " There are a lot of issues to be discussed."
No! There is only one issue to discuss. "Do you have any facts or evidence supporting your claim that a God or gods exist?" That's it! Nothing more.
RE: Cause and Effect:
Cause and effect is local to our universe. It breaks down at Planck Time. The "Law" you speak of is "DESCRIPTIVE" and not "PRESCRIPTIVE." You are making an equivocation fallacy when you assume physical laws are the same as legal laws. Laws are general ideas about the properties and interactions of material objects in this universe.
RE: "By that law, if we agree that the universe began to exist."
Even if the universe began to exist, you have not ruled out natural causes. You are making a "God of the Gaps Argument." By the nature of the very same "LAW" (The way you are using it.) Your God must have also begun to exist. To deny this is to engage in Special Pleading, another fallacy. Finally, even if the universe had a beginning, this says nothing about the cosmos. (That which is beyond what we know.) Time itself, as we understand it, comes into existence at Planck time. To talk about time before time is idiotic.
RE: "What do you believe to be the cause of the universe?" The best explanation for the origin of the universe (NOT CAUSE) is the Big Bang Cosmology. Even so, there are other theories out there that are challenging it. Creationism, is NOT one of those theories. Causality breaks down at Planck Time. The origin of this universe says nothing at all about the cosmos.
RE: If so, where did the super-dense collection of matter come from which exploded?
Why does it have to come from anywhere? Matter exists. We have no evidence anywhere for "No Matter." Please demonstrate that a place of no matter (nothing) exists. Matter is what we have and we currently know of no way to get from matter to nothing. You are confusing (once again) the philosophical idea of absolute nothing, ZERO, with what we call nothing in the real world. Nothing is not nothing at all. When we look at "nothing" is is loaded with energy fields.
RE: If that super-dense collection of matter began to exist, what is the cause for it?
Reference Einstein - Mass = Energy and Energy = Mass. They are the same thing.
NOTHING EXPLODED - Your understanding of Big Bang cosmology is juvenile at best. A sixth grade science book could give you more information than you currently have. The universe expanded and it is still expanding today. It is also expanding faster and faster. READ A BOOK!
NO ONE KNOWS THE CAUSE OF THE EXPANSION: YOU DO NOT GET TO INSERT A MAGICAL GOD AS THE CAUSE WITHOUT EVIDENCE. ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE. YOU ARE MAKING A "GOD OF THE GAPS" ASSERTION AND THIS IS FALLACIOUS AT ITS CORE. DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD BEFORE YOU ASSERT IT MUST BE THE CAUSE.
The one true initial singularity.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
And then it expanded: EXPANSION OF THE BANANAVERSE.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
...and then, naturally, this...
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Hey! Uncle Bob! We called him Bob because he was wearing that banana suit when he fell into the river. That was the last we ever saw of him...
You all just watched him bob away, yeah? Sad.
@Grinseed: Monkeys don't swim without their butterfly floats.
Bump
Yes you did, and it is doubly dishonest to now misrepresent what you claimed, so here is the quote again.
Atheism is not a world view, so please address this lie, and don't waste my time dishonestly pretending I had denied atheism was a lack of belief, as this is simply a lie on top of the original.
You are applying the law of cause and effect to a non temporal and immaterial state, without even pretending to evidence this claim, a claim that seems to have escaped science. You have also ignored my point that your unevidenced speculation for a cause, does not evidence a deity or anything supernatural. Or that it is an objective fact that natural causes exist, you are adding an unevidenced supernatural cause. Occam's razor applies...
So, I ask again since you have again ignored my questions, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for anything supernatural?
So you keep asserting, yet dishonestly have not addressed my objections, that time did not exist prior to the big bang, you can't simply wave this away. The causes that support the law of cause and effect are in every single instance natural phenomena.
1. You have yet to establish a "cause" for the universe beyond what science already evidences, the big bang, which is an entirely natural phenomenon as far as the scientific evidence demonstrates.
2. Even were your initial premise not entirely without evidence, a cause does not evidence a deity, or anything supernatural.
3. The only causes we have objective evidence for are natural causes.
The big bang is a scientific theory, as with all established scientific theories, the objective evidence is contained within it. I make no claims about it, and accept what is objectively evidenced. It does not of course, evidence any deity or anything supernatural.
I have no idea, as I already said I am not a scientist, though it strikes me you are making an unevidenced assumption that what existed prior to the bib bang could not have always existed. Either way you are again heading towards a fallacious god of the gaps polemic.
Now once again I have taken the time to answer your questions, even though you have completely ignored mine.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
@Sheldon, Algebe, DoG, Tin, White, et al...
How many different ways can we say the same fucking thing??? I would like you all to chip in and we can buy fishy a 6th grade science book.
I will happily donate my youngestest science book. He’s been done with it for about 3 years.
@Cog Re: "...chip in and we can buy fishy a 6th grade science book."
I don't know, man. Are you sure we should start him off at such a high level like that? Might cause him more confusion. Wouldn't want to overload his brain right out of the gate.
@heartlessmetal
Honestly you may be correct. He is using the kalam cosmological argument, devised before quantum physics was even understood. I am sure he is a google warrior, taking decades old arguments from a outdated apologetics site...not even understanding the argument fully.
For me the tedium of theists traipsing in here in an endless tandem, all asking the same specious facile questions, is not as annoying as the fact that not one of them ever acknowledges their error, after we all take the time and patience to explain to them why their god of the fucking gaps polemic is fallacious nonsense.
@shelly
(doG whips a bottle of xanax at the proud dragon).
Whitefire: Excellent! There is a real need for it. Now all we need is a mommy to sit with little fishy and make sure he does his homework. I personally think Cranky should do it. He has the RIGHT attitude!
Here is a story for your consideration:
A certain man had been convicted of several petty crimes. Among them were petty theft, and disturbance of peace. This man was also known to have struggled with alcoholism.
A certain police officer was called to address another disturbance of peace call, and the call just so happened to come from within the neighborhood of that certain man. When the police officer arrived on the scene, he could find no disturbance anywhere. He reasoned, that he should go and check the house of the certain man.
He was correct, the disturbance had come from the man. He and his roommate had gotten into a heated argument, but all had been settled.
While the man and the officer were speaking, the officer dropped the pen, with which he was writing up the incident report. He bent down to pick it up.
BANG
a shot had been fired.
The officer's spleen had been pierced by a small bullet
All the evidence, as recorded by a certain reporter, was stacked against the certain man, who at this moment in the story, was incarcerated. A gun, with the certain man's finger-prints had been found in the bushes nearby.
When interviewed, the man told the reporter, repeatedly, word for word, that he and his roommate got into a heated argument, and that he, after having a few beers, went outside, began to yell at the top window where the roommate's bedroom was located, and fired shots straight up in the air, intending only to startle his roommate.
When questioned about how the officer was shot in the spleen, he answered sincerely, that he did not know.
Another piece of information that came up in the interviewing process is as follows: the man had actually been a member of a local gang, but, for leniency on his crimes, he had become an informant, blowing the whistle on his fellow gang-members, reporting directly to the officer who had been shot.
That being said, when it was reported that the man had been an informant, and he was sent to prison, members of that gang who were also imprisoned, beat him brutally and humiliated him in the most disgusting of ways. They did this, having labeled him a rat. while these beatings were taking place, bloodying the man near to death, the corrections officers turned a blind eye and simply allowed the events to take place. The officers had labeled the man a cop-shooter.
This went on for some time, and the man had to be hospitalized in critical condition. Meanwhile, a forensics team had discovered that the officer who had been shot had been carrying a small concealed card-gun in his shirt pocket, pointing down, When he went to pick up the pen he had dropped, the trigger was engaged and shot down into the officer's spleen.
When the reporter came to apologize to the certain man, he attempted to justify himself, due to the way the evidence, as well as the man's own track record made him appear. He asked, "How could I not have seen it?"
The man simply replied, "You didn't want to. You already made up your mind before you put out the report."
That concludes the story.
You ask for evidence. I have given you evidence. It is impossible for nothing to create everything. Is it possible that you just don't want to see it?
@Tin-man, if I wrote a book, do I have to exist within its pages, or do I exist outside of the world I created within the book. Did I need the book in order for myself to exist, or did the book need me?
Much in the same way, God is the existing One. He IS, and He has made creation, and is not confined to time and space as we are. He is the cause, creation is the effect.
He didn't start to exist, but is the existing One. He does not need creation in order for Himself to exist, but rather, creation needs Him.
Pages