Friday, February 29, 2008

Layers Of God

I'm a born atheist and ever since childhood I never could figure out how people could suspend logic and reasoning when it came to the point of religious beliefs.

I've followed a lot of discussions and I've noticed, especially from the theist viewpoint, that most discussions about the evidencing and proving of the god entities and actions jumps around a lot. Usually it comes down to the point where a theistic standpoint is reached which has almost nothing to do anymore with the initial premises, but can't be reliably disputed. The theist assumes that argument is won and "feels" the entire discussion is won at that point. Further discussions tend to reach that point sooner or later and reinforce his/her viewpoint. Almost any basic premise can eventually be validated in this way.

It is now my current assumption that this sort of "tactics" play a major role in maintaining religiosity in many of the theistic adherents. The flaw in logic that individual arguments can be won or lost in an overall discussion seems to be inherent
to all religious posters.

I've build a sort of layer framework for myself to deal with these jumps. As a general rule I tend to consider an argument as "lost" when it jumps a layer up. The difficulty sometimes comes when more experienced (atheist) posters immediately use arguments from a higher layer to invalidate the initial standpoint. This is not so much about jumping layers as it is experience with these types of discussions and where they will end up, and attack the final arguments. Also, some points are almost between layers. Issues that are at the razor's edge of current scientific understanding fall in that grey area for instance. A lot of discussions about origin of life / abiogenesis are like that, but the discussions in these grey area's are usually at the higher of the 2 layers.

The layers I use, though they probably need finetuning, are as follows:

Layer 1 - creator god

Basically a Deist version of gods. The properties of this entity encompass basic god-like things like creator of the universe / this world / men.Other properties in this layer are being outside of reality / being reality itself, all-knowing, all-powerfull, timeless.

Layer 2 - indirect god

Building on the first layer, additional properties are assigned. Layer 2 gods influence our current universe, but do so via non-obvious methods. The extras in this layer describe things that are outside of our verifiable perception and are usually only known via holy texts or preacher claims. Describing properties are things like handling the afterlife, influencing decisions and things like comforting people in times of need. Another part of this layer are claims about the will or purpose of the god in question as well as other defining characteristics of the entity itself.

Layer 3 - direct god

At this layer the god is claimed to directly influence events in the world. It's often claimed to respond to actions done by people or is assigned handling events of nature. This can be both current as in the past, but all describe (currently) verifiable events.

Basically, layer 1 can not be proven true or false, though a logical base position would be false. Layer 2 is where most discussions happen because it can usually only be interfered. The theist arguments are often (based in) scripture or precedent, atheist arguments are mostly logic. Layer 3 is a bit weird. Theistic arguments in this layer are general proven false in seconds, but the majority of theists assume it's all true. Theist arguments are usually claims and scripture, atheist arguments in this layer are mostly evidence based.

Let my try a fictitious example to illustrate my framework:

T: Prayer works, because I prayed for the lottery and won it (Layer 3, assuming the Christian god where prayers are answered)

A: But praying doesn't always work, "states an example". Also, exhaustive tests have proven that prayer does not beat statistical odds.

T: God decides which prayers are answered (jump to Layer 2, basically the "Prayer works" argument is lost here and the discussion suddenly goes about a Layer 2 subject: god's will)

If the discussion rests at this point (it usually doesn't, but let's assume for the sake of argument), T will take it that the argument is won, therefore the discussion is won and relates that back to the point where T assumes the initial standpoint is also valid.

Another example, please keep in mind this is just to illustrate my point and are not exhaustive discussions:

T: Adam and Eve were the first humans and they were cast out of Eden (Layer 3, specific actions done by the god)

A: The fossil record proves Adam and Eve never existed and thus were never cast out of anything

T: Then where did good and evil originate from if not from god's punishment (jump to Layer 2, the discussion of A&E is lost and the discussion focuses on the Layer 2 subject "good and evil")

A: Good and evil are subjective generalizations of (genetic) survival instincts, influenced by cultural values and memes

T: It was god's plan when he created to universe that humans would turn out this way (jump to Layer 1, abandoning the good and evil argument and focusing on the Layer 1 subject of the creation of the universe)

Generally when you get to Layer 1 there are no persuasive arguments or evidences to be found to convince either participant in the discussion. This usually means the theist assumes a form of victory (it's not a loss...). This "feeling" then gets applied to the whole discussion and both the Layer 2 and even Layer 3 arguments are then assumed to be true as well.

So despite being falsified at the start, the theist still assumes Adam and Eve were real at the end of the discussion. This makes religious discussions basically useless because there is always a higher layer. It does explain a lot of weird assumptions and ideas that keep popping up as if they were never refuted though.

On the flip side, I have encountered a few issues where no decent arguments could be made (for or against) without jumping to a higher layer. This jump needs to be justified though, so the basic premise that jumping is an automatic loss can be circumvented if the need arises. There are not many of these kinds of issues though and I can't recall any out of hand.

So.. does anyone care to shoot holes in this framework idea?

Addendum - Expansion on the Framework Concept:

It isn't only confined to online discussions but is actually a basis for a large part of theologian/apologetic argumentations. I was pointed to the 4 Horseman interview, with 4 big names of the atheist "movement", where at one point it was noted that priests tell their flock literal meanings of the bible, but when asked about it by sceptics they immediately say it is all metaphorically. The metaphorical meaning is then defended but the literal meaning is still preached. This points to the idea that the jumping layers effect is quite common even in professional circles.

Written by Kilmer of AvC : An AvC thread : Layers Of God Discussion and alt.atheism

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

To The Theists

This says it perfectly!

"You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death. As a Christian, you believe these propositions not because they make you feel good, but because you think they are true. Before I point out some of the problems with these beliefs, I would like to acknowledge that there are many points on which you and I agree. We agree, for instance, that if one of us is right, the other is wrong. The Bible is either the word of God, or it isn't. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not. We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe that all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell.

Worse still, I have persuaded others, and many close to me, to reject the very idea of God. They too will languish in "eternal fire" (Matthew 25:41). If the basic doctrine of Christianity is correct, I have misused my life in the worst conceivable way. I admit this without a single caveat.

The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me in the least should suggest to you just how inadequate I think your reasons for being a Christian are."

--Excerpt from Letter To A Christian Nation by Sam Harris

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Women And The Bible. Part I

Is the Bible sexist?

Ask that question to a liberal Christian and the answer will be a morally outraged, "No, absolutely not. How can you possibly say that? The Bible tells men to love their wives, not be harsh to them, and love them as Christ loved the Church."

In addition to the derision and scorn, Biblical passages will be quoted ad nauseum, in a futile effort to prove this, conveniently overlooking certain critical factors such as context and intent. This, while emphasizing the necessity of looking at context and intent in order to justify redefining terms. This is particularly true if you happen to be having this debate with a pastor or a relatively well indoctrinated member of the "flock".

The two main passages offered as "proof" of the Bible's and therefore God's love for women are Colossians 3:19 and Ephesians 5:25-33.

Let's look at what these passages say and the context in which they were written. For convenience I'm looking at the NIV version of the Bible which is recognized as the most common version. There is no substantial difference in these particular passages between NIV (New International Version) and KJV (King James Version).

Colossians 3:15-25.

This passage states as follows:

"15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. 20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism."

Source: BibleGateway : Colossians 3:15-25

One of the liberal Christian arguments boils down to the following. The Bible says that we are members of one body, that of Christ. True, the Bible does say this. Then the leap in logic follows where the Christian will state that this means that all are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Note that nowhere in the above passage does the Bible even imply that there is equality between all members of the "body". In fact, different direction is given to each of the components of the "body" which in fact indicates that each one has a different role and the roles are not equal, particularly given the culture at the time. Remember we're talking 2000 years ago here.

A variation of this Christian argument states that we shouldn't take the Bible literally, that is we should look at the intent and not the specific context. However, looking at the statements from either the point of view of context or intent or both actually changes nothing here.

Men must love their wives, and the wives are to submit to their husbands. Sounds like the type of relationship a man would have with his dog. Man loves dog, dog submits.

The controversy that rages here is around the word Submit and what it means. The dictionary definition and current social understanding of the word is:

submit Definition

sub•mit (səb mit′)
transitive verb -•mit′•ted, -•mit′•ting
1. to present or refer to others for decision, consideration, etc.
2. to yield to the action, control, power, etc. of another or others; also, to subject or allow to be subjected to treatment, analysis, etc. of some sort: often used reflexively
3. to offer as an opinion; suggest; propose
Etymology: ME submitten <>
intransitive verb
1. to yield to the power, control, etc. of another or others; give in
2. to allow oneself to be subjected (to treatment, analysis, etc.)
2. to defer to another's judgment or decision
3. to be submissive, obedient, humble, etc.

Source: Your Dictionary : Submit

The definition provided by one liberal Christian Pastor was:

"Submission is a willful yielding to the will of one who has proven he always acts in your self-interest." --Michael_E of AvC.

Source: AvC Thread : Uselessness of Emotional, Heated Posts

He claimed that this was the meaning of the word in the context of the Bible as a whole.

Now frankly, one can jump through hoops to justify whatever one wants to justify if your Dogma is at stake. One can pull in all kinds of disparate Biblical passages to make a claim which is no more or less valid than the more honest (albeit more sexist) claims of the Christian fundamentalists, which are simply that women are inferior and are being punished by God because of the Original Sin.

The fact is that the Pastor's definition doesn't match the existing definition of submission and so can't be interpreted in this way as intent. It also doesn't match any ancient definition of the word as you can see by the etymology part of the definition above. The Pastor is a liberal Christian, seemingly a nice guy, but his cognitive dissonance here is effectively making him a liar.

The reality is that 2000 years ago women were considered chattel, marriages were arranged and her value to a man was not much higher than any other property he owned. There is no requirement for the women to love their husbands only to submit because the woman's feelings didn't matter. She was expected to accept and do as she was told. Men are told to love their wives and not be harsh. The Bible is essentially saying that men should treat their property well.

Treating women nicely has little to do with accepting women as competent equal partners in a relationship no matter how you look at it. So removing the context and looking at intent changes nothing here.

Ephesians 5:25-33.

to be continued in Women And The Bible, Part 2.

Written by Trance Gemini of AvC

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A Personal Story. II. Why Did You Become An Atheist?

My de-conversion (if you will) was really an accumulative impact.

It was also one that really threw me for a loop.

I can remember waking up in the middle of the night and begging for a sign from god that was I had deduced was wrong and that he did exist.

This was because for 20 years I truly believed in it - and how can all that be gone? How can what I knew to be real, not be real?

Not only that, but if you believe and see morals and the constructs of the world and universe through god - what happens when god goes away?

I was basically broken and baseless.

Ironically, that is one of the reasons why I typically drift over to and christnet, etc. I don't do it to be an ass, though invariably I'm taken as one, but because I know how I felt in that situation. I also now see all the narrow-mindedness and deception that went into many of the things I was taught and in many of the views I held (whether by intent or ignorance). I realize the more people out there that believe then the more children that will end up believing, ad nauseam.

I felt duped and I had a hard de-conversion.

I didn't turn to crack and auto-theivery but it was an emotional and intellectual earthquake for me - and one I'd prefer not be placed on others (thus the irony that I will openly engage any theist).

I was a missionary as a teen in the summers between school - until my junior year. I was diagnosed with cancer and ended up losing body parts, hair and weight (not to mention what was sure to be a Mr Olympia career unlike any other). I spent some time in hospitals and cancer wards - and since I was below 18 then I would get placed with juveniles. I saw 3 yr old kids cough up blood and cry, parents robbed of all energy and nothing but pleading in their eyes, etc.

Somehow, I still managed to keep the faith through all of that- though it later reverberated back to me.

I made it out alive (obviously and much to Keith's chagrin).

Later in college, I was two-timing it. I went to a standard state university for engineering and physics, but went to an apologetics school in the summer.

There I developed this grand idea to write a book on the truth of Christianity (keep in mind I was a fundie) using the analytic mindset I'd begun to hone in engineering school.

Here is another deep irony... I tried to analyze the bible as a whole, book to book, and piece together the how's and why's.

Thereby, I'd have an irrefutable proof of the irrefutable truth of the irrefutable bible (that was the working title of the essay).

Guess the problem that developed?

The pile of instances of contradictions, illogical and incongruent themes and stories, etc piled up and my irrefutable proof went the way of Dodo (the new working title of the essay).

As irony (a thematic persistence in my life) would have it, I finally flipped my lid.

Instead, I wrote an essay to my family, preacher, etc on why I do not believe in Christianity... hello Buddhism! Taoism! Uh... spiritual guy.... then atheism.

Incidentally, I still have the rather lengthy and verbose essay and at one point made it into a web page that was then advertised via (though I used the moniker orcinus and haven't checked on my page in years).

I openly sent and would talk to whomever (preist, preacher, missionary, friends, etc).

Alas, I found an unfavorable and unjustified characteristic of many a Christian - I was getting divorced at the same time.

I followed in what Rapp already described - the marry soon because sex can't be before marriage and Jesus likes Christian babies - type mentality.

My de-conversion went over real well.

My local pastor decided that rather than refute my essay or discuss my anathema, we needed to talk about divorce and sin, what was going on, etc. My mother was similar - my de-conversion was really an excuse in order to escape the sins associated with divorce or perhaps future sexual escapades (which forever ruined my porn-star aspirations) and therefore not an intellectual exercise against god but one against sin. In other words, reject god so you can do what you want to without guilt. I encountered a lot of that - even though the timing was circumstantial.

I had come to this conclusion from a Christian backing and aim. Really, the feelings associated with guilt and sin took a long while to go away. Even if I happen upon an attractive girl, it used to arouse guilt via sin association. Now the arousal is a little different...

And that! is the abbreviated version of how I came to be who I am.

My mother won't discuss it. My father ignores it as though it is not. Most of my siblings don't bring it up, other than one sister. Ironically, she has a degree from some bible school in Pooduck, Missouri or some such in biblical nonsense and how to justify it. But, she will readily concede that it is not based on reason and only through faith and a personal relationship will things make sense. It is frustrating to talk... but I will give her that she is calm and collected about it. I have had to wipe spittle off my face or been asked to leave people's houses before.

Thus, now, I just hang around on the net and harass Keith and wonder what girls like Trance and Lollipop actually look like (see arousal comment earlier)...

Written by El Guapo of AvC

A Personal Story. I. What Was It Like To Be A Theist?

It can be very reassuring.... seriously. My family are bible thumpers to the nth degree.

I once served with the same vigor as they. I chose "serve" intentionally. When you are a believer, its very easy to focus on the parts of the bible that speak to you (not literally).

You also see many of your church members and family members develop very admirable traits that derive from their adherence to what they believe god wants out of them. Charitableness, empathy, cleanliness in attitude and speech, lack of debt and accountability in finances, etc. (Now, we all know there are plenty of exceptions - but I am writing of my experiences and the common man, here... not the Haggards and Bakers of the world.)

Couple those favorable attributes with the "worldliness" of the non-Christian populace (all the perceived crime, hatred, etc that you see and associate with the ungodly) and you have a huge support structure for your belief that god makes you a better person.

If one of your fellow Christian mates happens to falter (e.g. backslide), then it isn't because of god but because this person lost something... be it faith, be it discipline and seeking god first, be it to temptation, etc. This then propels you even more to focus on god and his teachings (i.e. the bible).

Second, as a theist, it is easier to attribute good things happening by divine influence. Get a lucky break here, a free pass there, etc... and to you it isn't a lucky break or a free pass - they are blessings. And, if you try to associate something with god in your daily life - and you hang out with people that associate god in their daily lives, it becomes all encompassing and self-validating.

Third, during struggles, it can be reassuring because you believe that god is on your side. It may be a struggle, it may be a trial - but it will come out to god's will and for the betterment of mankind by god's devices (mysterious ways). Plus, you always have god to talk to... you always have god to cry to.. etc. Couple that with the other Christians listed in the first paragraph. If they have taken on the loving, nurturing and supporting role - then they come to your aid. Out of the love of god... so then it becomes all encompassing and self-validating.

Further, the more you read the bible - the more time you devote to it and to praying and to digesting passages here and morals there... then it becomes alive to you. It becomes rock solid and only the more strenuous circumstance or clear cut arguments will register against god in your mind. (I am talking about the average, sincere and devoted fundamentalist Christian here - not the church every now and then, half-ass Christian.)

In all truth, your mind can make life (reality). It can shape it, frame it and then keep that model alive. It becomes a part of what and who you are and how you define yourself. It becomes a part of what and who the world is and how it interacts with you, and vice versa. It is all encompassing. There is much reassurance, security and benefit to be found in it - as least, that is how you see it. And the love you begin to develop for it - and the perceived love you begin to feel and attribute from god become real to you. In fact, its isn't that it becomes real but that is has always been and you now see it, accept it and bury yourself in it. It is more than a "I believe in Jesus" - it is and it shapes who you become and what your world is... and that is perhaps the paramount reason that it continues to propagate and to draw the fanaticism that it does.

Written by El Guapo of AvC

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Words Of Wisdom From The Dark Side ;)

Cartoon Source:

Theist: "God makes me feel better and I used to be a meanie before I went to church every week."

Atheist: "That's a dumb reason to believe in God."

Theist to audience: "Are you going to do anything about this?"

Audience: "Maybe you should get better arguments?"

written by Rappoccio of AvC

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Why You Should Be An Antitheist

As an antitheist, I believe that faith in God is a poisonous and contagious disease that threatens the well-being and continued existence of the planet and the human race. This is not an extremist position, but simply the logical conclusion one comes to when theism is evaluated critically instead of given an undeserved exemption from reason, evidence and common sense. While thousands upon thousands of pages could be (and have been) written proving this to be the only logical and moral conclusion, for purposes of brevity I will confront the short list of easily refuted counterpositions provided by people who do not consider themselves antitheists.


The most common argument against antitheism is, unsurprisingly, the least substantiated. Simply put, it couldn’t be any less substantiated because it isn’t substantiated at all—not by evidence, reasoning or anything else. You need not have any faith that there is no God any more than you need faith to not believe in Harry Potter or Darth Vader. If something cannot be differentiated from fiction in any way, it is—until otherwise substantiated—fiction precisely. This standard is a time-proven method for adults to tell the difference from real life and cartoons. To believe Jesus was the son of God and not believe in, say, Spongebob Squarepants is to take a child’s cartoon more seriously than a text that million of people believe is true—a very dangerous double-standard.

Evaluated from a strictly rational position, nobody of normal adult intelligence would make the mistake of thinking a religious text about God was fact. The claims of these books are more outrageous than those of most fictional texts, and they are riddled with more logical inconsistencies than most Hollywood movies. People do not generally believe in these texts because they are asking hundreds of logical questions and getting the wrong answer every time—it is much more likely that they are simply deceiving themselves. Many theists claim “personal experience” with God, but illogically rule out the most obvious and only substantiated explanation: that they are delusional. Followers of conflicting faiths also share similar but contradictory experiences, from which you can deduce that it would be impossible for every one of these experiences to be a product of divine revelation. Since, aside from being incompatible, these experiences are not particularly unique there is nothing to differentiate one perceived instance of revelation from others that couldn’t possibly all be true. All legitimate scientific studies of prayer have shown that it has no apparent external effects, and the perceived results of prayer are easily explained by the human ability to attribute causation to any correlation. Theists are only capable of citing “personal experience” as an evidence of God if they subscribe to the idea that they have particular immunities to self-deception that humans of other faiths don’t have. This is an arrogant and untrue assumption that no doubt carries the potential for unnecessary conflict.

The idea that believing in God is a “safer” position, through Pascal’s Wager, is also fallacious because it assumes that God could only reward people for having blind faith. Since a God that rewards people for being skeptical as opposed to believing out of fear is equally unsubstantiated, this is not mathematically sound. Also, considering the countless existing conceptions of God the odds of you picking the right one are literally millions to one—and that’s operating on the unsubstantiated assumption that God exists at all.


There is a school of thought that the problem is not religion, it is intolerance. This perspective usually manifests itself in blatantly hypocritical statements like “believing that other people’s beliefs are bad is bad”. Clearly, the characters who fall in this camp are incapable of self-evaluation. This school of thought ignores the fact that most religions include beliefs that are inherently intolerant to both other faiths and a lack of faith.

Some religious types even compare antitheism to racism, while a more accurate analogy would be that antitheism is like being opposed to racism. Few of these same people would argue that racism is harmless just because it is based on beliefs, or that since most racists don’t kill people they don’t contribute indirectly to racial violence and repression. Clearly, not all beliefs warrant absolute tolerance. This is just another example of religion getting held to different standards than other institutions. And to anyone who thinks comparing religion to racism is unfair, please do at least some research on The Ku Klux Klan, The Holocaust and the pro-slavery verses in The Bible and Q’uran.


Simply not true. Prison populations are exceedingly religious, as are the more barbaric countries in the world. The United Nations Intelligence Report in 2005 evaluated countries by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. The highest-ranking countries were also the most secular, whereas the lowest-ranking countries were generally theocratic in nature.

This is not surprising to anyone who has read the books of the central monotheisms, which encourage killing and condone rape, genocide, sexism, child and spousal abuse and slavery. These books are generally referred to when something cannot be justified by secular means. Good will towards others requires no such rationalization, but certain atrocities do. This is why religion functions much more thoroughly as a tool for evil than a tool for good.

The argument that killers like Stalin and Mao were atheists is very common on this point of contention, ironically coming from Christians who also argue that you can’t judge Christianity based on “a few individuals”. Maoism and Stalinism were religions like the Abrahamic religions because of their demands for servitude and blind faith. Whether or not they were theistic religions is debatable. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did not call themselves "God" but if we're really going to examine what theism is we're going to have to get past the myriad of semantic problems to the actual nature of the beliefs ("pantheism", for example, uses the word "God" as a metaphor for The Universe but ideologically it is essentially atheism). These religions are called “cults of personality” because they are based on the worship of human leaders. No doubt theism can center around a mortal human—otherwise Christianity would be atheism, and it isn’t. There is no question that North Korea's religion is theism because their president is not Kim Jong-Il but his dead father Kim Il-Sung—the supernatural element makes that easy because it puts it in the same category as Christianity. With other “atheistic” dictators it depends entirely on how broadly you define “God”, but we do know they didn’t kill _for_ atheism the way religious dictators killed _for_ religion which makes the role atheism played in their regimes completely different and the analogy flawed.

No doubt people can find reasons to kill each other without religion, but when your best defense for something is that it isn’t responsible for _all_ the evil in the world you should probably reconsider whether it’s really that great. The Holocaust, The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Islamic terrorism, witch trials, honor killings—theism is still responsible for that. Some would argue that science is responsible for death, too, but science is necessary and contributes substantially to the health and well-being of humans everywhere. When people die because of religion, they are dying because of something that is completely unnecessary. It isn’t just the fault of the ones holding the weapons—if millions of other theists didn’t perpetuate the continued existence of these mentalities they wouldn’t exist. So the blood is on all their hands.

Is theism the biggest problem in the world? I think that’s the wrong question, because it assumes it is something distinct from other problems. Racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery, genocide, rape, war, child abuse, mental illness, ignorance, hypocrisy—the list of bad things exacerbated by theism is endless. To support theism is to support every great evil in the world for no sane reason.

... And that’s why you should be an antitheist.

Written By thedeviliam of AvC