Christopher Hitchens: No Deathbed Conversion for Me, Thanks, But it was Good of You to Ask

Atheist Christopher Hitchens was asked earlier this year how his struggle with cancer has affected his views on the question of an afterlife. “I would say it fractionally increases my contempt for the false consolation element of religion and my dislike for the dictatorial and totalitarian part of it,” he responded. “It’s considered perfectly normal in this society to approach dying people who you don’t know but who are unbelievers and say, ‘Now are you gonna change your mind?’ That is considered almost a polite question.”

Hitchens spoke (see above) during a debate on the question, “Is there an afterlife,” with Sam Harris and Rabbis David Wolpe and Bradley Shavit Artson at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles on February 15. (You can watch the entire event here.) Hitchens’ views on the subject have remained consistent over the years. “It’s a religious falsification that people like myself scream for a priest at the end,” Hitchens said before he was diagnosed with stage four esophageal cancer in the summer of 2010. “Most of us go to our end with dignity.”

Hitchens writes memorably of one such figure in his 2006 book, Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: A Biography:

Paine’s closing years, pitiful as they were, contained one closing triumph. He might have become a scarecrow-like figure. He might have been forced to subsist on the charity of friends. He might have been denied the right to vote by a bullying official, when presenting himself at the polling station, on the grounds that the author of Common Sense was not a true American. But as the buzzards began to circle, he rallied one more time. It was widely believed by the devout of those days that unbelievers would scream for a priest when their own death-beds loomed. Why this was thought to be valuable propaganda it is impossible to say. Surely the sobbing of a human creature in extremis is testimony not worth having, as well as testimony extracted by the most contemptible means? Boswell had been to visit David Hume under these conditions, because he had been reluctant to believe that the stoicism of the old philosopher would hold up, and as a result we have one excellent account of the refusal of the intelligence to yield to such moral blackmail. Our other account comes from those who attended Paine. Dying in ulcerated agony, he was imposed upon by two Presbyterian ministers who pushed past his housekeeper and urged him to avoid damnation by accepting Jesus Christ. ‘Let me have none of your Popish stuff,’ Paine responded. ‘Get away with you, good morning, good morning.’ The same demand was made of him as his eyes were closing. ‘Do you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?’ He answered quite distinctly: ‘I have no wish to believe on that subject.’ Thus he expired with his reason, and his rights, both still staunchly defended until the very last.

via 3 Quarks Daily

Related Content:

Steve Martin Writes Song for Hymn-Deprived Atheists

Christopher Hitchens Revises the Ten Commandments


by | Permalink | Comments (59) |

Comments (59)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  1. ophu says . . . | November 8, 2011 / 11:07 pm

    I’m non-religious for my own reasons, but just as it’s unscientic to insist something DOES exist without proof of its existence (as religion does) it’s also quite unscientific to insist something DOESN’T exist simply because no one has ever proven its existence (as atheism does). That’s why I’m an honest agnostic.

    Go ahead, call me a weak atheist, call me a douche, call me a stealth evangelical posting under false pretenses, but I am quite certain, at least from a logical POV, that we cannot honestly be certain about the afterlife, or lack thereof, given our current level of knowledge. We can, however, choose how to behave toward our neighbors on the other side of the fence.

  2. Michael Kingsford Gray says . . . | November 8, 2011 / 11:43 pm

    Well, ophu: I have been rendered clinically dead on the operating table. And then resuscitated.
    And I can report that it is just black. Nothing.
    Like I was BEFORE I was conceived.
    Anecdote? Yes. But it is a solid data-point for me.
    The ‘after-life’ is exactly the same as the ‘before-life’.

  3. Srikar says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 12:31 am

    Ophu, you have a misconception about Atheism. Atheists don’t parade around saying there is no God, they only claim as Atheists because they don’t believe in God. I don’t know if there is no God either, but I like to call myself Atheist, because I lack belief.

  4. Tim Riches says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 1:39 am

    I understand what you mean, ophu. But I should point out that such an afterlife as has been described, or any at all, is an immense stretch. Life of any sort after death defies common sense and flies in the face of reason. It is entirely justified to point out that a solid case has never, ever been made for that claim, and the rejection of it out of hand is not a position that needs defending. You won’t get any ridicule from me for being uncertain it might all be true, but let’s not have any hogwash about agnosticism being a more respectable or honest position than outright atheism. Religion has not left that option open to us.

  5. rsharvey says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 4:01 am

    @Ophu

    Agnostic and Atheist aren’t competing terms. They describe different things. An agnostic doesn’t know whether God exists and an atheist doesn’t believe that god exists. I don’t believe in god, but that doesn’t mean I claim to know for certain of his non existence. I just think its a pretty good bet.

    Also haven’t you heard of Russell’s teapot? Your position may not contradict basic logic but it certainly contradicts common sense, if you are approaching this from a position of non belief. If you gave equal weight to all claims of invisible entities as you do god, you would be considered a very strange individual.

    So are you a 50/50 agnostic (which, for the above reasons, I contend is not a logical position) or do you, like probably most atheists, allow for a tiny possibility that new evidence could prove the existence of a god?

  6. Rab Simpson says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 7:40 am

    @Ophu

    You’ve misunderstood what atheists say and jumped on the definition the religious have given us, that being we BELIEVE that “god” doesn’t exist (positive assertion), which is bollocks. We simply don’t believe that THEIR CLAIMS are true because we’ve been given no good reason to do so.

    Also, agnostics are atheists by definition as they don’t claim to believe that “god” is real, they’re actually honest enough to say that they don’t know. This is the position of most atheists and like you say those who claim they do know there’s no “god” are just as stupid as those who claim to know that there is.

    Cheers,
    Rab

  7. Haroun says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 7:54 am

    bieng an athiest or a thiest is a the persons decisions , some cawords are adopting some concepts just to be a copy for their societies ,i’d rather call my self a truth seeker than an athiest

  8. pravark says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 7:56 am

    @Ophu

    Agnostic is only about knowledge, either you have it or don’t, why pretend that it can be taken as a stance? If there isn’t any evidence for god’s existence then the next question will be “Do you believe god exists?” that is when you make a stance. Atheists don’t believe any god exists as the default position allows it.

  9. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 11:15 am

    @pravark:

    Well, I don’t really have a stance. I’m just saying we don’t really know. Unless, as Michael Kingsford Gray above claims, you’ve there and back again. But that’s just him, not us. Should I take his word on faith? I mean, I’m just floating on this rock with the rest of you, waiting to see what, if anything, comes next.

  10. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 12:04 pm

    @Rab:

    atheist
    1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos “without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly,” from a- “without” + theos “a god” (see Thea).

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

    agnostic
    1870, “one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known” [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895) from Gk. agnostos “unknown, unknowable,” from a- “not” + gnostos “(to be) known” (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul’s mention of the altar to “the Unknown God,” but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=agnostic&searchmode=none

    Don’t tell me atheism and agnosticism are the same, Rab. I have an internet connection. I can look these things up and prove you wrong.

  11. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 12:06 pm

    And thus, Rab, I am not an atheist. YOU, my friend, are an agnostic. :)

  12. Bazmundo says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 12:25 pm

    @OPHU

    You misunderstand science. Proofs belong in mathematics not science. In particular you cannot prove a negative.

    I do not believe in god or gods for the same reason I do not believe in Santa, fairies or flying spaghetti monsters for the simple fact that there is no evidence or reason to.

  13. mortimerzilch says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 12:31 pm

    Ha ! “God laughs at those who say there is no God.” ha!

  14. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 2:51 pm

    OK, Baz said: ” In particular you cannot prove a negative.” (see rest of quote above)

    Sorry to toss you your own words, Baz.

  15. pravark says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 8:18 pm

    @Ophu

    “waiting to see what, if anything, comes next” – I’m ready to take whatever comes next.
    Your “I really don’t know” is just evasive. You can’t shrug off by sweeping “god-exist” question under the carpet, either you want to believe it exists or reject such a claim. Atheists are just being forthright with religious unsubstantiated claims, if you have no stance then you shouldn’t lament over atheist’s decisiveness. How is it bad to demand for evidence since all that exist needs to be explained through evidence?

  16. pravark says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 8:28 pm

    @ mortimerzilch
    “Ha ! “God laughs at those who say there is no God.” ha!”

    First, provide evidence that any god exists.
    Second, tell us how you know god is laughing.

  17. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 9:42 pm

    pravark says: ‘You can’t shrug off by sweeping “god-exist” question under the carpet,’
    @p: Yes I can. Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do. It will just have to wait until I’m dead.

  18. Johan says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 10:51 pm

    To be consistent in their claims, agnostics must be equally agnostic to all possible gods, past present and future. To claim it is impossible to know if a god that nobody has thought of yet actually exists would be laughable.

    If anyone can be truly be agnostic to all possible gods, including the Magic Poo God and the Coffee Cup Goddess and whatever I can think up next, then they are clinically insane. To not be hypocrites they must treat the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as unknowable to exactly the same degree as the Abrahamic god.

    That’s just the way it is.

  19. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 11:00 pm

    Johan says: ‘To be consistent in their claims, agnostics must be equally agnostic to all possible gods, past present and future. ‘

    I didn’t realize some gods were more possible than other gods, Johan. Which gods would you say are more possible? And, perchance, are any of them from Texas? because if they are, you may have a point–I really don’t think I could vote for them.

  20. Gareth monk says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 11:10 pm

    Hey, don’t knock the Magic Poo god. It is the one true god and siteth at the right hand of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who hold Bertrand’s Celestial Teapot in his right hand. True .

  21. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 11:17 pm

    @Gareth: Because Pat Robertson said so, right?

  22. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 11:31 pm

    Well if the afterlife is for real, I guess I’ll know when I get there. If it isn’t, then… you know, I’m not quite sure how to finish that thought. :|

  23. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 11:51 pm

    Let’s see… if the afterlife is for real, then I’ll know, and if it isn’t, then why did I live? No. Um, if it isn’t, then I won’t care? I guess that’s better than nothing. No wait, that IS nothing.

    I really don’t see the appeal of atheism.

    At least as an agnostic I have hope. That’s better than nothing. And if my hopes are dashed, then… no wait a minute–if there really is no afterlife (and I’m not discounting that possibility) then my hopes WON’T be dashed. No disappointment at all.

    Of course, there’s still fear of the afterlife, which is really the flipside of hope. And I guess the one positive side I can see to atheism, if you’re really a natural-born atheist and not just a wannabe atheist, is the lack of fear about what comes after. But the reason I choose agnosticism is that I am NOT a natural-born atheist. I’m a natural-born skeptic, which is not the same thing. I really have a hard time taking anyone’s word about anything. And I really don’t like the idea of staring at a blank wall for the rest of my life, so I think I’ll take everything else instead and accept my uncertainty, and all the fear and hope that comes with it.

  24. ophu says . . . | November 9, 2011 / 11:53 pm

    Hey, at least I’ll know I’m alive. :D

  25. Mike de Fleuriot says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 1:07 am

    Marcus Aurelius says it best for me.
    “Live a good life.

    If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

    If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

    If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

    Covers all the bases, that Pascals Wager attempts to cover.

  26. ophu says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 1:41 am

    Hey, how about this: “Life is uncertainty; uncertainty is life. Get on with it, already.”

  27. pravark says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 8:08 am

    @Ophu

    “Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do.”

    Then why are you grumbling about other people’s belief/non-belief?

  28. ophu says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 10:42 am

    @parvark: If I was grumbling I would’ve used grumbling face. Like this: >:(

  29. Amna says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 1:55 pm

    The real test of life is to believe in the unseen God through His creations and scriptures. If everyone could see God they would surely believe in Him but then where is the test.
    If you dont beleive in afterlife then this world must be really depressing. No justice, struggle and in the end just become dust.
    For example, if a person murders 1 person and there is another perosn who murders 100 people both gets death sentence. Is it fair? He only killed once and the other killed 100 times more.
    Therefore the God who created us in such an intricate balance and the world around us. How can He be unjust in the end.
    If you see smoke out of chimney , your intellect tells you there must be something burning. Did you see fire ? No, it’s youe knowledge. Therefore if you see around you, there thousands of signs that someone made it. Nothing just comes into being.
    I really dont’ understand how a person cannot believe in God.
    So, what happens after death for a non believer?

  30. ophu says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 3:24 pm

    @Amna: I’m sorry, Amna, but that is all pure speculation. To search for truth, one has to go past that. One needs something that can be apprehended.

  31. Racegirl says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 4:03 pm

    @amna why does there have to be a test?

  32. ophu says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 4:37 pm

    @racegirl: Another thing I’ve wondered is that, assuming for the sake of argument that there is an omnipotent and all-powerful Supreme Deity, why would this deity need a plan of any kind? If anyone would be capable of winging it, it would be God. Who needs a plan? Is it him, or us? Who needs to be reassured that there is actually a plan?

  33. Chris says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 5:09 pm

    >>
    …but just as it’s unscientic to insist something DOES exist without proof of its existence (as religion does) it’s also quite unscientific to insist something DOESN’T exist simply because no one has ever proven its existence (as atheism does). That’s why I’m an honest agnostic.
    <<
    It's also unscientific to pretend that both cases are equally likely. It is so unlikely that any gods exist that any honest agnostic would have to admit that they are to all intents and purposes an atheist and their pretence at being anything different is mere grandstanding.

  34. ophu says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 9:19 pm

    Chris said:
    It’s also unscientific to pretend that both cases are equally likely. It is so unlikely that any gods exist that any honest agnostic would have to admit that they are to all intents and purposes an atheist and their pretence at being anything different is mere grandstanding.

    Well, Chris, I THINK God might exist, but I’m smart enough to realize that I don’t really KNOW God exists? What is that if not an agnostic? And don’t tell me I’m an atheist unless you want me to whip out my etymology site again and show you why you’re wrong.

    Ah, what the heck:

    atheist
    1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos “without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly,” from a- “without” + theos “a god” (see Thea).

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=atheist&searchmode=none

    agnostic
    1870, “one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known” [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895) from Gk. agnostos “unknown, unknowable,” from a- “not” + gnostos “(to be) known” (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul’s mention of the altar to “the Unknown God,” but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).
    I … invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic,’ … antithetic to the ‘Gnostic’ of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [T.H. Huxley, “Science and Christian Tradition,” 1889]
    The adjective is first recorded 1873.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=agnostic&searchmode=none

  35. ophu says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 9:25 pm

    Face it. “Religion is stoopid” is not a philosophy, or a way of life. It’s something high-school sophomores say to each other while they waste their teenage years in front of a TV playing video games. What is wrong with saying “I don’t know”? At least then you’re not spending hours trying to rationalize yourself to sleep at night.

  36. ophu says . . . | November 10, 2011 / 9:41 pm

    @Chris: And BTW, Chris, how did you quantify the likelihood of God’s existence? I’d really like to know. Are we talking 25% odds? 30%? To me, your logic is must as circular as the fundamentalists. They’re dancing in a tight little circle about their altar, and you’re dancing in your own tight little circle about your… depression–and I just hope your two camps don’t someday bust out and make war on each other because that is something I REALLY don’t want to be caught in the middle of. Until you can get rid of that last little niggling thread of belief, you are NOT an atheist, and believe me, I am not there. I am a former wannabe atheist, now an agnostic.

  37. pravark says . . . | November 11, 2011 / 2:02 am

    @Ophu

    “If I was grumbling I would’ve used grumbling face. Like this: >:(”

    That symbol looks like a key to backdoor exit, well….one parting shot….while most agnostic would agree that there isn’t a shred of evidence of god’s existence but a minority few would dissent that there’s no way anyone can know if the bag of peanuts is god or not.

  38. ophu says . . . | November 11, 2011 / 2:10 am

    @pravark: Well, when you come up with proof of the non-existence of all deities (by which I mean concrete evidence, not some circular psychobabble), get back to me. I have this page bookmarked. :)

  39. ophu says . . . | November 11, 2011 / 2:16 am

    In the meantime, I will leave all of you with this neat little quote I just found when I Googled “circular psychobabble”:

    “Circular psychobabble is akin to a man walking lost in the wilderness in the snow; The man always knows the path of his journey because he consistently ends up walking past the same tree.” -Da Vike

    I’m afraid I don’t know who “Da Vike” is, but the quote made me smile. :)

  40. pravark says . . . | November 11, 2011 / 3:00 am

    @Ophu

    “proof of the non-existence of all deities”

    What? Just because some primitive men made hollow superstitious claims, people who refuse to believe them have to fork out evidence to disprove them? Grow up! You should ask those claimants to substantiate their silly claims. Now one last parting shot, whether you like it or not, if any god ever exists it will be there and if it doesn’t it won’t be there. It is up to god(s), if any, to expose itself, failing which will be taken as it doesn’t exist by default. There isn’t any need to worry since it is nobody’s fault but god’s responsibility for the blunder. Enjoy this one and only life you have while it last………….good luck!

  41. ophu says . . . | November 11, 2011 / 9:49 am

    How’s that tree?

  42. dennisn704 says . . . | November 12, 2011 / 3:30 pm

    BLIND AS A BAT

    The biggest fool who walks on earth
    is one who looks at outer space,
    who skims and scans its endless girth,
    and doesn’t see Amazing Grace;

    Or, one who studies DNA
    each strand inside a minute cell,
    and doesn’t hear his conscience say,
    “Chance didn’t make that I can tell!”

  43. Hanoch says . . . | November 12, 2011 / 4:26 pm

    Mike de Fleuriot:

    Is it really that simple? Hitler and his followers undoubtedly thought what they were doing what was good and just.

  44. ophu says . . . | November 12, 2011 / 10:13 pm

    Now if science got its information from pretty poems, you might have something there.

  45. ophu says . . . | November 12, 2011 / 10:15 pm

    @Hanoch: There will always be Hitlers. That advice was for the rest of us.

  46. dennisn704 says . . . | November 13, 2011 / 9:42 am

    ophu:

    Thanks. I’ll take that as a compliment: “pretty poem”. I agree that the poem doesn’t prove a thing scientifically; it is merely a poet’s emotional response. However, my beliefs on evolution, creation, etc., have derived from reading the bible and related books, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet (who seems to be a real gentleman), and other nonbelievers books, as well as watching many discussions/debates on the issue. It has been very interesting to see both sidesof the issue. Have a nice day.

  47. Hanoch says . . . | November 13, 2011 / 1:23 pm

    @ophu: My point was meant to apply to “the rest of us”, i.e., Mike de Fleuriot’s point does not seem to be a very useful one because anyone can justify his/her actions as being proper.

  48. ophu says . . . | November 13, 2011 / 1:58 pm

    I’m assuming the rest of us are not psychopathic dictators bent on world domination. It’s still good advice. If you want advice specific to you alone, then their’s always a priest, a guru, or a therapist. Or if all else fails, you can always ask Mom.

  49. Alex says . . . | November 13, 2011 / 4:15 pm

    Any discussion should start with definition.Let’s give a definition of G-d we believe in(or we don’t)-and go on from that…

  50. Eosphóros says . . . | November 15, 2011 / 2:09 pm

    WHY are you all feeding an intellectually dishonest troll screaming for some online attention? In the end, ophu actually is smarter than all of you, but only because you swallowed his bait. I have enough experience with those so-called “agnostic” cowards who think they are so smart and they get it, while the poor deluded atheist fundamentalists are no better than their religious counterparts. They all parrot the very same “you can’t prove me wrong, lalalalala” tripe they learned from their creationist spiritual idols. When they learn how to differentiate between answers on two separate questions (kindergarten level, anyone?) they might be decent participants in a debate. Until then, I say let them drink the tea from Russell’s teapot, on a tea party with Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

  51. ophu says . . . | November 15, 2011 / 4:40 pm

    @Eosphóros: There’s nothing dishonest or cowardly about agnosticism. It’s simply accepting one’s own uncertainty and having the courage to accept it in the first place. We always fear the unknown. At least, I fear the unknown. But it’s there, and it’s not going away. And it’s something each of us will meet in turn.

  52. Anark says . . . | November 23, 2011 / 5:53 am

    I think that there is a god. His name is Troll and he put Ophu here to test my patience. Disprove it !

    The conversation started with reason and turned into kiddo babble.

    Ophu: You fear, so you believe. I am not fearless. I simply accept that i am going to the state i was before birth. I don’t need to invent a god to feel safe.

  53. Barb Drummond says . . . | January 2, 2012 / 2:31 pm

    Hitchens had some great ideas but he was no historian. There was a line in ‘the West Wing’ where they said the bible, torah, koran etc should all be read as examples of best practice at the time they were written. No book that old can possibly be seen as a literal truth. Also, wealthy well connected atheists like him seem to forget a church is not just a belief system, but a community that helps people when things are tough. The real tragedy of the humanists etc is that there is still no equivalent support group.

  54. crystal says . . . | March 7, 2012 / 11:25 pm

    Thomas Paine may be thought to have died with dignity, but when he won this battle against God – he actually lost. He lost his own soul. What a victory!

  55. Jay Mandeville says . . . | August 18, 2012 / 7:30 pm

    I think the heroic Thomas Paine’s soul will be just fine, thank you…

  56. Jay Mandeville says . . . | August 18, 2012 / 7:37 pm

    Reread the words of Marcus Aurelius provided by Mike de Fleuriot above. These are the most sensible, and consoling, remarks in this entire thread…

  57. Kev says . . . | November 3, 2012 / 6:08 pm

    @Jay “I think the heroic Thomas Paine’s soul will be just fine, thank you…”

    Why?

    To support this, you are affirming that there is a ‘soul’, and presumably have a working definition. You are also affirming that this soul exists after death, is subject to relative states of being (“fine”, and otherwise), and that we have some way of predicting or discerning that state.

    What an extraordinary depth of faith you have!

  58. Nathaniel says . . . | December 16, 2012 / 10:21 am

    “…but just as it’s unscientic to insist something DOES exist without proof of its existence (as religion does) it’s also quite unscientific to insist something DOESN’T exist simply because no one has ever proven its existence (as atheism does). That’s why I’m an honest agnostic.”

    No, no it isn’t. I hear people say this all the time, and I don’t understand. How is it unscientific to dismiss a hypothesis without any evidence? That’s exactly what the scientific method is for. If you think it’s somehow “scientific” to accept pure speculation, you don’t understand science. Period.

  59. Jackwagen says . . . | August 11, 2014 / 2:41 pm

    Can you prove the tooth fairy doesn’t exist…. You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies

Add a comment

Quantcast