Believing what you know ain't so

we are co-hosts inside of the German association of professionals and humanists let's have a talk with our our and dermatology so facts of a lot of thanks for the refuge for coming down here it's really appreciated don't really get people to like you down here from the American atheist community often so it's really the pharmacy connect comes to the New Zealand Association of vegetables and humanists for helping to organize us really appreciate it further things comes for the members of the residence and society many who can't be here today she's Joshua Gilbert for organizing the talk as well and so to start off with will be having aaron ross speaking around 40 minutes and then with over tim and breakfast it up the speed connect dollar no hunting and then we'll have a five minute break before we have Q&A you can go on at most around until I am just a nut as well just over your own pointing that's where you can sign up to be a member of the reason inside society and just write down the details and there's just a doll membership fee to notify you about the games will be having the risk of the semester and we also have a Facebook group as well reason size Society Auckland and Facebook you come to as well as if you want to check out our content we also have the YouTube channel under the same- so thank you frederik Nietzsche once said that one of my favorite quotes from him was that faith was not wanting to know what is true and one of his contemporaries Mark Twain also via the pen name for Samuel Clemens said that faith is believing what you know eight so and when I first got into arguing against the ISM religious ideas I wouldn't have believed either of these but after my experience of doing that for decades now I've come to realize that either or both of these men got it right depending on which believer you're talking about now I actively started create our countering creationism shortly right around y2k and at that time there was a charlatan named Kent Hovind who was calling himself dr. Dino now he had no discernible education or relevant expertise but he declared himself to be an expert on dinosaurs even though like so many young earth creationist he referred to dinosaurs as dragons he's been in prison for the last decade or so for tax fraud but before his arrest he was offering a quarter million dollar prize for anybody that can produce evidence of evolution and all the creationists were spreading this around showing scientists saying you know if you think you have evidence of evolution why hasn't anybody acted answered dr. Hovind challenge and you know just jeering science with this and this is a pretty good question because the mere fact that humans are classified as a subset of Apes complete with you know morphologically and genetically complete with the conserved yet dysfunctional monkey genes this is one of many examples of a body of facts that is exclusively concordant with and thus supportive of that one conclusion over any other and that's exactly what evidence is the creationists use a different dictionary and if you click the link to answer Homans challenge the next page of his website said that they wouldn't accept what everyone else would understand it being evidence of evolution that what he was demanding instead was proof that God couldn't have done it so it was a bait and switch to a completely different challenge a nonsense challenge with no acceptable answer ovince set it up so that no one could win no matter what evidence they had or how good it was and so that he wouldn't have to admit when anybody even tried so that looked like nobody had answered at all and so it looked like the scientist all knew that they didn't really have anything so this challenge was completely deceptive deliberately deceptive but what else could you expect from a convicted fraud using a store-bought degree as a fake ID and I saw him in debate and somebody debating dr. Hovind who paid $100 for his PhD by the way what are you guys doing in college when you can go about it so easily one of his opponents had predicted what joven would ask for for evidence of and this guy produced a stack of peer-reviewed articles addressing that challenge joven dismissed them all without a glance in an instant by saying that's not evidence that's just a bunch of paper the same thing happened in the court case of Kitzmiller versus Dover Michael Behe on trial were honest and said that science would never be able to produce a scientific explanation for the evolution of the immune system he was presented with 58 books and peer-reviewed articles addressing exactly that providing a scientific explanation and he again dismissed it all in a moment saying that it wasn't good enough to address his question and of course he couldn't give a reason as to why and certainly couldn't address any one of them how could he know known that I don't think he did but as a defender of the faith he is not allowed to admit any error not when he's determined to defend the Keystone argument of intelligent design and I experienced the same thing last month I had a conversation on my channel with a dinosaur denier someone who says that dinosaurs never existed and we're a fact a hoax created by big science she said that if we find the fossils of an elephant we would know that an elephant was there because elephants exist today and are therefore absolute I'm not sure exactly what she meant by that she said that new new species are found all the time and fossils can be formed very very quickly so if we find the bones that we think or a dinosaur then maybe it's just some other gigantic animal that's still alive and somehow nobody's seen them this is especially funny when you consider the number of dinosaur fossils that are found in open spaces of Montana and where the hell are you going to have something that big hiding and I think she thought that if you didn't have a live dinosaur to look at that you wouldn't know how the bones went together and she didn't know that there was ways of identifying the bones themselves and she didn't know that we had fully articulated complete dinosaur skeletons and I showed her a picture of one it was a lithograph of sinornithosaurus as she tried to dismiss it by saying that it looked like a bird well of course it would wouldn't it and I've heard the same argument used to try to dismiss Microraptor because if it looks like a bird then it's a bird and not a dinosaur no matter how many dinosaur traits it has unless it's a pterosaur and then which case it's both a dinosaur and a bird without being either one and when you're determined to reject something you use any excuse that works okay in each case when a creationist is cornered on a pivotal point they cannot make an honest concession because they don't care what the truth is in one way or other I have seen many times an admission to the effect that whether we believe it matters more than whether it is true their position and I'm not kidding about this their position is not about truth it's about appearances and it's not demonstrated by fact but by a demonstration of conviction and really it's about make-believe it doesn't matter whether it's true or not there's an emotional to religious beliefs that's why they require apologist people whose job it is to make up whatever excuse is necessary to rationalize or justify whatever they need in order to preserve a preferred belief and even when that belief is obviously wrong a religious apologist has a doctrinal obligation to defend the faith and make people believe and that includes pulling the wool over your own eyes - you're supposed to reaffirm your faith using a cognitive bias and a logical fallacy of a circular argument routing back to have an assumed conclusion why would anybody be so determined to preserve or promote a belief rather than investigating it to make sure that it's correct I've often met people who say that they don't care what the facts are they're going to believe what they want to believe and if I try to tell them what the facts are then they get angry saying why can't I believe what I want to believe as if it was a matter of choice and they tell me that I have that choice - but I don't whatever I believe is a conditioned determined by my knowledge of the facts and will obligate lis change along with my understanding of the information I have no choice in the matter and if I did I wouldn't believe as I do I wouldn't believe as they do either because if I have to believe in a fantasy world I can imagine much better ones than they have the reasons they give for believing as they do could not compel me to believe it - for example can hand of Answers in Genesis says that you have to believe in the first half of the Bible where it talks about creation in order to believe in the second half of the Bible where it talks about salvation he wants to believe in salvation so he'll make believe creation and you described something very similar to that when he talks about looking at evidence through God glasses which is another way of describing confirmation bias where you simply don't admit anything that stands against you and you only reaffirm those things that you think you can rationalize to make sense for your position and logically that means it's all make-believe and not a sincere belief that's a sailfin elected delusion called pretending well it's not always self-inflicted it's usually indoctrinated from early childhood when a child's mind is most susceptible to cultural conditioning norms of fidelity are imposed such that children are trained to execrate conflicting ideas not to consider them but to react to them and to reject them no matter what they're taught never to question their beliefs only to preserve and defend the faith and they'll do that with apologetics semantics distorted data emotional pleas and sometimes violence worst of all their conditioning is so ingrained that most never question why they needed to defend a belief at all if you're honest and you make reasonable estimates based on the fact at hand that this is probably what happened then your critics will tack you for being uncertain as if that somehow means you're wrong you said probably that means you don't really know and obviously you people are not as familiar with Texans as I am but that's the way they talk and your critics however will claim absolute certainty even when the it would even without any evidence at all to back it up oh I don't just believe it I know it and that's the most irritating thing about religion pretending to know what you don't know and it's especially bad when it's something that no one really can know the difference between knowledge and mere belief is that knowledge is demonstrable with measurable accuracy meaning that it can be tested it doesn't matter how convinced you are if you can't show that you're right then we can't know that you're right and neither can you really if you're making an extraordinary claim then your words simply because you say so isn't good enough if you can't confirm your accuracy to any degree at all by any means whatsoever then it is a fact that you cannot honestly say that you know what you think you know so don't say I'll know it for a fact like so many of my countrymen do because the fact is a point of data that is either not a dispute or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable and that is never the case with religious beliefs if you can't give us a reason to believe you then we have no reason to believe you and having no reason to believe something is a pretty good reason not to believe it although there are other reasons too and every time someone realizes is they don't really have the facts to show then they shift the argument to what's just common sense of course they're not using common sense they're using assumptions based on ignorance in other words they don't know what they're talking about and this applies to every apologist of any religion they don't know what they say they know imagine a gathering of the leaders of the top dozen or so religions and religious denominations all gathered round saying that they have the absolute truth and that everybody else is wrong logically only one of them at most even could be absolutely correct and it is infinitely more likely that they are all at least partially wrong in the dominant probability is that they're all completely wrong none of them can show that their beliefs are any more accurate than anyone elses because none of them can show that there's any truth to any of their assertions whatsoever and that's all that really matters it isn't truth just because you say it is it doesn't matter what we call the truth it only matters what we can show that the truth really is truth is commonly defined as that which isn't that which is concordant with reality so reality itself is not truth but statements about reality can be if they're true so how do we go about determining whether a statement is in concordance with reality when a witness takes the stand and swears to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth do we assume that everything they say from that point is the truth just because they said so it becomes the job of the court to determine whether that is the truth and the way they determine that is by determining whether it is true so the truth is what the facts are whatever statement can be shown to be true consequently there is no truth to any religious belief conversely if you have no faith at all and rely on scientific data instead then you actually can show that what you believe really is true you can show the truth of it you can show the truth of evolution for example but that fact enrages your opponent's then prompts them to solipsism the only way to defend beliefs that are not concordant with reality is to challenge reality itself so every time I've argued with apologist it always starts out the same way they can't address the facts so the attack epistemology as it is as if their position is so weak that God couldn't be real unless reality isn't case in point when my friend Matt Dillahunty recently debated Matt slick Dilla honey conceded upfront that he's only assuming that his knowledge of reality is real and that it's not just an illusion so slit couldn't get any purchase with that argument and instead argued that the hook chose the Exodus to name as a fact which he said indicated any a divine being however I had debated slick myself only a week or so earlier and I told him that if we both agree that reality is real by definition then the exodus is not a fact and we can show that it actually never happened the slick responded to that exactly the way I predicted he would he told me that I couldn't prove anything because I couldn't prove that I existed two weeks ago because I might have been manufactured since then complete with false memories that of course is an argument the reality is wrong because all our knowledge of reality might be false memories deceptively implanted this sort of apologist can't claim to know anything if we know anything so they say that you have to know everything before you can know anything which is a rule that they don't apply to themselves they can show that they know nothing and still claim to be better informed than all the best educated expert specialist anywhere ever so get them to agree up front that you both live in the same reality the reality is real and that it will remain so even if they're losing the argument scientists can't waste their time imagining that life is but a dream they have to live in the real world and they have to distinguish what they know from what they merely believe even their beliefs have to be backed by evidence because nobody cares what you believe all that matters is why you believe it it should be objective meaning that whatever reason convinced you should also convinced me to and anyone else also there has to be a reason and it has to be one that is really true scientists can't postulate anything without a reason they can't even say that something is probably true until they have the evidence indicating that probability and they can't say - something is true unless their evidence is so strong as to constitute proof and obviously here I'm using the legal definition where proof is defined as an overwhelming preponderance of evidence but religious people don't abide by those rules every claimant religion makes falls into one of two categories not evidently true and evidently not true so the guy with no knowledge of anything whatsoever who has already been proven wrong on every single point will still declare that he knows for a fact that he's right and people will believe him because he seems so confident but he's being dishonest because he's claiming facts that are not facts don't tell me that he might be right and we can't prove his naught therefore we can't call it a liar no it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true and I'll give you an example of that let's say you go to an elementary school when they're closing out just before they let out the students when all the parents pull up in their cars to pick up their kids and you go tell the principal that there's a man in one of those cars with a gun how is the school going to respond they're going to call the police and the police are going to come ask you which car don't try to reverse the burden of proof don't tell the cops that they have to go search every one of those cars to prove there's not a man with a gun because it doesn't work like that I come from Texas where anybody can have a concealed weapon and many people do the probability is there's going to be more than one guy out there with a gun sadly that's really true but it wouldn't matter if there is somebody out there with a gun because if they find out that you told them this without any evidence that you are still in trouble if we're lying to the police and filing a false alarm now that's not to say that these people are always conscious of their dishonesty I'm sure there are many people who sincerely believe because they've never questioned their beliefs or because everyone else believes it so it must be true and it curiously though they don't grieve any differently than we do and what happens when you challenge that belief caused them to analyze it possibly for the first time how do they respond to that and how would you respond and wouldn't it be different put yourself in their shoes and I would assume that most of the people in this audience are a pista fists meaning that you don't believe anything on faith that you're a rational skeptical secular atheists who tentatively trust empirical science so how would you respond when some devotee of dogmatism tells you that it's essentially everything you know is wrong because that's what both camps are telling each other but their proceed they're perceiving this and reacting to it differently for one thing non-believers don't become offended or intimidated by finding out that someone believes differently if someone comes and tells me that they think Benjamin Franklin discovered America and was our first key I'm going to correct that guy and I'm going to treat his error exactly the same way I would religion yes they have the right in three countries to believe in utter horseshit as long as they keep it to themselves otherwise their right to be wrong conflicts with my right to be right and I was never a creationist myself I've always understood evolution and deep time ever since I was a little kid although I was all alone in that this may seem alien for New Zealand but I did not meet a non creationist until I was a teenager I had I had an atheist teacher in middle school was 13 or so who was the first person I had ever met who didn't believe in noah's flood and my first step to critical thinking was when this teacher told me that there was never any global flood nor could there have been and it didn't really take much thought to realize he was right when I was a boy I believed in Noah's Ark I believed in God and Jesus I believed in psychic powers pyramid power Bigfoot past life remembrance and the Nazca lines from the chariot to the gods I stopped believing in the flood when I was 13 but I still bought into a bunch of other that everybody else I knew believed in too in fact I was so gullible back then that I could have qualified as a Ghostbuster you remember the scene where the receptionist is interviewing the new recruit she says do you believe in UFOs astral projection mental telepathy ESP clairvoyance spirit photography telekinetic movement full trance mediums the Loch Ness monster in the theory of Atlantis when that movie came out I believed in all that stuff but I noticed when I was about 12 years old that only certain books ever mentioned any of those things and the accounts that they gave were inconsistent unverifiable and unreliable mainstream science sources never backed any of it up science books never mentioned the flood nor the miracles of Jesus and they never gave credence to cryptozoology parapsychology psionic ability or the possibility of investigating the ethereal plane out-of-body according to Transcendental Meditation and I liked believing in all these science fiction topics because they made existence interesting that's why we have so many movies about that sort of thing so I had a thought that maybe I would just read those books that I knew would bolster or reaffirm what I wanted to believe and as soon as I thought that I instantly realized how dishonest that would be and why would I want to believe something that probably wasn't true and when I asked this of religious believers I usually only get cold stares I can't imagine being afraid of an idea or worse being afraid that someone else might be right and I'm wrong if I'm wrong wouldn't I want to know about that as soon as possible but I've actually heard people say if believing in God is wrong I don't want to be right accurate information has practical application and a faulty premise will lead to faulty conclusions so I resigned to investigate everything and question my own assumptions and only believe those things that could survive reasonable scrutiny I suspect that a lot of other people have come to this crossroads and made the opposite choice and that other choice inspires very different psychology and behavior as gullible as I was I thought I had reasons to believe the things that I did I'd seen those films black marketed in from beyond the iron curtain of the Russians experimenting with telekinesis I've seen a submarine photograph of the flipper of a plesiosaur in Loch Ness and I saw spiritual life force evidenced in Kirlian photography when I was watching what I thought was a science documentary so I didn't believe anything on faith rather I was a naive kid who was deceived by well fooled by deceptive media and I was outraged at that how could they show things on TV that weren't really true it was like didn't anybody vet these things and I'm offended when I discover that someone has lied to me I think we all should be I understand that there's people lie and sometimes there are desperate situations in which you have to lie I would say the same thing about violence to me lies and violence are both the same thing they are both damaging and it should be reserved for the last resort but among creationists lying is a means to an end and the ends justify the means so it's okay to lie if you're lying for Jesus in fact I was on a live talk radio show with conservative Christian Scott Sloan when he said that there's nothing wrong with lying to people if they don't know you're lying which I thought was a stunning admission and you didn't seem to see the gravity of that because he continued to bury his foot in his mouth he said that it was a specific example that he gave was his own children he said if his children said that they wanted to go to Disneyland and he didn't want to listen to the nag that he would put him in the car and they would go drive to some abandoned building telling him that they're going to go to Disneyland when they get to the abandoned building he would just say oops they're closed and go home according to him there's nothing wrong with that betraying their trust misleading them that way he may think that ignorance is bliss but I think knowledge is power and so truth matters more than whatever I would rather believe so as each of my whoo beliefs were shown to be false y'all an intern one after the other I discarded them until I had no more but I can show examples where the faithful have been proven wrong and continue to believe anyway believers sometimes say I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine and that may be true in some occasions but not always and it's important to understand why because someone can change my mind if they're right there'd be a way to show it and I would change my mind because I'm an honest person but faith-based beliefs are held regardless of evidence and will not change because of it so it doesn't matter if you can prove that you're right they're never going to accept it and I thought that everyone believed whatever they do for a reason I was shocked when I finally started probing into what people believe in why to find out that there was a lot of people who didn't have a reason I didn't want one they believed in books they wouldn't read because it made them feel good because they had a sense of community in their church because their lover or their or their parents were religious or because it would mean that they would get along better at work or at school these are not reasons to believe these are reasons to pretend to believe there's only one reason why anyone should believe anything because investigation consistently shows that it is evidently at least probably true the way I see it there are those who have this desperate need to believe and there are those who have instead a desire to understand it it didn't used to be a dichotomy but it's getting to be that way the demographics is shifting it used to be that the average person held some notion of the supernatural and at least a belief in their own soul and that most people knew that you had to accept science as a matter of fact but that middle-of-the-road demographic is disappearing religion is in a general state of decline even in the United States but American statistics show that creationism is on the rise and it already accounts for about half the American population now the only way that both of these statistics can be true at the same time as if science savvy people are abandoning religion altogether which is fine but religious people are also abandoning science entirely and our headlines regularly show what a disaster that is especially when we're talking about children who are dying because parents are trying to pray away what would have been easily treatable diseases so we're left for two different very different philosophies evoking completely different behaviors which lead me to doubt whether the one of believers believe what they do in the same sense that I believe what I do for example I have no motivation to protect a belief even if it might be wrong and some of the faithful have described their their faith or belief as a verb as an act of will of mind over matter the power of positive thought as if they can change reality if they can believe hard enough so they may force themselves into a compromised situation in order to show their commitment to that belief that it has to be true or else they're doomed and this makes them believe much harder and a good example of that is the little old ladies that throw their medication upon the stage trying to convince themselves that the faith has just cured them and a few people have died in that and then my favorite example of that is Robert Fitzpatrick he was an American living in New York City and he believed in Harold Camping's prediction that the world would end on May 21st 2011 because of some interpretation of what they thought was a Biblical prophecy Fitzpatrick showed his commitment to that belief by spending his entire life savings of $140,000 on bus ads and billboards advertising the end of the world this shows complete commitment to that belief to the point that it absolutely has to be true or he's screwed so he went to Times Square to talk to count down to the end of the world which was supposed to be at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time when the time came and went with no apocalypse in sight he was confused why people were still alive and what was he going to do now that he is still alive as a 60 year old man who is now penniless creationism is a form of religious extremism requiring a degree of reality denial so it makes a much better example than someone who claims to be a moderate or reasonable Christian based on how little of their faith they still cling to versus how much they now reject so sticking with creationism as my example let's look at the different behaviors which are most obvious when arguing against each other online the one I most often see is where they project their own faults onto us accusing us of having faith just like they do so they evidently already understand that faith is a bad thing and some of them have even admitted on public record that religious beliefs are pulled out of the air I was stunned to see an admission like that and they think that the scientific position is like that to which I don't get but my point is we don't do that to them we don't accuse them of using reason just like we do we're objective they're subjective it's completely different we tend to define our terms upfront and show that we're using them correctly but believers won't even permit definitions because they rely on double meanings and changing contexts in order to move the goal posts we also tend to cite our sources and present the evidence to show that we got it right and that we're not manat remembering it incorrectly and certainly not that we're making it up however the most infamous chairman of our Texas Board of Education addressed a Christian school wearing he told the students to keep chipping away at that empirical evidence it was very obviously about what they want to believe and not what is really true one of his associates told me during a moderated debate that he knew there were transitional species but that he wanted to teach students that there were none because he said it was important that they believed that there are none so the most obvious or the most important difference is that willful believers will lie in defense of their beliefs without compunction and I can't imagine any instance where a skeptic would need or want to do that especially not as a teacher neither would we need to misrepresent our purpose our position now my favorite example that is Ray Comfort as an American atheist addressing a New Zealand audience I have to say thanks for sale Ray Comfort he is a street preacher who's had people explaining evolution to him every day for decades so he knows what the truth is yet when he got on the 700 club and was talking to Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition he described the evolution of the first dog as an amorphous mass of beat that sat around for millions of years blind until it suddenly grew eyes legs and the tail and turned into a dog and then he had to go look for another lump of meat that sat around for millions of years before it turned suddenly turned into a female of the same species with no population genetics no common ancestor and he knows that's not evolution but Comfort also knows that he has to create a straw man because he can't discredit evolution any honest way we don't need to do as he does nor would we want to we can uncover any rock because we're not afraid of whatever truth lies there in the best way to become an atheist is to read the Bible the best way to parody the religious position is to let them speak for themselves often we don't have to do anything more than that do I still encourage correcting their errors as a matter of public record when someone tells me that I'm wrong and they can prove it I'm all ears you never learn more then when you realize that you're wrong and it's better to be proven wrong than to remain wrong and never know it but religious organizations all post a statement of faith we're in the admit in one way or another and if you want to challenge me on this just put down the name of any religious organization that included the search statement of faith and you'll see it where they in one way or another will admit that they believe what they do for reasons that have nothing to do with factual information and where they will not change their minds or must not change their minds in light of any evidence that they will not even consider evidence that they may be wrong and that's why I say that theirs is the most dishonest position it is possible to have so I came up with my own version of dr. dinos challenge several times have told creations that I will prove evolution to their satisfaction and then I can't succeed unless they admit that I have and there are some requirements of course but they're all reasonable and legitimate it's all done in writing and with a set number of mutual exchanges in public archives and before anybody asked me what what is the secret it's not like a word game isn't it's not it's not it's changes for everybody it's a simple battery of questions to get them to think I've discovered that it doesn't matter what you tell them they can dismiss any point with the phrase that doesn't prove anything and they can explain everything by explaining nothing simply by saying that's how God did it and they don't even have to know what you just said as long as they can guess which of these two responses to use so one thing creationists will not do is be held accountable their belief depends on misunderstanding and misrepresent misrepresenting evolution and I know that so my job is to get them to think to understand what I'm saying and to acknowledge certain learning points as we progress this way I can do this with a series of questions that they have to answer and this keeps them actively engaged and doesn't allow them to reverse the burden of proof the rule is that they will default the challenge if they repeatedly fail to answer direct questions and I have several previous attempts archived online where I can show that that is exactly how they got out of it one of those occasions is not available because I was arguing somebody on his private blog and he deleted the entire conversation in another post somewhere else which I wasn't expected to find I saw where he had explained why to one of his friends he said he had to delete the entire conversation because he realized I was making sense and he didn't want anyone else to know that most commonly though my challenge is simply refused and I think it's because they already suspect that what they believe is not true and they don't want to know that they want to go on pretending that it is in fact my challenge was refused so vigorously so often that I began to think that if faith is defined only as a firm conviction or firm trust in the accuracy or trustworthiness of a given position then I have faith and they don't most dictionaries will give the definition of faith in two contexts that one and the religious context which is a rigidly held belief that is not based on evidence among creationist there are the deceived and deceivers and no third category that doesn't mean that all creationists are liars some of the innocence don't know they're deceived and would rather not be they may be honest people but once they're immersed in this discussion to hear the evidence and arguments on both sides they will very quickly be faced with a choice whether to remain honest or whether to remain creationist because it will no longer be possible to be both and it's interesting when the discussion gets to that final point you can see them making that choice they'll either start asking sincere questions trying to make sure that this is really correct or they'll start obfuscating projecting ducking and dodging and showing other signs that they don't want to know what is really true they'd rather believe what they know ain't so such is nature of faith thank you

Channel: AronRa

Views: 255,664

Rating: 4.7870245 out of 5

Keywords: University, Auckland (City/Town/Village), New Zealand, New Zealand Association of Humanists and Rationalists, Unholy Trinity Down Under, atheism, creationism, religion

Id: vlEY25jSiBM

Length: 41min 26sec (2486 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 26 2015