Is John Loftus a consistent biological robot? Can he avoid redefinitions?

Alex from the website http://www.skeptiko.com

Image

dealing with paranormal topics interviewed the militant atheist John Loftus.

Image

I am going to offer my random thoughts as the dialog went forward.

John is a former conservative Christian who has been emotionally abused by Christian fundamentalism which taught him he had to worship an evil God along with an inerrant Bible.

He became a resentful atheist and now seek to destroy the whole Christendom at all costs.

The topic of the interview was the so-called Outsider Test of Faith (OTF) which aims at pushing Christians to evaluate their religion in the same they critically considered other religions.

As a progressive Christian, I completely agree with that!
Actually, when conservative Evangelicals from the website “AnsweringMuslims.com” point out that the Koran is false because it includes immoral stuff, I evoke worse atrocities in the Bible and tell them with love that they ought to treat Muslims as they themselves would like to be treated by Antitheists. Alas I have never gotten any kind of response from them.

I believe that the Biblical Canon is not MORE inspired than book outside the Canon and when discussing with fundamentalists, I often get answers from folks wanting to prove the Bible by assuming (without any reason) that other parts of the Bible is true.

So progressive Christian do the same experience as non-Christians when dealing with fundamentalists trying to prove their very specific worldview.

That said I believe a valid OTF should mean we are agnostic about every worldview for avoiding biases. I am not sure this is possible to do that while still being able to consider evidence and thinking logically.

Alex agrees with John that Christianity ought to be debunked and dismissed some Christian miracles such as the virgin birth and the empty tomb as nonsensical.
For someone open to the serious investigation of anomalous data, this is strange, to say the least. The empty tomb is a well attested fact accepted by most critical scholars. It is its explanation which is uncertain and heavily depends on worldview commitments.

Alex did not contest any of John’s argument against Christianity (and most of them are actually aimed at Conservative Evangelical Christianity and are very weak against other forms of Christianity) but focused on the problem of materialism and biological determinism.

This is certainly the weakest point in John’s worldview and one he is not well equipped to deal with, since his specialization is in theology, anti-theology, and a bit of philosophical theology.

He was humble enough to recognize this and referred to other naturalism defenders such as Victor Stenger and Keith Pearson. Exposing some fallacies of these authors will be the topic of future posts here…

Alex is a non-Christian theist strongly rejecting materialism and wanting John to defend his own worldview, namely Reductive Materialism (RM) to an outsider like himself.

John is misleading as he said that atheism makes no positive claim at all. This is even worse for Reductive Materialism (RM).

Saying that everything which is real is IDENTICAL to material processes is clearly a positive claim, which not only (given the existence of countless unknown parallel worlds) cannot be reasonably proven but is also probably inconsistent.

John agreed that in one million years (let alone in one trillion years) nothing humans can do matters.

But he emphasized that his actions and his love matter now.

But is John really capable to love, act morally, combat injustices if he thinks at the same time that his love is IDENTICAL to a bunch of molecules, atoms and more elementary particles moving within his brain?

Is that compatible with the way humans over the centuries in the entire world have felt about love?

Would it be not more honest for John to accept the fact that love is an illusion, just a bunch of physical processes leading a self-reproducing chemical system to produce offspring?

John is persuaded that an objective morality exists, and that many stuff described in the Old Testament are wrong (and I partially agree with him about that).

But if everything which is real is identical to particles, and the proposition “Genocide is always wrong” is real, then to what neutrons, atoms, molecules, currents is it IDENTICAL to?

The overwhelming majority of humans would find it absurd to reduce the moral wrongness of an atrocity to a bunch of particles without completely redefining the word.

And when John speaks of making a choice, he is just expressing the fact that his brain molecules are going to push his body to act in a certain way, according to purely physical causes which can be traced back ultimately to the big-bang.

Is that not a striking redefinition of a “free choice”?  How can it be freer than a choice predetermined by God?

John rightly pointed out that fundamentalist and many conservative Christians have a harmful influence on them and others and ought to lose their faith.

I agree and interact a lot with such folks as a blogger. But why should progressive Christians like myself worshiping a God who is perfectly good and loving and rejecting any kind of human dogmas (both outside and inside the Bible) give up their faiths?

And anyone taking a look at my blog, at those of Randal Rauser, James McGrath, the Naked Pastor, Rachel Held Evans, Kimberly Knight and many others won’t fail to see that the antitheistic meme (Liberals and Progressives legitimize fundamentalism) is completely wrong.  We constantly oppose fundamentalism.

John thinks apparently that deism and the belief we live in a very complex computer simulation are not irrational. Great, but if that’s the case, he should view himself as an agnostic rejecting traditional religions.

Considering this whole debate, I regret that Alex did not show slightly more respect to John who was very polite. But I understand it is very hard not getting emotionally involved during such discussions  and I am unfortunately no exception.

I don’t agree with Alex’s final claim that science shows us that consciousness survives death. While sometimes very intriguing, the results of parapsychology and NDE researches are far from being conclusive.

I am much more convinced by philosophical arguments showing that consciousness is not the same thing as material processes studied by science.

Now I am looking forward to receive critical and approving comments!

 

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Is John Loftus a consistent biological robot? Can he avoid redefinitions?

  1. Thx Lothars… re the “empty tomb”, it’s not that I’m for or against the historical/archeological evidence for this event (separate discussion), I’m just surprised the way Christian focus on this one supernatural claim as being a turning point in history. Doesn’t nderf.org document 100s of cases of modern day miracles/supernatural events? Isn’t every spiritually transformative experience a miracle on par with Biblical miracles?

    Christians and Atheists are in a “stuck on stupid” debate that distracts me from the day-to-day spiritual miracles in my life.

    • Hello Alex, thanks for your comment!

      If Jesus embodied God in a particular way, his death and resurrection are events of cosmic significance.

      But I agree that there are wonderful spiritual experiences out there and think that God also works in non-Christian, and that the gates of heaven are not shut by Christian dogmas.

      Lovely greetings from Europe.

  2. “For someone open to the serious investigation of anomalous data, this is strange, to say the least. The empty tomb is a well attested fact accepted by most critical scholars. It is its explanation which is uncertain and heavily depends on worldview commitments.”
    – William Lane Craig says this all the time, but is this really true? It doesn´t seem to me as if the historicity of the empty tomb is attested by most scholars (by “scholars” do you mean historians or theologians or both? If you mean theologians, then I would totally agree that most of them indeed to take the empty tomb to be a historical fact, but I find this rather unsurprising given that most of them would loose their job if they would say anything different. I strongly doubt that most historians would agree with the historicity of the empty tomb being a fact).

    “John is misleading as he said that atheism makes no positive claim at all. This is even worse for Reductive Materialism (RM).

    Saying that everything which is real is IDENTICAL to material processes is clearly a positive claim”
    – It is true that most Atheists are materialists (“physicalists” might be a more appropriate term but this is nitpicking), but the two are not identical, not all Atheists are materialists.

    “John is persuaded that an objective morality exists, and that many stuff described in the Old Testament are wrong (and I partially agree with him about that).

    But if everything which is real is identical to particles, and the proposition “Genocide is always wrong” is real, then to what neutrons, atoms, molecules, currents is it IDENTICAL to?

    The overwhelming majority of humans would find it absurd to reduce the moral wrongness of an atrocity to a bunch of particles without completely redefining the word.”
    – We talked about this before and this really seems to be merely a disagreement about the nature of abstract concepts like “truth” or numbers. I don´t think that there is even a single Atheist on this planet that would agree with your statement that the “truth” of a claim is identical to particles. In my experience, Atheists simply don´t believe that abstract concepts exist independently of a mind that conceives them. We do believe that the facts that ground a certain truth claim are objectively real, but we don´t believe that truth itself (which is an abstract concept) exists outside our minds, just like we don´t believe that numbers exist independently of a mind that conceives them (i.e. we reject platonism). I feel a little uncomfortable speaking for all atheists here, but I´m pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of Atheists would agree with me that abstract concepts don´t exist independently of minds that conceive them.
    So, IMO, all this is merely a philosophical disagreement about the nature of abstract concepts and there is no need to redefine anything.

    “And when John speaks of making a choice, he is just expressing the fact that his brain molecules are going to push his body to act in a certain way, according to purely physical causes which can be traced back ultimately to the big-bang.

    Is that not a striking redefinition of a “free choice”? How can it be freer than a choice predetermined by God?”
    – For the way “free will” / “free choice” is used *colloquially*, yes.
    However, the colloquial meaning of free will / free choices amounts to the philosophical position of “libertarian free will”, which is a *highly* problematic concept and the overwhelming majority of Philosophers don´t believe that such a form of free will could exist. According to the biggest survey among philosophers ever done – only 13.7% of Philosophers believe that such a form of free will exists. Interestingly, this fraction increases to 57.4% if we only look at Philosophers specialising in Philosophy of Religion and decreases to 3.6%(!) if we only look at Philosophers specialising in the Philosophy of Cognition – philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl .
    I think John subscribes to one of the compatibilist versions of free will (which is by far the most popular one among philosophers), in which case nothing would have to be redefined here (not that this position is not identical to strict determinism).

    • Hello Andy, responding to you is truly a good exercise for it teaches me to be myself more concise 🙂

      I think compatibilist free will is a delusion.
      If God predetermined everything in the universe and in your brain so that all your words and deeds were ordained in advance, would you see yourself as a free creature?
      If not, why should the situation be any different if all your deeds and words were predetermined by the blind laws of physics?

      Your statistics about belief in free will among philosophers would be a good argument IF the cognition philosophers were unbiased and objectively considered BOTH liberterian free will and its absence. I have read many paper in this field and concluded that very few do it, most of them PRESUPPOSE the truth of materialism.

      It would be interesting to know how UNBIASED historians view the empty tomb. To my mind, it is well established by many reinforcing evidence, BUT I think it also falls short of proving the resurrection, for the body could very well have been stolen.

      Finally, your position seem to imply that all truths are identical with an ensemble of brain processes and contents. But if it were ONLY so, astrology would be true since it is certainly present within the brain of many humans.
      This position leads the famous German philosopher Gerard Roth (who by the way is a staunch denier of free will) to espouse a form of radical constructivism according to which the reality we experience is constructed by our brain:
      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Roth_%28Biologe%29

      If you want to hold fast on the existence of an independent and objective truth, you ought to define it as being something more than a bunch of neuronal firing.

      • “Hello Andy, responding to you is truly a good exercise for it teaches me to be myself more concise :-)”
        – Glad to be of service 😉

        “If not, why should the situation be any different if all your deeds and words were predetermined by the blind laws of physics? ”
        – That would be strict determinism, which very few people believe in (it would be possible given some interpretations of quantum mechanics, but none of those interpretations is very likely).
        But if by “free” you mean the freedom of being able to make choices that are not exclusively the result of a mixture of deterministic and random processes, then yes, I don´t believe that we have such freedom. I find the notion to be completely absurd even. Our choices are obviously to a very large degree based on what we *believe* to be true and what we *want* to happen. And neither your beliefs nor your wants can be freely chosen – if they could be chosen, you could just choose to *genuinely* believe that the moon is made out of green cheese (and think about what it would mean for the reliability of our convictions if we could simply flip back and forth between believing a claim and it´s negation 😉 ).

        “Your statistics about belief in free will among philosophers would be a good argument IF the cognition philosophers were unbiased and objectively considered BOTH liberterian free will and its absence. I have read many paper in this field and concluded that very few do it, most of them PRESUPPOSE the truth of materialism. ”
        – I wouldn´t use the word “presuppose”, I think it is a conclusion rather than a presupposition. But it´s not only philosophers of cognition, only ~12% of all Philosophers believe in libertarian free will and even among philosophers of Religion it´s only roughly half of them.

        “It would be interesting to know how UNBIASED historians view the empty tomb. To my mind, it is well established by many reinforcing evidence, BUT I think it also falls short of proving the resurrection, for the body could very well have been stolen. ”
        – Don´t you think it´s interesting that this talk about “biases”, “presuppositons”, “worldviews” etc. pp. is only brought up when it comes to claims like this one? Common descent was a claim that had *extreme* implications for the worldviews of virtually all people that lived at the time when it was first proposed – yet it eventually managed to convince virtually all experts, be they Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Shinto, Muslim, whatever. I don´t deny that personal convictions / worldviews etc. matter, but if the evidence for a claim is strong enough, it will eventually be accepted by virtually all experts in the relevant fields. Don´t you think so?
        Personally, I don´t believe that there was an empty tomb because I think that the Gospels are almost completely fabricated (I do however believe that some of the Pauline epistles (the ones that he actually wrote himself) have a kernel of truth) – and I´m not aware of any evidence for an empty tomb beyond the gospels.

        “Finally, your position seem to imply that all truths are identical with an ensemble of brain processes and contents. But if it were ONLY so, astrology would be true since it is certainly present within the brain of many humans.”
        – ? I don´t see how this would follow from what I said. Your line of logic seems to be:
        1. Andy believes truth is an abstract concept.
        2. Andy believes abstract concepts are identical to mental states.
        3. From 1 and 2 follows that Andy´s position implies that all abstract concepts are true, including Astrology.
        => I don´t see how 3 follows from 1+2 in any way, shape or form.

        “This position leads the famous German philosopher Gerard Roth (who by the way is a staunch denier of free will) to espouse a form of radical constructivism according to which the reality we experience is constructed by our brain”
        – Well, I do actually agree with one of the key tenets of constructivism, the one that the reality we can *perceive* is not identical to reality as it actually is. And I find that very hard to deny – just look at an optical illusion and tell me that the reality you see is identical to reality as it actually is ;-).
        This is one of the reasons for why scientific results need to be intersubjectively verifiable in order to be of any value (I am red-green colorblind for example and “my” reality when it comes to colors is certainly different from that of most other people – “my” reality when it comes to seeing the results of a spectrometer doesn´t differ from that of anyone else).

        “If you want to hold fast on the existence of an independent and objective truth, you ought to define it as being something more than a bunch of neuronal firing.”
        – I don´t believe that (that “truth” is “independent” of a mind that can conceive the concept of “truth”). I find the notion that “truth” could be independent of minds to be absurd – what would a claim like “p is true” even mean if there were no mind that could conceive the concept of “truth”? The only way how this could work would be (again) something like Plato´s “realm of ideas” where abstract concepts like numbers exist independently of any mind that conceives them. And I reject platonism (for several reasons, both philosophical and scientific in nature).

        • Hey Andy, very concisely 😉

          1) Do you have links where in the past
          theory A: libertarian free will
          theory B: no such free will

          were SCIENTIFICALLY compared and after a fair examination, scientist CONCLUDED that A is much likely false?

          2) Does a fact or a truth really just exist within our mind?
          For example does the fact that the theory of relativity just exist within human brains?

          Liebe Grüsse aus Lohringen.
          Lovely greetings from Lorraine.
          Mes meilleures salutations de la Lorraine 🙂

          • “1) Do you have links where in the past
            theory A: libertarian free will
            theory B: no such free will

            were SCIENTIFICALLY compared and after a fair examination, scientist CONCLUDED that A is much likely false?”
            – For a very good and concise overview of the relevant research from neuroscience and the philosophical arguments, I can highly recommend Jonathan Pearce´s (the author of the Tippling Philosopher blog) book on free will:
            http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-investigation-whether-always/dp/0956694802/
            And, not directly related to free will but very relevant IMO, Sean Carroll´s article “The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood” (yeah, *very* provocative title, I know ;-), but he makes a very interesting case)
            http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/ (initial article)
            http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/29/seriously-the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-really-are-completely-understood/ (where he addresses objections to the initial article)

            “2) Does a fact or a truth really just exist within our mind?
            For example does the fact that the theory of relativity just exist within human brains?”
            – My position would be that an abstract concept like the theory of relativity cannot exist without a mind that conceives it, the facts that the theory of relativity describes / explains however do not depend on minds (because those facts are not abstract concepts). Or, to put it differently – an asteroid hitting the earth doesn´t depend on a mind, a scientific description of this process however does depend on a mind.

            cheers,
            Andy

          • 1) I will definitely check this out. Both Caroll and Pearce are very good and respectful defenders of atheism.

            2) okay, so the fact is identical with the event of the asteroid hitting the earth and NOT with the brain state of the humans knowing that.

            But with what is then the moral fact: “it is wrong for a man to rape a woman” identical to if it is not a brain state?

      • “2) okay, so the fact is identical with the event of the asteroid hitting the earth and NOT with the brain state of the humans knowing that.”
        – Careful. You have to distinguish between the event itself and a description / explanation of the event. Those two are *very* different things, and as I said, what my position entails is that one of those cannot exist independently of a mind while the other does not depend on a mind at all.

        “But with what is then the moral fact: “it is wrong for a man to rape a woman” identical to if it is not a brain state?”
        – This one would actually correspond to a mental state according to my position ;-). The problem is that the word “fact” is ambiguous. “Fact” can mean something like “has actually / really happened” but it could also mean “is actually / really the case” for example. And a “fact” like “an asteroid hit the earth” is very different from a “fact” like “rape is wrong” – because the latter does not correspond to an object, process or event, it refers to a normative statement.
        And, just like I don´t believe that numbers or the theory of relativity could exist independently of a mind that conceives them, I also don´t believe that normative statements could.
        Again, I find the notion that they could exist independent of a mind absurd even – what would “a man should not rape a woman” even mean 10 minutes after the Big Bang, at a moment were no such thing as a “man” or a “woman” exists anywhere and where an act like “rape” would thus be a completely meaningless concept?

      • “Alright, this helps clarify things, you seem to a moral subjectivist of some kind.”
        – Yup, “universal subjectivist” would probably be a good label for my position (although I don´t agree completely with universalism as it is commonly stated).

      • “Okay but what is then the fact “EVERYTHING which exists is identical to particles and energy” itself identical to?”
        – Now we are back to square 1 ;-). A description of x is not identical to x. The theory of relativity is not identical to the facts it describes / explains. I don´t believe that an idea like “everything that exists is physical” can exist without a mind that conceives this idea just like I don´t believe that numbers, scientific theories and hypotheses or normative statements could.

      • “Great so the truth of materialism only exists in the brains of materialists. This is what I have always thought ;-)”
        – Why the “only”? Where else could an abstract concept exist?
        You seem to believe that “truth” and other abstract concepts exist independently of minds that conceive them.
        So where are they?
        How can we know them? (think about that – how is the interaction between this magical realm of ideas and our brains supposed to happen? Even just conceptually?)
        Since abstract object are inert / unchanging, how is it possible that science and morality can *progress*? If the unchanging truth of certain moral and scientific claims exist independently of our minds somewhere, and we just have to find them, how could any such thing as moral or scientific progress ever happen? (wouldn´t that mean that science, morality etc. must be all or nothing? Either you have the absolute, unchanging, 100% true answer to something, or you have nothing at all?)

        • Hey du,

          ich gehe gonz unverschämt sin un dir eeni Ontwoat uf Lothringisch gebe, awer ich glawe, dass de clever genug bisch, alles ze verstehn 🙂

          Ich hon gar keeni Ohnung, wie ma verlegeugne kinn, dass de Wohrhäit echt existiert.

          Un wenn „alles was existiert ist mit Teilchen identisch“ keeni Tatsache isch, dann isch de gonze Materialsmus unsinnig.

          Awer de Atheist Keith Parson hat eeni bessere Definition von Naturalismus gegebe, die dieses Problem vermeidet.
          Fir ihn isch Naturalismus de Glawe, dass unseres Universum een geschlossenes system isch.

          Was denkscht de dovon?

          Sonst wescht de was? Es isch gonz onstregend, iwer philosophische Frage uf Dialekt ze schriewe 😉

          De sprischt nur hochdäitsch, gell?

          Liebe grüße aus meiner wunderbaren Heimat, dem zurzeit sonnigen Lothringen.
          Lovely greetings from my wonderful homeland, the (currently) sunny Lorraine.

      • :-D. Let me see if I can decipher this 😉

        “Ich hon gar keeni Ohnung, wie ma verlegeugne kinn, dass de Wohrhäit echt existiert.”
        – Well, I don´t. There is a *huge* difference between “there is no truth” and “truth is an abstract concepts and abstract concepts depend on minds that conceive them”. I don´t believe that “truth” or ANY other abstract concept can exist without a mind that conceives it. *That* would seem rather absurd to me, which is why I asked you the questions in my last comment.
        If truth and other abstract concepts exists independently of minds – what is the ontology of “truth”? How does it look like if it is not a mental state? *Where* is it located? How could we access it? How could it possibly interact with our brains? (even just *conceptually* – we obviously don´t have a complete model of the human mind, but we do know rather well how our minds are influenced by internal and external factors like sensory stimuli and how beliefs are formed, so *conceptually*, we have a picture of how this works. How would such a concept look like for what *you* think “truth” and other abstract concepts are?
        And finally, how could there be any moral or scientific progress if you are right? See my last comment – how does your position *not* imply that we either have the perfect, unchanging, 100% accurate truth about something or NOTHING at all, given that your position implies that “truths” exists independently of minds?

        “Un wenn „alles was existiert ist mit Teilchen identisch“ keeni Tatsache isch, dann isch de gonze Materialsmus unsinnig.”
        – Again, there is a *huge* difference between “there is no truth” and “truth is an abstract concepts and abstract concepts depend on minds that conceive them”. The facts that make an abstract concept like the theory of relativity an “accurate” explanation / description do not depend on minds, for an abstract concept like the theory *itself*, I don´t see how it could exist without a mind. If you disagree – where do you think is the theory of relativity located and how do our minds access it?

        “Awer de Atheist Keith Parson hat eeni bessere Definition von Naturalismus gegebe, die dieses Problem vermeidet.
        Fir ihn isch Naturalismus de Glawe, dass unseres Universum een geschlossenes system isch.
        Was denkscht de dovon?”
        – That seems to be a tautology because a “universe” is a “closed system” by definition. “Universe” is defined as ALL that exists, if Gods, Ghosts, Fairies and a large or even infinite number of other spacetimes beyond ours (the “multiverse”) would exist, they would all be part of the “universe” by definition (that is why the term “parallel universe” that is often used in the popular literature is a misnomer, if there are other spacetimes beyond the one we live in, they would all be part of ONE universe, because there can be only one, by definition).
        I also don´t see any problems that this definition avoids… Which problems would that be?

        • Ja aber wenn du glaubst, dass die Wahrheit des Materialismus (wie ich es definiert habe) REAL ist, dann womit ist es identisch?

          Gemäß deinen Definitionen kann es sich nur um einen Satz von Molekülen und Stromen in Gehirnen von Materialisten handeln.

          Wenn nicht, dann was ist es überhaupt?

          Ich bin froh, dass du Lothringisch entziffern konntest 😉 Sprichst du selber ein Dialekt?

      • “Ja aber wenn du glaubst, dass die Wahrheit des Materialismus (wie ich es definiert habe) REAL ist, dann womit ist es identisch?

        Gemäß deinen Definitionen kann es sich nur um einen Satz von Molekülen und Stromen in Gehirnen von Materialisten handeln.”
        – Genau. Was sollte es denn auch sonst sein? Gehen wir doch mal ein konkretes Beispiel durch: ich glaube das ein abstraktes Konzept wie “E=mc^2” nur als idee in einem Verstand existieren können, die Fakten die zeigen das “E=mc^2” in der Tat eine akkurate Beschreibung der Natur ist können natürlich unabhängig von einem Verstand existieren, aber die Beschreibung *selbst* nicht (bevor es irgendeine Form von intelligentem Leben gab, gab es natürlich schon Masse und Energie – aber wie soll eine Beschreibung wie “E=mc^2” existieren ohne irgendeinen Verstand der dieses Konzept erfassen könnte?).
        Wenn du das anders siehst, *wo* glaubst du ist der Ort von “E=mc^2”? *Wie* kann unser Verstand auf “E=mc^2” zugreifen?

        “Ich bin froh, dass du Lothringisch entziffern konntest 😉 Sprichst du selber ein Dialekt?”
        – Nein, nur Hochdeutsch. Geschrieben kann ich die meisten deutschen Dialekte verstehen, aber gesprochen längst nicht alle – von Boarisch, Schwizerdütsch, Lothringisch etc. würde ich höchstens die Hälfte verstehen wenn es gesprochen wird ;-).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s