Home > Apologetics, General > The 7 common tactics that atheists (and Christians) use (part 2)

The 7 common tactics that atheists (and Christians) use (part 2)

[Continued from part 1 here.]

Tactic #4: Using exaggerated and ridiculous comparisons to mock the other side’s beliefs.

A famous and widespread example of this would be the allusion to the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Atheists like to claim that believing in God is on the same level as believing in unicorns, leprechauns, and of course, the aforementioned culinary deity. By making this comparison, they are trying to automatically discredit the side of believers by implying that we are naive, immature, ignorant, and without evidence or logic backing our claims. All of this is done in one fell swoop without a single thoughtful argument.

Consider this stylized mockery of the Christian faith: “Does this make sense? The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

Talk about a play on words and juicing up the cartoony level to the n-th degree. Words like “cosmic,” “zombie,” and “magical tree” bring the level of Christianity down to a bad fantasy (sci-fi?) flick. Defending this kind of faith would be a tall order indeed, but of course, any reasonable person knows that describing it in such terms is unfair and ridiculous.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? Making it harder for Christians to defend their faith with any level of confidence?

Tactic #5: Stating things as fact or “just because” with nothing to back it up, even inaccurate claims based on memory or assumption.

Christians and atheists are probably equally guilty of this. It’s just human nature, and it has little to do with religious beliefs or lack thereof.

People often feel sure of wrong information—from trivial matters such as which celebrity was married to whom, or the not-so-trivial details of a witnessed crime. It comes from recalling things you may have seen or heard incorrectly, and sometimes, it’s quite harmless. A simple “oops, I guess I was wrong” might be the extent of the consequences.

But when people make the same kinds of sloppy assumptions or claims of fact in religious discussion, something greater is at stake here. The truth can easily be lost and a good discussion can be derailed by one wrong fact.

A skeptic might wrongly state with confidence: God has already been proved false, you Christians are just behind and need to catch up,” or, “Hitler was a Christian.” [God cannot be proved false because He exists outside the natural, observable world. A plethora of biblical misinterpretations can also be used here. Besides, we Christians have the same information available to us that everyone does. Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, probably to gain favor, but his actions belie his true beliefs. In fact, he wanted to get rid of bibles and replace them with Mein Kampf, hardly an indication of a true believer. He once referred to Christianity as a “poison.”]

A creationist might ignorantly claim: Even Darwin confessed on his deathbed that he believed in God,” or, “There is no proof for evolution, it’s just a theory.” [There is no clear indication that Darwin came to faith, so perhaps this is just wishful thinking or some false rumor. Evolution, to an extent, has been proved true—at the very least on the micro-evolution level—and the word “theory” in science is a strong assertion of truth, though not airtight.]

Tactic #6: Ignoring their own holes and shifting the burden of proving an endless supply of further challenges to you.

I’ve often heard, “I’m an atheist, which is a belief in nothing. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon the believer to prove that there is a God.”

I have to ask, why?

Consider these simple facts:

– There are more people in this world who believe in God (or a god) today, and exponentially more throughout the history of man. Since when do the vast majority need to solely convince the small minority?

– If atheists are wrong and God exists, they are going to face far worse consequences–even possibly into eternity–than a believer would face if there is, in fact, no God. So atheists have a higher burden of proof when you consider that de-converting a believer is “riskier” than the other way around.

– Atheism isn’t a belief in nothing. In most cases, it comes with a belief and reliance upon naturalism, which is harder to believe for some people than to believe in God. I have a hard time believing that love is merely chemical or an evolutionary feature, or that art and music are solely manipulations of the physical world.

Christians should try to convince atheists out of concern, but it’s not our “obligation” to prove anything in the sense that our position is inherently more untenable. Don’t just stay on the defensive the whole time. There are just as many unanswer(able?)ed questions that the atheist should be required to address. At the very least, both sides may have to concede a few “I don’t know” moments, which is at least fair and honest.

Tactic #7: Requiring an overly high standard of proof, while calling all Christian sources “biased.”

Consider this: the issue of whether or not Jesus existed on this earth—at least as a man—was not even seriously debated for maybe 1,800 years. It was a given. But somewhere along the line, skeptics started demanding more “proof” and wondering aloud why there wasn’t more direct evidence of Jesus’ existence. This got easier to do since enough time had passed, but unlike science and technology, history tends to be more reliable when it’s closer (older) to the events.

Forget the fact that even emperors in ancient times were written about less, with scant documentation and archeology. Forget all of the historical analysis that makes the Bible, particularly the New Testament, the most confirmed work of antiquity man has ever seen. Or the many reasons why the resurrection could not have been faked…

Forget science and philosophy that seem to agree more and more with the claims of the Bible, such as a distinct beginning point in our universe rather than an infinite past. Or the experiences and personal convictions that scream that we are obviously not a random assortment of matter over time.

Videos, books, and other forms of communication that espouse atheistic beliefs are accepted without so much as a blink. And when they make a claim that seems damning to Christian beliefs (such as the comparison of Horus to Jesus, essentially calling Jesus a copycat/fictitious savior), people will believe it without investigating the matter outside the confines of like-minded Christ-mythers.

Who would then attempt to verify the accuracy of these claims? Well, obviously Christians would want to get to the bottom of it because they care about their faith and want to know if they are basing their lives on reality or myth. But then any of those Christian findings that show the falsehood of the Horus comparisons are dismissed as “biased.” The skeptic or Christ-myther might say, “I’ll wait until a non-Christian proves the comparisons to be false, thank you. Not some biased Christian with an agenda.”

Simple fact of the matter is, most people don’t have a vested interest one way or the other, so of course such works are going to come from a Christian.

There is no such thing as totally unbiased work anyway. Everyone has presuppositions and personal leanings. Writing off anything by Christian authors and researchers as “biased” is closing your mind to any contrary positions regardless of their validity. Heck, many skeptics set out to prove Christianity wrong only to realize that they’ve become convinced of the Bible’s truth—then they write about it (e.g., Lee Strobel, countless others). I guess these people are biased as well, despite their original intent.

I can understand that some people don’t want to give up their feeling of autonomy and authority over their own lives. But making the burden of proof prohibitively high is doing a disservice to the truth.

Christianity is not pretending to be a faithless pursuit that can satisfy a person purely on logic and facts. Faith is a big factor, no doubt. All we’re asking is that you weigh one side against the other and to give us a fair trial. Don’t use tactics, don’t make assumptions that we’re idiots. Go where the preponderance of your reasoning take you, rather than setting up an impossible task so that the other side necessarily fails in your view.

After all, in the end, it’s not really about “winning,” as is the goal in formal debates. That’s why I hesitate to use the word “debate” at all, since actual truth is secondary to the arguments in that context. What’s important is that we all get to the bottom of this and try to convince the other side by sound reasoning. If that isn’t possible, then at least a slight crack in the wall of dogma might lead to a change of views down the road.

Advertisements
  1. April 6, 2011 at 9:32 am

    “But that’s the point, isn’t it? Making it harder for Christians to defend their faith with any level of confidence?”

    But in what way is “holy spirit” different from, say, “magic ghost”? Is there a fundamental difference. If I find one silly, why shouldn’t I find the other silly? This is an honest question that I’d love an answer to.

    And what is the difference between people who believe in god and people who believe in being abducted by aliens? Again, a truly honest question. Maybe you can do away with it with a very simple answer. I’d appreciate it if you could.

    “Since when do the vast majority need to solely convince the small minority?”

    This is a logical fallacy. The popularity of a claim in no way implies its truth. Everyone in the world could agree on an issue. But that agreement would not make whatever the issue is true.

    The burden of truth is on the person making the claim. If someone says “there are absolutely, positively no gods!” then that person is making a claim and has to back it up. I, for one, don’t do that. Rather, I look at the claims of the religious and say “I don’t believe you, please show me your evidence.”

    “Forget the fact that even emperors in ancient times were written about less, with scant documentation and archeology.”

    Yes, but we believe selective things about such people.

    We believe that Gaius Julius Caesar existed. But we don’t believe, as he is reported to have claimed, that he was a descendant of the goddess Venus. Why? Because a written claim or anecdote isn’t good enough evidence for the supernatural. So your Yeshua may very well have existed. But any writing is not good enough evidence to indicate the truth of any supernatural claims about him.

  2. April 6, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Hello NotAScientist, thanks for your comment. =)

    “But in what way is “holy spirit” different from, say, “magic ghost”? Is there a fundamental difference. If I find one silly, why shouldn’t I find the other silly? This is an honest question that I’d love an answer to.”

    First off, “magic ghost” isn’t nearly as disrespectful as, say, “cosmic Jewish zombie,” but the word “magic” is still unnecessary and alludes to childish, fantasy-like elements for no apparent reason other than maybe trying to damage credibility and make something sound silly. I’ve never liked the word “ghost” in this context either because it implies that the Holy Spirit is dead. Whether or not you believe it’s silly isn’t the point I’m trying to make here. It’s that these kinds of things unnecessarily derail constructive, respectful dialogue. And again, we Christians can be guilty of this too. Why ignore the widely accepted terms and replace them with your own terms that can come across as mocking if your viewpoints have enough validity to stand on their own? If I was anti-Semitic (which I am surely not), would it make sense for me to refer to the Holocaust as “Hot Camping for Jews”? Does that seem like it will lead to a good back-and-forth? I think not.

    “And what is the difference between people who believe in god and people who believe in being abducted by aliens? Again, a truly honest question. Maybe you can do away with it with a very simple answer. I’d appreciate it if you could.”

    Well, honestly, none of us can know for sure that there aren’t aliens. 😉 It’s just that most of us haven’t encountered any compelling arguments for their existence. People who believe in God happen to think that the probability of his existence is stronger than the alternative explanation of a universe without a higher being. People arrive to this conclusion in different ways—some more valid than others, some more lazy—but that’s really the bottom line.

    “This is a logical fallacy. The popularity of a claim in no way implies its truth. Everyone in the world could agree on an issue. But that agreement would not make whatever the issue is true.”

    Yes I agree, I am by no means stating that something is true because it’s popular. But it just seems unfair to me when the burden of proof falls squarely on the vast majority, many of whom think the existence of God should be obvious. If there is a small subset of conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing was faked, and most of the country believes NASA that it was real, I would think the conspiracy theorists would need to prove their point. At worst, both sides should have to prove themselves equally.

    Atheists, along with believers, ARE making a claim. They are saying that there is most likely no God (for the sake of argument, we won’t call these people agnostics). This is based on their belief that there isn’t sufficient evidence. Believers are saying there most likely is a God. We happen to believe there is enough evidence, and that logic points that way. Both are claims based on things neither side can conclusively prove.

    If you are saying “please show me your evidence,” then yes, I think the other person should give it a shot—if they care about the issue enough. But at the same time, the unbeliever should have to answer questions such as, “If there was no God, why does anything exist? How did something (the universe) come from nothing? What’s your alternative explanation, and do you have proof for that?” Often these are met with answers such as, “I don’t know, but maybe science will find out someday.” If that day comes, then some of us may consider the other option…but right now there is no better one in my opinion.

    “Yes, but we believe selective things about such people.”

    People are free to believe selective things about Jesus, as well, but doubting his existence at all is a stretch. OK, if we can agree that this man existed, then it turns to the issue of, “Well, what makes you think he was God in the flesh?”

    That’s when we have to again weigh what we know against other possible explanations and decide what we believe. If we know that the NT writings were being circulated a short time after Jesus’ death (within the lifetimes of many of the witnesses), why couldn’t people have written it off as mere superstition and stamped it out? If Jesus’ body wasn’t gone, why didn’t the Roman authority parade his body around for all to see, squashing Christianity before it could begin? If Jesus didn’t appear to his disciplines and 500 other people, then why did people spread his teachings so fervently? Former cowards who were in hiding when Jesus was crucified suddenly had a change of heart and became courageous martyrs for something they knew to be false? It doesn’t add up that way for me.

    Jesus being resurrected and being the Son of God isn’t the ONLY explanation, but it seems to be the best one (to me at least). People may choose to be selective about what to believe about him, so the last part does take some faith. Proof and logic can’t completely replace that no matter what side you’re on.

    • April 6, 2011 at 10:46 am

      “If I was anti-Semitic (which I am surely not), would it make sense for me to refer to the Holocaust as “Hot Camping for Jews”? Does that seem like it will lead to a good back-and-forth? I think not.”

      I agree in theory but not necessarily in this specific case. Mocking a horrible event is one thing. Mocking a belief is another. And I do think that mockery and humor does have a place, though not in an intellectual discussion or debate.

      “Well, honestly, none of us can know for sure that there aren’t aliens. ;)”

      I agree. But knowledge and belief are different things. I don’t KNOW if aliens exist or not, but based on the available evidence I do not BELIEVE that aliens have visited our planet and abducted human beings for their own desires. And the same is true of the question about god. I don’t KNOW if one exists or not. But I do not BELIEVE one exists, based on the available evidence.

      “But it just seems unfair to me when the burden of proof falls squarely on the vast majority,”

      It may seem unfair, but it isn’t. It’s just the way that the burden of proof works. It doesn’t matter if the ones making the claim are in the minority or the majority.

      “If there is a small subset of conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing was faked, and most of the country believes NASA that it was real, I would think the conspiracy theorists would need to prove their point.”

      The question here is WHY does the majority believe on thing and the minority another? Based on the available evidence (documentation, video, audio recording, physical machines used for space travel, moon rocks, etc.) there reaches a point where we can understand that the available evidence points to a specific conclusion. Conspiracy theorists present an alternate conclusion and must bring forth evidence to back that hypothesis up.

      It’s not about majorities or minorities. It’s about the evidence.

      “At worst, both sides should have to prove themselves equally.”

      And they have, with NASA and scientists clearly coming out on top and conspiracy theorists failing. Again, it isn’t about the numbers. It’s about the evidence.

      “Atheists, along with believers, ARE making a claim.”

      I disagree.

      I am saying that I don’t believe your claim. That is not the same thing as coming up with a claim of my own.

      Going back to the aliens, hypothetically you claim to have been abducted by aliens. I don’t believe you. My statement of “I don’t believe you” isn’t a claim. If I said “you clearly dreamed it all” is a claim, and I would have to back that up with evidence. But merely ‘I don’t believe you’ isn’t a claim. Understand?

      “We happen to believe there is enough evidence, and that logic points that way. Both are claims based on things neither side can conclusively prove.”

      Except you can show things like that. Or at least where the logic falls apart. Which is why I brought up the aliens comparison. The evidence used to justify alien abductions is just as good or better than the evidence used to justify religious beliefs. If that is true (and I believe it can be demonstrated to be true), then what good reason is there for believing one and not the other?

      My contention is that your standard of evidence is too low. Not for everything, but just your religion.

  3. April 6, 2011 at 11:25 am

    “I agree in theory but not necessarily in this specific case. Mocking a horrible event is one thing. Mocking a belief is another. And I do think that mockery and humor does have a place, though not in an intellectual discussion or debate.”

    I apologize if my point wasn’t clear. What if I were to tell you that there are actually anti-Semitic people claiming that the Holocaust didn’t actually happen as described? That since the remaining survivors have died off, this ridiculous rumor may start to spread as time passes? If in the future, there was a debate between a “Holocaust myther” and a Holocaust believer, my point is that the myther referring to it as “Hot Camping for Jews” would not be conducive to a good discussion. And that’s why I have a problem with using terms like “cosmic Jewish zombie” because it has no place in the arena of public discourse. Beliefs or not, it doesn’t help get to the truth…it’s just a “tactic” to win an argument, or to at least vent one’s frustration with people with different beliefs.

    “I agree. But knowledge and belief are different things. I don’t KNOW if aliens exist or not, but based on the available evidence I do not BELIEVE that aliens have visited our planet and abducted human beings for their own desires. And the same is true of the question about god. I don’t KNOW if one exists or not. But I do not BELIEVE one exists, based on the available evidence.”

    Well, if your question is about knowledge and belief here, then I guess at the fundamental level, there is little apparent difference between belief in aliens and belief in God. Same goes for belief in anything that you or I have not personally witnessed but that we take on faith (even historical details).

    But I guess if you’re implying that the likelihood of aliens existing is somehow on par with the reality of Jesus, then I’m going to disagree with you there. If aliens decided to walk among us in public view for years, interacted with government officials, and were executed for all to see, then two thousand years from now, belief in aliens would be just as valid as belief in Christ today.

    “It may seem unfair, but it isn’t. It’s just the way that the burden of proof works. It doesn’t matter if the ones making the claim are in the minority or the majority.”

    I’m not saying we won’t try to prove it, but nonbelievers have proving to do as well. It’s not a one-way dialog, both sides should be presenting evidence. Again, I think both sides are making claims, not just the believers. For instance, when a naturalist talks about the origins of the first life, I find his abiogenesis explanation to be unsatisfactory and without firm evidence. Why shouldn’t he have to prove to me that life could come from non-life for me to believe that it could come about without God? Why is he off the hook whereas I have to prove everything? I can’t, and neither can he.

    “It’s not about majorities or minorities. It’s about the evidence.”

    Yes, I agree. I’m not sure why you’re reiterating this point, I’m well aware that large numbers don’t prove something to be true (although it certainly can’t hurt its case either). Are we going to have video clips, audio recordings, and photographs of Jesus and other details of his life? No, of course not. It happened before that was possible. But just because something happened a long time ago before airtight, modern proof was possible doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Compared to other events and people 2,000 years ago, we find a lot more about Jesus than we would expect if it were false. That’s convincing to some, not to others. Whether something is “good enough” is subjective. There might be some people who wouldn’t believe video clips of a moon landing anyway, thinking it could be doctored, staged, etc. Some people are much harder to convince than others, and it doesn’t necessarily make them right.

    “Going back to the aliens, hypothetically you claim to have been abducted by aliens. I don’t believe you. My statement of “I don’t believe you” isn’t a claim. If I said “you clearly dreamed it all” is a claim, and I would have to back that up with evidence. But merely ‘I don’t believe you’ isn’t a claim. Understand?”

    Maybe I’m confusing you with an atheist when really you’re an agnostic who simply doesn’t believe in the Christians’ claim, but isn’t necessarily sure about another set of claims either (i.e., the absence of God). If you’re not asserting your own set of claims and failing to back it up, then this part of my entry doesn’t apply to you.

    “Except you can show things like that. Or at least where the logic falls apart. Which is why I brought up the aliens comparison. The evidence used to justify alien abductions is just as good or better than the evidence used to justify religious beliefs. If that is true (and I believe it can be demonstrated to be true), then what good reason is there for believing one and not the other?”

    I don’t believe my logic falls apart at all. If you could present evidence for the existence of aliens that is “just as good or better” than Christian beliefs, then you’d have every right to believe in aliens. Heck, if I came across evidence I found convincing, then I’d believe in aliens as well. But I just don’t agree that there is. Again, whether evidence is “good enough” is subjective. Some people are more prone to believing in things like aliens, some people are more prone to being skeptics or questioning things. It’s the same reason why jurors don’t all agree with each other, despite the fact that they’ve heard and seen the exact same arguments and evidence presented before them. Based on their personalities, background, experiences, etc…they can arrive at different conclusions.

    “My contention is that your standard of evidence is too low. Not for everything, but just your religion.”

    You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, though you’re making assumptions about me when you really don’t know me at all. Do you know how I came to faith, what issues I’ve considered, the doubts I’ve wrestled with, and what research I’ve done? I’m guessing not (unless you happened to have spied on me throughout my day for many years and entered into my thoughts). So you can’t really make a fair assessment on whether my standard of evidence is low or high. You’re assuming that your standard is the right one and higher one, and since you don’t believe, my standard must be lower. There are probably people out there who are more prone to skepticism than you who have nevertheless found their way to faith.

  4. June 4, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Does you list include making blanket statements as if fact without providing a rational?

    Because to a non-believer, there is no difference between god, Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    There’s the same proof for all of them – none.

    Atheists highlight the most ridiculous parts of beleif to show how ridiculouos the beleif is – we’re just working with what beleiver’s give us – we don’t have to make anything up to illustrate the point.

    Catholics believe that drinking the wine and eating the bread in a ritual means that they are consuming the actual blood and flesh of Jesus – that’s cannibalism

    symbolically by the ritual, but within their belief system, actual literal cannibalism.

    How can you not be either horrified or amused by that?

    • June 4, 2011 at 12:26 pm

      Hi “random ntrygg,” thanks for your comments.

      I would say that making blanket statements as fact without backing support is a common thing that both believers and nonbelievers do. We all need to stop doing it as much as possible, though something might slip out here and there (and when it does, it’s good for the other side to point that out).

      I can see how to a nonbeliever, it might seem as if there is no difference between God those other deities you mentioned, but I think that’s really a failure to scrape beneath the surface level. To a believer, belief in God might be properly basic, as real to them as things they experience with their five senses. Until atheists experience the Holy Spirit for themselves, it’s hard to knock it. The illustration that Alvin Plantinga uses is that if you were accused of murder in a court case and all the evidence points against you, would you suddenly be forced to believe you were guilty when you knew for a fact you were not? No, you would be rational to hold to your properly basic belief of innocence, and many believers feel the same way here. I choose to push that feeling aside sometimes for the sake of discussion, but internally, these comparisons to the Flying Spaghetti Monster seem trite and off-base.

      God has a lot of explanatory power as far as the existence of the universe, objective morality, and a lot of other questions in life. The Bible, whether you believe in it or not, holds within it explanations and revelations about a lot of life’s issues—as well as sound teaching, a ring of truth, historical/archeological support, and things that resonate with many people. There are a number of reasons that we happen to believe it’s true, but either way my point is you can’t say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster accomplishes any of these things. The comparison falls short, though it’s popular and catchy.

      Our definition of “proof” is always going to differ from atheists. In an odd way, people insist on having observable, natural proof for someone who exists outside of nature (supernatural). Seems like it’s a lot to ask. But then, God actually stepped into nature for a time…was it enough? Not for everybody. We have a historical Jesus and a probable resurrection with no viable alternative naturalistic explanations. Instead of belief, people mock him and come up with conspiracy theories. We have a universe that seemed to come into being from absolutely nothing, and apparent fine-tuning that defies all probability and chance. We have a lot of things that naturalism cannot adequately explain, like true love, music, art, a nagging sense of purpose, a belief in our own rationality as leading to the truth (rather than our thoughts being simply a means to survive), order in nature’s laws…

      To literally billions of people around the world, some of these things are enough “proof,” but some will never be satisfied. Even if God were to step in and show us some big miracle, give it a few years and people would doubt again. They would question the historicity of that miracle, come up with alternative explanations and theories, etc.

      As for Catholic rituals, I can’t speak for certain because I am not a Catholic myself (and I’m hesitant to accept other people’s cursory judgments on them)…but I find it hard to believe that people “literally” believe they are eating Christ. That sounds like an accusation from the ancient world that was prevalent, but it seems that common sense would lead people to know it’s a symbolic gesture. When Jesus said “this is my body,” I think it’s highly naive to take that literally. In fact, that seems to be a common weapon of Bible detractors…to take things literally when they are clearly not intended that way, or to take things out of context. Then, things sound funnier and more ludicrous—painting the opposing viewpoints with broad, degrading strokes.

      If I’m wrong about this and Catholic people actually believe it’s literal (somehow), then yes. I will join you in being horrified and a little amused, but mostly puzzled.

  5. April 9, 2012 at 10:41 am

    What a great and well thought out guide for those of us that debate. I must say you pointed out some of the top mistakes that both sides make and I appreciate someone on the theist side letting us know of our own mis-steps in the oft-confusing world of atheist/theist debates. May I have your blessings on reprint ( with due credit to you,of course )? I’ll understand if you wish not to have your guidelines re-posted but I did want to at least ask of you.

    • April 9, 2012 at 10:54 am

      Hi tnmusicman, thanks for your nice comment and thoughtfulness. By all means, you can re-post any of my work here with attribution/links.

  6. April 28, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Thank you,Joe. Im sure your above post will serve as a valuable tool to many young debators.

  7. April 28, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Reblogged this on Tnmusicman's Blog and commented:
    This is a great post for those of us that debate from time to time.It points out some of the mistakes that both sides make.

  8. May 19, 2014 at 3:44 am

    It’s going to be ending of mine day, but before end I am reading this
    impressive paragraph to improve my knowledge.

  9. September 10, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    What’s up, iits nice piece of writing regarding
    media print, we all be awar of media is a great source of information.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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

%d bloggers like this: