Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for Agnostics
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 18 (48878)
08-06-2003 6:12 AM


Personally, I regard myself as an atheist - someone who does not believe in God, and may very well believe that there is no God, to boot. Now philosophically, if I were to pin myself down, hold a gun to my head (with my spare hand) and force myself to be absolutely honest then I'd concede that I'd probably come under some sort of category of 'agnostic'- it is of course impossible to know that (a) God does not exist, just as its impossible to know whether the real world is really really out there.
But this to me is a disingenous distinction - it has no real meaning. I don't believe that Willy Wonka actually existed but of course I can't be completely certain of it - so would that make me agnostic with respect to Willy Wonka?
I realise that agnosticism and atheism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but it bugs me that if the definition of agnostic is along the lines of someone who says there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial (see below) then what room does that leave atheism? (note: its not the traditional atheistic definition of atheism as being a-theism, without Gods, here I'm referring to here, but the agnostic characterisation of atheism as knowing there is no God). And under these circumstances, what does it mean to be an agnostic theist?
So taking a lightningly brief tour of Agnostic sites on Google, I find this piece by Bertrand Russell, who I seem to recall described himself as agnostic in front of fellow philosophers but atheist in the company of Joe Public (bolding mine):
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
Its this last sentence which intrigues me, as Russell seems to be saying that whilst an agnostic may for practical purposes be an atheist (as opposed to impractical purposes, presumably?) it is also somehow possible for an agnostic to consider the idea of an Abrahamic Deity to be somehow more likely than the Olympian Gods.
Do any self-confessed agnostics agree with this assessment? If so, what's the rationale behind this?
PE

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 6:53 AM Primordial Egg has replied
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 08-06-2003 9:56 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 2 of 18 (48879)
08-06-2003 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 6:12 AM


Interesting post PE,
I think that the problem is that in trying to define the position of not believing in god(s)..or Willi Wonka for that matter, there will be a range of beliefs. Some will vehemently deny that god(s) exist..most I guess don't believe for lack of evidence and don't give it much thought beyond that. If an atheist claims that he/she cannot prove that god does not exist does that immediately make him/her an agnostic? I myself do not believe in god(s) and hold a similar view as you...there is no evidence for god(s) but pushed to the limit, the same way I cannot prove the world I percieve is real (whatever real means) I cannot prove a negative regarding god(s)..but I also don't particularly see any compelling reason to do so.
The last sentence of Russell is rather bizarre...if you say you don't believe in god(s) but your lack of belief is not equivalent across religions what does that mean? Is there a scale of disbelief? If so, I definitely believe less in god(s) than Willi Wonka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 6:12 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 7:44 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 18 (48885)
08-06-2003 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mammuthus
08-06-2003 6:53 AM


Don't knows, don't cares
The "don't cares" are also quite interesting in this regard, as if asked whether Willy Wonka (to continue the theme) existed they would probably answer 'no', whereas if asked the same question about God they would, by definition, answer: "don't know, don't care".
There seems to be an implicit difference between this type of agnostic's views on Willy Wonka and God - I'm just curious to have them explain to me what this is (assuming they exist on this forum).
quote:
I think that the problem is that in trying to define the position of not believing in god(s)..or Willi Wonka for that matter, there will be a range of beliefs.
I agree. I had this idea of a personal belief continuum where people would rate things accordingly to how much they personally believed in them. For example, (without thinking too deeply about them), my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow would be very close to 100%, belief that aliens exist out there is probably about 99%, belief that there are more McDonalds than Burger Kings in London is about 50%, belief that Iraq had a secret hidden chemical weapons programme just before this recent Gulf War is about 5%, belief that a God exists is approximately 0.6375% etc, you get the idea. Then you get everybody's results onto a normal curve and use an arbitrary cut-off point to determine at which point you become atheist (say the top 40% etc) as opposed to theist / "agnostic".
Anyway, to get back on topic, I guess deep down what irks me is the thought that describing oneself as agnostic is akin to some sort of intellectual cowardice - a way of sugaring the pill to make oneself more appealing to theists and the like. I'm not saying I passionately believe this to be true, its just a hunch, an uncomfortable intuition if you like, I'd very much like to get rid of.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 6:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 8:40 AM Primordial Egg has replied
 Message 14 by nator, posted 08-06-2003 10:57 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 18 (48890)
08-06-2003 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 7:44 AM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
quote:
I agree. I had this idea of a personal belief continuum where people would rate things accordingly to how much they personally believed in them.
Though a pain to get data for, this would probably be more reflective of the average beliefs of people including religious people. One could as you say, then define specific points or zones in the distribution where one is atheist, agnostic all the way to carpet chewing radical fundie....on a side note, though I take no position on the relative McDonalds to Burger King ratio in London...I have never seen so many Starbucks coffee shops as in London..even New York City looks like a minor league player in comparison.
quote:
Anyway, to get back on topic, I guess deep down what irks me is the thought that describing oneself as agnostic is akin to some sort of intellectual cowardice - a way of sugaring the pill to make oneself more appealing to theists and the like. I'm not saying I passionately believe this to be true, its just a hunch, an uncomfortable intuition if you like, I'd very much like to get rid of.
It will be hard to get rid of. The entire enterprise of trying to specifically define atheism/agnosticism seems to me an effort by the religious right to define atheism as a religious system with a set of universal core beliefs. In addition, they proclaim this "religious" group is somehow trying to force itself onto unsuspecting religious people and "convert" them. Agnosticism would be like a sect of a broader movement. Think about how many times you have heard creationists rant about how Darwinism is the religion of atheists or atheism is a religion and other such nonesense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 7:44 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 8:54 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 7 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 9:17 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 18 (48892)
08-06-2003 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
08-06-2003 8:40 AM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
Not sure where this "belief" fits on the continuum but here it is. The definition of agnostic that appeals to me relates to the idea that if God exists, he is by definition unknowable. Since there's no point concerning ourselves the unknowable, there's no point in God.
This covers both the existence and non-existence of God so it is a sort of "don't know/don't care" argument, but at least it has logic behind it. I agree that agnosticism has been characteristed as intellectual cowardice, but I'm not sure atheism has any intellectual basis to it at all. (Does it? I might have missed something.)
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 8:40 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 9:10 AM greyline has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 6 of 18 (48897)
08-06-2003 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by greyline
08-06-2003 8:54 AM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
Hi greyline
I am not really aware of agnostics being accused of intellectual cowardice. Since not believing in god(s) is not a system of belief I do not know if one could assign it to a specific philosophy...I think faced with the question "can you prove god(s) does not exist" most atheists would say they cannot prove a negative, don't have positive evidence for god(s) and don't believe. But I cannot speak for all atheists....maybe it would be worth doing a poll of the kind PE illustrated after all

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 8:54 AM greyline has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 18 (48899)
08-06-2003 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
08-06-2003 8:40 AM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
quote:
Though a pain to get data for, this would probably be more reflective of the average beliefs of people including religious people. One could as you say, then define specific points or zones in the distribution where one is atheist, agnostic all the way to carpet chewing radical fundie....
Well, we'd only need a representative sample. And we'd have to warn fundies that they weren't allowed certainty values greater than 100.
quote:
I have never seen so many Starbucks coffee shops as in London..even New York City looks like a minor league player in comparison.
I am that one person in the world who finds coffee abhorrent in all of its forms. My friends (plural) tell me I'm crazy, that one day I'll grow out of it, but the few times I have tried it I almost gagged. Don't like the smell either. Never been to Starbuck's. And I don't care.
I've never even heard of Starbucks anyway.
quote:
It will be hard to get rid of. The entire enterprise of trying to specifically define atheism/agnosticism seems to me an effort by the religious right to define atheism as a religious system with a set of universal core beliefs. In addition, they proclaim this "religious" group is somehow trying to force itself onto unsuspecting religious people and "convert" them. Agnosticism would be like a sect of a broader movement. Think about how many times you have heard creationists rant about how Darwinism is the religion of atheists or atheism is a religion and other such nonesense.
Part of me feels like I'm starting to sound like Syamsu with my emphasis on definition rather than substance, although I'd like to think that I have been reading and responding to your comments rather than just rewording my OP. The dictinction between atheism and agnosticism, if any exists, is completely arbitrary as you suggest. However I'm of the opinion - call me a carpet chewing angry atheist if you like - that thinks the world would benefit from less dogma and more thought. A potential obstacle to this is when people refer to themselves as agnostic rather than atheist, when they mean atheist. I'd like to think that no-one does this. I'm pretty sure that no-one I know does this consciously. But I do suspect that some agnostics refer to themselves as such to avoid being labelled atheists and the stigma that goes along with it, so in that sense its important. To me anyway.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 8:40 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 9:44 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 8 of 18 (48907)
08-06-2003 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 9:17 AM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
quote:
I am that one person in the world who finds coffee abhorrent in all of its forms. My friends (plural) tell me I'm crazy, that one day I'll grow out of it, but the few times I have tried it I almost gagged. Don't like the smell either. Never been to Starbuck's. And I don't care.
..you find coffee abhorrent but you mentioned McDonald's AND Burger King in the same sentence? ...I also found coffee to be an acquired taste...and after continuous long nights in lab during my Ph.D...a necessity...and now I am just plain addicted.
quote:
Part of me feels like I'm starting to sound like Syamsu with my emphasis on definition rather than substance, although I'd like to think that I have been reading and responding to your comments rather than just rewording my OP. The dictinction between atheism and agnosticism, if any exists, is completely arbitrary as you suggest. However I'm of the opinion - call me a carpet chewing angry atheist if you like - that thinks the world would benefit from less dogma and more thought. A potential obstacle to this is when people refer to themselves as agnostic rather than atheist, when they mean atheist. I'd like to think that no-one does this. I'm pretty sure that no-one I know does this consciously. But I do suspect that some agnostics refer to themselves as such to avoid being labelled atheists and the stigma that goes along with it, so in that sense its important. To me anyway.
No, if you sounded like Syamsu you would have posted the same post multiple times by now, called everyone that disagreed with you a nazi, and asked everyone to go away
I agree we need less dogma and more thought in general. However, if I tell you I am an atheist, that does not really give you much to go on regarding my worldview does it? Contrast that with Christian...while even that term does not tell you exactly what the person believes, you probably would make some assumptions about some core beliefs that person has. Similarly, fundamentalist Christian as a label gives you a pretty good idea of what the person believes. However, I have no idea how your lack of belief in god(s) influences your life and worldview. It forces one to deal with each person as an individual rather than as a group. When arguing about different groups of people atheists will get lumped together even if they are radically different from one another in their worldviews.
It is interesting that you bring up the stigma associated with the word atheist. It is perhaps the selective force driving up the frequency of the label agnostic?
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 9:17 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 12:28 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 18 (48913)
08-06-2003 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 6:12 AM


PE,
Personally, I regard myself as an atheist - someone who does not believe in God, and may very well believe that there is no God, to boot. Now philosophically, if I were to pin myself down, hold a gun to my head (with my spare hand) and force myself to be absolutely honest then I'd concede that I'd probably come under some sort of category of 'agnostic'- it is of course impossible to know that (a) God does not exist, just as its impossible to know whether the real world is really really out there.
But this to me is a disingenous distinction - it has no real meaning. I don't believe that Willy Wonka actually existed but of course I can't be completely certain of it - so would that make me agnostic with respect to Willy Wonka?
I put myself in exactly the same boat. I think the way to rationalise your example is the same way I rationalise the potential existence of God. Until I have evidence that Willy Wonka/God exists, I am under no obligation to accept the existence of said beings.
Where Atheism (as we understand it) differs, is that it says there is no evidence for the existence of Willy Wonka/God, therefore they don't exist. This is essentially an argument from ignorance: if it hasn't been proven to be true, it is false. This is precisely the double standard I wanted to avoid, I can't very well tell creationists they are logically flawed when I am myself. So it seemed to me that I had to make the short pidgeon step from atheist to agnostic. Nothings changed, I still carry on my life as if a God doesn't exist, why shouldn't I? I'm just not guilty of a logical flaw anymore.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 6:12 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 12:51 PM mark24 has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 18 (48935)
08-06-2003 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mammuthus
08-06-2003 9:44 AM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
quote:
I also found coffee to be an acquired taste...and after continuous long nights in lab during my Ph.D...a necessity...and now I am just plain addicted.
Go away, Nazi
quote:
I agree we need less dogma and more thought in general. However, if I tell you I am an atheist, that does not really give you much to go on regarding my worldview does it? Contrast that with Christian...while even that term does not tell you exactly what the person believes, you probably would make some assumptions about some core beliefs that person has. Similarly, fundamentalist Christian as a label gives you a pretty good idea of what the person believes. However, I have no idea how your lack of belief in god(s) influences your life and worldview. It forces one to deal with each person as an individual rather than as a group. When arguing about different groups of people atheists will get lumped together even if they are radically different from one another in their worldviews.
Well I was really referring to a label for one's "religious" views rather than a worldview (what's that German word for worldview?). In terms of a worldview, I suppose "agnostic" also conveys an equal lack of meaningful information - but I agree with your overall sentiment that categories for humans tend to be restrictive rather than enlightening.
quote:
It is interesting that you bring up the stigma associated with the word atheist. It is perhaps the selective force driving up the frequency of the label agnostic?
Ah, but a new selective force is in town. The Primordial Egg drive to eradicate the word "agnostic" in people's hearts and minds. And after that, I take France.
PE
Added by edit: The word is 'Weltanschauung'. Working for a German company has its benefits after all.
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 9:44 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 08-07-2003 4:37 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 18 (48937)
08-06-2003 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mark24
08-06-2003 9:56 AM


Hi Mark,
I'm not sure here but does being agnostic in order to maintain logical purity not lead to the inescapable conclusion that you have to be agnostic about absolutely everything?
Now there's no way I can logically argue that this is incorrect, (especially given that it isn't). But dammit, maybe I can appeal to your emotions - if saying that the existence of God is about as likely as the three-headed mongoose king of Neptune, then you're really saying, what you're really communicating here, is that you don't think God exists.
quote:
Where Atheism (as we understand it) differs, is that it says there is no evidence for the existence of Willy Wonka/God, therefore they don't exist. This is essentially an argument from ignorance: if it hasn't been proven to be true, it is false.
Atheism, as sometimes defined by atheists uses the etymology of the word "a-theist", without God or Gods i.e. a lack of God belief. This is perfectly logically sustainable. Now typically an agnostic or a theist might define an atheist as someone who believes that there is no God (an active rather than a passive definition). I don't like this definition but even then, I don't see what is logically erroneous with believing in the non-existence of God, much like I believe in the non-existence of Tom Thumb.
If the definitons above hold, can I persuade you to come back into the atheist fold? Go on, you know you want to
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 08-06-2003 9:56 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 08-06-2003 2:05 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 18 (48949)
08-06-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 12:51 PM


PE,
I'm not sure here but does being agnostic in order to maintain logical purity not lead to the inescapable conclusion that you have to be agnostic about absolutely everything?
In a very real sense, yes. If you aren't in possession of contradictory evidence, then don't rule it out.
I have a friend who always accuses me of sitting on the fence as an agnostic, I tend to see it as a sliding scale. I am not 50/50 undecided, I am 99.99% recurring on the side of no God.
if saying that the existence of God is about as likely as the three-headed mongoose king of Neptune, then you're really saying, what you're really communicating here, is that you don't think God exists.
Not at all, & I realise I'm being absolutist about what I've previously written, but I mean it when I say I have no evidential obligation to accept that a God exists. This is different from postively asserting that none exists.
Atheism, as sometimes defined by atheists uses the etymology of the word "a-theist", without God or Gods i.e. a lack of God belief. This is perfectly logically sustainable........If the definitons above hold, can I persuade you to come back into the atheist fold? Go on, you know you want to
That's true, I have no belief in God, & under this definition I am an atheist (satisfied ), but at the end of the day, we're quibbling about definitions. Whatever definition you choose, I'll happily slot into it, as long as it is consistent with, "I have no evidential basis to accept God, but neither can I rule Him/Her/It out, therefore I'll continue as if there isn't one."
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 12:51 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 13 of 18 (48964)
08-06-2003 5:07 PM


Hello, all. I have not comprehensively read all of the replies above, so forgive me if I repeat something.
In my reading, I have learned that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to a theistic stance. Specifically, a/gnosticism regards beliefs about knowledge of an entity, and a/theism regards beliefs about the existence of an entity. If a person believes that s/he cannot know that God exists or does not exist, yet believes that a God does in fact exist in spite of this insurmountable knowledge barrier that he believes to exist, that person is an agnostic theist. Likewise an individual that believes certain knowledge about the existence/non-existence of a god is impossible, and furthermore holds no belief that a god exists, that person is an agnostic atheist. In that sense, I think Russell did not consider the distinction between a "weak atheist" and a "strong atheist." Atheists do not necessarily assert knowledge about the non-existence of God -- most simply assert knowledge about their own absence of belief. Their absence of belief may or may not be the result of a belief that knowledge regarding a god's existence is at all attainable.
Blessings,
::
[This message has been edited by ::, 08-06-2003]

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 18 (49031)
08-06-2003 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 7:44 AM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
quote:
my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow would be very close to 100%, belief that aliens exist out there is probably about 99%,
You are very nearly as sure that aliens exist as you are that the sun will rise, even though we have no evidence of aliens and lots and lots and lots and LOTS of evidence of the sun rising every day?
Wow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 7:44 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 15 of 18 (49070)
08-07-2003 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 12:28 PM


Re: Don't knows, don't cares
Hi PE,
I have to say I completely agree with Mark24's position....maybe I should just start lurking and posting "yeah..what he said" after each of his posts I think it ends up becoming quibbling about terms rather than a true philosophical distinction. I will also happily go with whatever label comes up as at the end of the day I still do not believe in god(s). I had never thought about the possibility that atheism as an active belief could be considered a logical fallacy akin to creationism. However, I don't think most atheists are active in the sense that they say they "know" that god(s) do not exist.....the same way I don't know for certain that an alien produced invisible genetic hybrid of Elvis and Liberace does not steal the one sock that is always missing after I do laundry, I cannot absolutely prove there is no god(s)..but I also have no compelling reason to even entertain the possiblity.
quote:
And after that, I take France.
Oh come on..pick a bigger challenge..the Germans do this regularly
And my man Lance just did it a few weeks ago...go 6-peat!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 12:28 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Mike Holland, posted 08-07-2003 4:59 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024