CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:106
Arguments:147
Total Votes:117
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Is morality dependent on religion? (94)

Debate Creator

JackSparrow(5) pic



Is morality dependent on religion?



Add New Argument
3 points

I would say its dependent on an objective standard. Otherwise its just your opinion against mine

seanB(959) Disputed
1 point

Objectivity in matters of human distinctions between right and wrong behaviours (the definition of morality) is a fundamental impossibility: human perception allows us to ascertain objective formulas that are considered objective because they work when applied to the universe around us -- for instance, mathematics -- but since behaviour is influenced by emotion, motivation, cultural conditioning -- things which are all subjective -- it is by definition impossible for humans to have objective standards for distinctions on those behaviours.

Further, to argue that God is an objective standard of morality is to presume God's existence as fact: it is no such thing. Likewise, the personal choice to believe in a personal God through faith in the stories and teachings of scripts from thousands of years ago, is an entirely subjective choice, a choice upon which any morality derived thereof is built.

In short: an objective standard for morality does not exist, or if it does, we are certainly ill=equipped to derive and determine it.

However, there are certain needs which are universal for humanity: the need for social interaction and cultural cohesion being chief among them where morals are concerned. Since humans are a social species whose collective success is entirely dependent on our working together to overcome problems to build successful civilizations and maintain a healthy gene pool, things like murder, child molestation, incest, slavery and rape are almost universally frowned upon. But far from founding these values, religious belief has in fact been historically shown to be a direct contributor in societies where these commonly held standards are ignored or patently opposed. The Papal rule of Europe for several centuries is a prime example, as is antebellum America, and as are the current Islamic states in the Middle East. America, the most religious developed nation on the Earth at present, is a nation with one of the highest rates of murder, rape and violent crime, among all developed nations.

By contrast, countries like Iceland and Finland, who have democratic political sytems and a populace made up mostly of atheists and the irreligious, have very low violent crime, very low theft, very low rape rates, very high educational success and very high quality of life.

Surely, if any society can be called "moral" it is the society in which there is no murder, no rape, no theft and high levels of cohesion and harmony among civil populations. In this regard, it is entirely certain that developed, democratic, heavily atheistic societies exhibit far higher moral standards than heavily religious societies. If indeed God were an objective standard for morality and atheism were a moral minefield, then we should expect to see atheist nations in moral anarchy, while religious nations lived in relative harmony.

It is abundantly clear that fervent religious moral codes do not engender high morality. Most often, they do exactly the opposite.

Amarel(4984) Disputed
1 point

Objectivity in matters of human distinctions between right and wrong behaviours (the definition of morality) is a fundamental impossibility

If objectivity in morality was a fundamental impossibility, then one could not say that there are actually things that one ought not do. A notion that you dispel later in your post.

However, there are certain needs which are universal for humanity

If this is true, then there are certain things that humans ought and ought not do, independent of opinion. This would be objectivity in morality.

America, the most religious developed nation on the Earth at present, is a nation with one of the highest rates of murder, rape and violent crime, among all developed nations.

This taken in the context of your previous examples leads one to believe you mean that religion in America promotes these atrocities, which is typically not the case. However, the rest of your post does a fine job of illustrating morality absent religion. The rest of your post

luckin(176) Clarified
0 points

I never mentioned religion in my comment. If you weren't referring to my comment I apologize. I do disagree with you when you say that Objectivity in matters of human distinctions between right and wrong behaviors (the definition of morality) is a fundamental impossibility. I do think there is an objective standard for morality to which we can look to and distinguish right and wrong from. However, this only proves that a theistic god exists. Whether or not a specific god exists is a different debate so I won't go into that here.

It sounds like you're saying that morality is subjective to each person. If that's not the case then let me know. If that is the case though, I would like to ask you a question that I like to ask people with a subjective mindset. If I were to break your legs and take your money, would that be wrong of me to do?

You mention needs that are universal to humanity and bring up social interaction and cultural cohesion in terms of morality. While I do agree with you, how do you know if any society is better in either of these two regards unless there was an objective standard beyond ourselves to look to? If its just your opinion against mine, any country can be the best. Logically we both know that either one person is right or everyone is wrong, but everybody cannot be right when it comes to their own opinion.

You mention Europe, America, and the Islamic states in the middle east as having higher crime rates despite being more religiously developed. You then contrast them with Iceland and Finland who have very low crime rates despite being atheistic and irreligious. To what are you comparing these countries morals if there is no objective standard? You mention that if any society can be called "moral" it is the society in which there is no murder, no rape, no theft and high levels of cohesion and harmony among civil populations. While I do agree, what standard do you have that would indicate that one society is doing better than another? Obviously one could say that lower the better, but then this standard of morality would be whomever had the lowest of these which would then make them the objective standard to which we compared everything else. However, as you mentioned earlier, because human behavior is influenced by a number of factors, it can be impossible to find an objective standard.

What I am getting at is this. You mention that there is no objective standard to which we can look to and distinguish right from wrong, but then allude to the idea, as I have stated earlier, that there are places more moral than others despite having no objective standard to which we can compare them to

Jace(4757) Disputed
1 point

That it would be just your opinion against another's is not a reason to suppose it is dependent on an objective standard.

2 points

Coorock said it well, it's simple common sense. Morals which are not objective are not morals but rather are personal opinions, situation ethics.

I like how the amoral ethics practitioner has to write about a thousand words trying to explain why he recognizes no objective moral standard. There is no reason why society should not decide the moral thing to do would be to grind this guy to powder and sell him for his salt....according to his own "morals".

Jace(4757) Disputed
1 point

The amoralist simply suspends belief in your opinions until you can prove them. That's all the explanation that's required. Threaten the amoralist with 'society' all you like, but you still haven't proven a thing.

NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

whatever, homo...you hope to get out of reality in death, you claim you know nothing and hope in nothing and nothing anybody says can possible contradict your stupid hope in death. You'er a dirty pervert who hopes in death to get him out of reality, and you want to take down as many in your mud with you as you possibly can. You're a sick bastard on your way to Hell.

NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

sodomite ;

NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

Look at that icon you display. Why would I want to read anything coming from something like that? You love death, I love life. You can have your own way, I'll go the way of the cross.

Obviously morality is dependent on the Christian faith in America. The morals of false religions that teach it is ok to kill women, children, Gays, and all infedels for simply not being Islamic, is laughable.

Look what has happened to America's culture since the Left separated any mention of God in our public square.

In a few short decades, man has gone from abortion being illegal to what became first trimester, then 2nd trimester, and then 3rd trimester abortions of viable babies for any reason up to birth!

That is the morals of man without God.

Look at the priorities of this new age man without God.

Our families are falling apart with millions of children having no fathers at home, and what are the priorities of the anti God Left? They focus on issues such as boys who think they are girls going into our daughter's bathrooms in EVERY Public school in the nation.

These control fanatics want to force EVERY pubic school to allow this regardless if parents do not want it.

These are the morals of the Godless Left.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Obviously morality is dependent on the Christian faith in America.

How? You tell us all the time that Christian progressives have no morality.

The morals of false religions that teach it is ok to kill women, children, Gays, and all infedels for simply not being Islamic, is laughable.

The fact that you have to distance yourself from other religions doesn't help your case.

Look what has happened to America's culture since the Left separated any mention of God in our public square.

Crime has gone down, less discrimination, and people are more educated. Strike 2 for religious morality.

Look at the priorities of this new age man without God.

Still with God though. Liberals have God. Needing God displayed everywhere indicates that you don't have God yourself

Our families are falling apart with millions of children having no fathers at home, and what are the priorities of the anti God Left? They focus on issues such as boys who think they are girls going into our daughter's bathrooms in EVERY Public school in the nation.

And yet here you are bringing it up.

These control fanatics want to force EVERY pubic school to allow this regardless if parents do not want it.

You want religion in school and not science. Your judgement is compromised.

These are the morals of the Godless Left.

Calling Christians Godless kind of proves that religion has no morality.

1 point

They don't have Biblical morality. They have morality that is based on how and what the Liberal world tells them to think. It's a form of idolatry. Examples?

1)Child brides are an abomination Biblically.

-Liberals defend Islam's right to take child brides as a "minority".

2)Offense based Violence is wrong Biblically.

-Liberals support offense based violence if against Conservatives.

3)Acts of Homosexuality are an abomination Biblically.

-Liberals disagree.

So... their "morality" isn't Biblical morality. It's some newly tortured definition of morality.

trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

Crime has gone down, less discrimination, and people are more educated. Strike 2 for religious morality.

Well this isn't really a strike for or against either religion or non-religiosity. Crime spiked between the 80's and 90's then went back to where it is now. If non-religiosity is related to less crime then why did the spike happen when religiosity has had a downward trend since the 70's?

You want religion in school and not science. Your judgement is compromised.

1) Wanting a religious view in schools doesn't mean you want science out of schools, this is a major assumption.

2) This person was addressing bathroom policy, not science, so I don't know why this came up anyways. If you wanna argue religion vs. science, that's fine. Just don't combine arguments.

This aside, morality is not dependent on religion. It's an arbitrary concept based on a person's values. But societies do tend to flourish when the society, as a whole, follows Judeo - Christian morals. Even the Bible addresses this point. The God of the Bible always tells people to follow "HIS statutes" and "HIS commandments", but you can find times when God gave up the Israelites to other standards besides His own. And the people suffered for it. The Biblical argument is not "you can only be moral if you believe in God", but God's morals cause individuals and societies to flourish.

sylynn(626) Disputed
1 point

Obviously morality is dependent on the Christian faith in America.

Obviously? How is this obvious? Many groups is this country have struggled and continue to struggle for basic rights because of Christianity. Most Christians supported racial segregation and everything they could to keep the white man in power. Religion is also the reason for women have had such difficulty in gaining equal rights, and to this day religion is at fault for the LGBT's lack of rights.

The morals of false religions that teach it is ok to kill women, children, Gays, and all infedels for simply not being Islamic, is laughable.

The Bible also teaches this to be okay (aside from the use of the word infidel)

In a few short decades, man has gone from abortion being illegal to what became first trimester, then 2nd trimester, and then 3rd trimester abortions of viable babies for any reason up to birth!

I'm an atheist yet oppose abortion; moral without religion.

Look at the priorities of this new age man without God.

We base our morality on what is good for humanity rather than what an old book says. That's a good thing.

They focus on issues such as boys who think they are girls going into our daughter's bathrooms in EVERY Public school in the nation.

I'm with Cartman on this; it's you that's bringing it up.

These control fanatics want to force EVERY pubic school to allow this regardless if parents do not want it.

Christians want to force EVERY public school to teach religion as fact regardless if parents do not want it.

These are the morals of the Godless Left.

Your short rant doesn't quite sum up our morals; in fact you don't mention many at all. Many on the left do believe in God, and some on the right do not, so to attribute a political stance to a particular religion (or lack of) is inaccurate.

1 point

No one is moral, not even Christians. God condemns even your evil thoughts and motives, thus the human vision of morality dies to an omniscient being. That's what salvation and the intercessor are all about. Without Christ, your "righteous acts" are just filthy rags covering immoral desires, dreams, and thoughts.

1 point

Merely the fact that America is not yet destroyed is proof enough that you are just a lunatic dismissed to the corners.

But, if you want more evidence for your mindless fanaticism, I ask you to prove your "obvious" (LOL) claims using the latest constitution of America.

How much the maggot downvotes others is actually a pretty ridiculous amount.

urwutuis(2) Disputed
1 point

Obviously you are wrong. Morality existed long before Christianity. Christians like to pick and choose which Bible morality they follow unless you advocate killing your neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday, denouncing people who eat shellfish and bringing back slavery.

The reason things are falling apart is not lack of religion it's lack of equality in a collapsing empire. Trump is a perfect example of the type of authoritarian rule by sociopaths that always gain control at the end. It's the religious right that promotes corporate destruction of society and the environment. Apparently you're convinced Jesus will come and save you and you want to get there as quickly as possible. That's why you don't give a damn about the environment and worship the billionaires, like Trump, who are destroying the world.

The bathroom issue is an argument for idiots. Just like same sex marriage and voter fraud. Things only the low information religious right would believe

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

LOL, I stopped reading after you spewed the laubable lies of how Christians want to bring back slavery. Why I even responded to the likes of you is amazing.

All you bigots have is lies and deception. You can't live in the real world because then you would have to admit the truth of what is becoming of our nation when God is separated.

If it were not for the Christians in this nation, America would have decades ago collapsed from the bankrupcy of morals. We are seeing a slow deth spiral as broken famiies are being replaced with case workers.

This is the new America wallowing in the vacuum of the Christian moral values once lifted up. It was the Christians who helped end slavery when the Democrat Party supported it.

PATHETIC LIAR! Dont worry I won't be responding to your next regurgitation of lies.

1 point

i would like to make this very clear. i have not, nor will i ever physically attach myself to a dish satellite using gorilla glue. please stop asking

No. Religion tends to simply place firm beliefs on what what is moral and what isn't. Religion usually depends on morality.

1 point

Indeed

1 point

Indeed

1 point

Indeed

1 point

Indeed

1 point

Indeed

1 point

Indeed

1 point

Indeed

1 point

Indeed

It can be.

For example, if a large group of fanatics unequivocally agree eating socks is a very moral thing, then who are you to disagree.

And such things happen generally in stuff like religion.

1 point

We know. We've watched the cult of Atheism start mega churches, pass out pamphlets, take offerings, and even give sermons, all to redefine what is "good" and what is "bad". They've used this religion of Progressivism to try and demonize Evangelicals. What Evangelicals were condemned for doing by the left in decades past (Defining morality and right and wrong), is what the new "religious left" is now doing. Condemning and demonizing and preaching.

1 point

Something had to happen if they were forced to be a religion.

So yes, you gave them the right to do all that, on a platter.

1 point

Immorality is dependant on religion in a sizeable amount of immoral acts carried out collectively worldwide , that's why the words of ' sacred ' books written by neantherdahl goatherds are used by believers to demonise , tyrannise and oppress people worldwide .

1 point

Morality must not be viewed as universal in meaning and neither dependent with religion but merely depends on the developed cognition of an individual. Religion may influence our respective dogmas about morality at some point, yet it is the personal discernment of an individual matters, wherein it serves purely as the foundation of our own context of morality. Thus, religion is partly an element that may affect our point of view towards morality.

1 point

GOD, NO! If that were the case we'd have something worse than Sharia Law! We'd be burning witches (or bitches), at the stake, keep our women behind locked doors, find dead gays in every alley, be hanging our neighbors wives (the friendly ones), swim completely clothed, J-Lo would be a Bronx gang member!

I stayed at a Hotel when there was a large religious group in many of the rooms. I wanted to use the Hot Tub but found it full of fully dressed women! No telling WHAT they had in their undies! I declined to find out!

"Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you are told.

Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what's right."

1 point

No. While I love Yeshua, I'm not religious, and I have good morals, because I want to.

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

You are pro choice and have the nerve to say you have good morals? Wow! Are you truly that brainwashed by the world?

Sitar(3682) Disputed
1 point

I believe it is good morals is doing unto others as I would have them do unto me, like Yeshua said. If I want to choose, I need to allow other humans to choose.

1 point

No. But as, I believe someone else said, religion is dependent on morality.

One can be non-religious and still be moral, however if one is religious they must depend on morality.

1 point

This topic has repeated multiple times on this site so if you really believe morality depends on religion go read up.

1) Civilization is more than just the ten commandments and New Testament. From the moment early humans worked as a team there were behaviors necessary for coexistence. Those behaviors are just as much a part of "morality" as "thou shall not commit adultery", but for some reason the religious believers of this world think zero morality of any kind existed before then.

2) There were many different religions through history and thus a wildly diverse set of interpretations for what religious morality should be. And the fact a sucky religion (like Aztecs with human sacrifice) can be abandoned to convert to one less sucky (hypothetically, Christianity) is in essence proof the moralities associated with those religions are also not the end all be all.

3) Death and destruction and suffering brought on by religion or in the name of religion throughout history heavily counters the claim religion has a monopoly on morality. In fact, a superior argument based on all of history is that when religion steps out of line it's people thinking and acting independent of those religions who help to restore balance and fairness to their civilizations.

4) Theoretically, atheists (or indeed anyone from any belief system other than your own chosen religion) should be wallowing constantly in their own debauchery and utterly incapable of even having an ethics discussion with the religious if indeed it were true that only through religion can one be moral.

5) If you truly believe God made everything including the rules then you must accept that by him making people who then don't follow the rules it's all part of a master plan you don't understand. So you should stop judging them. Leave it to your God to judge in the end who did what they were supposed to do or not.

1 point

Morality is a construct created by religion so of course it's dependent. If we take a look at a time when religion didn't exist, a time when humans were more primitive, morality wasn't a thing. You didn't think twice about killing a bird, even another human if the time called for it, it was all about survival instinct. Religion swung around and suddenly, that changed. Killing another person wasn't tolerated. People thought twice about killing that bird. Manners happened and society was created and now we have a lot of conflicting morals - many which have diverted from religion. But without religion, none of it could've happened or if it did, it would've taken much longer.

Dermot(5451) Disputed
1 point

That's not true at all , you're claiming morality only came into being when religion appeared ?

You say ' morality wasn't a thing ' and you base this idea on what ?

Religion and the founders of religion introduced their moral codes into society , indeed we have all seen the destruction and mayhem brought on civilisations by so called religious morality.

Jace(4757) Disputed
1 point

That makes absolutely no sense. Pro-sociality predates religion. It is what allowed people to exist in groups in the first place, which is a necessary prerequisite to religions forming.

Objective morality is, yes. But as we have seen in full force, the Liberals and Atheists came up with their own orthodoxy and rules of morality and are using it this very minute to condemn Conservatives with, even though it's made up, no one voted on it, and its based on opinion and semantics.

Jace(4757) Disputed
1 point

An omnipotent deity may be the only possible source for an objective morality, but that does not mean that religious people actually know what that morality is any more than their secular counterparts.

Amarel(4984) Disputed
1 point

An omnipotent deity may be the only possible source for an objective morality

You know that I know that this is false.

No. Its painfully obvious that it isnt. We can look back thousands of years and find evidence of cavemen who had a concept of morality. There was a finding where they found the remains of an elderly man who had a crippling disease or injury and it was apparent that he was born with it or was injured when quite young. Yet he lived to an old age. This could only be possible if the other members of his group cared for him and brought him food and water despite his inability to offer any kind of labor for the group. Morality is purely subjective but it is mainly dependent on biology. Our brains evolved to have a capacity for empathy because if you can understand how someone is feeling and put yourself in their shoes it allows you to better assess the quality of your actions. I might not care about killing someone but if i can put myself in their shoes and the shoes of their family it becomes apparent to me that killing them is not something i would want done to me or done to people i care about. And thus i refrain from it. Its a mechanism to make living in social groups much easier. If we had no ability to judge our actions in this way we would do all kinds of shit that just wouldnt allow for any social cohesion whatsoever. And that is literally our only defense mechanism/survival method. We have no fangs or claws or poison sacs. We are squishy little two legged meals if were out in the wild alone. But put a dozen humans together and we can take down a mammoth. Morality was absolutely necessary to our survival as a species.

1 point

No, morality is not depended on anything. People should know to moral not because it's written out for them but because it is the correct thing to do. You don't need the Ten Commandments to tell you that murder and stealing is wrong.

1 point

Apparently hate is a moral instinct in radical Christians. Reading the hate spewed by FromWithin, Nowasaint, brontoraptor and a couple of other faux Christians (at least anti-Jesus), on CD and around the country! I'm a proud Atheist. I could NOT embrace a religion that breeds such vicious cruelty and hatred for those who think differently, and I am NOT singling out Christianity, or any other religion, many of whom are good people. It's just the few that think everyone MUST agree with them! (The sick ones).

"Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.

Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right."

Totally. And specifically christianity, to go deeper, the christian God.

I might have included islam but they don't give second chances which is purely demonic.

1 point

Christianity gives second chances? Where?

Though a purgatory depends on your particular denomination, they don't deny an eternal hell. Hinduism does.

jeffreyone(1367) Clarified
1 point

Christianity asks you to repent before God comes or you die(your own naturally death).

Islam the influencer of sharia law, you know what right?

1 point

Christianity gives second chances? Where?

Though a purgatory depends on your particular denomination, they don't deny an eternal hell. Hinduism does.

1 point

people most definitely is not. As the late Christopher Hitchens once said, and I paraphrase: "to think that I couldn't differentiate right from wrong if I didn't have a controller over me, is offensive." And it is, we humans are capable of as much goodness as we are capable of evil, but we don't need religion to figure that out for us. A person can be perfectly moral without a religion.

Actually, religion affecting people´s morality has a negative effect. It makes faith or "god" an excuse to do basically anything you want, evil or not. The bible for instance, says husbands should stone their wives if they are not virgins by the time they get married. The ten commandments say nothing about rape. Some religions allow woman to be punished by killing them, but if they are not virgins they can rape them first to then kill them. The worst part is that the people committing this atrocities think they are acting in a good and even riches fashion. All of this because of religion interfering with people's morality.

Ok to start this is my personal opinion and I do not claim it to be fact. I would argue that if anything, religion has the ability to corrupt morality. It gives the rights and wrongs and lists the punishments and rewards for both. This is where the term "God fearing man" comes from. I believe that a truly moral person should do good deeds and be a good person out of the kindness of his/ her heart. Being good simply out of fear of punishment in the afterlife doesnt make you a good person in my book. I am not overly religious but I do believe what we do in this life effect what comes after this life in some shape or form. I don't base my good acts solely based on this however. When I do something right or wrong I know in my gut whether it was good or bad. If I am mean to someone and recognize it I feel remorse and try to make up for it by apologizing or a good act towards them ect. When I do something good, i feel good about it inside. I rarely think about how it effects my religious standing with God. Even if i knew for sure at death there was nothing it would not change these actions and I believe the majority of people are the same way or at least id like to think that. I would probably try even harder to be good if that was the case because then all that would matter is how I feel about my self and I would want to feel that a led a good life.

-1 points

LOL, you can thank me for your debate suddenly getting all this attention and garnering you all these points from the dysfunctional stalkers who run to my every comment. They fear my every word because they know it to be true.

You must have wondered what happened all of a sudden to your debate. We have stalkers on this site who copy my every debate and spend their lives watching for my every word, and then attacking me with a thousand insults.

If you are the type of debater looking for points, we might make a deal :)

Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

They fear my every word because they know it to be true.

Fear? You have run from every argument and you think we have fear? You stalk us and down vote without giving any responses and we have fear? You create entire debates to respond to a single argument then block all the people who would totally rip apart your nonsense and we have fear?

That's why you shouldn't even try him.

I don't so much, and almost every unreasonable coward would still ban me off. 3 of them have me in their list.

It's always too easy and boring.

AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
2 points

Youre one to talk about debates not getting attention when you spend the vast majority of your time in little echo-chamber debates where everyone else is banned but a select few that you can circle jerk with.

Perhaps people wouldnt need to track you down outside of your debates if they were able to voice their opinions to you inside of them.

Youre really shocked that you post nothing but inflammatory things against liberals on this site and thus people want to pick an argument with you?

On a DEBATE site? GOD FORBID.

People wouldnt have to copy and paste your debates if you werent such a pussy and didnt ban everyone who actually wants to argue against you.

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

You might have an ounce of credibility if you were banned from my debates. You are NOT on my ban list and you seldom respond to any of my debates.

I have no problem debating people who are not vulgar, deceptive, or childish. There are Liberals on this site that I seldom ban because they stay civil and actually address my arguments with opinions rather than insults.

Spew your insults to someone dumb enough to believe your rhetoric.

1 point

You weren't praised as a child, your relationship with your parents was meaningless, and you've been abused in many ways throughout your life.

That's why, your development couldn't properly take place and yet you do desperately crave validation, which is the reason for all your debates and that screaming of words which is practically your signature. Also all the downvotes.

Mint_tea(4162) Disputed
1 point

This is at least the second time you've tried to claim success in another persons debate is because of you.

What's going on with you? It sounds like your ego needs more stroking than usual.

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

This has nothing to do with an ego. I want these dysfunctional fools who copy my every debate and chase my every comment, to be shown for the insecure dysfunctional stalkers they are.

I want everyone on this site to learn to ban these idiots because they are a total waste of time to debate.

Mint_tea(4162) Disputed
1 point

Sorry duplicate post