God: Summing it up - Page 50 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 419Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #736 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 12:36 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,521
God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
It seems like you're dancing around the question. So is it fair to say that you do not think a person should believe something that is not empirically demonstrated? (I mean this in the abstract, don't worry about telling other people what to believe, I won't try to take us down that road)


What a person wants to believe is up to them. I'm not ever suggesting that a person who wants to believe in a mystical being should not be allowed to do so, nor would I say they should not based on what I think. I have no reason and never would have a reason to change anyone's thinking on this matter.

I have said from the beginning and will repeat once again, believers should not try to justify their faith using scientific evidence (based on the scientific method) as much as science (scientists) need not spend their time disproving the existence of a god. Our languages (between the two disciplines) have too large a chasm to have a legitimate argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Ikaika is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #737 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 12:52 PM
Member
 
Bibi1031's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: texas
Posts: 1,796
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
Our languages (between the two disciplines) have too large a chasm to have a legitimate argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Kinda sorta but not really like not mixing religion and politics?

...Kinda sorta but not really believers arguing with non-believers as well.

Yet a thread is started and both bands jump right in...LOL


and boy can those threads grow I tell ya...

And was anything really accomplished?

I would say the obvious is a resounding YES, a whole bunch of pages about nothing that either side didn't know or didn't have access too!

Good things come to those who wait...greater things come to those who get off their a$$ and do anything to make it happen.

Last edited by Bibi1031; 03-27-2017 at 12:58 PM.
Bibi1031 is offline  
post #738 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 01:06 PM
Member
 
inmyprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London
Posts: 1,296
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
That would explain much. Thanks. I highly recommend him, although I vociferously disagree with him. He argued that we should only believe that which can be empirically demonstrated, which seems to be the criticism against God and miracles : it can't be empirically proven, therefore there is no reason for one to / one should not believe in them. (we had been discussing miracles, if you recall)

Would it be fair to say you agree with that criticism? Because that was the criticism I was arguing against, a-la Vlad's post way, way, way back.
I am not sure this was quite his position (at least not the way you have posed it). I find Hume fascinating. Here's a three-minute explanation on his views (also not terribly accurate but just to get an idea):

To say that I "agree" or "disagree" with his views would be a tad simplistic: like I said on another thread, our society needs some sort of "moral anchoring" which is also verifiable on which to make rational decision and on which others can agree that a rational decision was actually made. Religions pride themselves on providing the ultimate "moral anchor" however, ironically, this reasoning implodes on itself precisely because almost nothing is verifiable and it is based entirely on faith. Does it mean it's not true? No, it doesn't but what the ultimate truth is (if there is such a thing beyond our subjective perception), is not as relevant as the question of: which truth is verifiable and which isn't, for all practical purposes.
A "truth" becomes more dangerous, if it is too open to interpretation.
inmyprime is offline  
 
post #739 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 01:38 PM
Member
 
inmyprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London
Posts: 1,296
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
What a person wants to believe is up to them. I'm not ever suggesting that a person who wants to believe in a mystical being should not be allowed to do so, nor would I say they should not based on what I think. I have no reason and never would have a reason to change anyone's thinking on this matter.

I have said from the beginning and will repeat once again, believers should not try to justify their faith using scientific evidence (based on the scientific method) as much as science (scientists) need not spend their time disproving the existence of a god. Our languages (between the two disciplines) have too large a chasm to have a legitimate argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
But the nature of beliefs and whether we can verify and test them using a method that everyone would agree on, does matter when it comes to practical life.

Take Psalm 137:9:

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

There must be an interpretation that is different from: "take your baby and smash it against the stone", right? Will everybody agree what the ultimate interpretation is supposed to be on this? I doubt it. Can the interpretation be independently verified? Not possible.

Even the most basic things are still constantly being debated: the other day I heard a programme that apparently Eve wasn't made from Adam's rib at all, and some word was undug to justify that men and women were always supposed to be equal, according to the bible. The more contradictions you have in the text, the easier it will be to counter-argue something with a verse that says the opposite and the bibkle is full of contradictory statements. Has anyone not noticed it yet?

If you were in court, accused of murder, would you want the jury to use an evidence-based method or a method based on faith and open to anyone's interpretation? Ultimately, the case will still be open to jury's interpretation of the evidence presented, however it will be a far cry from "god told me that you murdered your wife".

If we don't take an evidence-based approach seriously enough and are not allowed to criticise certain beliefs and ideas that are not verifiable (just because it is not possible to prove a negative), this will have real consequences and anyone ignoring it is not doing the society many favours, in my opinion.

Last edited by inmyprime; 03-27-2017 at 02:07 PM.
inmyprime is offline  
post #740 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 02:05 PM
Member
 
inmyprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London
Posts: 1,296
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
You know the problem with this? It's still just human testimony. Unless you're the researcher who has tested the hypothesis repeatedly. Everyone else relies on your account. Your word. And in turn, you rely on their account, and their word. Human testimony is what we rely on to operate at all in this world, imperfect as it is. Even in the scientific community. And it is terribly disingenuous when "scientists" try to claim otherwise.

More importantly, I think the man who believes the above quote is missing the paradoxical nature of their very statement. Observation of experiments, and gathering of data all require that the researcher rely on the very senses that he attacks as not being worthy of trust. His own testimony is therefore to be ignored, yes? Even if he saw it several times, his testimony is but human testimony, and it is so unreliable, after all...
I went back to read it, as I was interested in your views. I think I know what the issue might be: you might be assuming that science puts its method on a kind of pedestal and claims it as the ultimate truth. (Given the bolded statement above.) Although since you put "scientists" in inverted commas, perhaps you don't mean scientists but, some scientists.

Science does not make that judgement (it makes no judgements, things either appear to check out, through repeated and comprehensive tests, or they don't). Science will not "disagree" with the statement that "just because something cannot be tested, it is automatically not true". (just in case there is doubt.)
I think the debate here boils down to the notion of which method is more reliable for all our practical purposes. It's about degrees, not absolutes.
inmyprime is offline  
post #741 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 02:22 PM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,081
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by inmyprime View Post
I went back to read it, as I was interested in your views. I think I know what the issue might be: you might be assuming that science puts its method on a kind of pedestal and claims it as the ultimate truth. (Given the bolded statement above.) Although since you put "scientists" in inverted commas, perhaps you don't mean scientists but, some scientists.

Science does not make that judgement (it makes no judgements, things either appear to check out, through repeated and comprehensive tests, or they don't). Science will not "disagree" with the statement that "just because something cannot be tested, it is automatically not true". (just in case there is doubt.)
I think the debate here boils down to the notion of which method is more reliable for all our practical purposes. It's about degrees, not absolutes.
Science doesn't do anything other than inspect things. It is a method of inquiry. Some people put science on a pedestal equal to religion. That's my position. I presume, when I talk in generalities that I don't have to insert #notall____ and that it is understood that we are talking about groups and trends, not individuals.

I used quotes around "scientists" because in that instance, although they may claim the title, or play the part, I don't think the appellation is due.

Thanks for the 3 minute on Hume. I know I was not representing him very well, but it's hard to do so and keep these things brief. I was going to bring up the problem of induction in future responses, because this is where Hume takes his thoughts to their logical conclusion, and in fact it becomes an attack on science itself.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #742 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 02:40 PM
Member
 
inmyprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London
Posts: 1,296
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
Science doesn't do anything other than inspect things. It is a method of inquiry. Some people put science on a pedestal equal to religion. That's my position. I presume, when I talk in generalities that I don't have to insert #notall____ and that it is understood that we are talking about groups and trends, not individuals.

I used quotes around "scientists" because in that instance, although they may claim the title, or play the part, I don't think the appellation is due.

Thanks for the 3 minute on Hume. I know I was not representing him very well, but it's hard to do so and keep these things brief. I was going to bring up the problem of induction in future responses, because this is where Hume takes his thoughts to their logical conclusion, and in fact it becomes an attack on science itself.
I think this is a much better, more balanced video:

Would be interested to hear which parts you particularly disagree with. I was pretty much nodding along almost all the way through...The bits I am not so sanguine about are the ones where any particular belief (without a verifiable method) can take us and how horrible the consequences might be (as we see it manifest itself from one particular offshoot of a religion at the moment).

I have always felt that part of the "argument" for faith is in fact an emotion, not an argument. Hume seems to have understood that emotion and feelings actually play a much more significant part in our rationalisation that we might realise.

Last edited by inmyprime; 03-27-2017 at 02:52 PM.
inmyprime is offline  
post #743 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 02:51 PM
Member
 
inmyprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London
Posts: 1,296
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
Science doesn't do anything other than inspect things. It is a method of inquiry. Some people put science on a pedestal equal to religion. That's my position.
Hmm, but that's already quite a bit more useful than what religion appears to do. (I am not sure that it's all that science does. It also tries to verify things using a consistent method). One could say about the religion: "religion doesn't do anything other than presume things". Both don't sound 100% satisfactory to me but one is clearly less prone to error & confusion than the other.
inmyprime is offline  
post #744 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 03:48 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: MI
Posts: 3,654
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by inmyprime View Post
Hmm, but that's already quite a bit more useful than what religion appears to do. (I am not sure that it's all that science does. It also tries to verify things using a consistent method). One could say about the religion: "religion doesn't do anything other than presume things". Both don't sound 100% satisfactory to me but one is clearly less prone to error & confusion than the other.
What science says it does and what it actually does are not always the same thing. If you look up research on peer review papers, the fraction of experiments that cannot be replicated is very large (I forget the exact statistics I have seen, but it is >>25%.) This is part of the reason why @Kivlor uses "scientists".

Also, the population (in the west) is not skeptical about science, at all, which places it on a pedestal that it (science) is infallible. Which it doesn't deserve.
naiveonedave is offline  
post #745 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 03:53 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,521
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by naiveonedave View Post
What science says it does and what it actually does are not always the same thing. If you look up research on peer review papers, the fraction of experiments that cannot be replicated is very large (I forget the exact statistics I have seen, but it is >>25%.) This is part of the reason why @Kivlor uses "scientists".



Also, the population (in the west) is not skeptical about science, at all, which places it on a pedestal that it (science) is infallible. Which it doesn't deserve.

The conspiracy argument is not useful and the article you listed to make this claim does not hold muster. It's always easier to assume something does not work than to do the work and understand it.

Actually more people are skeptical of science now, with better tools and more knowledge, than in decades past. No doubt the information is more complex and there is a lot we have yet to discover.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Ikaika is offline  
post #746 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 04:22 PM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,081
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
The conspiracy argument is not useful and the article you listed to make this claim does not hold muster. It's always easier to assume something does not work than to do the work and understand it.

Actually more people are skeptical of science now, with better tools and more knowledge, than in decades past. No doubt the information is more complex and there is a lot we have yet to discover.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I don't think it's a "conspiracy" and I think it is disingenuous to use that term. There's no need to poison the well. This has been covered in the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Lancet, and many other peer reviewed journals. @naiveonedave is right in that we should question the findings of science. That's the whole point of science. If that's not allowed, then it's not science at all, but a mere secular religion. Putting scientific claims and findings above reproach is lower than religion, because at least religion can ask deeper and more difficult questions.

I'll mention, and I don't have the article anymore, but if I see it I'll link it back, that peer review is having a bad run right now, with odds of publishings being reproducible ~50% or even less, and that in response to these findings the NEJM's editor came out a couple of years ago demanding that we ban attempts to reproduce these studies, rather than saying "hey, that's an interesting find, maybe we should look into it."

That's a problem for science in the modern era. This isn't the fault of science, because as I said, science is just a method, but a problem with humans. This problem only exists if we put scientific studies, and the men producing them, above reproach. They aren't saints. What's stranger is that science doesn't have a notion of sainthood, so I don't understand the mentality at all.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #747 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 04:31 PM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,081
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
What a person wants to believe is up to them. I'm not ever suggesting that a person who wants to believe in a mystical being should not be allowed to do so, nor would I say they should not based on what I think. I have no reason and never would have a reason to change anyone's thinking on this matter.

I have said from the beginning and will repeat once again, believers should not try to justify their faith using scientific evidence (based on the scientific method) as much as science (scientists) need not spend their time disproving the existence of a god. Our languages (between the two disciplines) have too large a chasm to have a legitimate argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
So, do you have a reason for not believing in a God, or is it just a matter of taste to you?

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #748 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 04:50 PM
Member
 
inmyprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London
Posts: 1,296
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by naiveonedave View Post
What science says it does and what it actually does are not always the same thing. If you look up research on peer review papers, the fraction of experiments that cannot be replicated is very large (I forget the exact statistics I have seen, but it is >>25%.) This is part of the reason why @Kivlor uses "scientists".

Also, the population (in the west) is not skeptical about science, at all, which places it on a pedestal that it (science) is infallible. Which it doesn't deserve.
Applying adjectives to science like "skeptical" or "infallible" is non-sensical, it seems to me. It is constantly self-correcting. Religion on the other hand is "set in stone". If certain experiments fail to reproduce after they have been published, this is a problem with the testing method and rigour with which the results have been assessed. It does not "disprove" science as a method nor does it follow that all science is useless, or even, that there is a better method.

Let me ask you and @Kivlor a pragmatic question: if you were diagnosed with a life-threatening disease and the doctor prescribed you a drug that (according to studies) showed to have a 90% chance of keeping you alive, would you take the drug or would you put your life "in Jesus' hands" because the bible had accounts of people being healed by him? According to you and Kivlor, both choices are rooted in "human testimony". Are you implying that both provide the same amount of usefulness when it comes to this choice?

If you chose to take the drug over Jesus you must by definition acknowledge that the scientific method is more useful to your life than religious faith. You obviously could choose both (or none, if you were fed up), but I am deliberately posing a black & white choice (you can only chose one) - because that's how you set up the premise of your argument - and to find out if you have a preference, in spite of a degree of skepticism one way or another.

Again, we are talking about degrees, not absolutes. I am asking you whether you value one over the other when it comes to your own life.

I agree with you that there is plenty of arrogance with some scientists. I don't think we are debating this. But it doesn't follow that so far, there is a better method available to us to make sense of the world around us. There might be, but we haven't come across one yet.

Last edited by inmyprime; 03-27-2017 at 05:09 PM.
inmyprime is offline  
post #749 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 05:07 PM
Member
 
inmyprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London
Posts: 1,296
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
I don't think it's a "conspiracy" and I think it is disingenuous to use that term. There's no need to poison the well. This has been covered in the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Lancet, and many other peer reviewed journals. @naiveonedave is right in that we should question the findings of science. That's the whole point of science. If that's not allowed, then it's not science at all, but a mere secular religion. Putting scientific claims and findings above reproach is lower than religion, because at least religion can ask deeper and more difficult questions.

I'll mention, and I don't have the article anymore, but if I see it I'll link it back, that peer review is having a bad run right now, with odds of publishings being reproducible ~50% or even less, and that in response to these findings the NEJM's editor came out a couple of years ago demanding that we ban attempts to reproduce these studies, rather than saying "hey, that's an interesting find, maybe we should look into it."

That's a problem for science in the modern era. This isn't the fault of science, because as I said, science is just a method, but a problem with humans. This problem only exists if we put scientific studies, and the men producing them, above reproach. They aren't saints. What's stranger is that science doesn't have a notion of sainthood, so I don't understand the mentality at all.
The bolded part is the claim you are posing for which there really is no proof. The very fact that it has come to light that certain experiments have failed to reproduce is precisely why science works: this information will help us to test more rigorously. Your statements seem to be implying that scientists know that many experiments don't reproduce and do nothing about it because they hold science above everything. You have to substantiate this claim.

I have absolutely no objection with the spirit of your argument. I just happen to think that you may have erected a couple of straw men. A particular doctrine in a religion will never be allowed to change itself. The religious may be able to adjust their interpretations (only so far) to suit the scripture but the actual doctrine can never be questioned. You have seen it here for 55+ pages. That you don't see it as the ultimate lack of humility and accuse science of the same seems...bizarre to be honest.

Last edited by inmyprime; 03-27-2017 at 05:12 PM.
inmyprime is offline  
post #750 of 777 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 05:11 PM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,081
Re: God: Summing it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by inmyprime View Post
Applying adjectives to science like "skeptical" or "infallible" is non-sensical, it seems to me. It is constantly self-correcting. Religion on the other hand is "set in stone". If certain experiments fail to reproduce after they have been published, this is a problem with the testing method and rigour with which the results have been assessed. It does not "disprove" science as a method nor does it follow that all science is useless, or even, that there is a better method.

Let me ask you and @Kivlor a pragmatic question: if you were diagnosed with a life-threatening disease and the doctor prescribed you a drug that (according to studies) showed to have a 90% chance of keeping you alive, would you take the drug or would you put your life "in Jesus' hands" because the bible had accounts of people being healed by him? According to you and Kivlor, both choices are rooted in "human testimony". Are you implying that both provide the same amount of usefulness when it comes to this choice?

If you chose to take the drug over Jesus you must by definition acknowledge that the scientific method is more useful to your life than religious faith. You obviously could choose both (or none, if you were fed up), but I am deliberately posing a black & white choice (you can only chose one) - because that's how you set up the premise of your argument - and to find out if you have a preference, in spite of a degree of skepticism one way or another.

Again, we are talking about degrees, not absolutes. I am asking you whether you value one over the other when it comes to your own life.

I agree with you that there is plenty of arrogance with some scientists. I don't think we are debating this. But it doesn't follow that so far, there is a better method available to us to make sense of the world around us. There might be, but we haven't come across one yet.
I think you are building a straw man out of me. My point is very limited, very simple, and should be quite easy to digest. I have repeatedly stated that I see no conflict with religion and science. I have repeatedly stated that I agree with many scientific theories / findings. Others I don't know much about, and hold skeptically. Others I doubt outright.

If you want to know what I would do, in a hypothetical situation, regarding my health it is this: I would not trust the doctor. This comes from experience. Most doctors don't know jack in RE: studies and statistics, and the remainder are flat out disingenuous in representing them. I would take the time to look them up myself, and determine whether or not that treatment was satisfactory to me.

I'm speaking from experience. Years ago my mother was diagnosed with lymphoma. She was treated, and the treatments failed. No one questioned what treatment she was given. We just went with the doctor's advice. The result was that she was sent to a research hospital, where we were presented with a treatment that "had a 90% chance of eliminating her cancer completely, and a 10% chance of mortality. In the cases where it has been successful, recurrence doesn't happen for over 10 years, if at all." This is what we were told. We trusted the doctors. We went with it, and it did arrest her cancer. For 5 years. 2 other women weren't so fortunate the first night, and they died, one was 25. The cancer came back Next they wanted her to undergo the same procedure, and if she wouldn't do that, to try a new, experimental treatment.

Dismayed with the lack of success, despite the bill of goods we were sold, I decided to spend all of my non-working hours learning about her cancer. About the treatments she had received. About the treatments available. Best practices. Now, what turned out to be the case is that the procedure we had been told was so great was not. It has a 30% mortality outright. It has a 60%+ mortality within 5 years of receiving it. The cause of death is not cancer, it is fungal infection due to the effects of the treatment. This is the complete opposite of what we were told. I'm shocked the treatment passed FDA. Add in that 50%+ of published medical studies can't be reproduced, and you have a HUGE problem.

So no. I wouldn't trust my doctor. I'd research my options. Because no one puts your health at the level of priority, nor treats it with the level of care that you will. Especially not the person charging you whatever they can get away with for whatever drug they're pushing today. Would I pray? Probably. Because it certainly won't make things worse.

What I don't have to do is admit anything that you demand in regards to faith and science. You are asking to compare and choose between an issue of practicality and a question of metaphysics. They aren't equal questions. They aren't even related.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GOD UMP Politics and Religion 385 02-14-2017 02:55 PM
Is God everywhere? Personal Politics and Religion 59 02-07-2017 01:06 PM
Separated and Waiting on husband or God? Corpuswife Relationships and Spirituality 25 02-04-2016 09:54 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome