Click here to go to our new forums at http://tw.forumosa.com
If you are a Forumosan Regular, when you log in for the FIRST TIME, you must RESET your password by using the Password Recovery system.

Usernames on the new forums must not contain any SPACES and must end with LETTER or a NUMBER; if yours does, you will be prompted to change your Username
Contact us at admin(at)forumosa(dot)com or @forumosa on Twitter or on our Facebook Page if you have any questions or problems logging back in

Theism/atheism debates

Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby BrentGolf » 16 Feb 2016, 19:04

finley wrote:Besides, while atheism does involve the rejection of a claim of God, it almost always involves the substitution of other beliefs - say, other explanations for observations about the existence of the universe and its properties.


It does not matter how many different ways you can butcher the meaning of the word, it simply does not mean what you say it does.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods, the end.


There are atheists who believe in the big bang, and there are atheists who have never passed a science class.
There are atheists who are feminists, and atheists who are confused when they see a woman outside the kitchen.
There are atheists who vote democrat, and atheists who think Ted Cruz should be President.
There are atheists who donate to charity and feed the homeless, and atheists who rape and murder people.

I don't know why you think the word says anything more about a person other than whether they accept or reject God claims... We have plenty of words in the English language to attach in addition to atheism that would encompass what you want it to.


finley wrote:No, because you do have pretty solid proof that I don't have a fire-eating dragon in my hand, viz., my hand hasn't been incinerated and you can't hear anything flapping around


Why isn't your hand burned? ---> because it's just sitting there acting cute, not breathing fire yet

how come I can't hear it? ---> It's wings don't disrupt the surrounding air.

Why can't I see it? ---> It's invisible

When I waive my hand over yours, why can't I feel it? ---> It's phased out, unaffected by your merely human hand touching it.

But I've measured all the space and particles surrounding your hand and all are accounted for. There's no dragon there. ---> It exists outside of time and space


Sound familiar? We can keep backing up to the birth of the universe if you want. I still can't prove there's no dragon there, and I can't prove there is no God. But I have a brain, and I have 2000+ years of the smartest minds to have come and gone and not a single one of them has produced a shred of evidence for it.

The track record for trying to prove the existence of god is so poor, so statistically close to zero percent, that I'm totally comfortable saying in all practical sense of the words God doesn't exist (and you don't have a dragon in your hand). Maybe he does, who knows, but it requires a complete suspension of all logic and reason and rationality to believe he does.

A total lack of proof of a claim is also evidence. So yes, I have plenty.


As Matt Dillahunty said in that clip, there's more proof for Santa Claus than for God. At least with Santa, we can prove there are reindeers. We can prove that a well built craft can fly. We can prove there are fat men with white beards. We can prove that presents do appear on Christmas morning in many homes around the world. In some cases, we can even prove the milk and cookies that were there the night before are no longer there in the morning. A lot of that story is scientifically provable. A lot more of it than the Bible story.




But ok finley, I'll bite. You say morality doesn't come from evolution, it's not a function of a forwarding of the species, and science has nothing to say about it. So, where does morality come from?
Market leading investment returns with unparalleled risk management. Aspiring to help people rid themselves of the burdens of the financial industry and get on the right track to financial freedom.

http://www.VolatilityTradingStrategies.com

http://www.ProsperitasAssetManagement.com

http://www.BrentGolf.com
BrentGolf
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: 10 Dec 2010, 18:20
Location: Taipei, Taiwan



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby Tempo Gain » 16 Feb 2016, 23:46

Well said, atheism indeed is simply the absence of belief in a god or gods. I'll go as far as to say that I believe there are no gods such as people have put forward--I can't prove conclusively that there aren't. But as has been alluded to, the list of things that can't be proven don't exist is infinite. It's certainly not a form of faith, much less a religion--those ideas get bandied about a lot. If you're going to assert that something exists then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it exists. Don't try to push off your inability (much less the inability or unwillingness of the "god") to do so conclusively on me.

A smashed and non functional brain is worse than a perfectly functional one, just like a smashed and broken computer is at a lower functional state than a brand new one. So bashing someones head in with a bat is "bad." It is not subjective to say that it's immoral to smash someones brain to pieces with a bat, and it doesn't require people to share my views on that. If they don't share them, they are immoral, objectively.


Precisely. We can easily see that a smashed head is bad. I don't want one, and I don't want to live in a world where people go around smashing each other's heads with a bat. Who does? Outside of the truly insane, even the most amoral people understand this. They may be willing to use violence to achieve ends to a much greater degree than I am for example, but they still understand that such violence harms others, and they don't want it to happen to them or those they particularly care about. If there were an entire society of such people, I believe that they would quickly perish. They would harm each other at a dangerous rate, and other societies would take morally correct action against them.
Image

"Being alive is the meaning." -- Joseph Campbell

"Well I don't guess it has to be, but that's the way we like it." -- Roger Waters

There's only one thing left for me to do momma I gotta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
User avatar
Tempo Gain
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12859
{ AUTHOR_TOPIC }
Joined: 16 Jul 2004, 22:41
Location: Taipei



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby finley » 17 Feb 2016, 00:41

If you're going to assert that something exists then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it exists. Don't try to push off your inability (much less the inability or unwillingness of the "god") to do so conclusively on me.

I wasn't doing that. Look at the animal-consciousness example. I postulate that animals have a subjective experience of consciousness and emotional states similar to that of humans. You cannot, even in theory, disprove this (I think - if it were possible, I'm sure it would have been done by now). It's also immune to proof in the same way that most things are - logically speaking - immune to proof. It is nothing more than an opinion.

Nevertheless, I can use that opinion - I'm going to call it a hypothesis, even though it's not subject to scientific falsification - to make predictions about an animal's behaviour under any circumstances you care to name. This is a critical test of a scientific hypothesis. Furthermore, I can use it to explain any given observation about that animal. My hypothesis fits all known and future facts about animal behaviour.

The competing hypothesis - that animals don't experience emotional states but only give the appearance of one - does not offer any improvement over mine. If you go further and suggest that animal responses are "nothing but" conditioned responses etc., your explanations for common observations start getting really convoluted (for example, it's hard to explain why a dog bounces around "happily" when its owner comes home - this behaviour has no obvious purpose). I reject that hypothesis based on its inferior utility, not on its relative likelihood.

I suggest you can treat the "God hypothesis" similarly. It offers satisfactory explanations for various human quandaries of the "why?" variety, and it doesn't involve (as BG asserts) inventing nonsensical workarounds on-the-fly. The atheist has hypotheses about metaphysical questions which are boring at best, and unsatisfactory or nonexistent at worst. If you're happy with that scenario, well, each to his own.

Outside of the truly insane, even the most amoral people understand this.

No TG, they really don't. That's the meaning of "amoral". You've led an awfully sheltered life.

If there were an entire society of such people, I believe that they would quickly perish. They would harm each other at a dangerous rate, and other societies would take morally correct action against them.

You can believe that if you want, but in reality, neither one happens. I suspect this is simply because humans are limited creatures: there's only so much mayhem we can create in one day, at least in a society which is at caveman level and therefore doesn't have much technology of mass destruction. Consider a country being progressively depopulated by murder: as more and more people are killed, it becomes increasingly hard work to find targets.

There are any number of examples of this. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a prime example of what sociologists call "moral inversion". It's been that way for decades. It exists in the "worst of all possible worlds" state that Harris describes as purely theoretical. I'm amazed he hasn't bothered to study the place in detail. Murder, rape, and the whole gamut of depravity are completely normal. Life expectancy is <50 years. No constraint is attempted because of (a) learned helplessness in the face of a relentless onslaught and (b) broad and deep corruption of moral values, such that evil acts simply don't outrage public consciousness.

Similar (although somewhat less extreme) conditions prevail in (e.g.) British council estates. If you don't believe that, I suggest you try living on one for a few years.

I'll try to answer BGs post later. But I will again ask you both: "why is it bad to bash people's brains out?". Your only response so far is: "it's obvious", and "I wouldn't like it". The latter demands that we all adopt a "do unto others..." morality, but I can still ask "why should I, if bashing people's heads in gets me what I want?". From where I'm sitting, your stance looks a lot like faith :wink:
"Global warming is happening and we KNOW that man is 100 percent responsible!!!"
- Fred Smith
User avatar
finley
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7145
Joined: 20 Jan 2011, 23:34



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby Tempo Gain » 17 Feb 2016, 02:40

finley wrote:I suggest you can treat the "God hypothesis" similarly. It offers satisfactory explanations for various human quandaries of the "why?" variety, and it doesn't involve (as BG asserts) inventing nonsensical workarounds on-the-fly. The atheist has hypotheses about metaphysical questions which are boring at best, and unsatisfactory or nonexistent at worst. If you're happy with that scenario, well, each to his own.


I disagree with you totally. In fact, I have little idea what animal consciousness has to do with it at all, what satisfactory explanations you propose, what the human quandaries are, what nonsensical workarounds are involved, what boring hypotheses I'm supposed to have or don't have, and I am indeed very happy with it :) You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what "atheists"--as if we were some kind of solid bloc--think about various issues. As you say, however, to each their own.

No TG, they really don't. That's the meaning of "amoral". You've led an awfully sheltered life.


I disagree. Indeed, I come from a middle-class background, and have happily tried to stay out of trouble's way in my life. I reject the idea that as a result I somehow don't understand what people are capable of, however. I do, and I don't agree with your conception of that situation.

There are any number of examples of this. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a prime example of what sociologists call "moral inversion". It's been that way for decades. It exists in the "worst of all possible worlds" state that Harris describes as purely theoretical. I'm amazed he hasn't bothered to study the place in detail. Murder, rape, and the whole gamut of depravity are completely normal. Life expectancy is <50 years. No constraint is attempted because of (a) learned helplessness in the face of a relentless onslaught and (b) broad and deep corruption of moral values, such that evil acts simply don't outrage public consciousness.


That's not what Harris was talking about, plain and simple. Even in such a situation, which I have already conceded can exist, simple moral truths are still simple moral truths. You're completely overstating what occurs in such a situation. What do you think people go around and bash each other at random in such places because they have no idea what negative results there are going to be? Call me sheltered if you like, but I think that's totally naive. Why do you think such places exist, anyway? Why does such a situation exist in the Congo and not other places? I have a vague idea but I'm not sure exactly what mechanism you're proposing to explain this, or for the existence of human morality in general. I believe BG has asked this as well, so I look forward to your response to him.

I'll try to answer BGs post later. But I will again ask you both: "why is it bad to bash people's brains out?". Your only response so far is: "it's obvious", and "I wouldn't like it". The latter demands that we all adopt a "do unto others..." morality, but I can still ask "why should I, if bashing people's heads in gets me what I want?".


It's bad because it causes harm to people. I understand that I wouldn't like to be harmed, and the damage it does to others. I suggest that when you ask the latter question, you understand this fully, but are knowingly engaging in amoral behavior for gain.
Image

"Being alive is the meaning." -- Joseph Campbell

"Well I don't guess it has to be, but that's the way we like it." -- Roger Waters

There's only one thing left for me to do momma I gotta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
User avatar
Tempo Gain
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12859
{ AUTHOR_TOPIC }
Joined: 16 Jul 2004, 22:41
Location: Taipei



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby finley » 17 Feb 2016, 07:25

Tempo Gain wrote:I disagree with you totally. In fact, I have little idea what animal consciousness has to do with it at all.

It has nothing to do with it. I was trying to give an example of an unproveable, touchy-feely, "irrational" hypothesis which nonetheless has human value.

I can give you a different one, more directly relevant: the Gaia hypothesis, or equivalently the creation myth. If you consider the earth to be the thoughtful creation of an intelligent being, you might be more inclined to treat it with respect. If you consider it to be a gift to humanity from a God who wants us to succeed, you might approach practical problems from that viewpoint.

Farmers seem to be genuinely surprised when they spray toxins everywhere to kill animals and plants they disapprove of, and as a consequence see their profits dwindle away and their land destroyed. Personally I view 'weeds' and 'pests' as part of an ecosystem that are there to help me succeed. In my conception of the planet, they can't be anything else. This turns out surprisingly well - not just for me, but for thousands of other farmers who take a similar approach.

The failure of the "scientific" view of the world on practical application is as close as you can get to disproof of the former. The relative success of farming based on some nonsense written 4000 years ago doesn't prove that said nonsense is true. It just means that the nonsense works.

Coming back to the subject of morality, I would argue that a person who believes in a (non-existent?) benevolent God is more likely to construct a benevolent moral code than someone who believes in nothing at all, since the latter leaves every other possibility open.

I disagree. Indeed, I come from a middle-class background, and have happily tried to stay out of trouble's way in my life. I reject the idea that as a result I somehow don't understand what people are capable of, however. I do, and I don't agree with your conception of that situation.

You appear not to know why they are capable of it: that is, the reasons they themselves present. If you don't have direct experience of heroin addicts and teenage psychopaths, watch some documentaries. You might change your mind. Those who aren't intellectually subnormal are all rational in the context of their own moral framework, which reveres evil and rejects (or has no conception of) of "good".

That's not what Harris was talking about, plain and simple.

Then his theory is incomplete, and of no real practical value. A theory of morality needs to explain all moral systems that exist, not just the white-middle-class-American system.

You're completely overstating what occurs in such a situation. What do you think people go around and bash each other at random in such places because they have no idea what negative results there are going to be? Call me sheltered if you like, but I think that's totally naive. Why do you think such places exist, anyway? Why does such a situation exist in the Congo and not other places? I have a vague idea but I'm not sure exactly what mechanism you're proposing to explain this, or for the existence of human morality in general.

It doesn't matter what the mechanism is. It is a data point, an empirical observation. It is simply one of many possible moral systems in an amoral universe. Places like this exist because there is no "natural morality" or "universal moral truths". They have developed a moral code, by consensus, that embraces head-bashing as a valid way of life. You might find this completely incredible, but it is nevertheless so.

You probably know I spend a lot of time in the Philippines. I would say a good 50% of Filipinos would score high on the PCL-R. This doesn't mean they go around knifing each other all the time. Mostly they do whatever ordinary people do. Except when they don't: they'll knife someone if it seems like a good idea at the time, or (less drastically) fuck someone over, steal from them, lie, cheat or manipulate simply as routine parts of their behavioural repertoire. Just last month I heard that an acquaintance - a perfectly ordinary guy - had shot one of his acquaintances because he offended him in some trivial way. They will show no remorse if arrested (or challenged by the community) and may even blame the victim for being stupid, or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Interestingly, aforementioned teenage psychopaths on British housing estates do exactly the same thing. Broadly speaking, they view other human beings (and animals) as cardboard cutouts on the chessboard of life. You will no doubt ascribe this to poverty or some other environmental issue. The cause is irrelevant. The fact remains that this system of morality exists, and Harris can't explain its existence; nor can he explain - since it clearly does not maximise general welfare - why it doesn't get optimised away.

It's bad because it causes harm to people. I understand that I wouldn't like to be harmed, and the damage it does to others. I suggest that when you ask the latter question, you understand this fully, but are knowingly engaging in amoral behavior for gain.

So you dismiss as impossible the construction of a moral framework around the idea that The Other does not matter in the slightest, even though you concede that this actually happens?

At least the theist can say: "because God doesn't want us to harm each other".

To show that there are universal moral truths, you still need to explain why the universe-at-large agrees with you.
"Global warming is happening and we KNOW that man is 100 percent responsible!!!"
- Fred Smith
User avatar
finley
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7145
Joined: 20 Jan 2011, 23:34



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby zender » 17 Feb 2016, 09:13

I'm with Tempo Gain on this one.

I really think you don't understand Sam Harris and his worst-possible-misery-for-everyone argument (WPME from now on).

You've been to the Philippines . . . me too . . . multiple times. I like it. I've also been to the Congo . . . by choice . . . went from south to north overland . . . spent two months there as part of my first one-year trip in Africa. It's not a well-functioning country by any measure, but I met many people, had nothing stolen, wasn't physically threatened, and I'm glad I visited.

THAT"S NOT THE WPME!


For me, being burned alive would be miserable. Seeing all of my family and friends being burned alive would be miserable. Have you read the New Testament? That version of hell that never ever ever ever ends would be miserable.

Now imagine that God covered the entire earth with gasoline instead of water this time. And picture everyone (including Noah, his 7 relatives, and every animal) "missing the ark" this time. And envisage, if you can, that instead of rain for 40 days and 40 nights, God kept pouring gas on the earth forever.

Now imagine something worse than that. That's bad. Will you grant me (and Sam Harris) that?
zender
Overpaid Foreign Athlete (duō fù xīn shuǐ guò gāo de wài jí yùn dòng yuán)
Overpaid Foreign Athlete (duō fù xīn shuǐ guò gāo de wài jí yùn dòng yuán)
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:10
Location: In front of my computer



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby finley » 17 Feb 2016, 10:15

Guys, I think you're missing the point.

Of course Sam Harris's WPME scenario is "bad", and nobody would like it if it happened.

And yet it does happen. If you want to nitpick that the world doesn't meet your exacting standards of absolute horribleness (you seem to imply that unless the planet is aflame in a nuclear holocaust, it ain't that bad) you must surely acknowledge that human society can tend towards the WPME just as easily as it can tend towards enlightenment. If you count up the number of failed countries compared to the pleasant ones, I think you'll find it's about 50-50, which is entirely what you would expect if moral codes can be picked from an infinite subset of possibilities.

Furthermore, the universe at large wouldn't care if the WPME came to pass. Nor, as long as it affected humans only, would the rest of the earth's biome.

If Harris wants his theory to be accepted as "scientific", it needs to (a) explain current observations and (b) make useful predictions. It does neither.
"Global warming is happening and we KNOW that man is 100 percent responsible!!!"
- Fred Smith
User avatar
finley
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
Entering Second Childhood (èrdù tóngnián qī)
 
Posts: 7145
Joined: 20 Jan 2011, 23:34



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby triceratopses » 17 Feb 2016, 10:16

Tempo Gain wrote:I'll stick with Harris. I don't think for a second that thought is an illusion, but I don't care if it is. If my pain is an illusion, do I still not feel pain? Is death an illusion? I asked you a question but you did not answer: is it better to live or to die?


There is no difference in being alive and being dead as far as the human experience goes. "Alive" is just a word for a particular type of cell reproduction.

Your actual subjective experience of being alive is an illusion ie. it doesn't exist. Subjective awarenesses (qualias) do not exist.

Harris negates the existence of the things he relies on to support his reasonings. Not good.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
User avatar
triceratopses
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 00:21
In Taiwan since: 01 Jan 2014



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby triceratopses » 17 Feb 2016, 11:33

In case it wasn't clear Tempo, yes, your suffering is just an illusion. As Searle the father of modern materialism says, mind and all of its states are a problem of semantics. They are akin to digestion. There is no actual entity called digestion there merely appears to be one. What is actually taking places can be reduced down to base physical function each working in concert to form an illusion of digestion. Likewise your suffering is utterly unreal and meaningless, ENTIRELY AN ILLUSION. What is actually taking places can be reduced down to base physical function each working in concert to form an illusion of mind (subjective awareness).
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
User avatar
triceratopses
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Chair-throwing Legislator (rēng yǐzi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 382
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 00:21
In Taiwan since: 01 Jan 2014



Re: Theism/atheism debates

Postby BrentGolf » 17 Feb 2016, 17:05

You guys are completely missing Sam's points here. He's not saying that bad things don't happen, or that there aren't societies that exist that are violent, and I'm sure he's just as aware of what's going on in the Congo and Philippines as you are. He's simply trying to identify some objective moral truths and using science to do it. Every example you guys have been giving about bad things here and people getting killed there are totally irrelevant to his points. He's talking about what is and isn't moral, objectively. Not what does and doesn't happen. People do immoral shit all the time, that says nothing to disprove his point.

As far as being able to say that a smashed brain is bad, it's not bad because "it's obvious" as you put it. It's because we can scientifically prove that a smashed brain doesn't work as well as a healthy brain. Since it's someone else's and they didn't choose to get it smashed, it doesn't seem a stretch to me that Sam has proven scientifically that smashing someone else's brain with a bat to the point where it no longer functions is immoral. He's not saying it doesn't happen, or that people don't do it because they do. He's simply saying that smashing someones brain with a bat is objectively immoral.

Science doesn't have much to say about whether working on Sunday is immoral, or stoning your wife for adultery is immoral. But it certainly can say that a smashed brain is in a worse functional state than a healthy one. Ethics and morality are real things that affect real people in the real world. All the philosophical things like, oh did we really experience that, do we really feel, are we even really here? Nonsense. A smashed brain doesn't work anymore and a dead person is in a lower functional state than a living one, so smashing someones brain is immoral, objectively.



finley wrote:I suggest you can treat the "God hypothesis" similarly. It offers satisfactory explanations for various human quandaries of the "why?" variety


That about sums up the difference. For many people in this world it does seem like the Christian God story offers "satisfactory" explanations of why. To each his own. For others like myself, simply saying God done it says absolutely nothing about anything and it's the furthest thing from a satisfactory explanation.


Why are we here? Because God made us in his own image and loves us and wants to spend eternity with us.

He loves us? Then why did he create parasites that's life cycle involves eating eyeballs? God is mysterious

Does he love all of us? What about people born in India? He loves them too and will be happy to let them live in a warm climate for all of eternity.

Why did he take so long to create us? Many billions of years have gone by with no people, that's weird. Yeah, he's very patient

If we didn't evolve from other animals, where did we come from? God made a man... there was a rib... and a snake... an apple... woman can't be trusted... sin and... that's how

How did the universe begin? God done it

Who created God? He didn't have a creator

Surely a being complex enough to create an unbelievably complex universe also required a first cause? Nope

Why? cause I said so


I don't feel satisfied :)
Market leading investment returns with unparalleled risk management. Aspiring to help people rid themselves of the burdens of the financial industry and get on the right track to financial freedom.

http://www.VolatilityTradingStrategies.com

http://www.ProsperitasAssetManagement.com

http://www.BrentGolf.com
BrentGolf
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
Immune to Breathalizers (jiǔ cèce bù chūlái)
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: 10 Dec 2010, 18:20
Location: Taipei, Taiwan



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Return to Religion & Spirituality



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 0 guests