Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 10-05-2012, 03:44 PM   #3021
PonyFan #1242735
Banned
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
I don't plan on losing sleep either. And yeah, I remember seeing some surveys to that effect.

It is legitimate, but there's no point in saying that in your day to day life.
willT08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 04:22 PM   #3022
PonyFan #975558
UG's Only Guitarist
 
AlexWerkmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In Slash's Hair
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
I don't plan on losing sleep either. And yeah, I remember seeing some surveys to that effect.

It is legitimate, but there's no point in saying that in your day to day life.


Some people like debate over spiritual/religious issues. If someone wants to initiate discussion, I let it happen and love to participate, but still try to do so in the friendliest way possible. If they get out of hand or upset I back off and let them carry on with their day, or change the subject. Hurting someone isn't a good way to share an idea typically.

While yes, it can get very heated, depending on the participants, it's an interesting topic. After all, that's why this thread was created, right?

A good rule of thumb is just to not force it upon them. Don't start off questioning their beliefs, but slowly get them questioning their own beliefs. It's fun to de-convert people, but if they don't want it to happen, don't force it. That's a good way for people to think you're a prick. As long as they're not forming a Crusade or trying to pray someone's ailment away instead of taking them to a doctor, they're not harming anyone, so it's best to just let it be.

Although I can also respect those who just don't care if Christians think they're pricks, and are very outspoken and forceful (eg. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins). They are (were, in Hitchen's case) very brave, intelligent people, but they have, without a doubt, brought up quite a bit of negative emotions in many religious people.

I'm babbling again... forgive me.

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
I say "claims made about god(s) contradict stronger claims about reality" when I'm asked. I say I'm an atheist. For the same reason I disbelieve in ghosts (claims about ghosts seem to contradict reality) I disbelieve in god(s). I don't say "I do not have sufficient evidence to say for sure that ghosts exist" because it gives far too much legitimacy to the claim.


I can respect that, Mr. Crunk.

I just try my hardest not to offend too many people. I live in Iowa, so I'm surrounded by Christians. Most of my friends are Christians. In fact, I know only 2 other atheists in my area, so I try not to turn the heat up unless they start it. I'll make jokes and whatnot, but I seldomly try to be serious and insulting. If someone engages a deep conversation about religion though, I gladly jump in!
__________________
"When words fail, the guitar speaks."
-George Szell

Last edited by AlexWerkmeister : 10-05-2012 at 04:29 PM.
AlexWerkmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 04:38 PM   #3023
PonyFan #734938
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
I say "claims made about god(s) contradict stronger claims about reality" when I'm asked. I say I'm an atheist. For the same reason I disbelieve in ghosts (claims about ghosts seem to contradict reality) I disbelieve in god(s). I don't say "I do not have sufficient evidence to say for sure that ghosts exist" because it gives far too much legitimacy to the claim.



Agnosticism really doesn't make any sense to me, both theist and atheist alike

Seems more like stepping on eggshells than trying to come up with a... well, "label" for your beliefs, almost invariably
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 04:41 PM   #3024
PonyFan #1067709
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
I would consider having no knowledge of any form of a religious concept at all as the default position, after all, we are not born with a religious way of thinking, that's something that is taught or influenced.
Of course, we can only realisticaly consider babies to have such a default position because pretty much everyone is familiar with a religious concept after a certain age, so for adults I would consider agnosticism to be the default position. Pure agnosticism states that someone has no belief one way or the other because they they have no way of knowing one way or another. Theism is a belief in the existence of some form of deity while atheism is naturaly the opposing view of theism.

But if I have no knowledge of religion and then don't accept it when it is presented to me then my position hasn't changed.

Not not a fan of the term 'agnosticism' anyway as I've said in here before.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 04:56 AM   #3025
PonyFan #589129
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexWerkmeister
Atheism is not a belief. Christianity is a belief. Hinduism is a belief. Islam is a belief.

Atheism, however, is a lack of a belief.


This is a common misconception.
'Agnosticism' is a lack of belief because it states that it is impossible to know, either way, whether God exists or not and so doesn't claim any belief one way or the other.

Atheism on the other hand is a 'rejection' of belief in the existence in God, which naturaly equates to the claim that God doesn't exist, but nobody can prove that claim because you can't prove a negative, so the claim is actualy a form of 'belief' in itself. Infact, atheism is generaly considered as the fastest growing 'belief system' in the world today and atheism is also accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

Consider this, if "Hinduism is a belief", (as you stated) then how can 'atheism' be an accepted form of that belief if it isn't a belief itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
But if I have no knowledge of religion and then don't accept it when it is presented to me then my position hasn't changed.

That would naturaly come under the heading of 'nonreligious' rather than 'atheism'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
Not not a fan of the term 'agnosticism' anyway as I've said in here before.

But your dislike of the term doesn't change the accepted meaning of it though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7


Agnosticism really doesn't make any sense to me, both theist and atheist alike


It's quite simple, in their purest forms, 'theism' claims that God/gods exist, 'atheism' claims that God/gods don't exist and agnosticism basicaly says "I don't know if God/gods exist."

When we add 'agnostic' to the terms 'atheist' and 'theist' it basicaly says "I don't claim to know for certain but I believe.... ect, ect."

For example, I'm an 'agnostic atheist' because I don't claim to know for certain whether God/gods exist or not, but I 'believe' that God/gods don't exist.

As you stated, if we think of agnosticism in any other way, it really doesn't make that much sense, but when we think of it in this way then the whole system of how to label a person's belief fits together better and makes much more sense.
After all, what would be the point of labelling atheism and agnosticism as the same thing? (as many do) That just complicates matters because it causes both of their definitions to become unclear. If you wish to clearly define your own or someone elses belief system, you first have to have clear definitions in place to choose from.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 10-06-2012 at 05:54 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:13 AM   #3026
PonyFan #975558
UG's Only Guitarist
 
AlexWerkmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In Slash's Hair
Slacker, you bring up some good points, and I have no problem with the agnosticism label.

However, you say you can't prove a negative, which is correct. But in that case should we also be agnostic on the belief of unicorns? Because there is no substantial proof against such beings, does that mean they could possibly exist?

I say no. I also say the same for god. Religiously thinking, you could say that ANYTHING could exist, but there just isn't any proof. However, people generally use the same guidelines to label something as nonexistent.

1. Can you see it?
2. Can you hear it?
3. Can you touch it?
4. Can you smell it?
5. Can you taste it?
6. Can you observe it in any other fashion?

If the answer is no to the above questions, that is normally enough for the normal person to classify something as nonexistent, but when it comes to a god, it's a whole different story. Why? Why can't all people question their god's existence?

Because they've been taught "faith?" Because of the fear of burning in an imaginary fire pit for the rest of eternity? Because they don't want to give up the pleasant thought of going to a palace in the sky someday to reunite with their dead loved ones? I guess I can understand why it's hard for some, but I really wish it weren't.

As someone on here just recently said, if you took 10,000 people and raised them in isolation from outside culture and influences, they would either A.) Have no religion whatsoever. or B.) Create their own theories.
__________________
"When words fail, the guitar speaks."
-George Szell
AlexWerkmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:34 AM   #3027
PonyFan #734938
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
This is a common misconception.
'Agnosticism' is a lack of belief because it states that it is impossible to know, either way, whether God exists or not and so doesn't claim any belief one way or the other.

Atheism on the other hand is a 'rejection' of belief in the existence in God, which naturaly equates to the claim that God doesn't exist, but nobody can prove that claim because you can't prove a negative, so the claim is actualy a form of 'belief' in itself. Infact, atheism is generaly considered as the fastest growing 'belief system' in the world today and atheism is also accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

Consider this, if "Hinduism is a belief", (as you stated) then how can 'atheism' be an accepted form of that belief if it isn't a belief itself?


That would naturaly come under the heading of 'nonreligious' rather than 'atheism'.

But your dislike of the term doesn't change the accepted meaning of it though.



It's quite simple, in their purest forms, 'theism' claims that God/gods exist, 'atheism' claims that God/gods don't exist and agnosticism basicaly says "I don't know if God/gods exist."

When we add 'agnostic' to the terms 'atheist' and 'theist' it basicaly says "I don't claim to know for certain but I believe.... ect, ect."

For example, I'm an 'agnostic atheist' because I don't claim to know for certain whether God/gods exist or not, but I 'believe' that God/gods don't exist.

As you stated, if we think of agnosticism in any other way, it really doesn't make that much sense, but when we think of it in this way then the whole system of how to label a person's belief fits together better and makes much more sense.
After all, what would be the point of labelling atheism and agnosticism as the same thing? (as many do) That just complicates matters because it causes both of their definitions to become unclear. If you wish to clearly define your own or someone elses belief system, you first have to have clear definitions in place to choose from.


I know what agnosticism is, it's just that it doesn't make any sense, unless you're a pure agnostic, in which case I'd just call you something like apatheist...

Theist agnostics pretty much just say that they "believe" in something they have absolutely no knowledge of, and then go to claim that it is "energy" or something like that, completely contradicting themselves. Its correct form is like saying
"Well, I believe in blargh"
"Oh? What do you mean, what's blargh?"
"Dunno"
So it's either a sea of contradiction or some kind of nonsense

Atheist agnosticism doesn't really mean anything, because if you accept that premise then you're an agnostic about anything you don't know, so why label it? You're basically just saying that you don't know because you don't know.
Of course that an atheist's stance could change if evidence for god came to light, and of course atheists are not (may not be) track horses who can't accept that they may be wrong, but if there is no evidence, why not call yourself an atheist and say "I don't believe it"?

It's a highly unnecessary, and I dare say even tautological label... Of course no one KNOWS if god exists, you don't have to make it an epistemological statement

You're not agnostic as to "there is a red space parrot somewhere off the pleiades"
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:59 AM   #3028
PonyFan #1067709
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
That would naturaly come under the heading of 'nonreligious' rather than 'atheism'.

They're the same thing, to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
But your dislike of the term doesn't change the accepted meaning of it though.

The accepted meaning is trite.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 10:15 AM   #3029
PonyFan #1305527
Reserved User
 
palm mute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Hastings
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7
I know what agnosticism is, it's just that it doesn't make any sense, unless you're a pure agnostic, in which case I'd just call you something like apatheist...

Theist agnostics pretty much just say that they "believe" in something they have absolutely no knowledge of, and then go to claim that it is "energy" or something like that, completely contradicting themselves. Its correct form is like saying
"Well, I believe in blargh"
"Oh? What do you mean, what's blargh?"
"Dunno"
So it's either a sea of contradiction or some kind of nonsense

Atheist agnosticism doesn't really mean anything, because if you accept that premise then you're an agnostic about anything you don't know, so why label it? You're basically just saying that you don't know because you don't know.
Of course that an atheist's stance could change if evidence for god came to light, and of course atheists are not (may not be) track horses who can't accept that they may be wrong, but if there is no evidence, why not call yourself an atheist and say "I don't believe it"?

It's a highly unnecessary, and I dare say even tautological label... Of course no one KNOWS if god exists, you don't have to make it an epistemological statement

Most agnostic theists I have met are those who embrace science but still hold a faith. They realize they cannot scientifically prove their beliefs but they still believe them for whatever personal reason. You can be an agnostic Christian/Jew/Muslim/whathaveyou. Keep in mind your personal beliefs don't have to make sense for you to believe them, especially when it comes to religion.

Agnostic atheism seems like superfluous labeling but it implies that you are not going to pretend you know everything there is to know about the universe to answer with absolute truth the question on whether or not there are any deities or creators. Whereas just the term atheism generally gets you lumped into a militant atheist stereotype in the minds of certain groups of people. Also I prefer to use the term because it usually grants me the opportunity to answer at least one question on what the hell I mean by that, I've had several theists realize they were actually agnostics after I explained to them what it actually meant.

They describe two different things, (a)gnosticism and (a)theism. It is like how a baseball can be both soft [(a)gnostic] and white [(a)theist]. One term describes your knowledge and the other describes your belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7
You're not agnostic as to "there is a red space parrot somewhere off the pleiades"

Yes I am, I've never been there

Just because a claim leaves me very little reason to start believing in it does not mean I can rule it out with absolute certainty without actual proof for or against it. That is just unscientific.
__________________
In my heart I'm with you

every night

Last edited by palm mute : 10-06-2012 at 10:16 AM.
palm mute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 10:16 AM   #3030
PonyFan #323826
Ethnomusicologist
 
rabidguitarist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Liverpool
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexWerkmeister
I say no. I also say the same for god. Religiously thinking, you could say that ANYTHING could exist, but there just isn't any proof. However, people generally use the same guidelines to label something as nonexistent.

1. Can you see it?
2. Can you hear it?
3. Can you touch it?
4. Can you smell it?
5. Can you taste it?
6. Can you observe it in any other fashion?

If the answer is no to the above questions, that is normally enough for the normal person to classify something as nonexistent, but when it comes to a god, it's a whole different story. Why? Why can't all people question their god's existence?

There are plenty more things that fit into that category of what you would call 'nonexistent by normal standards'.

Love, Friendship, Care, Despair, Boredom, ETC.

These are definitely real though, as we experience them on an everyday basis. Therefore there should be another category:

7. Can you feel it?

Believing in the existence of God falls into this category. A person who doesn't believe in God does not understand what it feels like to believe in God, therefore they disagree in God's existence. In the same way, someone who has never experienced love may say that love doesn't exist while another person says it does.
__________________
VENUSIAN
FB SC BC TW
Patterns In The Ivy present ethnicity on an intriguing and dedicated level. ~Ambient Exotica
A mesmeric melange of yearning voice, delicate piano and carefully chosen samples. ~Lost Voices
rabidguitarist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:34 AM   #3031
PonyFan #1342553
Registered User
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
However, when it comes to evidence, subjective "feelings" are not very reliable, and are highly idiosyncratic.
Further... We now know of psychological phenomena that cause an individual to feel a "presence", to "hear" this presence communicating in some way, (always unintelligible) and so forth.
Among the religiously inclined, these phenomena are almost always perceived as "The presence of God" (or saints, or angels). Also, such things are almost always affecting; sometimes in profound ways.
Now, we might be inclined to say then that these phenomena are real manifestations of the supernatural....Except that we can reproduce them in the laboratory. And... So affecting are they that test subjects, knowing fully well that the phenomena are induced by things like magnetic fields, nonetheless report a profound emotional effect.
(This is largely because the portion of the brain affected is the temporal lobe, which is responsible for our perception of reality.)

All that to show that anecdotal evidence and "belief", no matter how profound, is a poor way to investigate.
Bikewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:58 AM   #3032
PonyFan #1275556
Do Sadists go to Hell?
 
Todd Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
This is a common misconception.
'Agnosticism' is a lack of belief because it states that it is impossible to know, either way, whether God exists or not and so doesn't claim any belief one way or the other.

Atheism on the other hand is a 'rejection' of belief in the existence in God, which naturaly equates to the claim that God doesn't exist, but nobody can prove that claim because you can't prove a negative, so the claim is actualy a form of 'belief' in itself. Infact, atheism is generaly considered as the fastest growing 'belief system' in the world today and atheism is also accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.


To my mind this is just a word game. Believing something doesn't exist because you haven't evidence for it is functionally the same as lack belief. That fact is the bedrock of skepticism. I don't believe that Russell's teapot exists because of the lack of evidence and improbability of its existence. That belief is not the same as the belief that a religious person is talking about; which is the affirmation of something for which there is no evidence.

Just because there isn't evidence for something's nonexistence doesn't make the chance of its existence 50/50, and so holding an ultimately negative view is an intelligent response. The fact that the English language lacks a word for a belief that is reasoned and based on reality means that people can play this silly game where they say 'yeah well, you atheists are against belief and yet you believe that God doesn't exist'.
__________________
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Todd Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 05:14 PM   #3033
PonyFan #1992920
A cornucopia of trivia
 
Sleepy__Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Butt****, SY
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexWerkmeister
However, you say you can't prove a negative, which is correct.


Sorry (both) but that's false.

You can prove it's raining by standing outside in the rain.
You can prove it's not raining outside (a negative) by standing in the bright sunshine and not getting wet.
You can prove it's not not raining outside (a double negative) by standing outside in the rain.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail
oh shut up with that /mu/ bullshit. fidget house shouldn't even be a genre, why in the world would it deserve its own subgenres you twat
Sleepy__Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:33 PM   #3034
PonyFan #38026
Star-Splitter
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
They're the same thing, to me.


But they're not. Nonreligious could mean that you don't belong to a major religion, or you don't care/haven't given any thought to religions or higher powers or spirituality. both are very different from atheism.
__________________
But we little know until tried how much of the uncontrollable there is in us, urging across glaciers and torrents, and up dangerous heights, let the judgment forbid as it may.
Dreadnought is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 06:53 PM   #3035
PonyFan #1355639
Naturalist
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
They're the same thing, to me.

Atheism and non-religious are not synonymous terms. There are Buddhists and Satanists who are atheists, yet they are still religious. Furthermore, an atheist could invent his own religion or subscribe to belief systems like Secular Humanism, which is practically a religion in itself.
NotFromANUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:42 PM   #3036
PonyFan #411947
In the traphouse
 
TSmitty6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: L-o-c-a-t-o-i-n. Location. *ding*
I pick and choose parts of religion I agree with. I recognize many of my views conflict. However, most can talk their way out of contradictions if given enough time. I use optomism and pragmatism personally. And I don't worry about various conflicts with my beliefs, but recognize they are there. My job is not to convince a skeptic.

Not sure what label I could put with that idea beides pragmatism mixed with agnostic theism. Recognizing your views conflict but not caring that is.
__________________
58-32 NFL Thread Pick Em.
TSmitty6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:57 PM   #3037
PonyFan #411947
In the traphouse
 
TSmitty6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: L-o-c-a-t-o-i-n. Location. *ding*
The technical term. If there is one. Just my personal way of dealing with stuff. As a phil major Im used to being a 24/7 skeptic, but when Im not in school, I recognize many of my views are logically flawed or conflicting. But I believe most of our personal philosophies and mantras are this way, its just it doesnt bug me that mine are.

I guess its a degree to which our own beliefs are irrational, more than a whether they are or not.
__________________
58-32 NFL Thread Pick Em.
TSmitty6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 08:31 PM   #3038
PonyFan #411947
In the traphouse
 
TSmitty6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: L-o-c-a-t-o-i-n. Location. *ding*
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnus_maximus
It doesn't bother you, being wrong?


Picking apart all of my beliefs and dispositions would be overwhelming. But its not like Im believing in astrology or something based in pseudoscience or something idiotic.

It would be like me believing in evolution and parts of religion. Not exactly sure how they are compatible, and they may or may not be, but rationalizing it to the point where I have no contradictions at all seems difficult.

Nope though it doesnt bother me percisely because I am constantly working to improve on and reconcile my beliefs and positions. Im not saying I dont care out of apathy, but more like, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
__________________
58-32 NFL Thread Pick Em.
TSmitty6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 08:53 PM   #3039
PonyFan #1067709
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
But they're not. Nonreligious could mean that you don't belong to a major religion, or you don't care/haven't given any thought to religions or higher powers or spirituality. both are very different from atheism.

If you're going to make a point like this then please define both terms.

show

Last edited by WhiskeyFace : 10-11-2012 at 12:16 PM.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 09:07 PM   #3040
PonyFan #914075
See, I Got News for You.
 
captaincrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexWerkmeister
1. Can you see it?
2. Can you hear it?
3. Can you touch it?
4. Can you smell it?
5. Can you taste it?
6. Can you observe it in any other fashion?

Marriage
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexWerkmeister
If the answer is no to the above questions, that is normally enough for the normal person to classify something as nonexistent, but when it comes to a god, it's a whole different story. Why? Why can't all people question their god's existence?
__________________
#15 in the 2012 top 100
#23 in the 2010 top 100

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
I respect crunk.
captaincrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2015
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.