AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-09-30, 11:57   Link #61
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Well, the main point is you're taking shots in the dark. It is one possibility out of a perhaps infinite array of other possibilities. This is my personal reason for not having a belief regarding an afterlife; though I can't rule it out, I can't really draw any logical conclusions whatsoever. There's no balance to be found in that reality - only mystery. Being a man of reason (or I'd like to think myself to be one, anyways), I can't render any judgments and this also leads to me questioning individuals like you who are so eager to.
I am not judging out of mere belief. I'm only suggesting that 0=50/50, but wait.... 0=1...well ok, mathematically that doesn't make sense. But if you just put it in words, its so simple that its obvious. Ok, I know that there are other possibilities but those are also part of the equation. Its there or its not is what "no knowing" tells us.

For example, when you walk outside your room, you'll have lots of "guesses" on what'll immediately happen. One of these guesses is that you'll slip. Now, will you slip or not? We don't know that. And if we don't know that, its left to "slipping or not(which includes every other theories)". Thus, no afterlife(other theories) or there is. Its also rebirth vs. no rebirth. Its also nonexistence vs. not nonexistence. Its also your belief vs. other beliefs.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 11:59   Link #62
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
And where did this come from? We were not in the issue of "passive belief"but if you wish to head there then lets.

Humans, like "scientists", will inevitably have that constant period of "questioning"---for that is what humans are, curious beings. To be a scientist, doesn't mean requiring the removing of the religion. That is why there are several religious scientists.
Ever heard of "Facts are few in fields where experts are many?" Same idea applies. Attacking a personal or widely held belief can yield interesting results, for example, quantum physics. Up till the 1900s it has always been "it is because it is like that" until a few figures like Einstein, Minkovski and Feynman came along. Amongst them and a few others, they could be said to have destroyed the absolutism of the General Laws of Physics like Newton's Laws of Motion (by simply proving the effects of time dilation with reference to the object when a particle enters lightspeed or beyond). And how did they do it? They question the very ideas that were taught to them.

Quote:
My example: I have my religion but I still believe that progress in this "reality" is important. I questioned my faith several times but never thought of removing it. This is because of the"practical" worldly benefits my religion gives me and the fact that it cannot be disproved.
You have never thought of removing it? How is that questioning a faith, when you do not ask, "Do I really need this faith?"

To tell the truth, my ancestors are supposed to be Muslim because I am from a mixed bloodline. They chose not to so they can give their descendants eyes. I tried taking up various religions but casted them all away because I feel that such beliefs are hypocritical to the extent that the very morals they preach are condensed into commandments, which are re-interpreted to suit personal needs.

On the other hand, I have got some friends who casted away their religions like me, but embraced them again because they wanted to do something for the believers who have been shortchanged by the reproduced scriptures.

When one questions, one also tries it out. Greater experience brings knowledge. Radicalism and stupidity propagates from rigid beliefs and fear of deviation from it.

Quote:
(Due to Misunderstanding but) Insulting much? Its not discipline in regards to faith. Its disciplined with "fasting", 5 times praying, and other "laborious" type of discipline.
What is so laborious after doing it so much? Sitting out 3 days in the torrential rain in a pit full of mud and earthworms with a rifle looking into a large field, or not eating anything for half a week? It doesn't matter once you get used to it, and discipline is only involved in the first few runs, after which, it is all about redoing it.

Quote:
Its not about "burden of proof". Its about indefiniteness and "NOT KNOWING". The fact that we don't know creates the fact that it can only be 50/50.
If you don't know, you don't seek? Bullshit. You only don't seek knowledge if it doesn't benefit you, but rather, harms you (but apparently, there is some sort of dumb benefit to all forms of knowledge seek). What we know will eventually create more unknowns, but that doesn't mean we should stop knowing on the whole.

No matter how well-articulated your sentences are, you made a huge mistake as you present your sweeping statements : in writing. Whatever is black and white is much easier to incriminate than in speech.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 12:05   Link #63
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Ever heard of "Facts are few in fields where experts are many?" Same idea applies. Attacking a personal or widely held belief can yield interesting results, for example, quantum physics. Up till the 1900s it has always been "it is because it is like that" until a few figures like Einstein, Minkovski and Feynman came along. Amongst them and a few others, they could be said to have destroyed the absolutism of the General Laws of Physics like Newton's Laws of Motion (by simply proving the effects of time dilation with reference to the object when a particle enters lightspeed or beyond). And how did they do it? They question the very ideas that were taught to them.



You have never thought of removing it? How is that questioning a faith, when you do not ask, "Do I really need this faith?"

To tell the truth, my ancestors are supposed to be Muslim because I am from a mixed bloodline. They chose not to so they can give their descendants eyes. I tried taking up various religions but casted them all away because I feel that such beliefs are hypocritical to the extent that the very morals they preach are condensed into commandments, which are re-interpreted to suit personal needs.

On the other hand, I have got some friends who casted away their religions like me, but embraced them again because they wanted to do something for the believers who have been shortchanged by the reproduced scriptures.

When one questions, one also tries it out. Greater experience brings knowledge. Radicalism and stupidity propagates from rigid beliefs and fear of deviation from it.



What is so laborious after doing it so much? Sitting out 3 days in the torrential rain in a pit full of mud and earthworms with a rifle looking into a large field, or not eating anything for half a week? It doesn't matter once you get used to it, and discipline is only involved in the first few runs, after which, it is all about redoing it.



If you don't know, you don't seek? Bullshit. You only don't seek knowledge if it doesn't benefit you, but rather, harms you (but apparently, there is some sort of dumb benefit to all forms of knowledge seek). What we know will eventually create more unknowns, but that doesn't mean we should stop knowing on the whole.

No matter how well-articulated your sentences are, you made a huge mistake as you present your sweeping statements : in writing. Whatever is black and white is much easier to incriminate than in speech.
Please excuse me, and accept this as surrender to you being right and superior. Farewell.

Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-30 at 22:41.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 12:11   Link #64
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
I am not judging out of mere belief...
I would say you are judging solely based on unfounded beliefs. It is like trying to wrap your head around something you've never seen, no one has seen or explained in any way, and you're not even entirely sure it exists. You simply can't do it without producing some kind of ideas from your imagination, without facts.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 12:15   Link #65
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I would say you are judging solely based on unfounded beliefs. It is like trying to wrap your head around something you've never seen, no one has seen or explained in any way, and you're not even entirely sure it exists. You simply can't do it without producing some kind of ideas from your imagination, without facts.
The fact that I was only trying to explain was the indefiniteness of everything(cept self) which leads to the fact of indefiniteness of religion and of faith. We *may* be able to identify this "indefiniteness" in the future, but as far as I'm concerned, we're currently stuck with that.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 12:44   Link #66
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
I am not judging out of mere belief. I'm only suggesting that 0=50/50, but wait.... 0=1...well ok, mathematically that doesn't make sense. But if you just put it in words, its so simple that its obvious. Ok, I know that there are other possibilities but those are also part of the equation. Its there or its not is what "no knowing" tells us.

For example, when you walk outside your room, you'll have lots of "guesses" on what'll immediately happen. One of these guesses is that you'll slip. Now, will you slip or not? We don't know that. And if we don't know that, its left to "slipping or not(which includes every other theories)". Thus, no afterlife(other theories) or there is. Its also rebirth vs. no rebirth. Its also nonexistence vs. not nonexistence. Its also your belief vs. other beliefs.
Well, this debate about 50/50 seems hot for no reason, so I will just jump in for a little fun XD.

This argument actually has to do with LOGIC. You fell into one of the most deadly red herring that common people always make. You does not know something, or all do not know something never makes it 50/50.

Logic behind probability is difficult and confusing. If you roll a dice, probability is 1/6/ What does it mean? It means that rolling a dice can result in six equally probable outcome. It does not mean that if YOU roll a dice now, the chance of getting something with THAT roll will be 1/6. You will have a 100% chance of getting a number that we do not know yet. OR if you don't roll, you have 100% chance of not getting anything at all. Then you ask me to guess what you got. My guess before it being made will have a 1/6 chance of being correct. But after I already chose a number to guess, the guess becomes a statement, and it will be either 100% correct, or 100% wrong.

God either exists, or does not exist at all (god can also be the void, or the nonexistence, but I don't want to dig into that). But it does not mean there's a probability of 50/50. What if God can exist and not exist at the same time? What if God is something beyond what "existence" can define? Then will your "probability" decrease to 33%, then 25%? Then what if there's a thousand other probabilities that we do not know of? The mistake is that our guess absolutely does not affect the actuality of God's existence. It may be correct to say a before-being-made-guess will have a 50/50 chance of being right. But it is wrong to say God has a 50/50 chance of existing. If God exists, there's 100% that it does. If God does not, there's 100% of it does not. Whatever the case, the probability is 100%. We just do not know.

Take an example: 2000 years ago, people did not know the physical world is construct of tiny substances like atoms. So someone guessed: this world has 50% chance of being constructed of tiny substances, and 50% chance not. No one knew the answer. But was his statement correct? Of course not. However, if he said: either this world is constructed of tiny substance, or it is not, that statement is 100% right.

Last edited by Cinocard; 2009-09-30 at 14:03.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 14:24   Link #67
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Can I at least call it 0? I just used your example of 50/50 because it shows balance. If there is no "knowing", we'll call it 0. If its 0, then its a point of balance between fact and false. A nothing. So on end, the afterlife may not or may exist.
You can call it "banana", it wouldn't be any more meaningless.

As for 50/50, it's just plain wrong. To take an example, let's make a wager. I drop a stone off a tower. If it falls down, you give me 10 bucks. If it flies up, I give you 50. Let's repeat it a hundred times. Now, according to you, despite what Galileo, Newton, and hundreds of years of science tell us, there's a 50/50 chance the latter will happen. You never know, an invisible angel might pick up the stone and carry it upward. So that means an expectancy of + $20 for you. Over 100 tries, you'd get roughly $2000. Will you take that bet?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 18:23   Link #68
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
As for 50/50, it's just plain wrong. To take an example, let's make a wager. I drop a stone off a tower. If it falls down, you give me 10 bucks. If it flies up, I give you 50. Let's repeat it a hundred times. Now, according to you, despite what Galileo, Newton, and hundreds of years of science tell us, there's a 50/50 chance the latter will happen. You never know, an invisible angel might pick up the stone and carry it upward.
When the existence of god is very unprovable and both guesses would be quite equally baseless, dropping a stone in this case is not, because we can have some knowledge to base our guess on (though if you are an existentialist, you can argue with me), so the analogy is not so relevant. But..meh, I disagree with what Cipher said anyway, so...
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 22:21   Link #69
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post

Logic behind probability is difficult and confusing. If you roll a dice, probability is 1/6/ What does it mean? It means that rolling a dice can result in six equally probable outcome. It does not mean that if YOU roll a dice now, the chance of getting something with THAT roll will be 1/6. You will have a 100% chance of getting a number that we do not know yet. OR if you don't roll, you have 100% chance of not getting anything at all. Then you ask me to guess what you got. My guess before it being made will have a 1/6 chance of being correct. But after I already chose a number to guess, the guess becomes a statement, and it will be either 100% correct, or 100% wrong.
Exactly my point. A no or a yes.

Quote:
God either exists, or does not exist at all (god can also be the void, or the nonexistence, but I don't want to dig into that). But it does not mean there's a probability of 50/50. What if God can exist and not exist at the same time? What if God is something beyond what "existence" can define? Then will your "probability" decrease to 33%, then 25%? Then what if there's a thousand other probabilities that we do not know of? The mistake is that our guess absolutely does not affect the actuality of God's existence. It may be correct to say a before-being-made-guess will have a 50/50 chance of being right. But it is wrong to say God has a 50/50 chance of existing. If God exists, there's 100% that it does. If God does not, there's 100% of it does not. Whatever the case, the probability is 100%. We just do not know.
If God can exist and not exist at the same time. Then that would be a "yes". If God can't and will never exist, that would be "no".

Quote:
Take an example: 2000 years ago, people did not know the physical world is construct of tiny substances like atoms. So someone guessed: this world has 50% chance of being constructed of tiny substances, and 50% chance not. No one knew the answer. But was his statement correct? Of course not. However, if he said: either this world is constructed of tiny substance, or it is not, that statement is 100% right.
My point exactly. Its the 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
As for 50/50, it's just plain wrong. To take an example, let's make a wager. I drop a stone off a tower. If it falls down, you give me 10 bucks. If it flies up, I give you 50. Let's repeat it a hundred times. Now, according to you, despite what Galileo, Newton, and hundreds of years of science tell us, there's a 50/50 chance the latter will happen. You never know, an invisible angel might pick up the stone and carry it upward. So that means an expectancy of + $20 for you. Over 100 tries, you'd get roughly $2000. Will you take that bet?
Yes, I'll just tell you that you can't prove it went down. Its all in you head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
When the existence of god is very unprovable and both guesses would be quite equally baseless, dropping a stone in this case is not, because we can have some knowledge to base our guess on (though if you are an existentialist, you can argue with me), so the analogy is not so relevant. But..meh, I disagree with what Cipher said anyway, so...
I hope you understood what I mean. The unknown results leads into a balance of the unknown. Thanks you.

Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-30 at 22:44.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 22:57   Link #70
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
.... and we hit the refuge of solipsism..... bah, you're all just little programs on my AOL "intarweb" disk anyway
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 23:00   Link #71
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
I hope you understood what I mean. The unknown results leads into a balance of the unknown. Thanks you.
I think that's where I disagree with you. There can be only one result, so there can be no "balance of the unknown."

Quote:
.... and we hit the refuge of solipsism..... bah, you're all just little programs on my AOL "intarweb" disk anyway
I hope you will set it up so a nice girl hits me tomorrow, Vexx
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 23:09   Link #72
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
.... and we hit the refuge of solipsism..... bah, you're all just little programs on my AOL "intarweb" disk anyway
well...the theory serves to lighten the fact of indefiniteness...so it has its uses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
I think that's where I disagree with you. There can be only one result, so there can be no "balance of the unknown."
There can only be one result. We are not yet at the result, we are at the unknown. Therefore, all results are balanced(in a "before" kind of sense).
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 23:40   Link #73
Terrestrial Dream
勇者
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
As Ascaloth already told you, you must provide some kind of evidence to make the belief 'reasonable,' as you claimed it was a few posts up. As it stands, all you have done is opened the door for the most minute probability, much like I can't be sure a unicorn isn't about to impale me. Can I disprove it? No. Should I believe it? No.
Wanted to post this picture for a long time .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
EDIT: OK, so as Xris pointed out this is a topic that has sprung out of the "What's your religion?" thread due to its deducted "off topicness." As a result I edited this opening post so it would make more sense to a lot of you.

The purpose of this thread is to clarify how each and everyone of you view God. (Atheists are welcomed to give their thoughts on how they view the forces that are at work in this universe).

The following questions are just a framework to help many of you get on the same mind set. It is not needed to keep all your points to these questions, however, it would be useful if they were answered in your posts. This is not a simple declare your religion or views thread. If it is so I shall direct you over here. Please give thought out responses. An example of such a post is Vexx's below mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you all view God as a single entity (monotheistic) that is conscious of itself and what it has created?

Do you view the universe as having many Gods (ala Greek and Roman Gods)?

Do you think man was created in God's image?

Or is God some kind of life force, some energy that is source of creation and perhaps the big bang?

Is your God tangible, or is he some corporeal existence that is omnipotent?

Or do you all simply consider God to be some concept that is utterly unconceivable by man in any such matter to the point that it is something that exists, but we cannot really be concerned with due to a lack of understanding?
As Buddhist I do not really believe in God but rather something along the line of reincarnation. Really I like the concept of reincarnation as I think fits in with nature as well.
Though there is a chance that a God like being could exist, according to scientist there is a infinite amount of universe and meaning infinite amount of possibility. So maybe God like being exist on some alternate universe .
__________________
Terrestrial Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-30, 23:47   Link #74
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream View Post
Wanted to post this picture for a long time .
I've seen this before already but quite clever.

On the other hand, with resolution , what I can only "perceive" from this is that tendency of humanity to oversimplify confusing matters on a more biased situational reflection.

Inevitably, this original human logic of "to see is to believe" is the basis of the oversimplification.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 00:18   Link #75
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream View Post
Wanted to post this picture for a long time .
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

Perhaps not as directly involved in this situation as another example could be, but this picture reminded me of the infamous quote "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense."
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 00:33   Link #76
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
No evidence = to having no evidence of no evidence which also = to having no evidence of there being no evidence to no evidence. I don't understand the logic in this. If you have absence of evidence, isn't that evidence of absence? Please excuse my ignorance.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 01:00   Link #77
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
No evidence = to having no evidence of no evidence which also = to having no evidence of there being no evidence to no evidence. I don't understand the logic in this. If you have absence of evidence, isn't that evidence of absence? Please excuse my ignorance.
The quote is from a speech Donald Rumsfeld gave during the Bush administration, discussing the possibility of nuclear weapons (WMD's) in Iraq. He argued that, just because they had found no evidence of their existence, did not mean they did not exist. It mostly became a meme for a short time, but has long since been disregarded--probably as stupidity.

Yes, in the general sense of the terms, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Feel free to read through the link I posted. It's a pretty good article by a professor discussing this exact thing, except from a mathematical point of view.
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 02:06   Link #78
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
.... and we hit the refuge of solipsism..... bah, you're all just little programs on my AOL "intarweb" disk anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
I hope you will set it up so a nice girl hits me tomorrow, Vexx
Hear my prayer, Vexx-jiji. Hear the prayer of this insignificant one. Divest me of all responsibilites for a week, so that I may spend it with my precious lady. Amen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
There can only be one result. We are not yet at the result, we are at the unknown. Therefore, all results are balanced(in a "before" kind of sense).
Interesting. In that case, how sure are you that your God exists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
I've seen this before already but quite clever.

On the other hand, with resolution , what I can only "perceive" from this is that tendency of humanity to oversimplify confusing matters on a more biased situational reflection.

Inevitably, this original human logic of "to see is to believe" is the basis of the oversimplification.
Argumentum verbosium. Please state your arguments clearly and concisely; hiding your opinion under a cloak of complex words does not serve to further any argument.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 02:14   Link #79
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 30
@Cipher

The issue people are bringing up with the basis of your faith is that most of what you say suggest that your faith is bound in the situations of circumstance rather than wanting. In other words, what we glean from your statements is that you believe in a god not because you want to believe, rather it seems you believe because you have no other choice but to believe. It comes out rather that a person if compelled to believe in a higher deity because he finds no way out of his philosophical and metaphysical conundrum other than to surrender to a mysterious existence far beyond his mode of understanding. As such, the grounding of one's faith is not due to free will but of restrictions, having to believe because one finds no other alternative but to believe in something you don't understand as the "solution" to the metaphysical dilemma the person cannot comprehend.

I for a fact know from personal experience that such grounding is one of the shakiest foundations of belief and faith.
MeoTwister5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-01, 02:18   Link #80
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
Interesting. In that case, how sure are you that your God exists?
How sure am I? 0.5 percent is from the fact that I don't know but believe regardless, and everything else is faith.(99.5%)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MeoTwister5 View Post
@Cipher

The issue people are bringing up with the basis of your faith is that most of what you say suggest that your faith is bound in the situations of circumstance rather than wanting. In other words, what we glean from your statements is that you believe in a god not because you want to believe, rather it seems you believe because you have no other choice but to believe. It comes out rather that a person if compelled to believe in a higher deity because he finds no way out of his philosophical and metaphysical conundrum other than to surrender to a mysterious existence far beyond his mode of understanding. As such, the grounding of one's faith is not due to free will but of restrictions, having to believe because one finds no other alternative but to believe in something you don't understand as the "solution" to the metaphysical dilemma the person cannot comprehend.

I for a fact know from personal experience that such grounding is one of the shakiest foundations of belief and faith.
Hmm...no, I *chose* to believe of course.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.