Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:02 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Science VS religion 
Author Message
Post Re: Science VS religion
Trevor wrote:
rishi85 wrote:
People follow a herd mentality...they are brainwashed.

rishi85 wrote:
Go to your church and ask Jesus to cure you and lets see.

rishi85 wrote:
Again all I wanna say is religion is for those who cant make friends.

rishi85 wrote:
" most brilliant minds tend to reject Christianity, which is correlated with being poor and undereducated."

rishi85 wrote:
I believe there will be a day when the institution of religion will simply be eradicated and mankind will look back and smile reminding himself how stupid he once was


If you want to have a serious discussion about religion, how about refraining from personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you.
You come across as more naive and set in your beliefs than the people you are criticizing with that kind of nonsense.

rishi85 wrote:
I apologize if I offend anyone,it isnt intentional

rishi85 wrote:
Man I shouldn't have posted this issue at all and again I am sorry if I offended anyone out there.

rishi85 wrote:
I do not have anything against religion(on the contrary my family and relatives are highly religious)and although I wont adopt it,I wont despise anyone who does so

Bullshit.

You clearly have something against religion and religious people (see above), and we can have an interesting discussion about it if you open yourself up to criticism as much as you give it, instead of hiding behind apologies.


best post so far. completely agreed.


Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:10 pm
Post Re: Science VS religion
Thirded. The forums are not the place for bigotry that would make Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris look tame.


Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:24 pm
Post Re: Science VS religion
Rishi85

Have you read the previous thread on Religion? 143 posts so far.....

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=410

It was exceptional because it was a bunch of people with radically different viewpoints discussing the same subject. What I observed was people listening and thinking and not one comment that could even slightly be interpreted as negative or aggressive. Not one comment criticizing or trying to change people's positions.

Someone alot smarter than me once told me that discussions involve three things. Listening, thinking and talking.

On that previous thread i "met" Moulton4 and Arsenal84. Our opinions could not be more different, yet through that discussion, I made "friends" and learned alot.

So by all means engage in a discussion, but swim gently!
Rob


Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:17 pm
Post Re: Science VS religion
You are right Rob,
I came out really harsh and am actually embarrassed to visit this topic(There is no delete option is there?)
Anyways I will start a friendlier topic-something which fascinates me and like to get opinions


Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:12 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Hey

Your post is very cool! I think you had good intentions.
The nice thing about forums is that threads fade away and radiate.

Lets move on :-)
Rob


Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:59 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Mate.

Science IS a religion.

Think about everything that science tells you and then think about how much of that do you REALLY know.
Remove the banner of "science" and all you get is a bunch of gibberish.

1930's science: Cigarettes are good for you.
2000's science: cigrattes are bad for you.

1920's science: A new disease is spread among young girls where they enter a state or euphoria and cannot be controlled.
They name it "hysteria". They cure? a dildo. That's right...how many of you know that the dildo was invented by a bunch of male doctors.

This continues on today.

Apparently with each drop of water contains millions of living organisms.
E = MC^2
sin/cos = tan.
Sound are actually waves.


If these arn't "science" or "mathematics" they sound like the biggest load of shit ever.

It's not science vs religion. It's GOD vs GOD.


Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:47 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
moulton4 wrote:
to me, science will never explain why i exist and have a conscious about what is right and what is wrong.


We can do some things now that some people must have considered impossible 50 years ago. Why give up on science?

My opinion is that religion raises more questions than it answers. So if we turn to religion for answers, we´re screwed.


Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:54 pm
Post Re: Science VS religion
Humga wrote:
Think about everything that science tells you and then think about how much of that do you REALLY know.
Remove the banner of "science" and all you get is a bunch of gibberish.

1930's science: Cigarettes are good for you.
2000's science: cigrattes are bad for you.

1920's science: A new disease is spread among young girls where they enter a state or euphoria and cannot be controlled.
They name it "hysteria". They cure? a dildo. That's right...how many of you know that the dildo was invented by a bunch of male doctors.

This continues on today.
The examples you've given reflect very well why science ISN'T a religion. One of the most important features of science is that it's self-correcting. When new evidence is found that confounds previous findings, we go back to the drawing board and figure out what was wrong before. It would be anti-science, even dogmatic, to bullheadedly continue to insist that our older beliefs are still correct when new findings have flatly contradicted them. When was the last time any of the major holy texts were revised to reflect recent discoveries that don't gel with the recorded events?

It might also interest you to know that "hysteria" wasn't 1920s medical science by any stretch of the phrase. It was a diagnosis that persisted since ancient times up through the Victorian era, prior to the advent of modern medicine. Dildoes were invented in the 19th century, not the 20th--in fact, the turn of the century was when mentions of hysteria in medical literature began to sharply decline. By the 1920s, they had virtually disappeared.

So yeah... the response to your post, in a nutshell, is "Hell naw."


P.S. I recommend this video.


Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:13 pm
Post Re: Science VS religion
Ken wrote:
Humga wrote:
Think about everything that science tells you and then think about how much of that do you REALLY know.
Remove the banner of "science" and all you get is a bunch of gibberish.

1930's science: Cigarettes are good for you.
2000's science: cigrattes are bad for you.

1920's science: A new disease is spread among young girls where they enter a state or euphoria and cannot be controlled.
They name it "hysteria". They cure? a dildo. That's right...how many of you know that the dildo was invented by a bunch of male doctors.

This continues on today.
The examples you've given reflect very well why science ISN'T a religion. One of the most important features of science is that it's self-correcting. When new evidence is found that confounds previous findings, we go back to the drawing board and figure out what was wrong before. It would be anti-science, even dogmatic, to bullheadedly continue to insist that our older beliefs are still correct when new findings have flatly contradicted them. When was the last time any of the major holy texts were revised to reflect recent discoveries that don't gel with the recorded events?

It might also interest you to know that "hysteria" wasn't 1920s medical science by any stretch of the phrase. It was a diagnosis that persisted since ancient times up through the Victorian era, prior to the advent of modern medicine. Dildoes were invented in the 19th century, not the 20th--in fact, the turn of the century was when mentions of hysteria in medical literature began to sharply decline. By the 1920s, they had virtually disappeared.

So yeah... the response to your post, in a nutshell, is "Hell naw."


P.S. I recommend this video.


I disagree, the message you got from my statement was "self correcting".
The point i was trying to make is that Religion like science is fickle and are all ruled under a very small minority.

The second point i was trying to make is that religion like science has most of it's believer's knowing very little about what there beliefs really mean and follow the crowd.

The specific points i made before i apologise as they were heavy generalisations that i pulled out of my ass, these however are just many examples of science LIKE religion who constantly reli on a belief system.


Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:39 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Humga wrote:
Ken wrote:
Humga wrote:
Think about everything that science tells you and then think about how much of that do you REALLY know.
Remove the banner of "science" and all you get is a bunch of gibberish.

1930's science: Cigarettes are good for you.
2000's science: cigrattes are bad for you.

1920's science: A new disease is spread among young girls where they enter a state or euphoria and cannot be controlled.
They name it "hysteria". They cure? a dildo. That's right...how many of you know that the dildo was invented by a bunch of male doctors.

This continues on today.
The examples you've given reflect very well why science ISN'T a religion. One of the most important features of science is that it's self-correcting. When new evidence is found that confounds previous findings, we go back to the drawing board and figure out what was wrong before. It would be anti-science, even dogmatic, to bullheadedly continue to insist that our older beliefs are still correct when new findings have flatly contradicted them. When was the last time any of the major holy texts were revised to reflect recent discoveries that don't gel with the recorded events?

It might also interest you to know that "hysteria" wasn't 1920s medical science by any stretch of the phrase. It was a diagnosis that persisted since ancient times up through the Victorian era, prior to the advent of modern medicine. Dildoes were invented in the 19th century, not the 20th--in fact, the turn of the century was when mentions of hysteria in medical literature began to sharply decline. By the 1920s, they had virtually disappeared.

So yeah... the response to your post, in a nutshell, is "Hell naw."


P.S. I recommend this video.


I disagree, the message you got from my statement was "self correcting".
The point i was trying to make is that Religion like science is fickle and are all ruled under a very small minority.

The second point i was trying to make is that religion like science has most of it's believer's knowing very little about what there beliefs really mean and follow the crowd.

The specific points i made before i apologise as they were heavy generalisations that i pulled out of my ass, these however are just many examples of science LIKE religion who constantly reli on a belief system.


I think you may misunderstand the nature of science - the scientific method is designed to ensure that scientific statements are anything but fickle. Scientific publications count for nothing unless they are peer-reviewed by a few others. Also, science requires to provide evidence for the correctness of scientific statements. If there is no evidence or way of proving something, a scientist would always answer "I don't know".


Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:53 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Humga wrote:
The point i was trying to make is that Religion like science is fickle and are all ruled under a very small minority.
Science isn't ruled by anybody. It's most definitely within the purview of a field of experts, but the findings are what determine the direction of science.

Quote:
The second point i was trying to make is that religion like science has most of it's believer's knowing very little about what there beliefs really mean and follow the crowd.
Nobody can know everything about everything, but science has an easily demonstrable method behind it and religion does not. If you can understand the scientific method, and if you can understand the difference between a theory that is valid and a theory that is not, and if you keep a habitually skeptical mindset, then you're doing fine. Yes, you can blindly follow what scientists say, but science doesn't depend on that sort of belief in order to work. Religion does.

Quote:
The specific points i made before i apologise as they were heavy generalisations that i pulled out of my ass, these however are just many examples of science LIKE religion who constantly reli on a belief system.
Science isn't a belief system. It's a way of understanding things without the preconceived notions of a belief system.


Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:01 pm
Post Re: Science VS religion
Quote:
I think you may misunderstand the nature of science - the scientific method is designed to ensure that scientific statements are anything but fickle. Scientific publications count for nothing unless they are peer-reviewed by a few others. Also, science requires to provide evidence for the correctness of scientific statements. If there is no evidence or way of proving something, a scientist would always answer "I don't know".


My misunderstanding of science is PRECISELY why science atleast for me is a religion.
I may be an ashiest however my whole family is christian and i have listened to enough Christianity to know that Christianity atleast for Catholicism is just as theoretical in it's belief systems as Science is.

The comments you made about the legitimacy of science i think is just as generalised as my thoughts on science.
Just because science is claimed to be derived from "reasoning" and "logic" does not mean it is. Just because you can understand how the water cycle works from science class that every kid has gone through does not mean that you understand how for example opium has it's effects on your body.

I'm willing to bet you believe much much more stuff about science then you have actually researched. Thus a belief system. You understand the water cycle and a few things from high school, you start trusting science and then whatever get's pumped out of tabloids you start believing.

Let's make the correlation with "religion" now. Your feeling down and wondering about the meaning of life. A few good things happen to you and you start wondering about a God. You start believing in God and all the good things he can give you and then whatever the bible tells you is good you start believing.


Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:55 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Hi

This is strange because i has always thought that science has specific systems in place to allow an idea or theory to be researched, tested proven, and then ratified by others before being committed to the knowledge base.

Science does not have a God figure, again one of the key elements of a religion.

By the way, as a Buddhist we often get consumed in debated as to whether we are a religion or not as we don't have a God.

Rob


Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:40 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Here is an excellent link that provides some insight into the evolution of the scientific method. http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of ... method.htm

And Humga I have to say that you're insights into this topic are incredibly impressive.


Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:32 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Humga wrote:
The comments you made about the legitimacy of science i think is just as generalised as my thoughts on science.
Just because science is claimed to be derived from "reasoning" and "logic" does not mean it is. Just because you can understand how the water cycle works from science class that every kid has gone through does not mean that you understand how for example opium has it's effects on your body.

I'm willing to bet you believe much much more stuff about science then you have actually researched. Thus a belief system. You understand the water cycle and a few things from high school, you start trusting science and then whatever get's pumped out of tabloids you start believing.
Actually, I have only a vague idea of the physiological mechanism of opium, so I don't have any particular deeply-held beliefs about it. As a matter of heuristics, I'm pretty sure scientists in the fields of pharmacology and toxicology already have it pretty well figured out, but I wouldn't be particularly shattered if I found out that they didn't. Does that sound at all characteristic of a true believer?

What you seem to be suggesting is that anybody who doesn't doubt and demand convincing evidence for every single thing they hear isn't thinking scientifically, and is therefore as much a believer as any religious person. Nobody should have to explain the many practical reasons why this is utterly ridiculous, but the YouTube video I posted a while back does a pretty good job of it, and in under 10 minutes. If you're this intent on carrying on with this discussion, I strongly suggest you take a look at it. It's a cut above the usual "scrolling text and scary music" horsecrap that you usually find on YouTube.

Quote:
Let's make the correlation with "religion" now. Your feeling down and wondering about the meaning of life. A few good things happen to you and you start wondering about a God. You start believing in God and all the good things he can give you and then whatever the bible tells you is good you start believing.
For one thing, I'm not sure what you mean by "correlation," because the word has a specific meaning and I don't see one being demonstrated here. For another, if we were to examine a survey of all the religious people in the world, how many do you think had an upbringing that presupposed the existence of God versus the ones who had an upbringing that didn't? As long as we're making bets about things, how much money would you stake against the majority of religious believers having been taught religion when they were too young to think critically about what they were hearing?


Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:27 pm
Post Re: Science VS religion
Ken wrote:
Actually, I have only a vague idea of the physiological mechanism of opium, so I don't have any particular deeply-held beliefs about it. As a matter of heuristics, I'm pretty sure scientists in the fields of pharmacology and toxicology already have it pretty well figured out, but I wouldn't be particularly shattered if I found out that they didn't. Does that sound at all characteristic of a true believer?

What you seem to be suggesting is that anybody who doesn't doubt and demand convincing evidence for every single thing they hear isn't thinking scientifically, and is therefore as much a believer as any religious person. Nobody should have to explain the many practical reasons why this is utterly ridiculous, but the YouTube video I posted a while back does a pretty good job of it, and in under 10 minutes. If you're this intent on carrying on with this discussion, I strongly suggest you take a look at it. It's a cut above the usual "scrolling text and scary music" horsecrap that you usually find on YouTube.

Quote:
Let's make the correlation with "religion" now. Your feeling down and wondering about the meaning of life. A few good things happen to you and you start wondering about a God. You start believing in God and all the good things he can give you and then whatever the bible tells you is good you start believing.
For one thing, I'm not sure what you mean by "correlation," because the word has a specific meaning and I don't see one being demonstrated here. For another, if we were to examine a survey of all the religious people in the world, how many do you think had an upbringing that presupposed the existence of God versus the ones who had an upbringing that didn't? As long as we're making bets about things, how much money would you stake against the majority of religious believers having been taught religion when they were too young to think critically about what they were hearing?


That video i thought was quite irrelevant to our little debate. I thought it was merely stating the obvious applying only to a very select minority of people.

I am unwilling to commit my argument for every single person alive because i simply cannot, the only experience i can relate to confidently is myself, seeing as though through my many years of living on this Earth i have to assume that i am very much like many people around me, i would say my argument holds up to many people if not everybody.

The "Godly" figure i am referring to in science does not rely in a single person, idea or organisation.
The "God" in science i have come to rationale is the very thought process that makes a person believe certain things.

Quote:
What you seem to be suggesting is that anybody who doesn't doubt and demand convincing evidence for every single thing they hear isn't thinking scientifically, and is therefore as much a believer as any religious person. Nobody should have to explain the many practical reasons why this is utterly ridiculous


That statement you just made may be worded to make my argument sound "utterly ridiculous" but it is precisely what i'm trying to say.

Unfinished but still precisely what i'm trying to say.

It is definitely true in a practical sense not to assuime many things in order to live. I do for example assume that boiling water will cook my food so i won't get sick from eating raw meat. I also assume that picking up a half eaten apple lying on the ground and eating it will make me sick. I am very much aware of that practicality of my argument however i'm trying to say that all scientific arguments cannot be accepted as fact EVEN FOR the scientist researching it let alone the common tabloid reading man.

How much do you trust your doctor or your scientist? Your feeling sick, you go to the doctor and you eat pretty much anything that he thrusts towards you. Say for example you are not that "gullable". You ask for more information. He gives you that information and you believe him. Say for example you are even then not that "gullable", you research it via the internet or the library. THEN do you believe? I'm willing to say that most people will simply believe in the doctor, but even then the internet or the library can be seem as the uncompromising belief system that many people rely on. A book for example may claim that the evidence was derived from this and that, if you have not researched this as a hard fact how can you say that it is true?

You claim that you wouldn't be particularly shattered if you found out that the claimed opium effects on the body were wrong.

What about the chemotherapy to treat your cancer? Would you be shattered if you found out that was all bs?
Does THAT sound like religion to you?

On a personal level, my friend just got into a major car accident. The doctors gave her some medicine and she took it as you would. The medicine had adverse side effects, she cannot even think straight anymore, always anxious, the only time she is at peace is when she's sleeping. Every waking moment she is in pain and unrest.

Thinking back to the common man. Who would NOT take that medicine? I'm not saying that the scientific method or the thought process of deriving science is religious, i'm saying the belief system that has been put in place for people to believe things under the banner of science is the religion.

Quote:
As long as we're making bets about things, how much money would you stake against the majority of religious believers having been taught religion when they were too young to think critically about what they were hearing?


You seem to be making religious people sound like they are the closed-mindeded caricatures in that video.
I'm willing to bet against that statement. Making commitments to a religion is a grueling task, they're beliefs are challenged each and every day for the rest of there lives. Those that are taught religion since they were a child, most would have abandoned the religion by the time they reach there mid teens. That statement has come from my own personal experiences with religion. Those that are devout to religion are not the closed minded people that video come to say but are highly intelligent people with great philosophical arguments to back up there beliefs.

I suppose what i'm really trying to say is that the typical beliefs in science can be more closed minded then those people who claim to believe in science.

If everything that science pumps out can be seen just as a "scientific method" and may or may not be true but just for a pracitical sense i'm willing to assume it then yes, maybe science is not a religion.
However through my own personal experience i have found that is not the case. Belief in science is just as religious as what people claim relgion to be.


Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:46 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Humga, I think that you fundamentally misunderstand something here. Just because I (or anybody else) may not be able to understand a specific scientific theory, it doesn't mean that this scientific theory constitutes a belief system. My understanding of nuclear physics is limited at best, but if I would be bothered and had a good teacher as well as the intellectual capabilities, I could understand the scientific statements made and also how scientists arrived at their conclusions. Also, scientists welcome a challenge of their theories and would have to provide counter-arguments.

In contrast, a religious miracle cannot be proven. It is required that you believe in it and not challenge it as there is no way of providing evidence. It is simply acknowledged. I cannot understand how a a miracle works because of its, well, miraculous nature.

Example: Person A has cancer. The doctor recommends chemotherypy. Patient A does not know how it works. The doctor explains what exactly happens and why. Patient A does not understand because he is unaware of cells or radiation and can't wrap his mind around it. But chemotherapy worked for person A's neighbour, so he goes along with it.

Person B has cancer. The prophet heals person B by way of a miracle. Person B asks the prophet how he did it. The prophet answers: Divine intervention. Person B asks, how exactly does divine intervention work? The prophet will have to answer: You have to believe.


Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:24 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Unke wrote:
Humga, I think that you fundamentally misunderstand something here. Just because I (or anybody else) may not be able to understand a specific scientific theory, it doesn't mean that this scientific theory constitutes a belief system. My understanding of nuclear physics is limited at best, but if I would be bothered and had a good teacher as well as the intellectual capabilities, I could understand the scientific statements made and also how scientists arrived at their conclusions. Also, scientists welcome a challenge of their theories and would have to provide counter-arguments.

In contrast, a religious miracle cannot be proven. It is required that you believe in it and not challenge it as there is no way of providing evidence. It is simply acknowledged. I cannot understand how a a miracle works because of its, well, miraculous nature.

Example: Person A has cancer. The doctor recommends chemotherypy. Patient A does not know how it works. The doctor explains what exactly happens and why. Patient A does not understand because he is unaware of cells or radiation and can't wrap his mind around it. But chemotherapy worked for person A's neighbour, so he goes along with it.

Person B has cancer. The prophet heals person B by way of a miracle. Person B asks the prophet how he did it. The prophet answers: Divine intervention. Person B asks, how exactly does divine intervention work? The prophet will have to answer: You have to believe.


I think you misunderstand my argument. I'm very well aware of how science is supposedly reasoned, but that is my argument there. Everything is supposed and everything is assumed.

You claim to be able to understand a specific scientific theory simply by being bothered, having good teacher etc. I'm saying this is impossible because even the base evidence you claim to have is still based on a assumption.

Also just because you can understand 1 scientific theory, it is impossible to understand it all. it is even impossible to understand the majority of scientific theory, thus the majority of science for everybody is assumed.

You even assume you know what religion is. You mistake religion as something that is based on nothing but naivety and ignorance. You relate a religion to "prophets" and "divine intervention".
Religion is much more sophisticated and is just as reasoned as you claim science to be.

Even religion can be based on less assumptions then you claim science to be.


Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:47 am
Post Re: Science VS religion
Humga wrote:
I think you misunderstand my argument. I'm very well aware of how science is supposedly reasoned, but that is my argument there. Everything is supposed and everything is assumed.

You claim to be able to understand a specific scientific theory simply by being bothered, having good teacher etc. I'm saying this is impossible because even the base evidence you claim to have is still based on a assumption.

Also just because you can understand 1 scientific theory, it is impossible to understand it all. it is even impossible to understand the majority of scientific theory, thus the majority of science for everybody is assumed.

You even assume you know what religion is. You mistake religion as something that is based on nothing but naivety and ignorance. You relate a religion to "prophets" and "divine intervention".
Religion is much more sophisticated and is just as reasoned as you claim science to be.

Even religion can be based on less assumptions then you claim science to be.


Hi Humga,

first of all, I do not think that religion is based on naivety or ignorance, so apologies if that read differently.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Also, yes, you misunderstood my point, but I didn't make it very clear at all. My bad. To avoid further misunderstanding, I will attempt to define my understanding of the terms "science" and religion".

Science: A system of gaining knowledge and an understanding of the real world and how it works, based on the scientific method, i.e. the collection and interpretation of data by observational and experimental means through observable, empirical and measurable evidence.

Religion: A system of gaining knowledge and understanding of the spiritual world and how it works, based on the belief in a deity or metaphysical spirits and principles as laid down in the teachings of a prophet or a religious text. Religion may also make claims on how to understand the real world, but that is not its focus.

From these definitions, it should be clear, that - in my opinion - science in religion do not need to contradict each other, because they are concerned with fundamentally different topics. Scientific truth is an observation of th real world, which has been proven by employing the scientific method. Religious truth is spiritual truth and how you get to know religious truth depends on the respective religion (prayer, meditation, worship etc.).

Now, I understand that your statement is: Science works like a religion, because its statements are accepted unconditionally (at least by some) and are not tested.

This statement would be wrong, because inquiry into scientific theories requires that it is tested according to the scientific method. If a scientific theory does not hold up, it is discarded.

Of course, a lot of inquiry into scientific theory is done by experts, because it requires pre-existing knowledge of the fundaments of the respective science. Therefore, laymen are often not able to understand how scientists arrive at their conclusions and accept the general scientific consensus as truth, like somebody who knows how to drive without knowing how an internal combustion engine operates. However, this is different from religion, which does not require that its statements are tested and relies on being accepted as truth as such.

Hope this cleared things up a bit.

Unke


Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:39 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr