Site Areas
Wedding Centre
Health Club
Marriage Clinic
Chapel
University
Citizen's Centre
Coffee Shop
Admin Centre

Contents
Articles
Books
CDs / Videos
Tips
Services

Resources
Forums
Membership
Contact Us
Site map
Link to Us

Search

Take the Couple Check-up!

Marriage Week UK

Marriage first aid

Online support for your marriage

Free Tell A Friend from Bravenet


Home > Forums
2-in-2-1 Discussion Forums  
Old 17th February 2005, 08:04 PM   #31
Sierra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

Somebody is typing this. It occurred and can be independantly observed. If I stand before you, you and others will see me. I'm tactile. I can be photographed. Touched. I may not exist, but either way at least you have something to test.

With god, when faced with not a shred of physical evidence, christians trowel "faith" into the crack. It smooths over the fact that there is no evidence to support the assertion.

My logic goes like this.

The bible tells us there is a god.
> Factually we know the bible to be riddled with impossibilities
>>Therefore the bible is not true and therefore unreliable
>>>If we are to prove god we must find other evidence
>>>>There is no objective evidence.
>>>>>Er go god does not exist.

That is exactly why they call it faith. Outside of the bible (an incorrect book that tells us it is perfect in every way) there is no objective proof of god other than throngs of people who believe in the bible (I believe they call that a mobius loop).

I think you guys go:

I have been told there is a god
>I really want there to be a god
>>I chose to believe there is a god
>>>I interpret information against a foregone conclusion there is a god
>>>>This information proves that god exists
>>>>>Anything that does not fit is discarded and replaced with faith.

I suppose there could be a god. There "could be" a lot of things. The list is infinite. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, martians, mermaids, on and on.

Just because something COULD BE and there is no proof that it ISNT is not proof that it IS. Logic does not work that way.

You can not prove to me that Santa Claus does not exist.

D
 
Old 17th February 2005, 08:54 PM   #32
Travis
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

Sierra,

"I can prove I am conscious as soon as we define objective criteria against which to test. Even if that becomes a debate I can still prove I EXIST."

'Objective criteria'..?! such as what. You misunderstand what I meant (my fault, I phrased it badly). Of course you can pretty much prove to yourself that you are conscious/exist... you cannot in any way show to ME that YOU are conscious, thats another matter entirely. Im simply taking your scepticism to its ultimate logical conclusion.

When I speak of people experiencing God in their everyday lives, im not talking about dramatic near car crashes etc. Im talking about experience on the most subtle level. God doesnt even need to do anything particular day to day for someone to experience him, hes just... there... just like consciousness (to stick with the same analogy).

The believers logic goes more like this

I experience what I understand to be 'God'
>There is no reason not to believe this experience to be accurate
>>The Bible supposedly describes this 'God'
>>>The Bible (understood in context - emphasis on context) is historically accurate
>>>>Therefore I can rely on it
>>>>>So i have a faith in God, based on my relationship/experience with him, aided by reading the Bible.

There is a fundamental problem with your utter reliance on logic/rationality when approaching God.

Here is a logically valid argument:

1. Dogs bark
2. My cat is a dog.
therefore
3. My cat barks.

Obviously senseless. Logic is concerned with the structure of thinking/reasoning... the truth of the original premises is another matter entirely. Logic ultimately descends into an infinite regress... you must prove the premises for your arguement true (ie that 'dogs bark')... then prove your proof for your premises, then the proof of the proof of the proof etc etc. Ultimately, to avoid complete scepticism, you must assume some of your experiences to be true.

You seem to start from the (utterly unsupportable) premise that rationality leads to truth (fair enough, based on your experience it generally does), believers start from the premise that rationality is secondary to their experience of God. Like I said before, a BALANCE is needed.

Every day you place blind faith in many things. Everytime you cross the road you assume you can rely on your senses to show you where the traffic is (experience tells you they are generally reliable). Believers use the same logic to rely on God, something they think they experience everyday.

One other thing,

"The bible is therefore composed of significant material factual error. Yet it is suposedly written by god"

Christians do not believe the Bible to be written by God. It is written by men, inspired by God. As such it is open to a degree of whatever cultural/personal bias the writer posesses. Sure, many Chrsitians may believe in things that are factually untrue.. this is not the point though, (without a degree in Physics we all believe things that are inaccurate) every belief about floods, creation, arks, dinosaurs is completely secondary to the believers relationship with/understanding of Jesus. If you want to attack Christianity then forget these peripheral details, the core of the religion is perceived relationship.. something that, like consciousness, is a strictly personal thing.

'Proof' is a word I have lost all understanding of. Your appraoch to Christians is not going to get you anywhere... there are much more pertinant ways of criticising religion than through reason.
 
Old 17th February 2005, 09:34 PM   #33
Dave
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,576
Re: There is no god

If I understand you Sierra then proof of existence = it can be observed with one or more of your five senses.

Does anger exist? Does happiness? I may observe the contorted face and raised voice of another and posit that the other is angry - but what does that prove? If an actor acts angry, does that mean he is angry?? I can certainly experince anger in myself at a situation, but does that make it real? Another in the same situation might experience amusement, or embarrassment - which of our observations is the truth?

If a tree fall in the midst of a vast forest and no-one observes it, did the crash it made exist or not? Presumably since there is no evidence remaining of this noise it didn't happen. Well, you'll say, most falling trees make a noise, so if this one fell, then it probably made a noise too. But that doesn't prove anything - it's just a hypothesis which may be useful, but it doesn't prove truth.

It gets even more exciting if we go off into the realm of scientific observation. Tell me how you can accurately observe and ascertain absolute truth when Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle expressly says that if I know exactly where something is, I cannot simultaneously be certain of its velocity etc.

All an external observation does is to reinforce, or occasionally change, ones own current model of reality - it doesn't prove anything - it only supports the internal model that we choose to use. It's all based (as I think both John and Travis have said) on a set of pre-suppositions about the nature of the observer, the observed, and the medium conveying the information.

Anyway, you promised to prove to me that you exist! The only observable fact I have right now is that some photons from my LCD screen have transferred to my retina in a pattern which, fortuitously, I have an entirely learned model for that I shall use to imply another abstract construct called language, which again using another model I shall imbue with some meaning!! Every one of these models can be changed - for eample I can rather easily change the font to Wingdings and all of a sudden there is no useful meaning transferred - ah, you have ceased to exist!!


Dave
Dave is offline  
Old 17th February 2005, 09:47 PM   #34
Sierra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

Your consicousness statement makes no sense. Define an objective criteria against which my and your states can be measured and I will "prove" what state I am in.

I love this statement:

"there are much more pertinant ways of criticising religion than through reason"

Roughly translated that means that although it dosen't make sense, we are going to believe anyway.

Don't give me that "inspired by god" stuff for bible writing etiher. Ask any evangelical christian (or most any other for that matter) that they will tell you that it is a FACT that the bible is the INFALLIBLE word or god, written by inspired me, that is free from error. Lets be clear....there is absolutely no wiggle room here. The bible is the PERFECT word of god. God is speaking.

Then you say "every belief about floods, creation, arks, dinosaurs is completely secondary to the believers relationship with/understanding of Jesus." What that means is when confronted with a mountain of evidence that points to a version of Earth history that differs from what the bible says, we will chose to believe anyway.

I believe that most people do this as they are seeking some common thread throughout their lives that give it all meaning. In short - it makes your life seem better if there is a "purpose" and you have a "partner" helping you along.

Thats fine. So be it. It is your choice.

Your argument fails though. You insist that because I can not prove that god does not exist, he must. That does not work.

This says it all:

I experience what I understand to be 'God'. Fine, but your "understanding" is a choice. You interpret the situation that way. Essentially what you are saying is no experience is still and experience. Again, proving a negative. "I can't prove it, but I know he was there."

If you want to "understand" that fine. Every December my children "understand" that Santa is watching a finalizing a list with their name on it. It is very real to them as are the letters they write to the north pole. They fully experience the acticipation and tingle at the very thought the fat bastard is going to squeeze down our chimney.

You said it best:

"Believers use the same logic to rely on God, something they think they experience everyday."

I agree. They THINK they experience it.

Dosen't make it real. Santa is not watching.

There is no god.

Dave
 
Old 17th February 2005, 10:42 PM   #35
Dave
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,576
Re: There is no god

Dear Sierra

I'll let Travis answer most your latest response (I presume it was to his post) - he seems to me to have a rather clear understanding of philosophy.

Let me just point to some rather quaint logic in your position:

Quote:
I love this statement:

"there are much more pertinant ways of criticising religion than through reason"

Roughly translated that means that although it dosen't make sense, we are going to believe anyway.
"Roughly translated" - what, we're not going to actually read what it says using cold logic? All Travis says is that reason (logical reductionism) won't get you to where you want, and there are better ways!

"although it doesn't make sense" - ah, a presupposition, only "reason" can equal "sense", plus a heirarchy of values (another presupposition): "sense" is a higher value than "belief", and without logical rational deduction, belief is unacceptable.

Now then, let me see the logic for the statement "I exist" - oh yes, it was based on observations through five senses - but at best that can only inform a belief - "I see you, therefore I believe you are there". Suppose what I saw was only a reflection, would you still exist? Or if I shut my eyes and picture you with two heads, do you now exist in this form?

Please provide a rational arguement for your existence, without any presuppositions!

Dave
Dave is offline  
Old 17th February 2005, 11:34 PM   #36
Travis
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

Sierra, thankyou for your response.. but a few things to clear up.

I havent made any statement of my beliefs thus far, Iv simply explained the two sides of the problem.

This is (what I understand to be) your thought process.

1. Rationality (ie. a series of logical laws) leads us to truth about the universe.
2. Rationality dictates that there are contradictions in religious beliefs in God. In other words, religion/belief in God is irrational.
therefore
3. God cannot exist.

Your problem is that statement 1. cannot be verified in any way. Its an assumption that many of the greatest thinkers throughout history (Plato, Hume, Berkeley, Wittgenstein, Satre etc) have rejected.. its actually a fairly recent phenomenon to believe 1. at all.

Neither can statement 2. be verified. You cannot prove that your perception of what is 'rational' is correct. Your understanding of the laws of logic is purely subjective... logic is a model we create to understand the universe. Nor can you demonstrate that 'God' (whatever that means) is subordinate to logic.

Therefore 3. cannot be said with any sort of certainty. If can be accepted, but not on any conclusive or rational grounds.

"Your consicousness statement makes no sense. Define an objective criteria against which my and your states can be measured and I will "prove" what state I am in."

No such criteria exists (or we are not capable of knowing it).. that is the point. There is no way for me to objectively and rationally prove that you are conscious. Likewise there is no way to rationally prove that God exists. If such a proof exists that you are conscious (as opposed to just showing all the outward and secondary signs of consciousness - this does not constitute 'proof') then please share it with us.

"Roughly translated that means that although it dosen't make sense, we are going to believe anyway"

No, roughly translated, that means that you are giving to Rationality undue authority. Religious issues that are necessarily beyond rationality (as has been shown to be perfectly possible/necessary) cannot be attacked by rationality. Rationality itself is based on the same subjective perception that religion is.

This question is related (in fact its central), and I would appreciate a simple answer: how would you define Beauty..? Is it a quality an object posesses, or in the eye of the beholder..? Define it.

"Then you say "every belief about floods, creation, arks, dinosaurs is completely secondary to the believers relationship with/understanding of Jesus." What that means is when confronted with a mountain of evidence that points to a version of Earth history that differs from what the bible says, we will chose to believe anyway."

No, Im saying that to a believer the history is the Earth is ultimately irrelevant. If some believers believe things about science and history that are actually untrue then in the grand scheme of things this is unimportant... all thats important is their belief in God. If thats wrong or right then its significant, anything else ultimately doesnt matter to them.
Im not saying this is my belief, but there is more at stake than knowledge/intelligence for its own sake here.

"I experience what I understand to be 'God'. Fine, but your "understanding" is a choice."

...is it...? Can you choose to believe in Father Christmas..? Go on.. try... I cant. (I can intellectually entertain the idea that he exists, but I cant 'believe' he does.) Belief in God requires a certain amount of choice in terms of accepting evidence as going one way or another, but its not so simple as choosing what to wear one day to the next.

All you are doing is demonstrating that it is equally impossible to argue to God's existence, as it is to argue to his non-existence. I am not saying that just because you cant prove he doesnt exist Im going to believe to him.. try this..

(to use an old analogy...)

I want to prove to you that you are not conscious.. is there anything I can say that would actually persuade you of this..? There are various logical or scientific arguments I could use against you, but none are conclusive. This is all you are doing. You currently perceive yourself to be conscious.. fine. Believers currently perceive themselves to be in a relationship with God.. why is that any less fine, or any more subjective..?

This has been a very negative dicussion so far, may I ask what you DO believe..? Why are you here? (Why does the question 'why' really mean anything at all..?) What is your response to the above question concerning Beauty..?

Thankyou.

(To clarify, I am not trying to convert you to Christianity, or even persuade you that God exists. I am merely trying to show you why your arguments are ultimately useless.)
 
Old 18th February 2005, 12:23 AM   #37
Sierra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

Ok, first of all, I get it....I do. Out is coming all the "how high is up" .... " prove you exist" ......on and on....argument to try to defend a belief in something that does not exist.

Lets face it....when you start debating why does "why" mean anything you demonstrate that you are grasping at straws.

God does not exist. There is no evidence that will survive scrutiny.

These argument sound persuasive and very logical but in the end they try to circle back on themselves in that they seek to prove via a lack of proof that something exists.

As soon as logical arguments against the existence of god are presented we kick down into this nonsense. Prove you exist.....she me you are conscous....Facts go out the window.

I am not versed in the logic and argument of Plato. Not relevant here.

As far as beauty is concerned, that involves interpretation. Interpretation of something that exists. The existence of something is the first step to interpretation. That existence can be a concept. Democracy is a beautiful concept. So is god.

But then we have to take a big fat step into reality. We have to realize that religion came from a time and from the same place that tells us white is good and black is bad. It stems from a time when people feared what was just outside the light of their campfires and the world was a mystical place full of things that could not be explained.

Man created myths to explain the unexplainable. He drew figures in the stars and worshipped those consetllations as real. He took the actions he could to control the universe he understood. Remember the good old days when if the ground shook it mean the gold were angry and it was time for a sacrifice.

Hungry gods. Angry gods. Numerous gods.

And then we grew up.

You asked what I believe in. In short - NOTHING. I am not here for any reason. There is no purpose other than what I create. There is no "purpose" in life.

Why is that so hard for you to accept.

I think it is beautiful and freeing. I can accept each day as an opportunity. I can marvel at random chance, evolution and the whole improbability that it all came together the way it did. I am not screwing everyone in this life as I get ready for eternity. I appreciate all of it.

The odds against winning a big lottery are millions to one against but almost every week someone does. It dosent mean a god wanted them to have extra money. It just worked out that way.

The winning point for me is that if you showed me god existed, or he bothered to, then I would believe. You on the other hand, not one moment of your life would likely concede that he does not. Its like the "christian scientists". They already know the answer.....their job revolves around manufacturing proof.

Lets hear you rattle off some positive proof of god. There is none. He does not exist. Religion is about indoctrination.

Dave
 
Old 18th February 2005, 12:58 AM   #38
Travis
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

"Ok, first of all, I get it....I do. Out is coming all the "how high is up" .... " prove you exist" ......on and on....argument to try to defend a belief in something that does not exist."

*shrugs*

All Im saying is that all this arguing is utterly pointless. You cannot 'prove' a thing, nor can those you're arguing with.

"These argument sound persuasive and very logical but in the end they try to circle back on themselves in that they seek to prove via a lack of proof that something exists."

?? Noone is trying to prove that God exists, or that because of lack of evidence for his non-existence he exists. Im just telling you that 'proof' is irrelevant, as it is unattainable without certain assumptions.

I have no problem with accepting your position.. I am merely pointing out that your inability to accept others positions is baseless. I can understand perfectly why you dont believe in God, and Im not trying to persuade you of anything different. Im simply saying your beliefs are your beliefs, others perceive the world differently and you cannot show them to be incorrect.

You came here to announce that 'There is no God'. This is not something that is possible to demonstrate... there are a million ways to explain the world without God, but if they fundamentally conflict with some peoples (ie. 99% of people in history's) immediate experiences and perceptions of existence then these people reserve the right to believe in him, just as you have the right to choose not to believe in him.

Your faith in rationality is a result of indoctrination, just as much as anyones belief in God. This is not a conversation that is going to reach a definitive conclusion, it simply comes down to two fundamentally different, but equally subjective, views of existence.
 
Old 18th February 2005, 07:22 AM   #39
Sierra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

What I came here to announce is that people need to stop waiting for an invisible man to solve their problems.

Recognizing that there is no god feed unbridled self-reliance. Religion fosters dependence. It is exactly like a drug.

The problem is that those who insist on relying on the religous crutch all too often forego their responsibilities and then either pray to be saved or ask that society at large step in and save them.

I once saw on TV here in the US a group of people, who, when faced with the prospect of a hurricane roaring down on North Carolina, ran down to their church and began praying. They had them on the news. "Dear lord, please turn this dread storm back out to sea..............."

These same people will want donations when they lose their possessions because they "did not have time" to board up their windows.

Believe if you wish.

There is no god.

D
 
Old 18th February 2005, 03:53 PM   #40
Dave
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,576
Re: There is no god

So round and round we go!!

Travis seems finally to have nailed the "proof" issue - it's neither possible nor useful to talk of proofs.

We come back then to utilitarian arguements - Sierra chooses to riducule and charicature those believing in God, whilst at the same time being offended if we don't take on his opinions. Yet in an earlier post he indicated a desire to "stay drunk all the time, read pornography and buy lottery tickets" (and live next door to me!!). Nihilism (a belief that there is nothing beyond us, and that all is as a consequence of chance) logically leads to such outcomes - after all why care about the future, the society or others? It's entirely self consistent, and works for a few generations and then breaks down - anthropology has plenty of examples of civilisations that took this path - and died out.

Deistic societies generally have constructed a social order, based upon a set of rules and customs that have steadily increased the productive energy of society and have progressed. Interestingly, and here you have to go back to the works of J D Unwin in the 1930's, these societies tend to stagnate or regress when the regulation of sexual behaviour starts to break down.

Moving down one level, from civilisations to societies, it's interesting to note that the vast majority of voluntary caring work, social care etc is provided by those involved with some form of religion (Christians in the UK and US, but I dare say other religions in their own societies). Their belief systems typically require care for the weak, vulnerable etc.

I am not arguing that historically some pretty terrible things have been done in the name of various religions. But then if you take Nazism, Marxism, Phol Pot to name but three from the last 100 years, all fundamentally nihilist and atheist, their track record doesn't look so rosy either. One can probably draw the conclusion that attempting to impose any belief system by force is genrally not productive.

At a purely personal level the belief in a God is useful too. Sierra, you castigate those who believe in this way as being "dependant" - well actually we all are - take a look at Maslow's heirarchy of needs - dependency (emotionally) is critical to the evolution of the species in his view - it guides survival. The difference is that if I believe in a God who meets my needs, then I am freed from seeking satisfaction of the needs from those around me - I have a far wider range of responses available to me (You'd need to read some of Larry Crabb's psychology work to go further with this). What it fundamentally allows me to do is to have non-manipulative relationships based upon unconditional self surrender. Probably doesn't sound very attractive to you, but trust me this is the only route to total intimacy with another, the joys and pleasures of which defy description.

Finally, at a purely pragmatic level, if I am right about a God and afterlife, and have lived a pleasing life to God, then I will have the possibility of some further existence. If I am wrong, and there is nothng, then I will have lost nothing. If you take the alternative view believing there is nothing, and living accordingly, and there does turn out to be a God and afterlife, then you could be in for a really nasty shock!! This is a "minimum regret" strategy for those into Game theory.

So in summary, since we have dispensed with the "prove it" line (and a Philosophical approach), and now turn to tests of usefulness, let's have a mature discussion about whether a belief in a God is more or less useful - we can do this in the spheres of anthropology, sociology or psychology - I have breifly outlined some issues in each.

Do please set out your stall in any or all of these, but let's please do it by outlining why it works from our perspective instead of your usual style of attempted character assasination of others views by ridicule - let's move a more mature debate.
Dave
Dave is offline  
Old 18th February 2005, 07:24 PM   #41
S-H
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

Wow! Well hello everyone. I must say his has been a very interesting and educational read. I really don't think there is anything I can add to either side. The problems and arguements have been chewed over and then chewed once more. But I just have one small question that has been bugging me ever since opening this topic...

What is the point behind this discussion?

There have been countless complaints in this topic at Christians 'shoving their beliefs down people's throats' and 'trying to convert people'. But i must ask what on earth was the point behind this topic except for to 'push the belief down people's throat' that 'there is no God'?

Correct me if I am wrong (as I am sure someone will), but is not this topic merely an attempt to 'convert' christians away from their beliefs? Why is it not possible to accept that we believe one thing and you believe something else? I understand that there are many Christians out there who may feel the need to actively 'convert' people but as far as I have seen the need to convert people is not apparent on this forum. Instead the tables are turned and it is an attempt to stop people believing in God !?! It seems a little hypocritical.... What is the point?

I'm afraid I have a dislike of confict and so that part of my personality has prompted me to question the point of throwing the same arguements back and forth at each other when neither side wishes to change their minds and people are merely getting frustrated. However, if people still feel there is a need to do this, feel free, knock yourselves out!

S-H
 
Old 18th February 2005, 11:06 PM   #42
Sierra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

The point is that many perople either create or increase their suffering in life while they await the intervention of a non-existant god.

Look at all the people here who are seeking widespread prayer to save their marriage here.

It is sad and unfortunate that people invoke these things rather that recognizing the success or failure of the endeavor is entirely within their (collectively) hands.

There is no "god" to save your marriage. No "spirit" that will cure a sick child and no diety to invoke to help with any number of causes of suffering. You spouse did not leave you because the "devil" got hold of her and "god" is not going to drive this devil out.

"God" the bible and christianity have been little more than a cuase of immeasurable suffering and self denial for centuries.

It is time people broaden their minds, stop living under the boot of a god who's "wrath" needs to be feared and go forth and take affirmative charge of their lives.

"We find collected in this book [The Bible] the superstitious beliefs of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, with indistinct echoes of Indian and Persian fables, mistaken imitation of Egyptian theories and customs, historical chronicles as dry as they are unreliable and miscellaneous poems, amatory, human and Jewish-national, which is rarely distinguished by beauties of the highest order but frequently by superfluity of expression, coarseness, bad taste, and genuine Oriental sensuality." Max Nordau (1849-1923)

There is no god.

Live you life for you.

D
 
Old 18th February 2005, 11:08 PM   #43
Sierra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

P.S. - I am not trying to "Character assasinate" anyone. Being told you need to think and stop being a mindless deciple is not character assasination.

D
 
Old 18th February 2005, 11:17 PM   #44
Naomi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: There is no god

No it's just insulting because you are saying that anyone who believes in God is a mindless disciple who never thinks.

I'm a trained scientist who thinks very deeply about life yet I have come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the God who cares deeply for every human being and who gives hope to many in a difficult world. That hope does not make us lean on Him in the helpless way you describe, but frees us to face our problems and live life to the full.

You have a very distorted view of Christianity, but that's the way you see it and you're welcome to it.

Naomi
 
Old 18th February 2005, 11:40 PM   #45
Dave
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,576
Re: There is no god

OK - time to draw a line under this I think


My thanks to all who posted and developed some of the discussion.

Sierra I'm saddened that you felt unable to take up the challenge of arguing why your atheistic views were more utilitarian than those who base their lives on a belief that there is a God. Once again you decided to try to rubbish the opposition instead of developing any kind of positive argument at any level from your viewpoint.

I guess that's just Nihilism in action!!

Thread Closed

Dave
Dave is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 +1. The time now is 12:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Top

Copyright ©1999-2024 2-in-2-1 Limited. All rights reserved. Disclaimer