Jump to content


Photo

Hi Noob Here


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
37 replies to this topic

#21 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 05:40 AM

Actually, yes you can “believe” in nothing, if you superimpose that believe over and above something else (or in this case give “nothing” substance). The bottom line is, if you say you don’t believe in something, you are “De facto” believing in it’s opposite. 
Again, a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in it’s opposite. And, if you defend that belief dogmatically (which I predict you are about to do) it does fit within the definition of religion.

re·li·gion

NOUN:

   1.
         1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
         2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
   2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
   3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
   4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast ; see rely

http://education.yah.../entry/religion

re·li·gion

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

View Post

You would assume wrong Ron, I know exactly how you will respond to every response through observation and previous posts from you; so no I will not 'dogmatically' argue this point with you. I just have one question, how do you know that you are the one who is right?

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 May 2010 - 08:25 AM

You would assume wrong Ron, I know exactly how you will respond to every response through observation and previous posts from you; so no I will not 'dogmatically' argue this point with you. 

View Post


I am assuming nothing blades, I am speaking facts as proven by logic and science. And by your dogmatic argumentation (Yes you are being dogmatic) for your unproven worldview, you have thusly provided credence for my assertion. And you know how I’ll respond because you have no refutation for said responses. And yet this is the same reason you are silent on said evidences, but will come to forums like these and dogmatically defend your religion of nothing.

I just have one question, how do you know that you are the one who is right?

View Post


Quite simply, Mr.Razorblades; because the atheist believes the unproven assumption that we come from nothing, and are going to nothing. Which is an unproven and illogical assumption of a worldview.

Why, because we have absolutely no logical, rational, philosophical or scientific evidence that anything can come from nothing for; “from nothing, nothing comes” (see The Principle of Causality). And, because all of the logical, philosophical and scientific evidence (both inductive and deductive) we have supports the fact that “from nothing, nothing comes”. This first principle is a “self-evident” truth.

And for these (and many other reason) the atheist cannot answer the question; “Why is there something rather than nothing?” And the simple reason that I can say you are incorrect, and the probability that I am correct is supported by a vast amount of evidence.

#23 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:04 AM

I am assuming nothing blades, I am speaking facts as proven by logic and science.  And by your dogmatic argumentation (Yes you are being dogmatic) for your unproven worldview, you have thusly provided credence for my assertion. And you know how I’ll respond because you have no refutation for said responses. And yet this is the same reason you are silent on said evidences, but will come to forums like these and dogmatically defend your religion of nothing.

So you're using logic and science to prove that I'm dogmatic? Is that what you're saying here? My worldview is in the same sense just as unproven as yours, so stating that mine is such is equal to you stating that yours is unproven as well; which goes against your beliefs completely making your statement a contradiction. Please support your claim of me acting 'dogmatic' by showing where exactly I have been dogmatic, and when you can't I know you will not admit to you being fallacious in regards to that statement as I expect you will. I am not supplying you with a refutation because YOU WILL NOT LOOK AT IT, ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND IT, OR USE ANY LOGICAL DEDUCTION besides "that's not what I believe in so it's not true" or any other various form of denial based statements. For you to arrogantly assume that I have not one bit of evidence pisses (I assume I can use this word because moderation used it very recently) me off. This is the creationist tactic, which unfortunately works, of denying evidence when shown to them that subsequently annoys the provider of evidence so much that they leave; and then you have the audacity to claim victory when this happens.

I have no religion. I do not believe in a God just as much as I don't believe my chair will eat me when I sit on it. So using your other favorite tactic of "Well because you believe evolution or that you believe God doesn't exist that requires faith, which means you have a religion." Let's get this straight, if you're going to use the faith excuse as your ultimate cop out then you need to use it for everything. Faith that your legs will work in the morning, faith that the water you drink isn't poisoned, faith that the fork you eat your salad with won't magically disappear in your hand. Is there a God for each one of those faiths? Maybe a chair God, non poisoned water God, fork and salad God? It's these reasons why your faith argument ultimately fails, yet you continue to use it which is completely illogical and fallacious.

Quite simply, Mr.Razorblades; because the atheist believes the unproven assumption that we come from nothing, and are going to nothing. Which is an unproven and illogical assumption of a worldview.

You are lying again, and again, and again. You have been told that this is not what an atheist believes. What if I said that christians believe that their God wore a tuxedo and top hat while sipping champagne after he created everything there is? I could use your logic and say that "this is what I've been told time and time again, so it has to be true"; I bet you would get angry at that, or laugh at the prepostorous idea. You need to get your facts straight before you start to tell me what I beleive. Like I said before, you saying that my worldview is unproven is equal to your worldview being unproven making your statement a contradiction. Which one is it Ron?

Why, because we have absolutely no logical, rational, philosophical or scientific evidence that anything can come from nothing for; “from nothing, nothing comes” (see The Principle of Causality). And, because all of the logical, philosophical and scientific evidence (both inductive and deductive) we have supports the fact that “from nothing, nothing comes”. This first principle is a “self-evident” truth.

Research the physics concept of "nothing" Ron before you speak this tripe anymore.

And for these (and many other reason) the atheist cannot answer the question; “Why is there something rather than nothing?” And the simple reason that I can say you are incorrect, and the probability that I am correct is supported by a vast amount of evidence.

BS, show me the evidence Ron, show me ONE piece of evidence right here, right now. As for your question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This may be hard for you to wrap your head around but the answer is because we exist. If there was nothing, then the concept of something would not exist thus making that question irrelevant and non-existant. To go ahead and fend off any snide remarks about me being angry while writing this reply:

I WAS ANGRY WHILE WRITING THIS REPLY BECAUSE OF THE DISHONEST CREATIONIST TACTICS ABUSED BY RON AND VARIOUS OTHER INDIVIDUALS ON THIS SITE, WHICH WOULD CONFOUND ANY RATIONAL PERSON.

Insert any emoticons as you fell necessary Eocene. :lol:
;) :blink:

#24 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:14 AM

[quote name='kenetiks' date='May 6 2010, 05:25 AM'][quoteof=Ron,May 6 2010, 05:25 AM]
Actually, yes you can “believe” in nothing, if you superimpose that believe over and above something else (or in this case give “nothing” substance). The bottom line is, if you say you don’t believe in something, you are “De facto” believing in it’s opposite. 
Again, a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in it’s opposite. And, if you defend that belief dogmatically (which I predict you are about to do) it does fit within the definition of religion.

re·li·gion

NOUN:

1.ck
      1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
      2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast ; see rely

http://education.yah.../entry/religion

re·li·gion

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun a la
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

View Post

[/quote]

I always failed to see the point of this argument. Why is a lack of belief a belief? Why is a lack of faith a faith?

I always did fail to see the logic.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:23 AM

I WAS ANGRY WHILE WRITING THIS REPLY BECAUSE OF THE DISHONEST CREATIONIST TACTICS ABUSED BY RON AND VARIOUS OTHER INDIVIDUALS ON THIS SITE, WHICH WOULD CONFOUND ANY RATIONAL PERSON. 

View Post


If evidence makes you angry blades, maybe you should see a professional. And I’m not saying this to be condescending, funny or trite. You can spout all the accusations you wish, but you have yet to refute one thing I’ve said thus far, you just thrown about massive amounts of unsubstantiated pabulum that can be best described as Elephant Hurling.

If you want to have a rational discourse, that is fine. But if you’re going to get your feelings hurt (or pretend you got your feelings hurt to increase the drama, and hide the fact that you have no refutation), you need to find a way to control yourself.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:35 AM

I always failed to see the point of this argument. Why is a lack of belief a belief? Why is a lack of faith a faith?

I always did fail to see the logic.

View Post


Faith is faith kenetiks, whether you believe for or against something. Faith is a strongly held set of beliefs or principles. In the case of an atheist, their lack of a belief in God (or a god/gods) is their belief that there is not a God (or god, or gods).

When you lack faith in one thing, you have faith in it’s opposite.

And the point of this argument is a strong one; otherwise the atheist would have an answer for it instead of remaining vague and ambiguous about it.

#27 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:38 AM

If evidence makes you angry blades, maybe you should see a professional. And I’m not saying this to be condescending, funny or trite. You can spout all the accusations you wish, but you have yet to refute one thing I’ve said thus far, you just thrown about massive amounts of unsubstantiated pabulum that can be best described as Elephant Hurling.

If you want to have a rational discourse, that is fine. But if you’re going to get your feelings hurt (or pretend you got your feelings hurt to increase the drama, and hide the fact that you have no refutation), you need to find a way to control yourself.

View Post

You misunderstand, my feelings aren't hurt at all. Though I do see that you ignored my request on showing me ONE piece of evidence. That you did does not suprise me in the least. You seem to be only able to fall on fallacies and accusatorial type denial strategies. For that I am sorry.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:59 AM

You misunderstand, my feelings aren't hurt at all.  Though I do see that you ignored my request on showing me ONE piece of evidence.  That you did does not suprise me in the least.  You seem to be only able to fall on fallacies and accusatorial type denial strategies.  For that I am sorry.

View Post


Because its a red herring. The atheist cannot answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” because the answer to that question is self evident. "From nothing, nothing comes".

And for you to posit a question to me showing you evidence backing up that assertion is quite easy; show me something coming from nothing! You know you cannot, so, at best, all you can do is hurl elephants, throw temper tantrums, equivocate and posit red herrings.

#29 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 10:08 AM

Because its a red herring. The atheist cannot answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” because the answer to that question is self evident. "From nothing, nothing comes".

And for you to posit a question to me showing you evidence backing up that assertion is quite easy; show me something coming from nothing! You know you cannot, so, at best, all you can do is hurl elephants, throw temper tantrums, equivocate and posit red herrings.

View Post

Wait, did you research the physics understanding of "nothing". I will not reply until you educate yourself on it. Call it what you will but you're lack of understanding and perpetual misunderstanding make it quite difficult to have any discourse with you. Once you educate yourself on it, then we'll talk about it. I gave you the answer to that question, whether you believe it or not is up to you.

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 May 2010 - 10:17 AM

Wait, did you research the physics understanding of "nothing".  I will not reply until you educate yourself on it.  Call it what you will but you're lack of understanding and perpetual misunderstanding make it quite difficult to have any discourse with you.  Once you educate yourself on it, then we'll talk about it.  I gave you the answer to that question, whether you believe it or not is up to you.

View Post


A hypothetical definition of nothing is still hypothetical. Now, if you want to provide some empirical evidence for nothing, have at it. But, you may want to quit hiding behind hypotheses. And quit pretending you gave an answer.

Also; I am quite well educated. And I continue seek higher education, as I believe once someone ceases to acquire knowledge, they becomes stagnant, and actually starts regressing (or losing knowledge).

#31 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 10:20 AM

A hypothetical definition of nothing is still hypothetical. Now, if you want to provide some empirical evidence for nothing, have at it. But, you may want to quit hiding behind hypotheses. And quit pretending you gave an answer.

Also; I am quite well educated. And I continue seek higher education, as I believe once someone ceases to acquire knowledge, they becomes stagnant, and actually starts regressing (or losing knowledge).

View Post

If you are educated then you should know that I'm not talking about a hypothetical definition of nothing. I'm talking about your misrepresentation of the word nothing, that you do not know what physicists mean when they say it, and to be honest a lot of physicists don't even really say nothing any more. So educate yourself on the non hypothetical definition of nothing from a physicists stand point and then we'll talk. Until then I can accurately assume that you do not know what it is. Here's a hint, nothing to a physicist is not a philosophical or hypothetical concept.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 May 2010 - 10:27 AM

If you are educated then you should know that I'm not talking about a hypothetical definition of nothing.  I'm talking about your misrepresentation of the word nothing, that you do not know what physicists mean when they say it, and to be honest a lot of physicists don't even really say nothing any more.  So educate yourself on the non hypothetical definition of nothing from a physicists stand point and then we'll talk.  Until then I can accurately assume that you do not know what it is.  Here's a hint, nothing to a physicist is not a philosophical or hypothetical concept.

View Post


Again, you haven’t provided a shred of evidence for this nothing you are attempting to posit as substantive. So here’s a hint, provide the empirical evidence.

#33 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2010 - 11:05 AM

Faith is faith kenetiks, whether you believe for or against something. Faith is a strongly held set of beliefs or principles. In the case of an atheist, their lack of a belief in God (or a god/gods) is their belief that there is not a God (or god, or gods).

When you lack faith in one thing, you have faith in it’s opposite.

And the point of this argument is a strong one; otherwise the atheist would have an answer for it instead of remaining vague and ambiguous about it.

View Post


The logic does not follow.

This is akin to saying a African-American is dark skinned only because he believes he's not Caucasian.

The lack-of-faith is faith argument gets you nowhere. And it is extremely disingenuous. It is an attempt to muddy the waters and deflect attention from the debate.

#34 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 11:26 AM

Again, you haven’t provided a shred of evidence for this nothing you are attempting to posit as substantive. So here’s a hint, provide the empirical evidence.

View Post

Ron, the evidence is as simple as google. You would find it if you wanted to, but seeing your reactions so far I don't think you want to know. I believe you are either to lazy to find it or just unwilling to find it while maintaining your current position. I will not put the information here, you're a grown man, you should be able to find it using your quite educated brain.

#35 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 May 2010 - 08:25 PM

Well, to use your terminology, I am an a-Loch Ness monsterist.
Correct. I do not belive that the Loch Ness monster, Yaweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Ganesha, nor your God exist.
If there is any kind of intelligence behind the question of "why is there anything?", then I find it equally unlikely to be any of the above.


That is because it's what you "want" for your reality. Like you say: If it's so, I'm sure it's not one of the above. You are honest with that comment, but to find truth in anything, one cannot be that bias.

Example: A lot of creationist do not believe that the Pangaea idea ever happened. I try to keep an open mind about such things and not always go with the majority view of the group belief. So this idea has stayed in my mind as a possibility just in case. And I have worked out that this happened in the Bible even though it does not mention it directly. The first crust expansion happened during creation when the earth was covered with water and that water had to go into one place (Bible terminology) in order for land to appear. This made the super continent.

The second expansion first required the crust to come back together as all the waters from underground came up, making the earth's crust come back together. The tectonic plates going back together pushed up the mountains we currently see. And made the diameter of the earth much smaller. And when the water for the flood went into the earth, Along with the water from the canopy. The earth expanded again but more this time because of the extra water. Splitting the land masses more to what we currently see.

If I were bias to the point that I said: Nothing from science or evolutionist could be right. I would have never came to this conclusion. So you have to ask yourself. Do you want a group truth, or do you want an individual truth? I'm looking for a truth that goes beyond the norm. Anyone can participate in a group truth. But majority view does not create new realities or new truths. And because I go for things beyond the norm, I get a lot of flack from my peers for doing so.

Not at all. The difference is that any groups of Loch Ness monsterists do not have much of an impact on my or my family's life. They do not attempt to introduce unsolicited Loch Ness monsterism into my daughter's school curriculum, impose restrictions on my freedom one day in seven because it's a special Loch Ness monster day, or try to remove a person's choices when it comes to their own body.


So who's rights should be stifled in favor of another? You seem okay with your rights having more rights than anyone Else's rights. The reason I say this is because I have yet to see any atheist settle for a compromise, only total removal of the rights of another. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I not to keen on your terminology, but basically yes. I have the same amount of faith in the existence your God as I do in the Loch Ness monster .
I'm not 'against' God; that would indeed be stupid. I'm 'against' the various religious groups that try to impose their rules on me.


Do you put as much effort in disproving the Loch Ness Monster as you do God? What would be the effort difference would you say?

Once again, I am not 'against' the Christian God, I am 'against' those who use what I consider to be a ficticious character to impact the way I live my life. I live in a society where Christianity is the dominant religion. Other religions don't have the potential impact me as much / at all. Where did you get that 98% statistic, by the way?


My world view as a devote YEC, what do you think I run into 98% of the time? So it's from personal observation. And again, are your rights more important than anyone else's? Because from what I understand, if most atheists had their way there would be no Christians on the face of this planet. Why do you think organizations like the Rational Response Squad are so popular among atheist? The owner's goal is to rid the planet of all Christians in less than 10 years, And they have how many supporters? And what God do they go up against with the blasphemy challenge? The Christian God.

If a group of people campaigned to require me to wash in the waters of Loch Ness whilst eating haggis once a week, then you are correct - going after Nessie herself would probably be futile. I'd be better off engaging in dialogue with these Loch Ness monsterists.
I'm not making fun of your belief, and I'm sorry you see it that way.


Well I believe that your belief in evolution is as dumb as pink unicorns, fairies, etc... Now, was I just making fun of what you believe or should I make that a part of every debate here and encourage every creationist here to do the same?

I don't think you understand the difference between willfully opposing a god one knows exists, opposing a god by pretending he/she doesn't exist, and actually thinking that the god doesn't exist.

View Post


The actions of you and your own peers confirm it. Can you name any other supernatural being that atheists come up against even 10% of how they come after the Christian God? And can you show me forums and websites soley run by atheist that are totally against any other supernatural being like so many are soley against the Christian God?

#36 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 06 May 2010 - 08:44 PM

The logic does not follow.

This is akin to saying a African-American is dark skinned only because he believes he's not Caucasian.

The lack-of-faith is faith argument gets you nowhere. And it is extremely disingenuous. It is an attempt to muddy the waters and deflect attention from the debate.

View Post


But you do understand that to actually say and believe that you have no faith at all, directly implies that you know absolutely everything. It is stating an absolute of absolutes... you solidly know what's going to happen... all the time, and what is going on in the future.

So, how do you support the idea that you have no faith? You cannot escape the illogic in saying you have no faith.

#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 May 2010 - 09:03 PM

Well I have let this thread run it's course, and now I'm going to close it. It was placed to stir up trouble. So I close it because it's not productive.

And I will close any other thread like this for the same reasons.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 July 2010 - 03:17 PM

Ron, the evidence is as simple as google.  You would find it if you wanted to, but seeing your reactions so far I don't think you want to know.  I believe you are either to lazy to find it or just unwilling to find it while maintaining your current position.  I will not put the information here, you're a grown man, you should be able to find it using your quite educated brain.

View Post



As we see here, blades kept hiding behind a hypothesis, pretending it were a fact. So, instead of providing substance for his assertions, he simply made personal attacks against me. This is known as the logical fallacy of the ad Hominem abusive. And it happens when the attackers case is so weak that they assault the character or circumstances of the individual who is advancing a statement or an argument, instead of trying to disprove the truth (solid foundation) of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

These are the types of actions that get the offender suspended or banned.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users