It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists.

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What's your stance on infinity?


Clarify please. Do you mean "eternity"?


Have you got faith that infinity is not true and that it is some super entity with rules matching man-made religion's rules?


Since "infinity" has never been observed by anyone in any form it's existence must rely on faith. "Eternity" on the other hand is outside the space time dimension, I have faith it exists because we have an integrated message system from a source outside the space time dimension. Einstein showed us that time is a physical property, it's affected by gravity, mass and acceleration.


You make up a theory regarding any issue, physics, maths or the cause of the universe, then it is up to you to back up your claims with evidence, otherwise YOU are the person with faith. Not the non-believer in your theory.


Everyone has faith about the origin of the universe. It's neither testable nor repeatable for observation.


Do you have faith in regards to the flying spagetti monster? By your logic, you do.


Logically speaking, of course I do. I have faith that I'm correct in thinking the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't exist. I have no way of KNOWING, but my faith is reasonable that this monster is a figment of the imagination.


It's either faith or a lack of faith - Learn that before you use that old chesnut again.


No dice. Both positions are faith-based. Atheists have faith that God is imaginary and doesn't exist in any dimension, known or unknown. Theists have faith that God does exist.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Since "infinity" has never been observed by anyone in any form it's existence must rely on faith. "Eternity" on the other hand is outside the space time dimension, I have faith it exists because we have an integrated message system from a source outside the space time dimension. Einstein showed us that time is a physical property, it's affected by gravity, mass and acceleration.


You can't prove Eternity exists (Infinity may be possible and may have a start, or there may not be a start, no causation), infinity is a concept, and YES it would require faith to believe infinity was reality and that there were no "finite" boundaries to existence as a whole. It would require faith (whether it's true or false)

God is the same, except God isn't even a mathematical concept, there's no logical or empirical evidence that leads to that conclusion, no theory that i can find deserving of credibility in regards to "GOD".

You have "Faith" in a particular theory, a theory which has no evidence (LOGICAL OR EMPIRICAL) I don't have faith in it, it's as simple as that.

You can't prove God, you have to accept that you could be wrong, being wrong is an inherent risk you take when you have "faith" in a theory. I don't consider faith a virtue. "Faith" is just a guessing game.

Something is either "true" or it isn't. if you are unable to know, then you should suspend judgement and belief.

I won't argue further with you as you are committed to your beliefs and ideologies.

Thanks for the discussion. Other readers, i urge you to study different philosophical viewpoints and educate yourself in the scientific method.

Something is either "true" or it isn't. if you are unable to know, then you should suspend judgement and belief (or accept that if you have belief without evidence, you may be proved wrong in the future.)
edit on 23/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by sinohptik
 


My own education was of a rather liberal type, where I learned to learn, rather than passively absorbing data. But I'm still glad for the formal aspects, because they have given a possibility of understanding the basic positions of various models or systematic methodologies.


i do feel the data itself is not a bad thing, you know? its the focus on it that becomes a problem. it gives rise to certain inevitable idealogies and programming. perhaps this is not necessarily the case in your country though? i am quick to realize that the US and its education system is lagging behind the rest of the world. I think that "learning learning" must use data though. i have always felt that the more models and systematic methodologies one not only "memorizes," but becomes as intimately familiar with as their own, is a fantastic amazing thing




Quote: [" It would seem in such experiences as "enlightenment," that literally nothing changes except for the individuals perspective on the universe. nothing!"]

You won't find me a stranger or opponent to either trans-mundane or anomaly experiences. Quite the contrary. But I like to have 'inclusive' approaches, where also e.g. 'objective' positions can be considered. So while I privately accept anomaly/trans-mundane phenomena I don't want to push them publicly.

Quote: ["Oh, dont be fooled, i have hidden agendas"]

Hehe again. No not anymore, you don't . I ofcourse still don't know their precise character though.




I personally have zero issues speaking publicly about how i view life. time is too short, and i know im "wrong" anyway. at least wrong in the sense of not being aware of so much that happens continuously even in the physical universe and the math behind it. no contained system can perceive its container in its totality. However, my agendas have little to do with that
If you actually try figuring it out, send a U2U!



Generally I agree with much of what you say about the direct experience of existence (if that's the proper way to compress your words).


It is
"Every thought and movement we make to understand "it" takes us one step further away"



Maybe the following small thread I'm participating in can add something on this. Because of my lousy computer-skills, I'll both write the name of the thread and try to create a link.

"Christians, why are you afraid of adapting other philosophies too?" (On religion, faith and theology)


I followed along for a bit on that one, but ill check back again. If anything, i am a zen buddhist, but that is a contradictory statement in the highest degree
so, i tend to just claim christianity in the respect that jesus' message of "Love one another as God loves you" is simply a different conceptualization for the chosen base to my very being, and the actions that stem from it. most have distinct trouble understanding the.. "open" nature of my conceptualized beliefs, so i find its easier to discuss on playing fields that others are at least partially familiar with. ill check it out now



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 



"Love one another as God loves you"


Love one another as God loves the african child born with aids? Or the child who is born on a climatic knifedge, where it rarely reaches adolescence? Love other humans like God loves those? I think i've got a little bit more compassion for my fellow species.

I'd rather not love that "God", whether "he" "she" or "it" exists or not. I don't respect people who love this entity. I won't pretend to either.
edit on 23/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   


Hitchens with some intellectual honesty right here.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You can't prove Eternity exists (Infinity may be possible and may have a start, or there may not be a start, no causation), infinity is a concept, and YES it would require faith to believe infinity was reality and that there were no "finite" boundaries to existence as a whole. It would require faith (whether it's true or false)


Not true, 21st century Physics and Quantum Physics has proved that infinity is impossible, both in the micro and macrocosms. The universe is finite, and there is a finite boundary to the microcosm as well. if something gets smaller than 10 to the minus 36 centimeters it's photons lose "locality" and are everywhere at once. Eternity is a reliable fact since Einstein showed that time is not linear, space time is a physical property and has not always existed. Time varies with gravity, mass, and acceleration. "Eternity" is NOT a linear timeline. It makes great poetry to say that eternity is lots and lots of time, but that's bad physics.


God is the same, except God isn't even a mathematical concept, there's no logical or empirical evidence that leads to that conclusion, no theory that i can find deserving of credibility in regards to "GOD".


B.S. there are only 3 ways the universe can exist as we see it today.

1. The universe created itself from nothing.
2. The universe has always existed.
3. The universe was created by X.

Options 1 and 2 are impossible, therefore option 3 is the only rational conclusion.


You have "Faith" in a particular theory, a theory which has no evidence (LOGICAL OR EMPIRICAL) I don't have faith in it, it's as simple as that.


I never said you have faith in MY theory. But you have faith in YOUR theory. Your theory is that God is a figment of man's imaginations. You cannot "know" if your theory is correct without the attributes of God, therefore your theory is also based upon faith.


You can't prove God, you have to accept that you could be wrong, being wrong is an inherent risk you take when you have "faith" in a theory. I don't consider faith a virtue. "Faith" is just a guessing game.


True, but faith can either be rational or irrational. I only need 1 evidence for me to have a rational faith, you need the attributes of God for your faith to be rational.


Something is either "true" or it isn't. if you are unable to know, then you should suspend judgement and belief.


Absurd. We would never be able to do science if your claim were accurate.


I won't argue further with you as you are committed to your beliefs and ideologies.


You've said this before, but okay.


Something is either "true" or it isn't. if you are unable to know, then you should suspend judgement and belief (or accept that if you have belief without evidence, you may be proved wrong in the future.)


I agree completely.
edit on 23-2-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
You can't prove Eternity exists (Infinity may be possible and may have a start, or there may not be a start, no causation), infinity is a concept, and YES it would require faith to believe infinity was reality and that there were no "finite" boundaries to existence as a whole. It would require faith (whether it's true or false)


"Infinite" is simply a mathematical term that means "immeasurable". Something can be "infinitely small" or "infinitely large", that just means that it cannot be measured.

Eternity, on the other hand, simply means something which was not created and cannot be destroyed, and one can't duck that notion, no matter which way you lean.

For example, do you believe that the universe was created, or just is? If the second, then this is a notion of eternity. If the first, what do you believe the universe was created out of, "stuff" or "nothing"? If the second, you're going to have a pretty tough time making your case work within the laws of physics, and if the first, you're back to the question again -- was the "stuff" created, or has it just always existed?

All things are either one of two things -- they were created, or they are eternal. Simply saying that this universe was created out of the "stuff" of a previous universe doesn't help, it just pushes the question back -- the whole "it's turtles all the way down" problem.

Eternity is a concept that people who believe that there is nothing more than the "sensible" (as in "can be sensed") world would like to avoid, but it is, ultimately, a variable that need be taken into account.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by sinohptik
 

Nope. You're trying to be clever, but a single letter rebuts your entire point here. An s


So, it is a trap then?
One must attack multiple atheists to be on topic? what was that you said about semantics? It seems i am not the one trying to be clever... The thread has given you exactly what you asked for.



The court system is nothing like science. It has no peer-review, it is not founded in repeatable, testable claims. The courts also only rule on law, just like science only rules on the natural world. The rest is handled by philosophy.


How do appeals mix into that (repeatable), or a jury of peers (peer-review), or forensic evidence (testable)?

More importantly, for one that espouses such knowledge about science and the inner-workings of the entire industry, what scientific pursuits do you personally partake in? professionally or personally.




You can admit it to me, you just like arguing semantics and doing mental gymnastics



Nope, I'm not arguing the semantics, the courts are wrong.


you believe what they say (and the meaning behind it) is wrong? but do you disagree with the action that places protection and equality on atheism? this is a trap, by the way




I have not called anyone intellectually bankrupt, because even the most ardent believers have some level of intellectual prowess, some even excel. I do call positions intellectually bankrupt, which is an entirely different matter.


and you say you dont argue semantics?



I actually happen to know quite a bit about Constitutional law, though I do admit that my memory of court rulings has gone away as I've not flexed it. I even considered going into it as my career at one point.

I do know a few other things, like the definition of the word: "semantics".


and you say you dont argue semantics?

are you taking a position just to argue, or did you really miss the point of my statement by that wide of a margin? Do you think you can learn anything from anyone else? or are you more interested in fortifying your already established bias towards the world? Dont be so quick to answer this to me... the action is quite clear, whereas the "jury is still out" on the semantics. thats a joke, by the way


the meanings of words, at least in their application, varies. the dictionary definition of "chair" does not tell of the designs of the legs or cushion
Of course, one might be led to the idea that their image of legs and the cushion is "right" where as, inevitably, all others are viewed as "wrong." This can even be objectively and visually laid out, with no change in the "right/wrong" perspective.

Do you see how such a thing applies? If so, lets learn from both of our limited perspectives.

If not, well, lets go ahead and agree to disagree. That would be the most productive decision!

I was just curious as to the claim of an "attack against an atheist" being off topic in a thread titled "Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists." I have now gained the understanding that such attacks must be done against several atheists at once to be on topic and "acceptable." or something like that



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



For example, do you believe that the universe was created, or just is? If the second, then this is a notion of eternity.


I don't profess a belief in either theory - i don't have evidence - i don't know the truth.

This is the causation argument, there are a few options in regards to inifinty.

1) Reality had an initial spark, there was a beginning but there is no end, from 0 to infinity.

2) Reality has and always will be, it's immeasurable, it's infinite.

Of course infinity is just a mathematical concept, perhaps "Pi" goes on forever, it keeps occuring no matter what, there are no finite boundaries.

This is why i cannot submit to any God theory because reality COULD be infinity. Labelling "infinity" as God is simply the pantheism stance; Look at what nature does and call it "GOD".

Besides, a creator/source always begs the question, what was the creator of the creator, or the reality that the creator existed on. It's an infinite regress....
edit on 23/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
 



For example, do you believe that the universe was created, or just is? If the second, then this is a notion of eternity.


I don't profess a belief in either theory - i don't have evidence - i don't know the truth.


Nor do I.


1) Reality had an initial spark, there was a beginning but there is no end, from 0 to infinity.


Fine, but you're ducking the question. What was reality created out of -- something or nothing? If something, where did that come from, if nothing, the laws of physics say that's impossible, so how does that work?


2) Reality has and always will be, it's immeasurable, it's infinite.


In which case, it is eternal, as being without beginning or end is eternal. Infinite means that its duration cannot be measured, which is true, but this is not a unique characteristic, while being eternal is.


Besides, a creator/source always begs the question, what was the creator of the creator, or the reality that the creator existed on. It's an infinite regress


Well, if one accepts that the universe can be a non-created thing, then why not something apart from the universe? And it handily answers the other question -- because the universe cannot create itself out of nothing, but, theoretically, an omnipotent eternal entity could.

Pantheism doesn't work for the simple reason that the creator cannot be part of what has been created.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


i do not require, or even expect, any respect from you awake_. i make that quite clear in many posts. how you view this one, is not relevant to anyone other than yourself
i attempt to learn from it, but in the end, the conclusions made will be of my own volition, understanding, and action, as it is with everyone. the differences between perspectives can truly be immense (as in "different" universe). though, as you have said, my idea of what the "chair" is, is not relevant to you or your discussions.

you have your idea of god, and i have my idea of god. neither one of us is right, in totality, on anything. you have no conceptualization of what my idea is (due to your own decisions on the topic), and are leaping to conclusions based off of your own limited understanding of the universe around you (and in you), and applying these assumptions to another individual iterative perspective.

beyond that, dont be so quick to let religion and your limited idea of god absolve humanity for the responsibility of their own actions. whether or not your concept of god exists, we have the food to feed the hungry, we have the medicine to heal the sick. these situations are a repercussion from actions and decisions made by the small system of humans. they are also subject to our own views on how we think the world should be. Such "utopian" views would lead to just as serious of problems in other arenas. either way, it seems most (including myself at one point) would rather point the finger at religion or god itself, and not the free will decisions made by the human individuals involved and the last place that finger will point is towards oneself.

however, i do believe we have already agreed to disagree in "totality," no? lets keep that up
i dont need to interact with you directly to learn about/from you, and you are not interested in learning about/from me. the solution seems pretty clear



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Fine, but you're ducking the question. What was reality created out of -- something or nothing? If something, where did that come from, if nothing, the laws of physics say that's impossible, so how does that work?


You should rephrase that to our "based on current understanding of the laws of physics"

And i don't know. I'm certainly not going to assume one specific possibility and assert a belief structure in that direction alone. Again, i don't belief faith is a virtue, i believe assumptions regarding reality are infact what an assumption is irrational. Like assuming there's no trafic left or right so just accelerating out anyway.

No empirical or logical evidence for a deity. There need not be any more said. It doesn't take faith to disbelief an irrational and unprovable theory.

Other unprovable theories (metaphysical) such as the "Multiverse" are proposed based on the findings and mathematics regarding quantam mechanics, if anything - these hypothesis are formed using mathematical principles that exist within reality. They are still unprovable though.

God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis but it's a fictional antropomorphisation of reality, an attempt to personify and rationalise without any evidence to do so. GOD can only be rationalised by means of philosophical circularism.

Deism - Belief in a deity, they don't claim to understand "GOD"'s description or wishes. (no evidence)
Theism - Belief in a diety, claim to understand God, and what God's wishes are. (no evidence)
Atheism - Lacks a belief in a deity (no evidence)

I think Agnostic Atheism is the most honest and humble stance to take regarding "GOD" - It's open-ended, i'm willing to be proved wrong with my belief to renounce my lack of belief in light of irrefutable evidence. It would take alot of Proof to prove a specific religion true, let alone God existing.

I'm not going to dilute the minds of children, i would never be dishonest. I would never attempt to polarize morality implying the objective commandments of a super deity. Morality is subjective, objective morality is an illusion, we just attribute objectivity to morals.

That's my stance, I don't think i need explain myself further, it's pretty obvious.

I'll leave with another favourite of mine:-



sinohptik, i know you wern't asking for respect, it was directing to you specifically.
edit on 23/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
 



Fine, but you're ducking the question. What was reality created out of -- something or nothing? If something, where did that come from, if nothing, the laws of physics say that's impossible, so how does that work?


You should rephrase that to our "based on current understanding of the laws of physics"


Nope, those old laws of thermodynamics are pretty well set in stone -- they are the foundation that reality is built upon, and if they weren't universal, constant and what they are, neither you, nor I, nor anything, most likely, would be here.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, perpetual motion is impossible (in an environment that has friction) and you can't create anything (much less all that there is) out of nothing.


And i don't know. I'm certainly not going to assume one specific possibility and assert a belief structure in that direction alone.


Nobody says that you have to, because there's nothing wrong with saying that you don't know. I don't know, either. Though it came, in part, through working through things like this, my faith is quite apart from such musings, neither dependent on it, nor really answering much of it.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis but it's a fictional antropomorphisation of reality, an attempt to personify and rationalise without any evidence to do so. GOD can only be rationalised by means of philosophical circularism.


The problem with your statement is that you start out rationally ("God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis") but then jump to a speculation ("it's a fictional antropomorphisation of reality") that refutes your prior rational statement. And then you really go off the deep end with "without any evidence to do so", applying your own perceived lack of evidence to the world at large.

I can assure you that there are millions of people, including myself, who have had our "evidence threshold" met and passed. There is not simply "some" evidence, there is a preponderance of it. I believe, very much, that you have never seen evidence of anything apart from the sensible world, so the obvious question is "why?" (to which you would answer "because there is none" and my answer would be "because you don't notice it" and the Calvinist's answer is "because you are prevented from noticing it.")

Sadly, because I don't like it, the more I talk to non-believers, the more I lean towards the doctrine of double predestination of Calvinism, because there seems to be something far greater than recalcitrance going on.


I'll leave with another favourite of mine:-


Well, you should know by now that I don't watch videos, so I suppose that it's intended for someone else.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



The problem with your statement is that you start out rationally ("God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis") but then jump to a speculation ("it's a fictional antropomorphisation of reality") that refutes your prior rational statement.


Not at all.

It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, i.e. there is no evidence to prove such an entity.

For that reason, i believe anyone claiming to profess "truth" of God (religion) is merely conjuring descriptions, normally personified, many Christians used to think natural phenenomen or catastrophe were punishment or displays of "GOD". We soon removed that prejudice.

So far, i don't think there's any reason to ASSUME a creator. Faith is exactly that, an assumption of truth. Again, you must consider you run the risk of being proved wrong. That is my point, i suspend judgement or belief, i certainly don't accept unfalsifiable hypothesis or have any particular faith in them.
edit on 23/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



That is my point, i suspend judgement or belief, i certainly don't accept unfalsifiable hypothesis or have any particular faith in them.


Let's test that..

Do you believe in the "Big Bang" theory or Abiogenesis?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Big Bang isn't an unfalsifiable hypothesis (see. Red Shift)

Evidence to warrant the acceptance of principle that matter is expanding from central point.

It's an ongoing theory that can be improved, but the facts are there to verify most of the theories claims. As is Abiogenesis. No one claims to have a definitive theory an absolute mathematical or biological understanding of it.

That's science, provide convincing evidence for your claims and it will attract interest.

Scientists are working on a grand unifying theory, this would have to encompass fundamental physics of reality, life and most importantly concsioussness.

I would sooner put "faith" or belief in scientific theories than pseudo-scientific assumptions. They are rationally formed theories - The goal is to determine the nature of reality....

How does religion rationalise it's theory? What's it's goal? Is it logical? Is it truthful? Show me the evidence and argument that would warrant or justify my commitment.


edit on 23/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a&a


It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, ...


... Again, you must consider you run the risk of being proved wrong.

At the very least, I would have hoped you could straighten that one out. If a hypothesis is, in fact, unfalsifiable, then there is no possibility whatsoever of its being proved wrong.

BTW, unfalsfiability is not a defect. Tautologies are examples of unfalsifiable propositions that are both true and known to be true. Unfalsfiability simply means that if Karl Popper were still alive, that he would say that the matter was outside the scope of scientific inquiry. That is, the question has something in common with mathematics, logic, and Karl's own profession, philosophy, in his opinion.


Faith is exactly that, an assumption of truth.

All discursive reasoning, whether syntactic, formal, ... begins with assumptions. If the reasoning draws as its conclusions truth claims, then some of those assumptions must be "of truth."

This is all very elementary.

It's also not so clear that Faith in all Christian conceptions is the adoption of truth assumptions. It may have been for some individuals (Thomas Aquinas would be a prime suspect), but not necessarily for others (Saint Paul, I think, although based on a slender record).

Of course, you're entitled to your belief about that, but you produce no evidence and the proposition is far from obvious. I guess I'll just mark it down as yet another unsupported belief typical of atheist religious orthodoxy.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Big Bang isn't an unfalsifiable hypothesis (see. Red Shift)


I agree completely, thank you.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Belief in scientific principles rests on evidence, not faith.. I believe that abiogenesis might have happened, but that's only because there is evidence to show that it is possible. While this evidence isn't definitive, it's enough to say that it's more than possible.

The Big Bang? Well, the universe is expanding. There's quite a lot of evidence in support of it. I'd say the general premise of a universe which emerged from a single expansion event of previously extant matter/energy makes more than a bit of sense with regards to the present evidence.

Now, religious 'belief' and scientific 'belief' are two separate terms. Religious beliefs are not based in the same evidence and experimentation and rely on trust in the belief itself rather than in the evidence surrounding it. It is, in fact, considered the highest principle in religious traditions, particularly in yours, to be able to believe not only that which has no evidence to support it, but to believe in that which is in opposition to the evidence (like a global flood as explained in the story of Noah, a 6 day creation in which plants precede the sun, the sun 'standing still in the sky' even though the Earth's rotation is what causes the appearance of the movement of the sun, people coming out of there graves and walking about without a single documentation of it in contemporary history, etc).

Scientific 'belief' rests on the idea that you can trust the evidence as it has been presented. I don't have 'faith' in my computer. I trust it. Why? Well, it consistently works. It gives out the appropriate outputs based upon inputs. If I use the calculator and ask for the answer to 10! I get 3628800 every time. It's trust in results, not trust in a belief.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join