| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3385
Local time: 9:05 PM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
Hurt my feelings with sweeping generalizations, prove that every sinlge religion is false, prove a false postive, or whatever the fuck, wah,wah,wah,...
Ain't weaning and daiper rash just a bitch?
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2114
Local time: 6:05 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monkeybyte wrote: | Hurt my feelings with sweeping generalizations, prove that every sinlge religion is false, prove a false postive, or whatever the fuck, wah,wah,wah,...
Ain't weaning and daiper rash just a bitch? |
How hilarious, you can only talk shit, but you can't back shit up. It was just as I stated beforehand. And instead of owning up to your mistakes, you have to what, attempt to insult me again? You failed to do so the first time, yet you're going to attempt the same rehashed kindergarten slurs and argumentative misconstructions you packed your comments with last time. You can't even represent yourself intelligently, so don't try to represent what I've said because no doubt it'd be (and has been) skewed by your incompetent understanding.
Go dwindle your e-dick with some little ignorant kids or what ever gets your sadism going. I doubt anyone is impressed by your bullshit tactics and do-and-ditch style. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3385
Local time: 9:05 PM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's hilarious. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd gladly run through the same tired old shit with someone who wasn't a special ed student with antisocial personality disorder.
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2114
Local time: 6:05 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monkeybyte wrote: | | It's hilarious. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd gladly run through the same tired old shit with someone who wasn't a special ed student with antisocial personality disorder. |
There is no tired old shit here, other than yourself. You're ignorant of not only epistemology but on the basics of logic itself. You're ignorant of how to differentiate between what is your beliefs, and what is "the truth." To make up for your noticeable handicap in any debate concerning this topic or being built on the understanding of directional logic, you project your failures onto your opponents. The entirety of your "argument" is based numerous ways to insult and defame your opponent without actually making an assertion. When you do make an assertion, to avoid supporting it, you just fall back to "lolol shit I'll just insult him." Over time, it just gets to a point where you claim to have the "high ground" because you "know shit and the other person doesn't." You take your leave feeling all giddy inside where your opponents are just wondering what the fuck kind of drugs you're on. It's the pattern of most your little scrimmages here on this website. You choose the"ditch-and-run" methods because you are presently incapable of making a coherent argument. You just want to make it seem like you "know your shit." It doesn't work.
You're almost like Joe. However, the difference between Joe and you is than underneath that idiotic and dimwitted skin is a person (Joe) who actually does have some intelligence. Underneath your skin, perhaps where your "soul" might be, is this supermassive black hole sucking up any wit you once had. You're also attempting to provoke me like Joe, which is pointless. I enjoy writing these long, scathing critiques of your failures.
Oh and just to rub your feathers, I'm a physics major graduating with my Bachelors of Science this semester. At twenty years of age, I have a quite developed social life with numerous connections. Which, of course, I am able to have because unlike you, I don't spend a good chunk of my time on an atheist message board dawdling around in cyberspace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RyanDzundza
Sock Puppet
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 4497
Local time: 11:05 AM
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
is it just me or has 'shut the fuck up' become the most commmonly used phrase since dawkadoodle joined up 
_________________
Atheist/Religious Dialog Board |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pr126
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8030
Local time: 11:05 AM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dawkadoodle. Go on, put it on your sig.
And that charm school you attended? Ask for your money back.
_________________
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." Arthur C Clarke
Last edited by pr126 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Citizen X
Forum Plebian
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 175
Local time: 6:05 AM
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | "The truth is, Religion is a lie" is a gross generalisiation .... |
I agree, but...
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | which cannot be proven to be correct because you will have to prove every aspect of every religion, incorrect. |
This, I disagree. For example, Judaism's foundation is based upon the Genesis stories of Abraham and his subsequent 3 generations (Christianity and Islam foundation is also based on Genesis stories). Disprove Genesis, and the foundations of the three major world religions are destroyed. Of course, each of the three would begin to spout different interpretations in order to attempt to save face.
My point is, every aspect of every religion does not need to be disproved. Only the foundation of which every religion is founded upon. Still, a monumental task, but a doable task.
_________________
He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
Demands devotion, atrocities done in his name |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2114
Local time: 6:05 AM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Citizen X wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | "The truth is, Religion is a lie" is a gross generalisiation .... |
I agree, but...
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | which cannot be proven to be correct because you will have to prove every aspect of every religion, incorrect. |
This, I disagree. For example, Judaism's foundation is based upon the Genesis stories of Abraham and his subsequent 3 generations (Christianity and Islam foundation is also based on Genesis stories). Disprove Genesis, and the foundations of the three major world religions are destroyed. Of course, each of the three would begin to spout different interpretations in order to attempt to save face.
My point is, every aspect of every religion does not need to be disproved. Only the foundation of which every religion is founded upon. Still, a monumental task, but a doable task. |
Your point isn't a valid point. The problem with your point is that you assume that your interpretation of these religions and your subsequent "disprovable" of it, is both the correct interpretation and objective. Regardless if religions do "spout new interpretations" to avoid it, there is no way to validate that your interpretation is "truth" of that religion. So what religions do or don't do to "avoid it," is irrelevant. Various interpretations of Genesis and what would become Genesis, have existed since the conception of Judaism to the pre-Judaic Semitic religions. Your interpretation is local to you, to your understanding and to your biases. Disproving your interpretation, only disproves that religion, for yourself. It doesn't work on a grander scale as you once thought. There is no way to disprove (likewise, prove) every interpretation of Genesis, so your shortcut cannot work.
So yes, every aspect of every religion does need to be disproved for the entirety of religion, to be a lie. Because this is an absolute statement, and they're serious fucking business. If you make one, you need to back it the fuck up like a pile driver. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 986
Local time: 6:05 AM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would have to disagree dawk. With all due respect, but do I really need to prove every religion is false? Do I need to prove every childs fairy tale false in order to proclaim it so?
Does calling a theory a religion make it impervious to critical reasoning and judgement? Does saying a God is in fact not Santa Claus somehow make the claim less ridiculous?
I see no reason whatsoever that I would need to prove religion is a lie. Simply because you place more significance to your fairy tale in no way obligates me to consider extrodinary methods to invalidating it. It might in fact, be the only weapon you have. By making those who refuse to believe spend inordinate amounts of time to that end, you merely strengthen your position that it is a functioning proposal by default.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2114
Local time: 6:05 AM
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | I would have to disagree dawk. With all due respect, but do I really need to prove every religion is false? Do I need to prove every childs fairy tale false in order to proclaim it so?
Does calling a theory a religion make it impervious to critical reasoning and judgement? Does saying a God is in fact not Santa Claus somehow make the claim less ridiculous?
I see no reason whatsoever that I would need to prove religion is a lie. Simply because you place more significance to your fairy tale in no way obligates me to consider extrodinary methods to invalidating it. It might in fact, be the only weapon you have. By making those who refuse to believe spend inordinate amounts of time to that end, you merely strengthen your position that it is a functioning proposal by default. |
You cannot pick and choose how you approach this statement. Feel free to disagree, but regardless of whether you disagree or agree, if you make the statement and don't add any qualifier, you have to prove every aspesct of every religion false in order to call "Religion is a lie" the "truth." That's how the "Truth" is, it's objective and factual. Calling it the "truth" without validating it to be the "truth" is epistemologically incorrect and unintelligent. The statement "Religion is a lie" is merely a belief. You're aware that "Religion is a lie" is a belief, not a fact. Anyone sane person can draw that distinction.
So, why are you so hell bent on trying to get out of proving it? You don't need to prove it, for you to have that opinion. A belief is fine enough, yet you're vehemently arguing against proving it. Just don't prove it. Call it a belief, and let the fuck everyone get on with their life.
If you call every child's fairy tale false then yes, you would have to validate that in fact every child's fairy tale was false. However, that's impossible. I can think of several "fairy tales" that are factual or based on factual events. To call something false, it must be proven to be false. Your opinion just does not cut it. If you make a generalisation and call every thing of "A" false, then item "1" and item "65" which might be true, are then labeled false. Any direction you attempt to justify this, results in a great crop of bad logic.
The rest of your questions are irrelevant and I don't give a fuck about them anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monkeybyte
Forum Master
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 3385
Local time: 9:05 PM
Location: At E's place for tea.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | There is no tired old shit here, |
Yes there is, I could bother with it, but like I said, special ed student with anti-social personality disorder. As if you'd care, there have been theists coming here with said tired shit, but they've posted with enough sincerity to oblige civility.
| Quote: | | You're ignorant of not only epistemology but on the basics of logic itself. You're ignorant of how to differentiate between what is your beliefs, and what is "the truth." To make up for your noticeable handicap in any debate concerning this topic or being built on the understanding of directional logic, you project your failures onto your opponents. |
Guess I better add 'pathological projectionist'.
| Quote: | The entirety of your "argument" is based numerous ways to insult and defame your opponent without actually making an assertion. When you do make an assertion, to avoid supporting it, you just fall back to "lolol shit I'll just insult him."
|
 Ad nauseum.
| Quote: | | Over time, it just gets to a point where you claim to have the "high ground" because you "know shit and the other person doesn't." You take your leave feeling all giddy inside where your opponents are just wondering what the fuck kind of drugs you're on. It's the pattern of most your little scrimmages here on this website. You choose the"ditch-and-run" methods because you are presently incapable of making a coherent argument. You just want to make it seem like you "know your shit." It doesn't work. |
ad nauseum2
You've said it yourself, doodle, you don't give a fuck, you're just here to antagonize, so I'm under no obligation to feign decency with you, but I guess that's what's so great about you. No research, careful reading, or meaningful discussion bullshit need apply.
| Quote: | | You're almost like Joe. However, the difference between Joe and you is than underneath that idiotic and dimwitted skin is a person (Joe) who actually does have some intelligence. |
Glad you think so highly of someone, congrats, special ed student isn't out subjugate eveyone.
| Quote: | | Underneath your skin, perhaps where your "soul" might be, is this supermassive black hole sucking up any wit you once had. You're also attempting to provoke me like Joe, which is pointless. I enjoy writing these long, scathing critiques of your failures. |
And I enjoy reading these long, scathing provocations,-oops! I-I mean critiques of my epic failures.  Okay, okay I take it back about the 'careful reading' part.
| Quote: | | Oh and just to rub your feathers, I'm a physics major graduating with my Bachelors of Science this semester. At twenty years of age, I have a quite developed social life with numerous connections. |
Atta, boy! Good for you! Ma always knew you were special!
| Quote: | | Which, of course, I am able to have because unlike you, I don't spend a good chunk of my time on an atheist message board dawdling around in cyberspace. |
I dunno, doodle, ya only joined here last month and running over 350 posts?
Somebody's cheating on their 'real life' adventures.
Don't let that bother you, though, 'cuz ya 'don't give a fuck'. 
*edited for piss poor spelling, as often happens with long replies...
_________________
"Setting people on fire is wrong." -Todd "Squee" Casil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 986
Local time: 6:05 AM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | aitm wrote: | I would have to disagree dawk. With all due respect, but do I really need to prove every religion is false? Do I need to prove every childs fairy tale false in order to proclaim it so?
Does calling a theory a religion make it impervious to critical reasoning and judgement? Does saying a God is in fact not Santa Claus somehow make the claim less ridiculous?
I see no reason whatsoever that I would need to prove religion is a lie. Simply because you place more significance to your fairy tale in no way obligates me to consider extrodinary methods to invalidating it. It might in fact, be the only weapon you have. By making those who refuse to believe spend inordinate amounts of time to that end, you merely strengthen your position that it is a functioning proposal by default. |
You cannot pick and choose how you approach this statement. Feel free to disagree, but regardless of whether you disagree or agree, if you make the statement and don't add any qualifier, you have to prove every aspesct of every religion false in order to call "Religion is a lie" the "truth." That's how the "Truth" is, it's objective and factual. Calling it the "truth" without validating it to be the "truth" is epistemologically incorrect and unintelligent. The statement "Religion is a lie" is merely a belief. You're aware that "Religion is a lie" is a belief, not a fact. Anyone sane person can draw that distinction.
So, why are you so hell bent on trying to get out of proving it? You don't need to prove it, for you to have that opinion. A belief is fine enough, yet you're vehemently arguing against proving it. Just don't prove it. Call it a belief, and let the fuck everyone get on with their life.
If you call every child's fairy tale false then yes, you would have to validate that in fact every child's fairy tale was false. However, that's impossible. I can think of several "fairy tales" that are factual or based on factual events. To call something false, it must be proven to be false. Your opinion just does not cut it. If you make a generalisation and call every thing of "A" false, then item "1" and item "65" which might be true, are then labeled false. Any direction you attempt to justify this, results in a great crop of bad logic.
The rest of your questions are irrelevant and I don't give a fuck about them anyway. |
Interesting, however it is not necessary to prove every aspect of a religion false if its main premise starts out false. There certainly may be truths within the religion in as much as they relate to the point of their truths but they cannot support a religion who main premise is false. Certainly much smarter people than I decided that all the Roman, Greek and Norse religions were false any thus labeled them "myths". The only difference between the truth of their myth status and that of today religion is that these religions belong to those who write the books.
There certainly is a jerusalem, and a Euphrates river, and Jerico and perhaps even a Jesus. If indeed these are all facts it does not in the least add credance to a religion whose base premise is false. One only needs to read Genesis, knowing that the universe, earth, man, plant and animal life was not created in seven days to safely proclaim that that religion is false. I do not need to go item to item throughout the book for surely there are truths in the book, but nothing that takes a false premise and makes it the truth again.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2114
Local time: 6:05 AM
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | aitm wrote: | I would have to disagree dawk. With all due respect, but do I really need to prove every religion is false? Do I need to prove every childs fairy tale false in order to proclaim it so?
Does calling a theory a religion make it impervious to critical reasoning and judgement? Does saying a God is in fact not Santa Claus somehow make the claim less ridiculous?
I see no reason whatsoever that I would need to prove religion is a lie. Simply because you place more significance to your fairy tale in no way obligates me to consider extrodinary methods to invalidating it. It might in fact, be the only weapon you have. By making those who refuse to believe spend inordinate amounts of time to that end, you merely strengthen your position that it is a functioning proposal by default. |
You cannot pick and choose how you approach this statement. Feel free to disagree, but regardless of whether you disagree or agree, if you make the statement and don't add any qualifier, you have to prove every aspesct of every religion false in order to call "Religion is a lie" the "truth." That's how the "Truth" is, it's objective and factual. Calling it the "truth" without validating it to be the "truth" is epistemologically incorrect and unintelligent. The statement "Religion is a lie" is merely a belief. You're aware that "Religion is a lie" is a belief, not a fact. Anyone sane person can draw that distinction.
So, why are you so hell bent on trying to get out of proving it? You don't need to prove it, for you to have that opinion. A belief is fine enough, yet you're vehemently arguing against proving it. Just don't prove it. Call it a belief, and let the fuck everyone get on with their life.
If you call every child's fairy tale false then yes, you would have to validate that in fact every child's fairy tale was false. However, that's impossible. I can think of several "fairy tales" that are factual or based on factual events. To call something false, it must be proven to be false. Your opinion just does not cut it. If you make a generalisation and call every thing of "A" false, then item "1" and item "65" which might be true, are then labeled false. Any direction you attempt to justify this, results in a great crop of bad logic.
The rest of your questions are irrelevant and I don't give a fuck about them anyway. |
Interesting, however it is not necessary to prove every aspect of a religion false if its main premise starts out false. There certainly may be truths within the religion in as much as they relate to the point of their truths but they cannot support a religion who main premise is false. Certainly much smarter people than I decided that all the Roman, Greek and Norse religions were false any thus labeled them "myths". The only difference between the truth of their myth status and that of today religion is that these religions belong to those who write the books.
There certainly is a jerusalem, and a Euphrates river, and Jerico and perhaps even a Jesus. If indeed these are all facts it does not in the least add credance to a religion whose base premise is false. One only needs to read Genesis, knowing that the universe, earth, man, plant and animal life was not created in seven days to safely proclaim that that religion is false. I do not need to go item to item throughout the book for surely there are truths in the book, but nothing that takes a false premise and makes it the truth again. |
If you had read my previous posts, you'd realised I'd already covered the "Well if I disprove it's premise then..." argument. What truth the bible may hold, is irrelevant, and I don't really care. We aren't discussing whether today's religion are myths of religions we commonly think are myths. The subjective labels people give this religion or this religion, doesn't matter.
I cannot think of any religion whose base premise is overtly false, Genesis included. Your interpretation of genesis, is well, it's literal. Of the literal interpretations and arguments which support it, I could disprove most of them. However, I can't disprove all of them. To make the statement "the literal interpretations of Genesis is false" I'd have to support every one, every personal attempt to take in this infomation, was false. So the only way I could make a intelligent statement, was to limit the number of interpretation. However, there is also another problem here. The metaphoric and most other non literal-interpretations are unfalisable. I cannot possibly prove or disprove that.
You can't say Genesis is false unless you add the qualifier "in this interpretation." Regardless, you never proved that religion or a religion was false, if you offer evidence for such and such, you just disproved one way of reading the infomation available isn't correct.
That's how shit fucking works. This isn't apologetic nonsense, this isn't an excuse for the chuch to use, it's just how shit fucking works. Across the board, it isn't local to just religion. If you call an absolute statement the "truth," you have to prove every aspect of that statement is truth. Depending on the claim, it can be easy or impossible. That is how a epistemological assertion goes, get used to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shiranu
L'espoir Est Trouvée
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 2272
Local time: 6:05 AM
Location: San Antonio, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | monkeybyte wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | Shiranu wrote: | | I'll admit, that one comes at me as a complete shock. Never would I have guessed that ISRAEL of all places is waking up to the truth that religion is a lie. Perhaps there is hope for humanity yet. |
BZZZH. Another wrong jackass. There is no truth to the statement that religion is or isn't a lie. It's a subjective statement that holds no power whatsoever as a "Truth." "Religion is a lie" is nothing more than a belief that religion is a lie, not truth- and since it is not a truth, it cannot become knowledge either. |
BZZZT!! Wrong, jackass. Religion at one time might have been an honest attempt at explaining the unexplainable, but today it has been consistantly shown to be made up shit, ergo it is a fucking lie. Cry, cramp, lactate, protest and piss yourself all you want, truth still hurts like a bitch. |
Actually I am not wrong. I'm epistemologically and logically correct. "The truth is, Religion is a lie" is a gross generalisiation which cannot be proven to be correct because you will have to prove every aspect of every religion, incorrect. If you would like to take it upon your shoulders to prove every aspect of every religion is incorrect, I applaud you. However, I suspect you cannot, and since it's not your original argument, you should just back out before you make a fool of yourself. You believe religion has been shown to be shit, ok, that doesn't make something magically become "truth." It is not a fact that "Religion is a lie," however, the statement lies in the realm of subjectivity. For your belief to become "Truth" it has to be factual and realistic, and not your childish hopes and personal convictions. "Religion is a lie" does not meet either standards.
You have no idea what "Truth" means, you are just arguing your "beliefs," and it's pitiful. Shut the fuck up and do something more productive. Shir is a bit more intelligent than you, you're worthless in this debate. |
Perhaps it was a bit of exagaration. I should say, the whole "Jesus came from him self who is his dad, came to die on a cross after spreading his ideas around, then going onto the cross to become a zombie man ghost dude" or "You must live perfectly, or you Allah will punish you for eternity, now go blow up that building!" are more then likely complete lies to get people to do stuff they normally wouldn't do for you, expecially with out any incentive to throw their lives away. As for some of the things in the holy books, they could be true, they could be wrong, I cant disprove all of them, and some of them actually have truth in them.
So touche, I did let my opinion slide in a bit too much on that comment, and I dont think I could honestly come up with a good defense for it  .
_________________
The best arguement against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill
"Là où il y avait la foi, il est maintenant raison!" -Shiranu
Killing for Peace is Like Fucking for Virginity.
"De la paix, de prospérité, de la guerre, le désespoir." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 986
Local time: 6:05 AM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
My apologies for not reading your previous post Dawk. However, I cannot agree with what I assume is your position that the base premise of anything must be assumed to be true before it can be proven false. I Understand this may be the so called rule in the world of philosophical logic, but like believing in a religion, If I disagree with your interpretation I bloody don't have to agree.
I cannot imagine how anyone who has even a limited understanding of current science would say that the base premise of any religion is NOT overtly false, given we know that the world and life was not created by the fashion that any religion that I am aware of states. Interpretation are only used as an excuse when the obvious meaning has been kicked to the curb.
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
