| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| God vs science, or professor vs student?; A reply to a thread in the "Bible Lessons-section" | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 28 Feb 2010, 11:33 AM (3,573 Views) | |
| Concolor | 28 Feb 2010, 11:33 AM Post #1 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is a reply to the story in the thread Science vs God: http://s15.zetaboards.com/Godlimations/topic/6785321/1 Since it was posted in the "Bible Lesson"-section, and I tolerate the rule to not have discussions in that section, I've put up this thread in the "Debates-section". This is also because some users seemed interested to know what my views were, presumably because hearing my arguments will help to construct more convincing replies to those who do not find most concepts of God to be compatible with scientific results and do not think most religions are compatible with the scientific method. (I get to rant, you get better counter-measures, everybody wins )Here's some of my comments: Firstly, this is some professor vs. some student. Not Science vs God. I do not agree with the way the story's professor seems to describe science, and I presume that many religious people would not agree with how the student describes God. Just as many would say that it "doesn't count" when some terrorist says that "everyone must die in the name of the Lord" because it doesn't come from God but from some rambling extremist, I would say that it "doesn't count" when some fictional professor (or real professor for that matter) says things about science which may not have anything to do with science. First of all, science doesn't have a problem with Jesus Christ. Science has a problem with people claiming to be God/God's son, as the Bible says (my interpretation) that Jesus claimed to be just that. Was there a Jew called Jesus who gathered many followers around 2000 years ago? I have no idea, but it's quite probable. There were many prophets at that time claiming to be the messiah, and for one or more of them to be called Jesus is not very unlikely. If this professor has a problem with Jesus he should be labeled as an "anti-Christian" or something. "atheist" simply means that he does not believe in any personal, supernatural Gods. Then he should be ranting against Allah, Krishna, Yahweh etc. at the same time, Jesus has little or nothing to do with it. Also, what kind of way to teach a philosophy class is this? Singling out a single student with a single faith and then bashing him for it? The Bible says that? I thought is just said that man is easily corruptible? Okay, even if I try to ignore that this is a professor who seems to be using this class to blow off steam (by answering in a way that is much more fitting as if the student had been the one who started missioning in class or something) this story still doesn't do much good if the point is to make Jesus look good. None of the professor's questions are answered by the student. We basically have a professor rambling about, and the few interesting questions he asked are answered by a blank stare. It's not as if the student is afraid of answering, the story ends with him gloriously rebelling against his rambling teacher with a couple of ramblings of his own. Why then does he not have any good answers to the professors questions? All he does is wait until the professor's rant is over before he makes some questions to make the professor look bad (just like the professor tried to make him look bad in the beginning). But this still does not answer the questions. All it amounts to is two people making each other look bad in turns. This is not the rational way to convince people that you have a good case! (But as we'll see later, it may be an effective one) Wrong. "Five senses" is a popular way to describe how we interact with the world, but it has little to do with science. What about our sense of heat, our sense of pain, our sense of where and in which position our limbs are? Also, almost every interesting scientific discovery is of things we cannot sense with our bodies alone. Have you seen an atom with your naked eye? Have you heard or smelled quantum tunneling? This professor should take a couple of science lessons before pretending to know what science is. He seems to be trying to make the point that the idea of a personal, supernatural God would be incompatible with observations from science (which I agree with) but when he just talks about what you can see or hear or feel his argument winds up not making sense at all. In short, a classic straw-man. The student talks about heat and cold, and light and darkness. He makes the point that light is something but darkness is not, and that heat is something but cold is not. This is just a play of words. Scientifically speaking light is nothing more than the word we use when there's a lot of photons around, darkness is the word we use when there are fewer photons around. In that way one can say that neither light nor darkness "is" anything other than words to describe amount of photons. Likewise hot and cold are also words describing the amount of molecular/atomic vibration in a material. These are also relative. Compared to a hotplate a glass of water is cold and the sun is hot, but compared to a block of ice the glass of water and the hotplate are both hot. There's a theoretical point where you have no photons, or no molecular/atomic vibrations, but what does that have to do with anything? Sure, you can't go darker that no photons, and you can't go colder than no vibrations. How is this relevant to the discussion? Also, these are physics-questions. This is a philosophy-professor. The moral here is really that you shouldn't be too confident when trying to answer questions from a completely different scientific discipline than your own. What does this mean? What is "it"? Science? Is the student suggesting that science is some sort of guy who is using stuff and understanding things? Science is a method for gaining knowledge of the world around us. If you are using the method of jacking up your car to change a tire, would you say that the "jacking-up-method" you're using can or cannot understand the process of tire-changing? I would say that it is highly irrelevant. And it is quite obvious that we have not yet gained complete understanding of everything in the universe, otherwise science would have stopped and there would have been no need to learn new stuff! Is the student trying to say that since we have not yet (or perhaps not ever) gained complete knowledge of everything using the scientific method, then it is completely useless and that we (for undisclosed reasons) should throw it all away and use Bible-reading as our only method to gain knowledge? Is he saying that you'll learn more about electricity and magnetism from the Bible than a physics book? Here we return to our little play on words. In science, life is the word we use to describe the self-perpetuating process of survival and replication that organisms do, when this process stops we call it death. There may of course be other definitions of life (I could say that life is lying in a hammock drinking cool-aid), and this would then be a different word. But the professor never said that life is the opposite of death. In fact the whole point this student makes about light, darkness, hot, cold, life, death is an answer to a question nobody asked. It has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion, but nobody remembers that when we come to his conclusion. Due to the professors confusion it certainly looks like the student has mustered a baffling answer to the professors questions, while all he did was to cast a smoke-screen, change the topic and make the professor look foolish (quite successfully i might add, it is a highly effective debate-technique. But it is also dishonest, and there's no reason to do this if you actually have an answer to the questions you're confronted with). Once again: This is biology, why is a philosophy professor teaching biology? Especially when he does not have a clue about the theory of evolution by means of natural selection: Humans did not evolve from monkeys! Humans and monkeys are both contemporary species, evolution happens over time. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor, but if we go further back all investigated life shares one or more common ancestors. Why are people so hung up on the monkeys, isn't it just as spectacular that we share a common ancestor with dogs? Or bacteria? This argument makes no sense. "Have you seen Australia with your own eyes?" "No" "Then it doesn't exist!". That's the whole point of science that we have other, reliable methods of gathering knowledge other than personally going everywhere to see everything. And again, why would a philosophy-professor observe evolution if he doesn't study it? If he had worked in a biology lab with bacteria he could easily see for himself how some of them evolve into penicillin-resistant strands, or how fruit-flies can divide into different species. How did he come to the idea that "Since you, a single random person, has not yourself seen this process it is obviously non-existent."? But hang on. Why are we suddenly discussing evolution? What does this random piece of biology have to do with anything? How is this related to the professor's initial questions about God and Jesus? Once again our student protagonist is talking about something completely different, conveniently something the professor is ignorant about, to make it seem like he is answering the original questions. In fact he's answering questions no one asked. But his lengthy introduction has made us forget what they were, and because he jumped to a scene he commands better than the professor we are left with a feeling that the reason why he is speaking so clearly, and the professor is so bewildered, is because he is answering the questions so deftly. In fact he just dodged them and changed the subject. (Once again, a highly effective technique for convincing people. Not so effective for finding truth, or answering honestly). Once again, the professor speaks for himself, and he does not do that job especially good. You don't have to take the existence of the professor's brain on faith. We have loads of biological evidence that all humans have brains, and if one wants more specific evidence the professor could have himself subjected to a CT-scan. The professor is a straw man, and the "conversion" of this straw man is helping even more to put the student and his case in a good light in our minds. But it is not an argument for the student's case, just a storyteller's-trick. But it's a good one, a dishonest trick, but an effective one. "In fact, faith exists with life" Huh? What is he talking about? We're back to this again. The student seems to be implying that good and evil are words we use to describe the amount of God in a certain place (and I who thought he was everywhere). But we can use scientific methods to detect and describe amounts of photons and vibrations. How does one detect amounts of God? Well, he did make it so that there could be an absence of God in certain places. How is this any different from creating evil? And why does he keep creating things which does not have him in it (which, in effect, are evil) like Satan and the snake in the garden of eden? And what about earthquakes and tsunamis? All in all it's an effective story to pull on the fly when you're trying to convince someone and they don't have the time or ability to check the details of the story more closely. The only problem is that the elements that makes it effective, are manipulative and intellectually dishonest. I would recommend it for use on people with no science-background, by people who are not so concerned with these issues. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
Luemas
|
28 Feb 2010, 02:39 PM Post #2 |
![]()
DELICIOUS!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Too long for me and my short attention span to read all of, but the Bible does say we're evil. And I quote, all men have fallen short of the glory of God. If God is perfect, then everything not perfect is evil. |
|
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably. | |
![]() |
|
|
|
28 Feb 2010, 10:27 PM Post #3 |
|
A man's life is changed by a dare
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Creating a domain (certain places) for evil and creating evil (even if it were the case) are two separate concepts Concolor. You're comparing a location with an action. Some critics of Hell argue that if God knew that his creatures would reject him and eventuate in such a horrible place as Hell, then why did he create them in the first place? Wouldn’t it have been better to have never existed than to exist and go to Hell? Did it begin with Satan being created for evil? Did it begin with the snake in the garden of eden? In revelation before the existence of time itself, Satan was quite the bright chap who was NOT absent from God, rather, very close with Him. True, Jesus said it would have been better if Judas had never been born (Mark 14:21). But this is simply a strong expression indicating the severity of his sin (Absence of goodness), not a statement about the superiority of non-being over being. It is important to note that non existence cannot be said to be a better condition than any kind of existence, since non-existence is nothing. And to affirm that nothing can be better than something is a gigantic category mistake. In order to compare two things, they must have something in common. But there is nothing in common between being and non-being. They are diametrically opposed. Earthquakes and Tsunamis? Natural laws is a separate matter, I suppose you can blame global warming... it all comes back to the flaw of man one way or another and pointing fingers at God since we fall at temptation or become bound by immoral conveniences because God "made" us that way (Romans 7:14). TBH this was the only quote that caught my attention no offense, I'd sit for the whole day sussing out your questions, but I gotta get back to work
Edited by Patrick Majewski, 28 Feb 2010, 10:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| dragonshardz | 1 Mar 2010, 07:43 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Troll
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
TL; DR. Nah, just joking. In all truth, Concolor, I see where you are coming from in picking this apart. Yes, both the student and the professor have a negligible understanding of science and the scientific method. Yes, the student uses dishonest but effective debate tactics. Yes, some of the story doesn't make much sense (the thoughts bit). You are correct in all these things. But remember, I got this in an email. And not just any email, but a chain email, and those don't always make the best sense. This story has been around in one form or another since the early 80's, I believe. As for sticking around and making a coherent rebuttal to your OP, I'm not going to, at least, not right now. I don't have the time at the moment, nor, for that matter, the inclination. Personally, while the tactics used in the story are disagreeable, the strategy is laudable. That being, point out that just because something cannot be reliably measured, that does not mean it does not exist. |
|
I lurk a lot on this forum, and am very busy in real life, so don't be surprised if I take a couple days, or even weeks, to reply to your post or PM. GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any other forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. | |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 1 Mar 2010, 07:49 PM Post #5 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
spot the logical fallacy: If God is perfect, and all men have fallen short of the glory of God, then all that means is people are not perfect. That in no way implies that they are evil (unless you define imperfect as evil, in which case I committed an evil act in last summer's exams ).
|
![]() |
|
| conradw | 1 Mar 2010, 08:06 PM Post #6 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One thing I wanted to question was the notion that evil is the absence (or relative absence) of God. I think murdering a child is wrong. I don't think any god worth worshipping would have nothing to do with that (I'm interested to know if you disagree). I suppose this would make this the absolute zero of godliness. And yet, I can think of things that are worse than murdering a child (if nothing else, murdering many children). Either raping and murdering hundreds of children is no worse than murdering one, OR there is a negative value of 'godliness', OR *this* is actually the absolute zero of godliness and the murder of one innocent does instead have some (albeit small) amount of God present. The first possibility means that the presence or absence of God is a binary thing (no different from using the labels Good and Evil). The second possibility denies the notion of more or less godly as a way of understanding good and evil, and replaces it with one we (and presumably the professor) would find more intuitive. The third option means God plays a part in some of the most heinous acts ever committed - something no "perfect" being could have in his repertoire. |
![]() |
|
| Mr_JJ | 2 Mar 2010, 02:52 AM Post #7 |
|
New Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When I read this and the arguements I thought of this passage in Matthew: Matthew 19:13-30ish 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" 26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Basically we are all evil, God knows it is impoissble for us to get to Heaven, we dont deserve it! But then God doesnt work like we work...He doesnt have selfish desires. Therefore my premise is that because God is so much bigger...more complicated and greater than ourselves it is impossible to argue his existance or non-existance because we couldnt possibly know what he was thinking when he made the world. It is like asking a 1970's computer to run some modern game like Age of Empires...It just wouldnt work properly...and in that same repect our minds cannot work properly because our coding is different I think that makes sense though I may be wrong:D |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 2 Mar 2010, 01:28 PM Post #8 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Patrick Majewski: Thanx for commenting, I'm a huge fan Why is it a category mistake to say that nothing is better than something? I could say that it is better to have no cancer than to have cancer. In that case nothing is better than something. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't really understand what you're aiming at. It's a little hard to blame global warming for disasters that happened before the industrial revolution, in a time when humans had a lot less impact on the global climate than many other species. I'm having a hard time trying to see how the movement of two continental plates, causing earthquakes and tsunamis can be traced back to humans. I don't mind if you don't have time to go through my entire rant, I just had to comment on the story so I put it here. Hope your work goes well. @Luemas: If everything not perfect is evil, and only God is perfect, then "evil" is just the name for "everything except God". The word would basically have no meaning. A rock is evil, the sky is evil, cute little bunnies are evil, babies are evil and crazy mass-murderers are evil. Something tells me that a lot of people would find only one of these things to be evil. @dragonshardz: I don't know what TL; DR means (Too Long; something something?) so don't worry about that I do (of course) agree with many of your sentiments there. It would have been fun if you had brought a rebuttal to my statements (I love a good debate, as you probably know) but it is of course OK if you don't feel like it. Actually, that leaves my comments standing, so I really shouldn't complain at all I'm not quite with you when you say that the strategy is to point out that "just because something cannot be reliably measured, that does not mean it does not exist." or that this is a very effective strategy. I agree with the statement itself, but the corollary is also true (and even more obvious) "just because something cannot be reliably measured, that does not mean it exists". All in all these statements merely point out that if something cannot be measured, it's not much useful to say about it. @Mr_JJ: Thanks to your post I just read Matthew 19:1 to 19:12. Interesting stuff about marriage in there. Oh, and I don't know why people keep talking about "the ten commandments" as Jesus clearly reduces this to six (Matthew 19:19) or perhaps seven, if you count Matthew 19:21 (a rule which few seem eager to follow these days). Oh, and God is apparently not the only one with the power to judge, as the twelve disciples will also do that (Matthew 19:28). But anyway: Do leave your family and children (Matthew 19:29). Sorry about that little rant there. My question was really this: If it is impossible for us to argue his existence or non-existence, why are there people who claim that he exist? (As in: arguing for his existence) oh and: If God does not have selfish desires, why did he create us? Edited by Concolor, 2 Mar 2010, 01:44 PM.
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| dragonshardz | 2 Mar 2010, 04:47 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Troll
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"TL; DR" stands for "Too Long, Didn't Read."
Honestly, I don't know. Maybe it's the need to believe in something bigger than oneself, maybe it's for the fellowship, whatever. There's no blanket reason for why religion exists, except that those who follow a religion believe it to be true.
He was bored? He wanted some toys to play with? Irreverent, I know, but I don't think there's anyone here who can definitively answer that question, unless God has the Internet and an account here. ~~dragonshardz~~ Edited by dragonshardz, 2 Mar 2010, 04:52 PM.
|
|
I lurk a lot on this forum, and am very busy in real life, so don't be surprised if I take a couple days, or even weeks, to reply to your post or PM. GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any other forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. | |
![]() |
|
|
|
3 Mar 2010, 12:14 AM Post #10 |
|
A man's life is changed by a dare
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was answering your question regarding "why does he keep creating things which does not have him in it." Your next question would simply follow parallel... "Why did God create cancer..." Rather than to affirm cancer a better condition than no cancer, my reference to that would exclaim better to live a life with cancer than no life at all... since cancer is only an attachment/growth to the body, and cannot exist without the body, or plants, any host/living organism, being born with cancer is still an attachment from an earlier generation... let's just call it abnormality. In this context, cancer is not a CATEGORY, but a SUBCATEGORY. I THINK my reference is based on "Annihilationism", which obviously cancer, theoretically if were to be defined by motive, would fit in the classification of "nothing", since its designed function is to destroy the human body. But it still is "something" of a paradox, we all know that. Like a square-triangle, it's a thing, but a non-thing... It exists to cease existence... My point was that It's not at all global climate as a result of human flaw, it's the human flaw as a result of global climate, hence one solution to consider climate conditions evil, that's all. When you say earthquakes and tsunami, I jump to that topic, but if you wanna discuss raw ideology based on the luck of building a house on top of a live volcano, what else do you want me to say? Should we by all means, call the volcano evil? Why? How is a death ratio of a tsunami disaster considered evil? Is there a motive behind a natural disaster? Why does the bible affirm "You shall not murder" and not kill?
How did Jesus reduce it down to six when it follows that even this man who kept these 6 commandments could still not enter heaven? the supposed 7th commandment is a reference to the heart condition of this one man, He saw what the man was consumed by, and told him to get rid of it. An 8th commandment arises in Matt 19:21 at the end of the sentence when he states, "then come follow me" and emphasized in verse 28. Does this nullify the OT commandment? I don't see how it does. Looks like Jesus is adding to it. Even if he states "It is said an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, BUT I say turn the other cheek", it's not entirely "reducing" a commandment, an enhancement rather. Now this question, why do we assume the NT overwrites the OT rather than working as a synergy? When you think about it, if we believe it to be overwritten, then God must have made a mistake along the process.
It is impossible to argue that we ourselves exist. One could simply not convince another based on any kind of evidence/proof we draw. How do you prove the proof of proof? To extremes "If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain" ~Morpheus. Rene Descartes offers a solution for the "I think, therefore I am" quote. You cannot doubt to think your existence, because in doing so, you have just thought it, therefore, you exist. So what does that leave us with? If proof is not a soluble answer, then what can we use?
To put it redundantly, because he does not have selfish desires hahahahahahaha.... |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 3 Mar 2010, 12:14 PM Post #11 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can argue that I myself exist. Check it out: I exist. Poke me, and I will only do what things that exist do. shake me, and I will only do what things that exist do. Act upon me in any way and guess what? I will only do what things that exist do. Interestingly, I can go further: I will not do any of the things that only things that don't exist do. I feel this is a good arguement for my existence. Care to refute? Now lets turn the screws a little bit: Can the same be said about God? Does God only do what things that exist do, and do none of the things that only non-existent things do? |
![]() |
|
| Junior | 3 Mar 2010, 05:09 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He's omnipotent. He can do whatever the cuss he wants to do. That's what's beautiful about being a god, the laws of reality don't bind you, as you created them. |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
|
|
3 Mar 2010, 06:54 PM Post #13 |
|
A man's life is changed by a dare
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Already you have jumped to the assumption of what exists based on your 5 senses.. How do you know that? Are you so certain to rely upon your senses to believe it? You can attempt to argue as much as you please, you cannot nullify the idea that my senses of poking you, shaking you, are nothing more than electrical signals interpreted by my brain. To base proof on our 5 senses mean absolutely nothing, if you want to debate theologically. Hebrews 13:2 Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. Notice the last part... "without knowing it". Why? Because we simply can't tell the difference between a stranger and an angel, our senses cannot justify that enough. |
![]() |
|
Luemas
|
3 Mar 2010, 09:52 PM Post #14 |
![]()
DELICIOUS!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wait, so basically, you're saying we could all be in a matrix of sorts where everything is electronical impulses? Am I right at thinking thats what you're trying to say. |
|
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably. | |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 4 Mar 2010, 06:51 AM Post #15 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well 5 senses is a completely arbitrary number. I would say we have many more than 5. But when all those senses are in agreement, the likelihood of them all being inaccurate is far reduced. When someone else can come along with their senses and verify what we have observed the likelihood of it being inaccurate decreases. If however they give an account which is inconsistent with my own, the likelihood of me being wrong increases. In practice, it has been our senses that connect us with the outside world which have lead to so much human development. But this is a bit peripheral to your challenge. You want to say that there is the possibility of things going on beyond our senses - which may well be true. However in order to make the positive claim that there actually is anything going on beyond our senses you need to give reference to things that we can observe. I could watch a ship disappear behind a headland and quite rightly suggest that even though I can't see it, I have reason to suppose that there is a ship behind that headland. If I haven't used my senses, I am conjuring up this ship in my imagination. Whether I am right or not is immaterial, as I cannot know anything about it, let alone do anything about it. What Patrick is saying sounds very similar to Berkeley's Idealism. I fail to see the point though: being sceptical about my existence does not justify being credulous about God's. |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
)




.gif)

).
I think that makes sense though I may be wrong:D


6:45 PM Jul 10