Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2018, 12:11:22 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 421 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion?  (Read 872940 times)
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:19:43 PM
 #1021

Let me ask you a serious question: does it really sound like I'm just pulling all of this out of my you-know-what?
Of course you believe what you're writing,  that doesn't make you any less wrong about the universe.

Quote
1) How do you confuse "superstitious" with a belief in something due to logical necessity?
You admitted your religious belief in an invisible diety. Religion us a subset of superstition. There's no confusion on my end.

Quote
I acknowledge I'm religious to the extent that I believe ID is the mechanism by which realty self-creates (because it is logically necessary).  I make exact zero assumptions in formulating my belief.  Yes, I know what assumptions are.
You make "no" assumptions? I guess were not counting the big, obvious assumption that the universe has a creator,  and that you have some sort of relationship with him.

*Sigh*...really?

Okay, I'm going to keep focusing on one specific point -- one that you continually ignore and have not addressed even once, despite my repetition of it -- until you get it.  It's a point that's not in any way novel on my behalf, one that is accepted in academia, and one for which I can provide literally dozens of credible references for.  It's a critically important point, because you are forever a hypocrite until you acknowledge it.

Disclaimer:  This is going to sound patronizing, but it's not intended to be -- I'm just going to break it down as much as possible until you get it.  To your credit, the point is easily overlooked because of the ad populum opinion that scientific reasoning is the only kind that matters -- but it isn't.  It focuses specifically on the reasoning behind scientific reasoning.

Okay, here we go:

First, I'll start with a couple assumptions I have about your point of view based upon what you've said:

1) You believe only observable things are worth believing in, else it's some form of superstition.
2) You believe that empirical reasoning is the highest standard of (cognitive) knowledge.

Second, now that we have that out of the way, let's lay out a few of my own claims:

1) I know that some abstract things, which are not observable by definition, are worth believing in.  For example, a thought is not observable; a mathematical law is not observable; etc.
2) I know logical reasoning is the highest standard of (cognitive) knowledge.  For now, I'll just concentrate on showing you that it's a higher standard of knowledge than empirical knowledge.

Now, it's clarification time.  Empiricism is an abstract theory:

Quote
em·pir·i·cism
əmˈpirəˌsizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

All theories adhere not to physical structure, but to an abstract mathematical/logical structure.  There is zero physical evidence to validate Empiricism.  In other words, you are believing in a theory yourself with absolutely zero physical evidence to support that theory.  The reason that Empiricism works is because of purely philosophical reasoning.  

Specifically, we defer to Philosophy and say, "Okay, if we want to objectively describe objects in terms of each other, then we must assume that observation has zero physical effect on objective reality.  So, we will simply control for participant observation and set an assumption that an observer causes no effect on physical phenomena."

This assumption has zero empirical basis, and is empirically unfalsifiable.  To empirically falsify this assumption would require that you collect empirical data, i.e. data collected via observation, in a world totally void of any and all observers.  Obviously, this leads to an irreconcilable contradiction, as it is impossible to observe something if the rule is there cannot be any observers to begin with.

So, taking your perspective, I can simply say, "Oh, look how irrational you are!  You believe in something imaginary!  You believe that observation has no effect on physical phenomena, but there's not a single shred of evidence anywhere to support this belief!"

And surely, you would refute this, claiming something to the effect of, "Dude, obviously Empiricism works.  Look at the technological advances we've made, and look how much knowledge and understanding we've gained of certain natural processes."

But what your explanation wouldn't include -- because you lack understanding of it -- is that, again, it works because of an underlying, purely philosophical validation.  That is, Empiricism "works" because we can simply rely upon inductive reasoning as a result of the limitation we have set (again, that limitation is imposed by simply assuming that observer participation has no effect on objective reality).

This makes you a hypocrite.  You are perfectly content believing in an invisible assumption for which there is no evidence.  It is purely abstract, empirically unfalsifiable, and the burden of proof entails deference to -- not evidence, but -- a purely logical argument.  And would ya look at that?!  Something "invisible" has been validated by -- you guessed it! -- logic.

In other words, you are willing to make a complete and total departure from science in order to validate Empiricism.  If you are willing to do such a thing (and you must in order to maintain your belief in its validity, whether you acknowledge it or not), then you are a hypocrite if you maintain that one cannot make a total departure from science in order to validate some other "imaginary" theory.

What matters is if the logical validation is sound.  Period.

Edit:  Here is your claim in the form of a deductive argument:

Premise 1: God is invisible, and therefore has no physical evidence.
Premise 2: If there is no physical evidence for something, it's stupid to believe in it.
Therefore:  It is stupid to believe in God.

Now, referring to Empiricism

Premise 1: The theory of Empiricism, and its underlying assumptions, are invisible, and therefore have no physical evidence.
Premise 2: If there is no physical evidence for something, it's stupid to believe in it.
Therefore:  It is stupid to believe in the theory of Empiricism, and its underlying assumptions.

 Roll Eyes

Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1540253482
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540253482

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540253482
Reply with quote  #2

1540253482
Report to moderator
1540253482
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540253482

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540253482
Reply with quote  #2

1540253482
Report to moderator
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 10:48:48 PM
 #1022

Some theists will justify their fallacious thinking and superstition with so much mental gymnastics they should get a medal from the Special Olympics for mastery of the intellectually stunted arts.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 10:55:14 PM
 #1023

Some theists will justify their fallacious thinking and superstition with so much mental gymnastics they should get a medal from the Special Olympics for mastery of the intellectually stunted arts.

Lol.  Yeah, dude.  Whenever you're ready to actually point out where and why I'm wrong, by all means, go for it Wink

Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 10:56:23 PM
 #1024

Some theists will justify their fallacious thinking and superstition with so much mental gymnastics they should get a medal from the Special Olympics for mastery of the intellectually stunted arts.
Whenever you're ready to actually point out where and why I'm wrong, by all means, go for it
Every rational person reading this is either laughing at you or weeping for your wasted mind.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:19:05 PM
 #1025

Some theists will justify their fallacious thinking and superstition with so much mental gymnastics they should get a medal from the Special Olympics for mastery of the intellectually stunted arts.
Whenever you're ready to actually point out where and why I'm wrong, by all means, go for it
Every rational person reading this is either laughing at you or weeping for your wasted mind.

Lol trust me, they're not.  I've had more than enough acknowledgement from atheists in this thread.  You, on the other hand, have continually demonstrated a lack of capacity to formulate any kind of direct rebuttal.

Tusk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 444
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 11:36:21 PM
 #1026

I'm not sure if this has been raised before, but the title is an oxymoron, atheism is a religion so the title assumes atheists are self loathing. I don't think they are self loathing, but they are a religion.

From the ashes rises the Phoenix. Viva the block chain, Viva BitCoin!
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 12:20:06 AM
 #1027

Some theists will justify their fallacious thinking and superstition with so much mental gymnastics they should get a medal from the Special Olympics for mastery of the intellectually stunted arts.
Whenever you're ready to actually point out where and why I'm wrong, by all means, go for it
Every rational person reading this is either laughing at you or weeping for your wasted mind.

Some ideas by notable sources that you would deem crazy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Quote
A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.[1]

There is both observational and logical falsification.

Quote
Popper held that science could not be grounded on such an inferential basis. He proposed falsification as a solution to the problem of induction.

The validity of science cannot be inferred from itself.  That empirical falsification exists in the first place is due to this understanding (not yours, unfortunately).

Quote
Like all formal sciences, mathematics is not concerned with the validity of theories based on observations in the empirical world, but rather, mathematics is occupied with the theoretical, abstract study of such topics as quantity, structure, space and change. Methods of the mathematical sciences are, however, applied in constructing and testing scientific models dealing with observable reality. Albert Einstein wrote, "One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts."[32]

What mathematics finds true is totally independent from observation.  Einstein agrees.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
Quote
our reason [to be taken here quite generally, to include the imagination] must be consider'd as a kind of cause, of which truth is the natural effect..

Abstraction/reason and truth are linked.

Quote
The normative component of Hume's project is striking here: That the principle of uniformity of nature cannot be proved deductively or inductively shows that it is not the principle that drives our causal reasoning only if our causal reasoning is sound and leads to true conclusions as a “natural effect” of belief in true premises. This is what licenses the capsule description of the argument as showing that induction cannot be justified or licensed either deductively or inductively; not deductively because (non-trivial) inductions do not express logically necessary connections, not inductively because that would be circular.

Logical principles are our fundamental basis for sound rationale, because we believe in the soundness of logic, and which are not dependent upon our observations of the uniformity of nature.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Quote
A more plausible argument for the Intuition/Deduction thesis again assumes that we know some particular, external world truths, and then appeals to the nature of what we know, rather than to the nature of knowledge itself, to argue that our knowledge must result from intuition and deduction. Leibniz (1704) tells us the following.

The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. … From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them… (1704, Preface, pp. 150–151)

Yes, purely abstract "necessary truths" exist.

Quote
Leibniz goes on to describe our mathematical knowledge as “innate,” and his argument may be directed to support the Innate Knowledge thesis rather than the Intuition/Deduction thesis. For our purposes here, we can relate it to the latter, however: We have substantive knowledge about the external world in mathematics, and what we know in that area, we know to be necessarily true. Experience cannot warrant beliefs about what is necessarily the case. Hence, experience cannot be the source of our knowledge.

So much for a purely Empirical worldview.

Quote
Insofar as we focus on controversial claims in metaphysics, e.g., that God exists, that our mind is a distinct substance from our body, the initial premise that we know the claims is less than compelling. Taken with regard to other areas, however, the argument clearly has legs. We know a great deal of mathematics, and what we know, we know to be necessarily true. None of our experiences warrants a belief in such necessity, and we do not seem to base our knowledge on any experiences. The warrant that provides us with knowledge arises from an intellectual grasp of the propositions which is clearly part of our learning.

Our knowledge of logical principles a prior gives plausibility to metaphysical claims.

Quote
Insofar as [rationalists] maintain that our knowledge of necessary truths in mathematics or elsewhere by intuition and deduction is substantive knowledge of the external world, they owe us an account of this form of necessity.

That's what I've been doing for at least several dozen posts now.  Other atheists in this thread have certainly entertained their plausibility.  You can't even respond intelligently to them.

Do you have any idea how many countless millions of academics, including scientists, do not ascribe to a purely empirical worldview?  By your beliefs, every single meta-physicist and quantum scientist is bat-shit crazy -- there has never been a single shred of empirical evidence for either field.  They do absolutely nothing different than what I'm doing, i.e. using logic and mathematics to make abstract models that attempt to coincide with a classical understanding of our reality.

TheBlueEyedBitcoinDragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 05:24:26 AM
 #1028

I'm an atheist. And I'm also a pragmatist. If a all-powerful, all-knowing god wants me to love it, it knows exactly how I came to love other human beings, it can do exactly the same things they did. At no cost to itself, seeing as how it is all-powerful. If it's too proud to make an attempt to personally try make contact, and rely upon all kinds of proxies... then, maybe it just wouldnt have ever worked out between us.
Kaypolor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 05:41:52 AM
 #1029

I'm an atheist and i don't hate any religion but i hate religious people.

I think most atheists hate religion  because of disrepectlful religious people. They always stereotype us,atheists, as devils ,demons and satanists. I've talk to some religious faggots (priests, pastors, etc.) and they said atheists will go to hell cuz atheists were minions of satan sent to earth to fight religion.

jambola2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1016


Large scale, green crypto mining ICO


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 05:59:40 AM
 #1030

I think that most atheists are not religious, not due to hate of religion, but due to skepticism.
However, I know of quite a few younger atheists who hate religion due to being forced into it as a child.

I'm not sure either on what path is right for a parent to take when considering religion. An open approach, allowing the child to choose a religion? But that would not offer the child something to believe in and seek asylum. Furthermore, while it doesn't necessarily apply to adults, religion could help develop values in children.

What do you all think about raising children with religion?

████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
████  ▀███████████▀  ███████▀▀       ▀▀███████████████████▄▀████  ▀██████████  ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐██              ███            ████
████   ▀█████████▀   █████▀  ▄▄████████▄▀██████████████████▄▀███   ▀█████████  ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐████████  █████████  ██████████████
████  ▄ ▀███████▀ ▄  ███▀  ▄█████████████▄██████████████████ ███  █▄ ▀███████  ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐████████  █████████  ██████████████
████  █▄ ▀█████▀ ▄█  ██▀ ▄██████████████████████████████████ ███  ███  ██████  ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐████████  █████████  ██████████████
████  ██▄ ▀███▀ ▄██  ██ ▄██████████████████████████████████▀ ███  ████▄ ▀████  ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐████████  █████████          ▐█████
████  ███▄ ▀█▀ ▄███  ██ ██████████████████████████████████▀ ▄███  ██████  ▀██  ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐████████  █████████  ██████████████
████  ████▄   ▄████  ██ ▐███████████████████████████████▀  ▄████  ███████▄ ▀█  ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐████████  █████████  ██████████████
████  ██████▄██████  ███ ██████████████████▄▀█████████▀  ▄██████  █████████▄   ████▌ ▐████████████▌ ▐████████  █████████  ██████████████
████  █████████████  ███▄▀███████████████████▄▄       ▄▄████████  ██████████▄  ████▌            ██▌ ▐████████  █████████            ████
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████


███████████████████  WHITEPAPER  ████
█ █ ██  ANN THREAD  █████████████████ █ █

.
FACEBOOK      TWITTER      LINKEDIN
.
Tusk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 444
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 06:11:05 AM
 #1031

There is no basis to assume a "creator" expresses any emotion towards us or any form of favoritism to any part within the universe. Using emotion to validify or or refute the existence of intelligent design would be false. In the same way mathematics is emotionless, so using concepts of love and hate to argue its validity makes no sense.    

From the ashes rises the Phoenix. Viva the block chain, Viva BitCoin!
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:13:04 AM
 #1032

I'm an atheist. And I'm also a pragmatist. If a all-powerful, all-knowing god wants me to love it, it knows exactly how I came to love other human beings, it can do exactly the same things they did. At no cost to itself, seeing as how it is all-powerful. If it's too proud to make an attempt to personally try make contact, and rely upon all kinds of proxies... then, maybe it just wouldnt have ever worked out between us.

Your desires for other things is distracting you from the gentle calling, and the contact God is constantly trying to make with you, personally.

Smiley
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:25:13 AM
 #1033

I'm an atheist and i don't hate any religion but i hate religious people.

I think most atheists hate religion  because of disrepectlful religious people. They always stereotype us,atheists, as devils ,demons and satanists. I've talk to some religious faggots (priests, pastors, etc.) and they said atheists will go to hell cuz atheists were minions of satan sent to earth to fight religion.



But even when they ARE NOT being disrespectful, Christians must characterize atheists as what atheists are. What are they? Unsaved for eternal life.

An atheist could turn to salvation. The hope is that they do turn. Why? Because we Christians are selfish. Eternity is a long time, and we need everyone that we can get into Heaven to be there with us, so that we are not bored out of our gourds over the expanse of eternity.

Seriously, God is wonderful way beyond understanding. The joy at being with Him forever is desirable way beyond this life.

Smiley
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:32:01 AM
 #1034

I think that most atheists are not religious, not due to hate of religion, but due to skepticism.
However, I know of quite a few younger atheists who hate religion due to being forced into it as a child.

I'm not sure either on what path is right for a parent to take when considering religion. An open approach, allowing the child to choose a religion? But that would not offer the child something to believe in and seek asylum. Furthermore, while it doesn't necessarily apply to adults, religion could help develop values in children.

What do you all think about raising children with religion?

Everything is religion. Ever since the beginning there have been people who have made a religion out of seeking to believe that there was no religion. These days, the religion of atheism is strong because of self-worship >>> humanism.

Why is everything religion? Because nobody knows even one second into the future what will happen. We all feel like we know, because experience shows us that a lot of the things we attempt actually happen. But then there are the car accidents and airplane crashes, etc., that show us that we really don't know the future at all.

Not knowing the future is what drives us into religion. We attempt to juggle the path of life to our favor. But we really don't know the future at all.

Smiley
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 08:37:33 AM
 #1035

There is no basis to assume a "creator" expresses any emotion towards us or any form of favoritism to any part within the universe. Using emotion to validify or or refute the existence of intelligent design would be false. In the same way mathematics is emotionless, so using concepts of love and hate to argue its validity makes no sense.    

Everything that happens in life - EVERYTHING - appears to be based on cause and effect, action and reaction. Even our thoughts where we make what we consider "free will choices" are directed by stimuli from the outside.

Whatever started cause and effect, the Thing that we could call the Great First Cause but some people call God, must have understood all about emotion to have caused it to come into being, through the ages of cause and effect that He directed to happen, right down to the present.

Smiley
Tusk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 444
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:22:37 AM
 #1036

IMHO, there is no need to be saved, merely by recognising that the universe is alive and majestic enriches your experience of it. The Idea we have to live in servitude is a man made and only serves to enslave others. Collective ideology is a false premise. Experiencing the universe from your own perspective allows you to fully appreciate the mystery of life without being limited by others short comings.

From the ashes rises the Phoenix. Viva the block chain, Viva BitCoin!
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:30:57 AM
 #1037

IMHO, there is no need to be saved, merely by recognising that the universe is alive and majestic enriches your experience of it. The Idea we have to live in servitude is a man made and only serves to enslave others. Collective ideology is a false premise. Experiencing the universe from your own perspective allows you to fully appreciate the mystery of life without being limited by others short comings.

The idea of freedom is great, and the illusion of freedom is nice. But there isn't any freedom, at least in a basic sense. Try doing anything outside of the limitations of life, and you will fail.

Consider all the people who would like the adventure of space travel. Extremely few have a chance at experiencing it, even though many more would if they could.

Try flying without an airplane. Even a wing-suit isn't really flying.

There isn't any freedom. The illusion of freedom lies in the extremely limited number of things that we think we are free to do. Cause and effect allows for absolutely no freedom whatsoever. We are all programmed to have the illusion of freedom. But there really isn't any.

Smiley
Tusk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 444
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:37:52 AM
 #1038

The freedom to perceive the universe and what it means to be alive is each individual's exclusive fundamental right.  

From the ashes rises the Phoenix. Viva the block chain, Viva BitCoin!
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:45:23 AM
 #1039

The freedom to perceive the universe and what it means to be alive is each individual's exclusive fundamental right.  

Perhaps. But when you look at how things work way down inside of them, all we see - and especially science - is cause and effect, which allows for no freedom, but only an illusion of freedom.

Smiley
Tusk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 444
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 10, 2015, 09:56:27 AM
 #1040

Only if you cling to dogma, and have a closed mind. Its fine to share our perspectives that enables us to grow. But clinging to any belief system out of ignorance is limiting. forming your own verified opinion is far more enriching.

Example believing in a "God" because you have been told by someone else it exists and trying to conform to their definition merely makes you a salve to their ideology. Life is far more meaningful when you form your own perspective and allow it to grow with you as you experience life.

From the ashes rises the Phoenix. Viva the block chain, Viva BitCoin!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 ... 421 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!