Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do We NEED God?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 61 of 224 (674749)
10-02-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phat
10-02-2012 2:37 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Thats not "communion."
Thats simply interacting with your own imagination. Its a closed loop, you arent receiving input from any external source. There is literally no difference between this form of communion with "god" and communion with Darth Vader.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phat, posted 10-02-2012 2:37 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 10-02-2012 11:41 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(8)
Message 76 of 224 (675469)
10-11-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Phat
10-02-2012 11:41 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Hi Phat. Sorry for the slow replies - the new job limits my posting.
Your response to me, however, is irrelevant. I pointed out that you are "communing" only within your own head, and you reaponded effectively that it can be good to let people talk yo imaginatlry friends.
Throughout this and other topics, you engage in a dance whereby you use pseudophilosophical wise-sounding nonsense in order to find excuses as to why you should be able to not change your mind despite your acknowledgement of arguments that clearly show that your own position is weak at best.
We dont "need god." Rather, human beings have an instinctual urge to feel accepted, loved, protected, and in-line with authority. "God" offers the ultimate solution to those urges, offering an authority generated solely within the mind of the individual that can justify any action in conflict woth "lesser" (but actually existing) authorities like the law, as well as a loving parent figure and a powerful protector to turn to when faced with something beyond our control.
But "god," like Santa Claus, is a false answer to those urges. You can pray all you want, but it is an experimentally verified fact that you are just talking to yourself. You can hold "god" up as an inspiration or authority, but you have created it within your own mind, and you are no different from a child who does good to please Santa.
Yes, faith can bring about positive results...and negative. Yes, people can feel happy or fulfilled in faith...but ultimately that happiness and fulfillment is based on a lie.
Let us be direct here: you are essencially arguing that it is good to believe in "god," as opposed to whether or not "god" actually exists. "Gods" existence is for you irrelevant - you are saying that it is good to believe it exists, regardless of whether it really does or not. This is the core of your argument that we "need god," and the reason for your reply to me. This is not an uncommon stance - many people of faith behave as if no "god" actually exists, yet still behave as if belief itself is still necessary.
This is backward, and it leads to believing in fantasies, a detachment from reality.
Please take the following to heart, Phat.
If "god" exists, then I want to believe that "god" exists.
If "god" does NOT exist, then I want to not believe that "god" exists.
I want my beliefs to match objective reality as closely as possible. Accepting reality does not actually make anything better or worse...reality is the way it is regardless of my belief. If I can be happy in the real world while believing in Santa Claus, then I can be happy in the real.world without him...because he never existed in the first place despite my belief. "God" doesnt do anything for you, because "god" does not exist. Just as Santa will not bring you presents, "god" will not answer any prayers.
You, and we, do not need "god." What we need is to stop using fantasy to assuage our emotional need for securoty, control, and acceptance.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 10-02-2012 11:41 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 3:06 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 79 of 224 (675771)
10-15-2012 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
10-13-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Hi Phat. Please excuse typos - I post from a phone these days.
You want your beliefs to match objective reality as closely as possible. My beliefs are in the very essence of what forms objective reality. Hint: It is not formed through human wisdom, though it is often discovered that way.
Youre demonstrating exactly what I said above: youre stringing together pseudophilosophic nonsense in a cadence you imagine to convey deep meaning, but you've actually said nothing at all.
Beliefs, Phat, do not form objective reality. Thats what "objective reality" means: it is thay which exists whether we beloeve in it or not.
"Human wisdom" is the only way anything is discovered, as we are the only ones doing any discovering (as relevant to humanity at present in any case; maybe aliens.exist, but they certainly arent helping us discover things). Your clumsy implication here is that some knowledge.stems.from a "supernatural" source.
You're wrong, of course, which is why you have no evidence to support such an assertion. Rather, all you do is stare at your navel and ponder; what comes out pf your brain originates solely from you, not from your friend who, I assure you, is imaginary.
I will agree, except that I don't accept your conclusion that god never existed in the first place. Granted you may or may not be right.
Once again...you simply find excuses to avoid changing your mind, even.as in tje same sentence you agree with a position that makes your own questionable at best.
Your capacity for cognitive dissonance knows few peers, Phat.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 3:06 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 3:55 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 81 of 224 (675866)
10-16-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Phat
10-16-2012 3:55 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Lets start with this premise: What Is Objective Reality
*Phat reads the source he is quoting*.....
Does anyone have a definition of objective reality that they would like to propose?
...really, Phat?
Objective reality is that which exists independently of its observers.
The cup on my desk exists whether you believe it is there or not, whether you are aware it is there or not. If we all forget that it's here, it will remain for us to rediscover it later - and every person who does so will observe the same cup sitting on the same desk.
What I meant was that my continual search for knowledge and definition does not mean that I personally do not believe in GOD as a final definitive objective reality, but I say that it is only a belief. I try not to search for knowledge simply as a confirmation of my bias, I search so as to be better able to
attempt to define what it is that I believe, why it is that I believe it, and what, if anything, I am purposefully ignoring.
You've been made aware of what you purposefully ignore. Repeatedly.
Your words betray you, yet again:
I personally do not believe in GOD as a final definitive objective reality, but I say that it is only a belief.
Note your word choice here.
You believe that it is good to believe in GOD.
You don't necessarily believe that any such thing as a GOD actually exists outside of the minds of believers; you don't really believe that GOD is a part of objective reality, existing whether people believe or not. You just believe that having that belief is a good thing, a goal to be worked toward.
It's similar to believing in democracy. It's less about what you believe to actually exist (obviously various forms of democracy exist in governments around the globe) and more about making a statement of alignment - you think democracy is a "good thing" and so you "believe in it."
In the same way, your "belief in GOD" is independent of whether or not you actually think that any such thing exists. You just think that "believing in GOD" is a "good thing." You align yourself with the "believing in GOD" tribe because it makes you feel good.
It's crazy thinking, Phat. It's absolutely insane to separate one's beliefs like this. You claim that
I search so as to be better able to
attempt to define what it is that I believe, why it is that I believe it, and what, if anything, I am purposefully ignoring.
and again you get it wrong - don't try to "better define" your beliefs!
Try to find out which beliefs you should keep, which ones you should change, and which ones you should discard. That is the very definition of the pursuit of knowledge - the iterative improvement in the accuracy of one's beliefs through self-reflection and comparison to data from objective reality. You should constantly ask yourself, "why do I believe what I believe?"
If GOD exists, then you should want to believe that GOD exists.
If GOD does not exist, you should want to NOT believe that GOD exists.
This is all that should drive your position on whether GOD does or does not exist...
...you personal preference has no bearing on reality, and neither does the social pressure that compels you to believe that belief in GOD is "good." Neither will make GOD appear or disappear - such a thing already exists or does not exist. What's up to you is, to the best of your ability, determine which Universe you live in - one in which GOD exists, or one in which GOD does not.
The term "GOD" conveys a great deal of traditional information, and we now have an entire thread devoted to defining the term (an absurdity in itself). The conspicuous absence of evidence strongly predicted by the "GOD" hypothesis shows that by any definition we would actually recognize as "GOD," such a thing does not exist.
Certainly things exist of which we are unaware, and certainly someone could assign the label "GOD" to any of those "unknown unknowns," but in no way would such a thing be recognizable as any of the myriad traditional definitions of what "GOD" is.
There is no magic man in the sky. There is no magic man driving the Sun, or controlling the sea, or throwing lightning bolts. There is no magic man raising the dead. There is no magic man answering prayers, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in multiple experiments.
There is no "life after death," because the essence of a person is contained in the brain, and the brain stops working after death (if "souls" existed in the traditional sense of containing one's personality, brain damage would not alter personality, but it does).
Your need for "GOD," Phat, is rooted in your belief that believing in "GOD" is a good thing, and your wishful thinking that you should be loved and protected from that which you have no control over. That desire is present in all human beings, as is the instinctual urge to make something up to occupy a role to fulfill that wishful thinking when your desires are not met.
Your real question is whether we, as human beings, need to believe in "GOD," whether such a thing exists or not. You wonder what will happen if you, Phat, give up that belief.
The answer is nothing. You might experience some confusion and feel like your world has changed...
...but eventually you'd realize that the world exists as it is, regardless of your beliefs. You don't need "GOD," and you don;t need to believe in "GOD," because "GOD" will exist or not exist regardless of your beliefs or your imagined "needs;" indeed, "GOD" already either exists or does not exist, regardless of how you feel on the matter.
The world doesn't change when you discard an inaccurate belief.
But you change - you become stronger. You are better able to predict what will actually happen with greater accuracy because your personal set of beliefs about the world will more accurately reflect objective reality.
Instead of believing, for example, that "GOD" will cure a diabetic boy, you'll predict that without medical intervention the boy will die, regardless of how many people "pray" to their imaginary friends.
Instead of believing that "GOD" will protect the righteous or the faithful, you'll realize that the righteous and faithful suffer just as much as everyone else, and that their suffering is the combined result of contingent environmental circumstance, their own actions, and the actions of those who can affect them.
Instead of believing that this world doesn't matter and instead banking on your fate in the "next," you'll correctly realize that this world, this life is all we have, and whether it exists as heaven or hell is up to us to decide through our actions...not a magic man who will make everything better after we die.
We don't "need GOD," Phat. YOU don't "need" it either.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 3:55 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 5:25 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 83 of 224 (675954)
10-17-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Phat
10-16-2012 5:25 PM


Re: Three Topics -One God -Zero Evidence?
Hi Phat.
It's interesting to me that you chose to reply to only a small portion of my post...and that what you did reply to apparently sailed over your head, as you aren't even speaking to the subject matter.
Indeed they do. Sometimes I dont think enough before I say something, and it comes out wrong.
Typically, when someone says "my words came out wrong," what's really happened is that they meant exactly what was said, but upon later reflection the individual is uncomfortable when the implications of a statement are pointed out, and the individual seeks to publicly (and often internally) distance him/herself from the original statement...even as then absolutely continue to hold exactly that belief.
For me, or for everyone? *ponders* Yes, I suppose that since I believe that God is good and is personally interactive and/or interested in our lives that it is good to believe in Him.
Sailed completely over your head.
You don't actually believe any such thing as a god exists - if you did, you'd be able to define that thing with as much detail as you could define an everyday object with which you are familiar, like a pen or a television. If you did, your statements would be made in accordance with actually thinking that objective reality contains that thing.
Instead, as your words continue to tell us, you think that "believing in god" is a "good thing," and so you say to us and to yourself thst you "believe in god," while internally you do no such thing. Your internal self-predictions, I'd wager, match a person who does not believe in god - you don;t actually expect prayers to be answered in any way distinguishable from random occurrence, for example, and when you disc over that brain damage can alter personalities, you're not at all surprised even though a belief in "souls" and "spirits" is virtually invalidated by that data alone.
More specifically for you, you "agree with" posts on a regular basis that invalidate your own statements. You essentially say "I completely agree with what you say, but I continue to believe the exact opposite." You are a textbook example of contradiction on a regular basis.
Not true. I DO believe that GOD exists whether or not anyone believes in Him.
I think that you believe that you believe that. You aren't lying, but internally your predictions about the world will match the predictions that would be made if you did not believe in any god.
Jar has pointed out, however, that my definition of GOD tends to favor me and loves humanity, whereas the reality may be different. So I am forced to admit that if GOD exists, I may not know Her all that well!
Jar is High King of the God of the Gaps movement - he hides his assertions behind an impenetrable barrier of slimy fog, where his belief lie forever obfuscated from even himself. Jar, essentially, says "I don't know what I believe in, but it's out there, somewhere!" He's holding back his "GOD" label, waiting for something to come along (which he freely admits will not likely happen "while he is alive," implying some sort of epiphany after death, which he will then also disavow, because it is impossible to pin Jar down into making any specific claim on his own beliefs, much as he likes to use any relevant thread as a soapbox for his Church of I Don't Know What, But I Like to Think It's There Somewhere).
I'm certain there are things "out there" that I'm unaware of as well...but I don't get quite as much of a kick out of applying labels laden with actual meaning onto unknown unknowns. Just as it's irrational to say "God did it" to any currently unexplained phenomenon, it's irrational to say that "GOD" is a currently unknown and likely unknowable entity. If it were actually unknown and unknowable, Jar (and the rest of us) would have never conceived of such a thing and applied the specific label "GOD" to it.
How appropiate on the eve of the second presidential debate! I have an idea of what I think a Democracy should do and be, and I tie that in with what a candidate or party ideology/affiliation says, though their words often betray them as well. We know that what is said is not often done...or is partially quoted, misquoted, or taken out of context.
My words had nothing whatsoever to do with the election, Phat. It had everything to do with tribalism and the semantic difference between "believing in" (ie, believing a thing to be "good") and actually believing something to exist in objective reality (ie, the specific hypothesis of greatest probability as informed by your current understanding of the subset of your own known data).
In the same way, what you say is true in that I tend to align myself and form my own bias based on the God that I want to exist, which may not be the One whom actually does.(In this universe, anyway...maybe not in that other one!
If I were the type to insert graphics into my posts, I would add a facepalm image here.
You do more than align yourself with a specific God concept (one would think, given you can differentiate your own God-concept from others, that you'd be better equipped to define what exactly a "God" is, particularly given all of the historical usage of the term upon which you base your belief). You align yourself with a God-concept, period, because you think that "believing in God" is better (ie, more personally acceptable) than the alternative. Your internal drive to self-consistency causes you to tell yourself and others that you actually believe that this kinda-sorta defined thing actually exists in objective reality, but your intellectual core, the part of your mind that actually assimilates your real beliefs about the world and determines what you expect to happen in a given set of circumstances, shows what you really believe.
Jar's drive for internal consistency causes him to blur his concept of "GOD" sufficiently that all outcomes for all predictions will fit with his not-even-defined hypothesis. He quite simply could never given any information, right up to and including a reality-warping super-entity popping out of the clouds and saying "Hi, I'm God, sorry about all the confusion and injustice and whatnot," differentiate between a Universe that contains "GOD" and one that does not, except by his own whimsy.
An undefined "GOD" label fits a mouse as easily as a laptop computer as easily as a cloud as easily as a demon as easily as a magic rainbow unicorn. Jar is like a Supreme Court justice whose identity I cannot recall commenting on what defines "pornography" and what differentiates it from "art:" "I'll know it when I see it."
If you cannot define it, you cannot possibly know it when you see it.
Based on jars analogy, its all in the capitalization. My belief in GOD is independent of how I attempt to define God, which is a mix of logic and emotion and personal bias.
Again: you cannot believe something to exist if you can't even define what it is. Jar is not using an analogy - he's simply obfuscating his actual beliefs and assertions behind an infinite regression of "I didn't say that" when challenged with an implication of what he has said and various permutations of "it's unknowable."
Jar is interesting in his ability to spawn significant debate around a non-statement, the basic assertion that "I think there's something out there, I don't know what, and I don't think it's possible to know or understand beyond that. Oh, and I'm going to call it GOD, and it's case-sensitive."
As to my alliance, I do not limit my affiliation with believers. I find that aligning with non-believers and skeptics as well as intelligent critical thinkers of unknown belief actually challenges me much better. Believers, if they are defined as I think you mean, tend not to think and are mired in dogma and ideology. They may be as a group less desirable to be in alliance with, though individually as heartfelt and wise as are the other group.
Yet another point sails over your head, replied to with wishy-washy pseudo-philosophical irrelevancy.
You "believe in God" because that intellectual association is more personally comfortable to you. You assign yourself to that intellectual clade out of a form of social pressure, rather than actual belief guided by logic and evidence and rational thought.
That has nothing whatsoever with whether you also personally associate with those who do not belong to the "believe in God" group. It's not a statement of inter-clique relations.
You think that "believing in God" is a good thing, regardless of its existence or non-existence. Because of this, your internal drive toward consistency forces you to adopt the premise that "God" actually exists, even as your true intellectual core makes predictions about the world counter to that hypothesis.
Let me try this a different way.
quote:
There is a man named Jon who lives down your street. Jon believes in dragons...and one day, Jon tells you that he has a dragon in his garage.
Obviously, you want to see the dragon.
Jon takes you to his garage, gestures grandly toward...an empty space, which in no way contains a dragon.
You of course tell him, "I don't see the dragon."
Jon replies, "Of course not; it's an invisible dragon."
Obviously you're extremely skeptical at this point, but like any good rationally-thinking individual, you can't necessarily rule it out, so you think of additional tests.
"Okay," you say, "I'll throw some flour at where you say the dragon is; the flour should rest on its invisible skin and show us that it's really there."
"The dragon," says Jon, "is permeable to flour; it'll just fall to the ground."
Becoming more skeptical, you inquire, "why can't I hear the dragon breathing?"
"Obviously," says Jon, rolling his eyes, "the dragon is also inaudible."
"So I can't hear it roar, either?"
"Nope. Wouldn't hear a thing."
"So...how do you know it's there?"
"Well," says Jon, "I'm not sure, but I believe it's there."
In this story, Jon knows, in advance, the outcome of every possible experiment to test for the existence of the dragon. He predicts the exact same results as would be expected by a person who does not believe a dragon to be present.
In other words, he knows, even if only subconsciously, that there is no dragon. He simply finds that belief to be unacceptable; he believes that believing in the dragon is a "good thing." He believes that one should believe that the dragon is there, independently of evidence.
So too is your belief in "God." It's more comfortable for you to hold to that hypothesis, even if you'll automatically predict the results of any test I can name to be exactly identical to what I would expect if there is no "God."
If I say "Okay, Phat; I'll pray really hard for something small but extremely unlikely but benevolent," you'll respond "well, sometimes God says no," or "you can't test God," or some other such evasion. You'll know in advance that the event I pray for has exactly the same probability of happening whether I pray or not, and you'll use some apologetic excuse as a way to justify holding your belief in the face of what should be strong evidence against it.
Again: you personally feel the need to "believe in God" because that hypothesis is more comforting to you, for personal and/or social reasons, but not at all due to evidence or rational thought. You don't really believe "God" to exist...but because the thought is comforting and more socially acceptable, you continue to tell yourself and everyone else that you "believe in God" even as your unconscious core predicts reality to behave exactly as one would expect if no such thing existed.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 5:25 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 10-18-2012 7:31 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 12-27-2013 8:42 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024