Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 126 of 126
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Is universal atheism inevitable?

  1. #101  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Ice you miss the point that I'm not talking about the morality of particular scientist, I'm talking about the scientific study of morality which is making huge strides by combining multiple fields such as sociology, psychology and other social sciences towards not only figuring out how people perceive things, and that linking to how emotions and motivations that lead people to good and bad decisions which we evaluate objectively by the greatest good for individuals or society as a whole. It is the first time in human history that we've been able to get beyond simple anecdotal and writings from ancient and brutish peoples whole system by nearly every measure (violence being the big one) was much worse than today.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Ice you miss the point that I'm not talking about the morality of particular scientist, I'm talking about the scientific study of morality
    And I am pointing out that such study will inform the immoral and unethical as well as informing the moral and ethical.

    It will be performed and analyzed by the amoral and unethical. Its results will be employed by the immoral and unethical.

    Unless you have some general way of preventing, or at least curbing, that.

    btw: "Ancient and brutish" peoples of the past? The first time we have been able to "get beyond" simple anecdotal and writings? Brave new world time, apparently, transcending the ancient and brutish standards of, say, the Mennonites of Canada in the latter half of the 20th Century, the simple anecdotes of the Tao Te Ching.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    "Ancient and brutish" peoples of the past? The first time we have been able to "get beyond" simple anecdotal and writings? Brave new world time, apparently, transcending the ancient and brutish standards of, say, the Mennonites of Canada in the latter half of the 20th Century, the simple anecdotes of the Tao Te Ching.
    I'm not much fussed whether you confused the century or the latter/former/early/late distinction. This hardly qualifies as ancient.

    There's history. Then we sort out modern history and ancient history. And that overlaps archeology. Despite the failings of many grandparents of people alive today, I doubt Lynx is talking about ancient and brutish as applying to them.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    It will be performed and analyzed by the amoral and unethical. Its results will be employed by the immoral and unethical.
    And? The very use of your word means there's a difference between moral and immorale. As soon at your make that distinction you open it to ability for examination using scientific methods.

    So pick one. Lets say we agree "moral" means to minimize suffering. Suffering is something we can develop reasonable measurements for and by applying the best tool humans have ever devised to examine truth we can study it, make predictions based on what we know about the social sciences, and therefore at make a reasonable prediction as to the best way to minimize suffering and hence moral actions.

    My point about "Ancient and brutish" peoples of the past?" is most ethical systems up until Hume (who got it wrong) and others were based on written text by superstitious ancients. Many Americans still cling to those mythology based ethics...some are good...many are demonstratively "immoral," by the definitions I discussed above. In the US we loosely call this the culture wars.

    And while I recognize that ethical naturalism isn't broadly accepted yet among scientist, their applications have been influencing moral questions for decades and incorporated in a wide application from what we do about drug abusers. Until recently those social and hard sciences related to how we make discussions wasn't well enough developed. That's no longer true and people like neuroscience Sam Harris and others are bringing those capabilities to the forefront to make the case directly. Wasn't it yesterday that the National Institute of Health decided not to fund research on Chimps due to ethical concerns of doing a sentient species harm?
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 16th, 2011 at 02:25 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And we see people such as Descartes, taking that to its "logical conclusion", dissecting living and conscious dogs to see how they worked, justifying the cruelty on the grounds that their howling and writhing were mere mechanical expressions of what we now term robotic functions.

    Scientists will do that to people. They have. Nothing in science itself curbs them.
    Couldn't disagree more. That some people who designate themselves as scientists do some awful things because it's "scientific" to be dispassionate or whatever is not about science.

    All such cruelties perpetrated on animals, women, children and people of 'other' races are signs not of science but of ideology.
    At the very least it establishes that science has a nearly complete moral neutrality, at least when the scientist in question isn't specifically trying to approach the problem of right and wrong. If they were approaching that problem, they might have some interesting ideas.

    Scientists are notoriously blind to everything that falls outside the scope of their inquiry.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    The sciences and secularism have been remarkably successful to reduce human misery including improved justice and promote equality--there's no reason to think that trend won't continue. We should embrace it.
    Mostly by increasing material wealth and curing disease - not a bad thing, but not what we're looking for here.

    Embracing science would be a good thing, but it won't get you a community morality or a civilization's ethics. There's nothing in science that gets you from "is" to "ought", "can" to "should" (or, more critically, "shouldn't"). The current scientific benefits have come in a context of liberal arts based ethics and community based morality. Without this foundation for action, science floats free of ethical or moral curbs on its employment, and amplifies the worst as easily as the best.

    .
    There are some scientific avenues to approaching this. Economics can point out that certain laws and/or behaviors have detrimental results to society. Evolution has potential, but more often falls flat on its face by unintentionally endorsing racism.

    Part of the problem is that, even if science could come up with a good set of ethics, it lacks the artistic ability and empathy to connect with society to implement those ideas anyway. Religion is dominated by people who know how to play the crowd, and it needs to be. Otherwise the crowd won't put peer pressure on its members to obey the rules.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    At the very least it establishes that science has a nearly complete moral neutrality, at least when the scientist in question isn't specifically trying to approach the problem of right and wrong. If they were approaching that problem, they might have some interesting ideas.
    But as adalady pointed out, they get their cues from their professional organizations and society as a whole. Most scientific fields have developed their own sets of ethics that are ahead of society expectations and the increasing advent of scientitif study of morality is giving them an even broader and more robust grounding.

    it lacks the artistic ability and empathy to connect with society to implement those ideas anyway.
    I won't argue that, though it's perception probably has more to do with inability to communicate with the general public than an real lack of empathy--no doubt feed back on themselves.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    It is interesting that during the years of the plague when people realized their "God" wasn't going to save them, they abandoned their beliefs. When the plague was over, people forgot that they abandoned those beliefs and built their faith again. The reason why it is so hard for them to give up their faith is because it was brainwashed into them before the age of 5 until adulthood by their parents and their parents choice of faith. It becomes hard wired in their minds and it takes alot of courage and the desire to question everything that many were able to break away from this type of conditioning of though.

    People should not judge people of their faith since it was not their fault they were born into a family that were brainwashed from their upbringing. We are all products of our environment and it is well known that people that obtain a college education to be a scientist that the educational process that teaches evolution does reprogram your thinking so the person receiving this education eventually determines for themselves that they no longer believe in their faith. I am not saying it happens to all of them but if a scientist wants to make a name for him or herself and taken seriously then they better lose their religious views first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    (Western) Atheism as we now know it is still rebellious, self-defining against all things religion is or has. As atheism gets over religion I believe it will learn to value things now thought yukky by association: Faith, paradox, stuff like that. Cultivation of such virtues can strengthen a society, be it atheist or religious. A society that will not employ devices such as Santa Claus for example, probably does not understand its own humanity. That would be a distopia.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    . A society that will not employ devices such as Santa Claus for example, probably does not understand its own humanity. That would be a distopia.
    How do you think shedding the need to lie to their children would lead to societal suffering? The main reason we have Santa Claus is to pave the way towards acceptance of the broader more permissive myth of Christ.

    There are far more profound wonders in the natural world to fascinate our children than even the best myths of the iron age.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    How do you think shedding the need to lie to their children would lead to societal suffering? The main reason we have Santa Claus is to pave the way towards acceptance of the broader more permissive myth of Christ.
    That origin myth of Santa Claus is fantasy - and since the current Santa Claus came to be fairly recently, it can be "debunked" (fact checked, if historical facts are relevant) fairly easily. Try Wiki.
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    There are far more profound wonders in the natural world to fascinate our children than even the best myths of the iron age.
    Some of them researched by Josef Mengele, Donald Cameron (Donald Ewen Cameron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), et al.

    Cameron is probably the most currently influential scientific researcher into human morality and ethics, specifically the means of altering them or disabling them in interrogation subjects; significant government agencies and official policies have been informed by his work, and his theories enjoy wide implementation.

    Human beings learn morality and develop ethics through storytelling and philosophy and song and ritual among other human beings. That is as true of scientists as anyone else. And not all of them are or ever will be moral, ethical people themselves - much less agents inculcating morals and ethics in the people they serve, the people who finance and otherwise enable their research.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady
    Scientists will do that to people. They have. Nothing in science itself curbs them.

    Couldn't disagree more. That some people who designate themselves as scientists do some awful things because it's "scientific" to be dispassionate or whatever is not about science.
    Regardless of what you choose to designate "ideology", and such famous and established figures as Descartes and Bacon and B.F. Skinner and Edward Teller designated "scientific morality", the fact is that science does not reliably make decent people out of even its high ranking and able practitioners - let alone communities of regular folk. And there's no reason it should, in and of itself.

    Human morality and ethics can be studied by science, the subject of scientific research, its applications or establishments informed by science, and all to the good as far as that goes: but not inculcated by science. You may as well try to inculcate acrobatic skill by scientifically studying gymnastics.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady
    Despite the failings of many grandparents of people alive today, I doubt Lynx is talking about ancient and brutish as applying to them.
    He was drawing a line between the generations prior to the scientific study of morality and those after: the cutoff there would be around WWII at the earliest, maybe taking Kinsey's work as the breakover.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    How do you think shedding the need to lie to their children would lead to societal suffering? The main reason we have Santa Claus is to pave the way towards acceptance of the broader more permissive myth of Christ.
    That origin myth of Santa Claus is fantasy - and since the current Santa Claus came to be fairly recently, it can be "debunked" (fact checked, if historical facts are relevant) fairly easily. Try Wiki.
    What does that have anything to do with my comment? Santa is a myth--perhaps loosely based on a Saint Nicholas who liked children (hopefully not in a creepy way). Telling children what we know is a myth to out children is lying; in most cases we shouldn't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    There are far more profound wonders in the natural world to fascinate our children than even the best myths of the iron age.
    Some of them researched by Josef Mengele, Donald Cameron (Donald Ewen Cameron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), et al.

    Cameron is probably the most currently influential scientific researcher into human morality and ethics, specifically the means of altering them or disabling them in interrogation subjects; significant government agencies and official policies have been informed by his work, and his theories enjoy wide implementation.
    Cameron has been dead for 40 years, so he not current about anything.

    But lets cut to the chase. How do you propose to explore optimal moral systems? For me it's quite simple--we continue to use myth which has a long history bringing misery to the world. Or we use formal methods of science, which in the context by informing secular enlightened concepts, have dramatically reduced violence and suffering over the past few decades throughout the world. To me it's an easy choice.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Telling children what we know is a myth to out children is lying; in most cases we shouldn't do that.
    I certainly hope that anyone ostensibly exploring "optimal morality" can distinguish myths from lies.

    http://beebo.org/smackerels/yes-virginia.html

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    But lets cut to the chase. How do you propose to explore optimal moral systems?
    For starters, by dropping the word "optimal" - and the concept, if any. Stick with the scientific approach, would be my proposal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    We have to define an objective. For religion, the objective is to make a man in the sky happy with us. It's totally arbitrary, and religious leaders are free to tap into the whole wide range and of human feeling and emotion to define it. Anything they want can be "because God said", or the illegal actions can be illegal "Because it would make God sad."

    Going the secular route, you run into the problem of different learning curves. A person may not easily understand why a bank, which has so much money to spare, shouldn't be robbed by them if they're poor and feel like they need it more. People who lack empathy don't understand the pain they cause others when they rob them or commit incest or rape. You can try all day to explain it to them. Psychologists have dedicated whole careers to this pursuit. It's tough going. It's like trying to explain Calculus to someone who wasn't smart and/or dedicated enough to finish High School algebra.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    We have to define an objective. For religion, the objective is to make a man in the sky happy with us. It's totally arbitrary,
    Hmmm.

    If the subject were termites, and they were discovered to have religions - essentially all of them, these characteristic types of belief - would you be satisfied with the observation that the details of the beliefs were arbitary?

    I would suspect a role, a significant benefit, for such a phenomenon. Whether it had anything to do with the "objective" of the details of the belief, I would leave to research - there's no necessity of such a correspondence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    No need to get into mumbo jumbo. Optimal morality can be defined as minimizing suffering while respecting individual rights. While not perfect, it's not fare fetched to define what they means in measurable terms such as lifespan, education level, individual rights, pain suffered, rate of starvation and numerous other diseases, crime rates etc. In fact we do so already in a number of ways in great detail scattered across a number of fields being increasingly analyses and measured using largely scientific based analysis methods. In fact this alone, and increasingly secular societies around the world are why suffering by almost every measure is going down.

    Couple that with our rapidly increasing understanding of human motivation and it becomes a substantial framework to example all moral questions (or at least the ones dealing with the natural world).

    Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting any kind of utopia here, and am deliberately avoiding suggesting there is ONE optimal morality--there's probably many that would be great to live in; what I am arguing that for the first time in human history we have the tools and knowledge to turn apply science to morality, and thus far it's proven to be far better than either experience or superstitious beliefs from the past.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If you think about it, refining our legal/cultural system is just another form of technology. There's no one right way to build a cell phone either, but cell phone tech has been steadily improving over the last couple of decades.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    24
    it is true that there are poltergeists
    they are souls that are sore that
    they are going to reside next in
    starfish
    or barnacles
    or earthworms
    or termites
    or even cockroaches
    can you blame them
    interrogation point

    we are all the lugnuts
    fastening the wheel of karma
    to whatever mad power
    spins it through eternity
    a big wheel
    requires many nuts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Enough posting garbage archy.

    Don't mind humor or something funny in here, but don't post without making a substantial contribution--your post is in no way related to the thread.

    This is a warning.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    I am not saying it happens to all of them but if a scientist wants to make a name for him or herself and taken seriously then they better lose their religious views first.
    I don't believe that; there are plenty of very successful scientists who are religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If you think about it, refining our legal/cultural system is just another form of technology. There's no one right way to build a cell phone either, but cell phone tech has been steadily improving over the last couple of decades.
    Do you see how that is also evolution? We may not have a clear goal in mind, yet those models which succeed lend their traits to the next generation of various phones... only some of which in their turn will succeed. Manufacturers needn't even understand exactly why some proven features or configurations work better. I think religion is - or was - like that: being effectively *right* but not knowing *why*, and so pulling from the sky silly explanations for the proven rightness.

    Consider a primitive population adapted to life on the Mediterranean coast. Only those who refused to eat shellfish survived. They passed it to their offspring. Yet these primitives can't possibly understand microbes or toxins. Religion seems helpful here. God forbids the eating of shellfish. God dictates which meats may be eaten, how they must be prepared. Those believers are merely right for the wrong reasons.

    I agree that religious leaders may hijack this ignorant yet beneficial adaptation with "anything they want". Over time though such bad steering will be selected out of the religion, if it is to survive.

    I'd be wary of throwing away a long-tested cultural adaptation just because the popular rationale is silly. For example I can't adequately explain why we wear black for funerals, but I'll assume the proven tradition must be good now matter how ridiculous the priest's explanation.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    why we wear black for funerals
    But many East Asians wear white for mourning, so this is not a universal preference.

    As for our preference for black. One thing to bear in mind is that, until recently, people didn't own all that many clothes. Black funeral clothing was everyone's ordinary clothes - which had been taken to the dyer's to be dyed black. Black's a pretty handy colour for these purposes, the dye covers any existing colour.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    why we wear black for funerals
    But many East Asians wear white for mourning, so this is not a universal preference.

    As for our preference for black. One thing to bear in mind is that, until recently, people didn't own all that many clothes. Black funeral clothing was everyone's ordinary clothes - which had been taken to the dyer's to be dyed black. Black's a pretty handy colour for these purposes, the dye covers any existing colour.
    You're right. Almost universally then, we wear NO BRIGHT COLOURS and NO SHOWY PATTERNS.

    And there you go, finding good likely explanations for the dress though it's arguably religious costume. I love this approach, because it leaves aside the worthless religious packaging while retaining a probably good tradition. Another atheist might view the garb as expressive of religion, like a product of, so toss baby with the bathwater.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If you think about it, refining our legal/cultural system is just another form of technology. There's no one right way to build a cell phone either, but cell phone tech has been steadily improving over the last couple of decades.
    Do you see how that is also evolution? We may not have a clear goal in mind, yet those models which succeed lend their traits to the next generation of various phones... only some of which in their turn will succeed. Manufacturers needn't even understand exactly why some proven features or configurations work better. I think religion is - or was - like that: being effectively *right* but not knowing *why*, and so pulling from the sky silly explanations for the proven rightness.

    Consider a primitive population adapted to life on the Mediterranean coast. Only those who refused to eat shellfish survived. They passed it to their offspring. Yet these primitives can't possibly understand microbes or toxins. Religion seems helpful here. God forbids the eating of shellfish. God dictates which meats may be eaten, how they must be prepared. Those believers are merely right for the wrong reasons.
    Imagine if the decision were arrived at by educated people, maybe alchemists or something appropriate to the age. Most followers were so uneducated that there's no way they'd be likely to understand the experimental process that went into determining it, so hearing a religious authority figure tell them to do it saved them the trouble of needing a real education. And they could still distinguish (to some degree) between quacks and real authorities so long as the religious leadership was careful to follow good advice.

    Right now with the internet, we've got quacks galore self publishing sites about everything from perpetual motion machines, to miracle cures for aids. In the old days, a religious leadership would have branded them as heretics or witches. The only trouble is that sometimes real science got mis categorized and thrown out with the rest (which probably still happens sometimes today anyway, even without religion.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    if the decision were arrived at by educated people
    Or educated people finally posed the question: (to the only people left standing, who don't buy funky shellfish at the market) "Why won't you folks try these oysters?"
    Then it is human nature to rationalize whatever it is we're already doing, as if we'd made a good choice.
    "It's not the Hebrew way."
    "Why not..?"
    and so forth.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    And there you go, finding good likely explanations for the dress though it's arguably religious costume. I love this approach, because it leaves aside the worthless religious packaging while retaining a probably good tradition. Another atheist might view the garb as expressive of religion, like a product of, so toss baby with the bathwater.
    I agree. And think there's a lot of good and necessary elements of what we consider "religious," which would be excellent ways to teach and share important elements as a secular culture, that are being rejected outright at great loss of opportunities to offer an alternatives to faith.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It wouldn't matter if religion died out or not. Utopian ideologies of any other kind are just as dangerous as the religious ones. Pol Pot's Cambodia wasn't a religion, but it had all the same features as the worst parts of Islam. Same need to destroy everything that isn't it. Same likelihood of blowing up an ancient Buddha statue. Same rigorous restrictions on thought and action.
    adelady likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •