Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Religious Discussion

Now this is really veering off-topic. But Alex, I put up a link that showed how humans learn in society which had to do with Feral Children which you must have missed. I'm only posting this because I didn't read your whole response and can't really focus.​
 
--+Hahvoc Requiem+-- said:
Now this is really veering off-topic. But Alex, I put up a link that showed how humans learn in society which had to do with Feral Children which you must have missed. I'm only posting this because I didn't read your whole response and can't really focus.​
Click to expand...
I probably did miss it, since I went off that one post which made me wonder as to why you didn't consider some scenarios. Granted, it's off topic, but like I said, you're the one who talked about instincts in the first place. xD

And while it shows 'how" humans learn in society, I said "humans learn from experience, not society by itself." Unless there is a study that has statistics about ever single 'feral child,' and their development mentally and physically, there are still too many factors to show in favor of society itself teaching people.
 
Alex said:
--+Hahvoc Requiem+-- said:
Now this is really veering off-topic. But Alex, I put up a link that showed how humans learn in society which had to do with Feral Children which you must have missed. I'm only posting this because I didn't read your whole response and can't really focus.​
Click to expand...
I probably did miss it, since I went off that one post which made me wonder as to why you didn't consider some scenarios. Granted, it's off topic, but like I said, you're the one who talked about instincts in the first place. xD

And while it shows 'how" humans learn in society, I said "humans learn from experience, not society by itself." Unless there is a study that has statistics about ever single 'feral child,' and their development mentally and physically, there are still too many factors to show in favor of society itself teaching people.
Click to expand...

Thing is, as I said, humans are social animals and learn from groups. But I agree with your experiences idea as well. And I did bring up instincts mostly because someone was saying it was instinct to believe in something which isn't true and it spouted into this whole thing. I agree with some of the things you have said but what I learned in my sociology class leads me to believe that humans being social creatures learn from "society" which can also mean the groups they live in like other social animals which have social structures as well.

And the Feral Children thing was multiple feral children and not just one or two cases.​
 
--+Hahvoc Requiem+-- said:

Thing is, as I said, humans are social animals and learn from groups. But I agree with your experiences idea as well. And I did bring up instincts mostly because someone was saying it was instinct to believe in something which isn't true and it spouted into this whole thing. I agree with some of the things you have said but what I learned in my sociology class leads me to believe that humans being social creatures learn from "society" which can also mean the groups they live in like other social animals which have social structures as well.

And the Feral Children thing was multiple feral children and not just one or two cases.​
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, it is only instinctive to want to look up to something of a higher power to a degree. Example, alpha males. It's natural to want to believe and have faith in something that ultimately seems stronger in nature itself.

But, that being said, the Greek and Roman Gods and Goddesses were made in order to explain something that people could not comprehend. Why the sun rose and set, why spring and winter happened, how the rivers could naturally flow, why love happened... just to name a few scenarios. In essence, our own instincts to try to explain why things happened can be linked to creating Gods or Goddesses at times.

On that note, did they actually look at the feral children's development until the day they died? Not to mention, no two humans are created equal and no two scenarios are ever the same. And again, unless they can actually document all of the scenarios...
 
Alex said:
--+Hahvoc Requiem+-- said:

Thing is, as I said, humans are social animals and learn from groups. But I agree with your experiences idea as well. And I did bring up instincts mostly because someone was saying it was instinct to believe in something which isn't true and it spouted into this whole thing. I agree with some of the things you have said but what I learned in my sociology class leads me to believe that humans being social creatures learn from "society" which can also mean the groups they live in like other social animals which have social structures as well.

And the Feral Children thing was multiple feral children and not just one or two cases.​
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, it is only instinctive to want to look up to something of a higher power to a degree. Example, alpha males. It's natural to want to believe and have faith in something that ultimately seems stronger in nature itself.

But, that being said, the Greek and Roman Gods and Goddesses were made in order to explain something that people could not comprehend. Why the sun rose and set, why spring and winter happened, how the rivers could naturally flow, why love happened... just to name a few scenarios. In essence, our own instincts to try to explain why things happened can be linked to creating Gods or Goddesses at times.

On that note, did they actually look at the feral children's development until the day they died? Not to mention, no two humans are created equal and no two scenarios are ever the same. And again, unless they can actually document all of the scenarios...
Click to expand...
It's natural to look for an explanation, not to believe in a higher power. To want to believe and to actually believe are two different things. And as you said, religion was used as a tool to explain things that they didn't have knowledge about- but that has nothing to do with having the "instinct" to believe in something. Alpha males exist as leaders and instinct- if you are a follower- is to follow them but you don't have to believe in all the things they do. That's the choice and not the instinct. You can follow someone but you don't have to actually believe in them or the things they do because that is your choice. Just like it's the choice to follow them as well.​
 
Seraph Nicholas said:
There's plenty of evidence christ existed - It's his divinity that's in question, as most of the passages of the bible relating to that (Miracles, the resurrection) were added hundreds of years after his death. I, personally, believe his divinity is completely immaterial to his message.

Science, and humanity as a whole, know so very, very little about both the higher and lower levels of reality. On a scientific tack (And also moving into your third point), my first step towards becoming religious was when I read about the state of the brain during prayer, meditation, worship, and other 'religious' experiences, irregardless of religion.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2009/1214/prayer121409.shtml">http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2009/1214/prayer121409.shtml</a><!-- m -->

The last section hits especially close to home for me.

Seraph Nicholas: "My question was this - So prayer is hardwired into our brain, humanity has evolved to be religious. Why? What's the evolutionary payoff? The conclusion that made the most sense to me was simple enough. Something put it there. Bear in mind that I was very much an atheist when I had this conclusion."



As for your third point, it's important to distinguish the organization from the message. Besides, you're way too inclusive. Buddhists are destructive, controlling, and accomplish little good? How about taoists? Pagans? The church is a pretty selfcentered organization, dedicated to it's own power and perpetuation. This was even true in Christ's time. He had some pretty harsh things to say about the church. The message is absolutely worthwhile to everyone the world over, though.

"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, 'Of all the commandments, which is the most important?' 'The most important one,' answered Jesus, 'is this: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." The second is this: "Love your neighbour as yourself." There is no commandment greater than these.' 'Well said, teacher,' the man replied. 'You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.' When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.' And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions." Mark 12:28-34

For context, it's important to understand these two commandments are two faces on the same coin, as Christ stated that God is within all of us and we are a part of Him. The message, therefore, is be good. Love one another. Care for your fellow man. That's not so bad, eh?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4[/youtube]
Click to expand...
I agree with you very much.:D

Seraph Nicholas: "There's plenty of evidence christ existed - It's his divinity that's in question, as most of the passages of the bible relating to that (Miracles, the resurrection) were added hundreds of years after his death. I, personally, believe his divinity is completely immaterial to his message."

Exactly and to add that the Emperor Constantin and very select group of people gathered together at the Counsel of Nicea, along with all the hundreds of book written on Crist and selected on a few of them, that suited their political goal, to form the modern bible as it is. You must also take into account the difficulties of translations between languages and culture. There are hundred of more books being kept and locked in the Vatican's vault XD, including stories of his marriage and children.:idea: It is also rumored that for a few years, Yeshua, his real Hebrew name, disappeared for a few years and during that time, studied under the guidance of advanced Buddhist Monks. If you look at the basic teachings of christ, ex: turn the other cheek, you will find many similarities between the two philosophies that were taught.

Also, Though not considered divine, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism used and incorporate the teachings of Yesua, and call him a great, wise Prophet or spiritually awakened person.

Seraph Nicholas, "Science, and humanity as a whole, know so very, very little about both the higher and lower levels of reality. On a scientific tack (And also moving into your third point), my first step towards becoming religious was when I read about the state of the brain during prayer, meditation, worship, and other 'religious' experiences, irregardless of religion."

I also wanted to add here that just in the last few years or so, astrophysicists have very much proven, via the vehicle of mathematics that we lived and have 11 dimensions constantly intersecting our 3-4 dimensional world, always at the same time and the proof and of a second universe. Again, it is not their job or interest to support of validate and information spiritually. They observe the physical world only, which is an excellent balancing tool for idiots who go off on tangents and fanaticism from and source of faith.

Seraph Nicholas, "As for your third point, it's important to distinguish the organization from the message. Besides, you're way too inclusive. Buddhists are destructive, controlling, and accomplish little good? How about taoists? Pagans? The church is a pretty selfcentered organization, dedicated to it's own power and perpetuation."

Yes, science has proven the physical changes that occur in the braid during meditation and is well documented. The message from the organization is important to be separated. Truth is truth, no matter the vehicle and is universal.

You'll laugh but I am a chosen Celtic witch that follows the philosophies of Buddhism and Taoism and even some Shintoism. :D
 
I also wanted to add here that just in the last few years or so, astrophysicists have very much proven, via the vehicle of mathematics that we lived and have 11 dimensions constantly intersecting our 3-4 dimensional world, always at the same time and the proof and of a second universe.
Click to expand...

Er, where did you read that? Formulations of string theory that demand that many dimensions are working hypotheses, and very far from proven. There is no experiment we can currently do to test them; they just happen to mathematically work nicely. This is very different from them being "very much proven."

People used to be able to predict the movements of the planets by assuming the Earth was in the middle of the solar system. To make this work demanded a complicated model of rotations-inside-rotations, which became even more questionable as better observations were taken, but they did make it mathematically work. That didn't mean they were right; it just meant that they were good at doing the math.

I'm all in favor of saying that there are things we don't know; part of science is having humility in the face of ignorance. But please be careful when citing scientific advances in a religious argument. In general, if you use a scientific fact to support or rebut a theological claim, you're either arguing with literalists who won't care (i.e., trying to rebut claims of a 6,000-year-old Earth), or stretching the science further than you ought to (i.e., using quantum mechanics to argue for the existence of a soul).

I don't mean to pick on this particular point, but I don't like it, as a scientist, when people say that science has "proved" something that hasn't really been proven. It's a shortcut to an argument from authority, and it makes scientists look bad by proxy when you turn out to have been mistaken. Don't even get me started on people who shill 'scientifically-proven' quack cures!
 
MirrorCracked said:
I also wanted to add here that just in the last few years or so, astrophysicists have very much proven, via the vehicle of mathematics that we lived and have 11 dimensions constantly intersecting our 3-4 dimensional world, always at the same time and the proof and of a second universe.
Click to expand...

Er, where did you read that? Formulations of string theory that demand that many dimensions are working hypotheses, and very far from proven. There is no experiment we can currently do to test them; they just happen to mathematically work nicely. This is very different from them being "very much proven."

People used to be able to predict the movements of the planets by assuming the Earth was in the middle of the solar system. To make this work demanded a complicated model of rotations-inside-rotations, which became even more questionable as better observations were taken, but they did make it mathematically work. That didn't mean they were right; it just meant that they were good at doing the math.

I'm all in favor of saying that there are things we don't know; part of science is having humility in the face of ignorance. But please be careful when citing scientific advances in a religious argument. In general, if you use a scientific fact to support or rebut a theological claim, you're either arguing with literalists who won't care (i.e., trying to rebut claims of a 6,000-year-old Earth), or stretching the science further than you ought to (i.e., using quantum mechanics to argue for the existence of a soul).

I don't mean to pick on this particular point, but I don't like it, as a scientist, when people say that science has "proved" something that hasn't really been proven. It's a shortcut to an argument from authority, and it makes scientists look bad by proxy when you turn out to have been mistaken. Don't even get me started on people who shill 'scientifically-proven' quack cures!
Click to expand...


You absolutely correct and thank you for that input, very nice:D
 
I'm an agnostic, lean atheist. I have no problem with spiritual beliefs, I despise organized religion, though. I HATE preaching Christians. As for the discussion of multiple universes, we only believe there were/will be before/after (whatever those words mean in this relevance) the big bang. The Big Bang Theory isn't much of a theory anymore, just remains called that because it can't be proven. We KNOW the universe is expanding because we KNOW galaxies are getting farther apart through the wave-length in the light from other stars changing (which is why stars appear as different colors).

What we don't know about this expansion is if it's rapid enough to keep going forever and avoid the eventual collapse from gravity, or if one day, millions of millions, of millions, of millions, of millions of years from now the gravity of the universe will slowly but surely draw EVERYTHING back into one extremely dense state until the matter and anti-matter compete until one outnumbers the other. If anti-matter wins, it becomes the matter of the universe. I see absolutely no god in either of these two theories.

Yet, somehow from the world as we know it, from the red-blue-green spinning quarks, to the proton, electron and neutron that make up the atom. Or the oxygen atoms that make the molecule or body requires to breath, to the proteins we were essentially formed from and consume, I see no God. I see exactly what it is - simple atoms that formed to become complex molecules, that became complex proteins that eventually folded into single celled life-forms, that ate smaller single-celled life forms until it became a multi-cellular life-form and ate smaller multi-cell life forms until it got big enough to need to seek a new habitat, so it slowly found its way out of the ooze and out onto land or into water, adapted over thousands of years to become what it is today and will continue to do until life can no longer be sustained.

If there is a God, he has abandoned us. He left all we need to survive and expects us to do that without him - like a kid with an ant-farm. And he's probably laughing his ass off watching us destroy each other instead of focus on more important things like a cure for HIV or a treatment for cancer.
 
Theory doesn't mean "I can't prove". It's a scientific theory. Wiki has a great definition of a scientific theory:

"In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

So, it's not that we can't prove, it's just... that's the name for what we call that sort of thing.

... and eating other things makes you evolve?
 
I wish people would stop conflating the scientific use of the word "theory" with its use in, say, detective TV shows. There are certain basic similarities in the usage, but the concepts are NOT directly comparable, and the scientific usage has a lot more involved than the more casual usage.

Hell, if the sciences had a completely different term to represent the concept, that would be swell! But we don't, really. Which dooms us to constant misinterpretation.

Damn the language! <shakes fist>
 
hmmm... i think science is the most misunderstood concept of all. there is a good definition two post above.

As an engineer i hate theories. im only concerned with empirical sciences, things that work! Having studied them throughout my life i can conclude that there are NO FACTS in science except for the actual observations. Empirical sciences use models to simulate observed physical, chemical and biological phenomena.

for eg. apple falls from the tree and hits the ground. - a physical phenomena.

there are several models available to simulate this behavior, such as the inverse square law of gravitational and f=ma. However, this model fails to explain many other observations so now we have the most accepted model for the universe that's 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time and the force of gravity is understood to be caused by space time curvature. (marble-cloth analogy)

what is the guarantee that tomorrow some fresh observations would nullify the current models?
The point is that the model itself is not fact! As long as it can explain all give observations it is taken to be fact and 'preached' as such. And that's the unfortunate thing about science today!

Here is basically how empirical science work
1) observe something
2) theorize a model
3) make testable predictions with the model
4) keep tweaking the model until you match or get close enough with predictions of the model and observations.
5) goto 4 for new observations, if unsuccessful goto 2.

where exactly are the facts apart from step 1???

obviously most phenomena are way too complex for the human mind so we break it down to small pieces and create models for each division. So for example we can have have different models describing the same system observed at different physical conditions!!! (thermodynamics anyone :D)

furthermore, since models old and new models are accurate enough, there are many models being used for the same phenomena.
for eg f=ma can model most observable moving bodies and we use it extensively even though mass and energy equivalence has already been established from observation.

This reiterates my point that science is just a working model for simulating observed phenomena and has little to do with seeking truth. So if you believe that matter is made of balls with smaller ball inside and some more round things rotating around then you might as well give up. There are so many different models of the atom and nucleus that i cant even recall them whole lot. the latest being the quantum physical model in which you cannot even derive the speed and position of the electron simultaneously! so good bye revolving balls

empirical science and empiricism itself shall always remain a perception of the truth but not whole truth. that is the inherent limitation of inductive reasoning and empiricism in general. With each observation we get closer to facts. Hopefully we will know the truth (if there is one) someday although theoretically speaking that will require infinitely accurate infinite many observations. I think science should be seen as it once was, for what it is worth; a model for simulating and forecasting observable phenomena rather than a source for truth (even though it obviously does contain some element of truth in it - the observations).

However, that doesnt undermine the usefulness of science. Since scientific models can make accurate enough predictions, we no longer toss a coin to check if it will rain or not, instead we check the whether report. And we have so many other inventions making use of the models WE have developed. However, even though weather reports are very accurate, it doesn't mean that the physics behind the weather model is fact/truth!!!
Not for me anyway!

Now coming back to religion and God, most God(s) described in the various religions are unobservable so that their existence can be neither proved nor disproved through science or empirical observation. It is the same as how science can not prove or disprove that when i open the door there will be a floor present on the other side. it is just foolish to to use science to prove or disprove these things.

However, what can be done to check the accuracy/authenticity of religions is a good old statistical analysis based on deductive reasoning (opposite of inductive) with the assumption that The God is All-knowing. If a religious text or belief system makes testable predictions and revelations with an accuracy somewhere between that of a weather report and that of the toss of an unbiased coin, i think there is enough reason to believe the non-testable aspects of it (such as God, heaven and hell). This is similar to how we all believe that on 25th November 2011 the sun will rise from the east, based on the previous accurate predictions of our scientific model. It is reasonable faith! obviously one should keep searching for a more accurate religion until you reach 100% or close to that.
 
You can't compute the momentum and the location of an electron because computing where it is exactly collapses its wave function into a single... point. Line. I can't remember. But anyways! Collapsing the wave function removes your ability to see momentum.

That's something that empirically known. You can try to, but it won't work. Theories are great like that in that they give us different ways to empirically test things or even point our science brains at certain areas because theory predicts something.

Fucking engineers.

Note: it's been a long time since I took my quantum class. I should really get crack-a-lacking on re-learning that.
 
There's good things about reliance on empirical data, but the problem with that is, it doesn't predict. If you're going to make advancements, you need both hard test data and theory.

If's fine if a person isn't comfortable with one or the other, but it's ludicrous to say one or the other isn't important. Personal preference does not dictate the usefulness of aspects of reality.
 
Kawamura said:
"In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
Click to expand...

Which is why "God created everything in seven days because the Bible said so" is not a valid scientific theory, right?
 
Ok lets take a second to clear up one thing once and for all... Creationisim is not a science, you can't just make something a science by putting Ism at the end. It might trick a few ignorant people afraid of evolution but that doesn't make it a science.

Shitisim is not the study of shit or the science of shit... Creationisim is not the study of anything, it is people who say they already have the answers trying to explain how the evidence fits the theory and when it doesn't they just say that God or Satan is trying to test their faith.

I don't think that evolution is perfect, it has a hole or two but it is the best theory out there that I have heard of, and when a better one comes along I intend to give it careful consideration.
 
MirrorCracked said:
I also wanted to add here that just in the last few years or so, astrophysicists have very much proven, via the vehicle of mathematics that we lived and have 11 dimensions constantly intersecting our 3-4 dimensional world, always at the same time and the proof and of a second universe.
Click to expand...

Er, where did you read that? Formulations of string theory that demand that many dimensions are working hypotheses, and very far from proven. There is no experiment we can currently do to test them; they just happen to mathematically work nicely. This is very different from them being "very much proven."

People used to be able to predict the movements of the planets by assuming the Earth was in the middle of the solar system. To make this work demanded a complicated model of rotations-inside-rotations, which became even more questionable as better observations were taken, but they did make it mathematically work. That didn't mean they were right; it just meant that they were good at doing the math.

I'm all in favor of saying that there are things we don't know; part of science is having humility in the face of ignorance. But please be careful when citing scientific advances in a religious argument. In general, if you use a scientific fact to support or rebut a theological claim, you're either arguing with literalists who won't care (i.e., trying to rebut claims of a 6,000-year-old Earth), or stretching the science further than you ought to (i.e., using quantum mechanics to argue for the existence of a soul).

I don't mean to pick on this particular point, but I don't like it, as a scientist, when people say that science has "proved" something that hasn't really been proven. It's a shortcut to an argument from authority, and it makes scientists look bad by proxy when you turn out to have been mistaken. Don't even get me started on people who shill 'scientifically-proven' quack cures!
Click to expand...

I hate to be pompous, but here it comes.

We live in 3 dimensions, and we are always looking for new ways of expanding that concept by investigating time and such. We cannot not move back in time; so time isn't technically a dimension. We can though move slower in time, and that's about it at the moment.
At the current moment in time that we live in religion is waning in its power, control and acceptance as the current model of faith, and context as to why things happen.

Back when religion was the shit though, there was a reason for it. It was the best explanation for what was going on. I'm referring to Judaism and Christianity in that reference.

But before there was Christ and all of the Judeo-Christian train came a'rolling there was the believes in many Gods and such. It made sense to the Egyptians and Greeks.

Nowadays we have science, and we believe how everything before us is inferior. Same thing the Christians did.

And that's not to say that we're bashing the old, but it had it's time and place. Science will be replaced by advancements as well that the future will not look down on us for having presently, but if we have controllable, and sustainable fusion reactors in the future. If you knew someone still sticking onto wind power, I'm sure they're get a few snotty comments made to them as well.
 
How is time "technically" not a dimension if you can't move backwards in it? What definition are you pointing at?

And is religion waning in power? And is Judaism/Christianity younger than Egyptian and Grecian native religions? And is science a "religion"?
 
Figuring out the demographic distribution of atheism is pretty difficult for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons being that from person to person what it means to be an atheist has some variance. Maybe they call themselves atheists because they disdain organized religion but allow for the possibility of a high power (although you'd think that'd be agnostic, right?), maybe they are hard line anti-religious, maybe they recognize the concept of a higher power but choice not to worship it and therefore consider themselves atheists or they subscribe to a sometimes mystical philosophy (Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism) that is compatible with atheism in one form or another but at the same time do not believe in a prime mover. If someone is a Buddhist but does not believe in the mystical supremacy of the Buddha, is that person an atheist? If someone is a Taoist and tries to live their life in harmony with the concept of li but only takes the statement that proper li extends from the heavens to the peasant as metaphor are they an atheist? On another note, eternal security tends to fuck with atheists, as former members of, say, the Catholic or Mormon churches are often kept on rosters instead of being taken off when they disavow a lifestyle involving spirituality. So that can mess up demographic assessment.

So, if you would like to show how atheism is growing, please do feel free to display it with numbers and proof links. I had hard times finding information to corroborate that assertion except among scientists. It appears there's been a good growth there from the early nineties to the early aughts.
 
I allow for the possibility of a higher power and I call myself an atheist.

I tend to make a very strong distinction about what I mean when I talk about belief claims (I believe there isn't a god, so I'm atheist) and knowledge claims (but I can't know that, so I'm agnostic). Using atheism to mean "I don't like organized religion" always annoys me since a theist could dislike organized religion and go out to the woods and eat some berries and bark or something to get close to his god without a lot of organized religion.

Or something. Seems like a bad diet.
 
The problem with treating science as a religion is that science is a process, a way of looking at a problem, not a system of beliefs and dogma. And the conclusions reached by science are provable, data-based conclusions about the universe around us, not moral directions and predictions about what happens when we die. We have no data on what happens when we die, and morality is a humanities issue.

So while it's facile to say "science is our modern religion," that only really works if you don't actually know anything about science or how it's done. In that case, it basically seems like a big black box that spits out information, pretty much like religion seems at that level of understanding.

Science doesn't tell you how to live your life, or what to think, or how to feel; it can't, it doesn't work that way. Religion has done all of those things, to certain degrees at certain points in history, because it DOES work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom