No God? Why good?

  • #26
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by BoulderHead
...What can I say except “I absolve thee”?
Pretty good! You have me at a disadvantage since my own beliefs are in conflict with Catholic doctrine. However, in spite of the archaic overtones, the reasoning behind these practices is still rooted in good sense. I would argue that beyond the common aspects of wrong-doing such as guilt or paybacks, here Catholicism imposes the additional requirement for introspection and then the vocal confession. Note that if a Catholic commits a murder and is sentenced to death, if the person is unrepentant, even the chair doesn't get him a ride to heaven.

So like the retiring attorney said: As a young man I lost cases I should have won. As an older man I won more cases than I should have. On the average I would say that justice has been served.
 
  • #27
1,481
0
Ivan Seeking and Logical Athiest,
This reply is a little late, I realize. Assuming you were asking about my last post just prior to your posts.
Think that what both Buddha and Jesus were saying is that we have to concern ourselves with living now on this earth in this life and doing and living good in the here and now for the sake of good and mankind rather than possible rewards in the afterlife. I was addressing a few posts before that were saying the same thing but critizing religion for that reason. I was trying to show that in reality Jesus and Buddha agree completely with them. We should do good for goods sake rather than fear of punishment or hopes of reward. That is the difference between a child and a mature and wise adult.
 
  • #28
BoulderHead
Originally posted by HazZy
yeah, but i'm a theist, the ethnocentric fallacy monster eats your claim up . forgiveness from god is something totally different then forgiveness from the person you hurt, for me at least. im sure other theists would agree.
Ah, but we have not until just now (so far as I’m aware) attempted to break all of religion up into little pieces in order to find some of it blameless…
doesnt matter, we're talking about their guilt, not if they actually are forgiven. but to answer your question, sure :wink:.
Yes, I will try to remember that in reality we are only dealing with the guilty feelings inside our own heads. Now, if we find a way to relieve this guilt and convince ourselves that we are going to heaven even though we never made amends to the injured party, then doesn’t a religion which provides for these views offer something corrupt? Some ‘easy way out’ to relieve yourself?

BTW, I admit that I gave a crappy scenario, you were right about that. Can you also admit that you were not trying very hard to use your imagination to find support for what I was attempting to show?

i'll take your word for it, im not catholic :smile:. again it doesnt matter, who cares if god forgives them or if the priest does or whatever, it's all about how the person feels about their crimes after they have been forgiven by the priest/god/whatever.
What matters is that the person ‘believes’ the priest can absolve them. That way, a few moments of ‘feeling bad’ in the confessional sends them back out into the world living in some fantasy where all had been forgiven….while the injured party rots.
.. do they still feel guilty of them? i know i do. i would speculate that it all depends on the type of person they are, not their religion, or lack there of.
Yes, I mostly agree, but then at the least I would make a claim that religion becomes moot in a topic like this. Are you then arguing that there is no easy way, be someone religious or not?
What I think this picture is lacking is that it doesn’t recognize the ability to seek forgiveness by asking God to forgive you after clubbing someone over the head. There are as many different people in the world as there are people in the world. The non-theist, as I see it, has no outward means of redemption except for involving the injured party. The theist not only has that exact same outlet, but has another one too. More paths, more options, one of which might actually allow him to convince himself that all is well…
 
  • #29
1,029
1
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I completely appreciate your point of view but I must maintain just the opposite. I am trying to show that religion is not the easy way out at all. It is hard to live as a good Christian. Those who use religion as a convenience are hypocrites. My faith demands that I strive to maintain higher standards than I might really want. You seem to argue that these standards are implicit to our nature. I say that this nature within us is real and not just a philosophical premise or biological urge. I guess that philosophically, you see yourself as good, but I say no, you are really good. I guess we are down to a faith argument on this point.
I think this is a good thread that, if it had stayed on track , should have stayed in the philosophy forum. This is a point I have tried to make in several ethics discussions, albeit in a different way. I have claimed that the only way you can get to a true definition of what is good and evil is to have an absolute objective or purpose. All actions are assessed as good or bad based on how they perform their "function". A person is considered a good offensive football player if he scores lots of touchdowns because scoring and winning via the score is the objective. But that same player would likely get boo'd off of a basketball court. Because "touchdowns" are not the objective and thats the only way this player knows how to score.

What I think Ivan is saying here is similar to this view above. If a god exists, then that is the source of the purpose of creation. Hence the measure of good and bad is there. Without this "purpose", there is no single absolute rule of ethics. It is all individually based.

So for the benefit of all the self professed logical people, the question is..."On what standard can you judge the actions of others if you do not believe there is a single "standard" or "purpose" for determining good actions from bad?"

In these ethics discussions, I heard all the ideas about "whats good for survival of the species is the absolute standard". But my question is simply "says who?". Maybe the survival of Panda Bears is a more ethical thing? And lord knows they would be doing a whole lot better if humans went away. So who decides?

There were other attempts as well but no one has been able to clearly answer Ivan's question. I do not think there is an answer. It seems belief in some sort of absolute purpose is the only way to justify crucifying anyone for their actions. There doesn't seem to be any other rational way to justify this unless everyone in the world just decides to agree on a standard. But then even this leaves the poor Pandas out :frown:
 
  • #30
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176


Originally posted by Fliption
I think this is a good thread...
Thank you
...that, if it had stayed on track ...
Thank you
should have stayed in the philosophy forum.
THANK YOU! Getting diverted into an existence argument undermined the very point of the post. I asked the philosophical why; not the religious one.
There were other attempts as well but no one has been able to clearly answer Ivan's question. I do not think there is an answer. It seems belief in some sort of absolute purpose is the only way to justify crucifying anyone for their actions. There doesn't seem to be any other rational way to justify this unless everyone in the world just decides to agree on a standard. But then even this leaves the poor Pandas out :frown:
Couldn't have said it better myself.

EDIT: I think this is basically my thesis, from way back when:
"If the essence of good - GOD - is real, then there are real reasons to do good." Your reasons to do good are only abstractions. Abstractions are not real. Therefore no real reasons exist to do good."
 
Last edited:
  • #31
megashawn
Science Advisor
435
0
Ivan said this earlier:
Once I got past the hatred and fear, I realized that these people are the product of hopelessness. People need hope for real things...even when little really exist.... So even if I can't convince you that God is real, perhaps I can convince you that the need for a real God is real.
Ok. I grew up 3 yards (not units of measure) away from what was considered the Ghetto in Florida. I went to church with several of the people whom you describe as hopeless. They continued going to church, praying to god to get them out of the mess they were born into.

Later in life, in my teens, I hung out with a wide variety of people. Many of my friends were into freelance pharmeceuticals (spelling) and also attended church. While they constantly prayed to god to make there life better, selling drugs was the only way to pay the bills.

You see, you might look at something like selling drugs as being "bad". But what about when a person who is out selling drugs to feed his younger brothers and sisters, elderly grand mother and putting himself through college? Is that still "bad"?

You see, you can wonder if god is responsible for all good things. Personally, I think everyone has potential in them, for good or bad things. It is merely the opinion of an outside observer as to whether or not that thing is good or bad.

Where as you may say "selling drugs is bad, regardless of the motivation" I have a different opinion. And all of society will have different opinions.

Now, what I hate to see is people crediting god with all there accomplishments. Like a lady I work with, whom had never used a computer before this job. She had 3 weeks to learn the material or she was out the door.

Now she is very religous, and prayed to god to help her out. I let a week and one half go by, merely to see if god would grant here some SAP knowledge. After noticing that apparently god and his infinite wisdom knows nothing about the humans SAP, I decided to step in and show her how to get things done. Within 3 days she was moving through SAP like a pro.

Now of course, the theist would say "But god sent his wisdom through you to answer her prayers." But that is bs. I have been a non-believer before I learned sap, and god did not grant me with computer ability, I merely learned it on my own. She of course, after thanking jesus, decided to thank me for delivering the message. I was rather offended but bit my tounge.

Believers have a bad habit of passing the buck. All that is required of a christian is to admit jesus died for your sins, accept him in your heart, and try to live a decent life. Anytime you stray from this path of a decent life, you say "God, I've gone astray, and I need your forgiveness." Now everything is all better and you go on about your business until the guilt finally builds up to a point where you must call on God again to forgive you.

I'll give a christian credit that is hard/impossible to be a true christian, and live as the alleged Jesus lived, and meet all the various guidelines of the religion.

For example, how many of you believer are guilty of the following:

Premarital sex
hypocrisy
having a wife of equal stature, or a husband who is submissive
passing judgement on others

And you don't even think about things like that. Because society has changed and when society disagrees with a certain part of religion, that part is removed or rewritten, or sometimes just ignored, such is the case with biblical support of slavery.

But basically, there is no solid answer to your question. I can type all day long about it, but it will not satisfy you. Unless you can prove god exist, your point is, well, pointless.

Kinda like arguing that 2 apples + 2 apples equals 4 apples, but not knowing what an apple is.
 
  • #32
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
14
this will stay in the philosophy forum as long as it stays away from religious disccussions...
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by megashawn
Ivan said this earlier:
Ok. I grew up 3 yards (not units of measure) away from what was considered the Ghetto in Florida. I went to church with several of the people whom you describe as hopeless. They continued going to church, praying to god to get them out of the mess they were born into.
You are by definition missing the point: If they had a belief in a God then they weren't hopeless [without hope for better things]. I am talking about people who believe in nothing.
...You see, you might look at something like selling drugs as being "bad". But what about when a person who is out selling drugs to feed his younger brothers and sisters, elderly grand mother and putting himself through college? Is that still "bad"?

If you check my post, you will see that I am talking about hardened gang-bangers; not the good boy who lost his way. I mean people who have no regard for their lives or anyone else’s.
You see, you can wonder if god is responsible for all good things. Personally, I think everyone has potential in them, for good or bad things. It is merely the opinion of an outside observer as to whether or not that thing is good or bad.
So I can choose whatever I wish?
Now, what I hate to see is people crediting god with all there accomplishments. Like a lady I work with, whom had never used a computer before this job. She had 3 weeks to learn the material or she was out the door...she is very religous, and prayed to god to help her out.

I also think most persons of a faith actually take their cars to mechanics rather than praying for divine intervention. This is silly.
Now of course, the theist would say "But god sent his wisdom through you to answer her prayers." But that is bs. I have been a non-believer before I learned sap, and god did not grant me with computer ability, I merely learned it on my own. She of course, after thanking jesus, decided to thank me for delivering the message. I was rather offended but bit my tounge.

What does this have to do with the thread? I assume in my opening post that God does not exist. Also, your comments show that you have little or no knowledge of religious beliefs.
But basically, there is no solid answer to your question. I can type all day long about it, but....
So you agree with my meaningless point. Thank you.
 
  • #34
BoulderHead
Well, then back to the topic we shall go…
Ivan Seeking asked;
what justifies doing good, and what is good...why bother? It seems to me that all arguments for anything except self-serving selfish behavior quickly fail. In turn, this kind of behavior has negative effects on society. Of course, if the world effectively ends with my death what do I care?
Let’s look at the questions in order;
1) What justifies doing good.
2) What is good.
3) Why bother to do good.
Then what follows is point I agree with and another I disagree with.
4) Why should anyone care if the world effectively ends when someone dies.

First, I would say respectfully that too damn many questions are being asked here to make the replies stay on topic.

That said, here are my responces;

1) Depends on who you ask.
2) Depends on who you ask.
3) I think I already gave my answer to that.
4) Not everyone believes this happens, both the religionist and the atheist understand that their children will carry on, if nothing else.
 
  • #35
LogicalAtheist
Boulder, I feel the same way. Here is my short explanation of my POV

Good - socially acceptable. Generally speaking

I am an atheist. I use logic, scientific methods, et al, to come to this conclusion. We are all aware of what an atheist is.

Let me address why I hault myself from doing things.

1. If I was to be found out, the government I live under would punish me

2. An action I take may affect a relationship I have with another person

Those are the primary reasons. But let's face it, the first one is more prevelant. If I could hide such an act as, let's say, a theft or a murder, from anyone not SERIOUSLY investigating this, and there was no government to punish me, boy you better believe there's things I'd be doing.

That's my basic take on it. However the question is so vague it's a non-question. Please THINK about questions and make sure they're not VAGUE or AMBIGUOUS. Otherwise you will get the same thing in return.
 
  • #36
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by BoulderHead
First, I would say respectfully that too damn many questions are being asked here to make the replies stay on topic.
Sorry about that chief. I was trying to convey a state of mind along with the questions. Also, I didn't have enough time to make it shorter.
 
  • #37
BoulderHead
No problem, and if you'd like to reduce all of it to a single question or point to debate on, I'd try my best to start all over from scratch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
1,029
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I am an atheist. I use logic, scientific methods, et al, to come to this conclusion. We are all aware of what an atheist is.
Actually, can you define what you mean when you say atheist for me? I want to make sure we're on the same page.

Please THINK about questions and make sure they're not VAGUE or AMBIGUOUS. Otherwise you will get the same thing in return. [/B]
Actually, I understood the question and it's a relevant one.

It seems that you are actually validating Ivan's conclusion with your own ethics. By doing this, it isn't coincidence that you cannot see the importance of Ivan's key question because you do not place any negative implications on your own ethics. Whereas I think Ivan would see your ethic as an unfortunate implication of having no belief in something absolute, which was the whole point in asking the question. If I've mis-spoken Ivan please correct me.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
BoulderHead
I found him a tough read. Probably my fault for not re-reading it enough prior to posting. My appologies in that case. Bear with me...
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by Fliption
If I've mis-spoken Ivan please correct me.
OK. Now you make my point better than I do.
 
  • #41
BoulderHead
Originally posted by Flipion;
What I think Ivan is saying here is similar to this view above. If a god exists, then that is the source of the purpose of creation. Hence the measure of good and bad is there. Without this "purpose", there is no single absolute rule of ethics. It is all individually based.
I would rather he have asked questions such as; what is a moral judgment, or; what makes a moral judgment moral, etc.
Having the ‘purpose’ by a belief in god does little in my view to resolve this matter into a single absolute rule of ethics, at least not collectively, because we do not all share a common view of god…
 
  • #42
1,029
1
Originally posted by BoulderHead
I would rather he have asked questions such as; what is a moral judgment, or; what makes a moral judgment moral, etc.
Having the ‘purpose’ by a belief in god does little in my view to resolve this matter into a single absolute rule of ethics, at least not collectively, because we do not all share a common view of god…
Well I do think his question boils down to the question you have here. But Ivan was also letting you know why he thought the question was an important one to ask by asking it the way he did.

Also, I don't think the point was to come to an absolute ethic that everyone would follow, as much as it is to ask the question "How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"

His implied answer to this question is that there is no basis to do such a thing and therefore any bahavior can be argued to be ok.
 
  • #43
BoulderHead
"How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"
Then for myself I think I have provided an answer. As applied towards other people, it is rooted in my belief that we are all ‘flukes’ of the universe and therefore no person is any more deserving to exist than another. From this viewpoint of existence I make the progression that because we all value ourselves nevertheless, that the best way to treat others is the way we would wish for them to treat us. This I have derived from a position of looking at the universe as being completely godless, simply owing to the fact that no ‘god’ has overtly made his position known to me. The ‘Divine Command Theory’ is shot full of holes, and not needed, imho.

If ethical facts actually exist, our own self-interest and self-deception might prevent us from seeing them. Whether they are simply absolute or belong to one of a myriad of subjectivist viewpoints, the arguments will carry on possibly forever.
 
  • #44
1,944
0
Originally posted by Fliption
Well I do think his question boils down to the question you have here. But Ivan was also letting you know why he thought the question was an important one to ask by asking it the way he did.

Also, I don't think the point was to come to an absolute ethic that everyone would follow, as much as it is to ask the question "How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"

His implied answer to this question is that there is no basis to do such a thing and therefore any bahavior can be argued to be ok.
Pantheists and Materialists often argue that nature itself presents us with an absolute purpose and moral grounds that does not require a God. It can also be considered as much an individual and personal affair as a concrete and impersonal one.

For example, the two pillars of Pantheist ethics were first expressed in formal western philosophical terms by Spinoza and are considered to be among the strongest foundations of any morality or ethics yet devised. They consist of the egalitarian principle and our emotional lives.

As one modern Pantheist has expressed it, "The earth is sacred, the universe is divine." Instead of morals being given by a God, for Pantheists morals are inherent in nature or existence itself which is considered to be a kind of abstract, non-anthropomorphic "Divinity." The egalitarian principle applies because everything is equally sacred because everything is part of the Divinity itself. This includes our feelings as well. For Spinoza, the happier and less confused he felt about his actions, the closer he believed they reflected the inherent morality of nature.
 
  • #45
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by Fliption
Well I do think his question boils down to the question you have here. But Ivan was also letting you know why he thought the question was an important one to ask by asking it the way he did.

Also, I don't think the point was to come to an absolute ethic that everyone would follow, as much as it is to ask the question "How does a single individual justify and judge based on their own ethics when they do not believe in any foundation for an absolute ethic?"

His implied answer to this question is that there is no basis to do such a thing and therefore any bahavior can be argued to be ok.
I get in over my head with some of ya'all rather quickly, but Flipton has precisely defined the problem that I see. Thanks Flipton for helping to define the argument. Feel free to fill me in on the rest of my argument.

Also, the other point I keep trying to get at is, a big difference exist between philosophical arguments and true belief...divine belief. We have no or at least very few comparable motivators.
 
  • #46
1,944
0
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Also, the other point I keep trying to get at is, a big difference exist between philosophical arguments and true belief...divine belief. We have no or at least very few comparable motivators.
Gandhi, Mendella, Mother Terasa, King, Mother Jones, Linchon, and on and on. You don't need philosophy, religion, or beliefs as motivators. The youngest and most inarticulate child can understand and find motivation of a purity and intensity adults cannot touch.
 
  • #47
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by wuliheron
Gandhi, Mendella, Mother Terasa, King, Mother Jones, Linchon, and on and on. You don't need philosophy, religion, or beliefs as motivators. The youngest and most inarticulate child can understand and find motivation of a purity and intensity adults cannot touch.
Perhaps this is true for some children. Do you maintain this for teenagers? Should we allow teens to follow their natural instincts rather than a formalized philosophy? And how then do we prove this philosophy as worthy beyond others. How do you prove to your 16 year old son that you are right? This is where I think philosophy cannot answer to true beliefs...even if those beliefs are fallacious. “True Beliefs” [true believers] are not subject to argument or debate by definition.

What if a large percentage of the population truly needs a God, and then science proves he doesn’t exist [it couldn’t but for the sake of argument, assume that everyone is convinced as much]. I think for many people this is already happening. I know many people who feel that religion has failed them, and who are philosophically adrift seemingly without anywhere to turn. If they are predisposed to philosophy and great arguments about purpose and alternative thinking, then like some of you, they find their own way. But what of those who are not so sophisticated??? Could this be why people in developing nations, whose cultures are steeped in mysticism and religion, are often happier than us citizens of philosophically enlightened post industrial giants? Could God’s death simply be too much for many to bear…and still be happy?
 
Last edited:
  • #48
1,944
0
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps this is true for some children. Do you maintain this for teenagers? Should we allow teens to follow their natural instincts rather than a formalized philosophy? And how then do we prove this philosophy as worthy beyond others. How do you prove to your 16 year old son that you are right? This is where I think philosophy cannot answer to true beliefs...even if those beliefs are fallacious. “True Beliefs” [true believers] are not subject to argument or debate by definition.

What if a large percentage of the population truly needs a God, and then science proves he doesn’t exist [it couldn’t but for the sake of argument, assume that everyone is convinced as much]. I think for many people this is already happening. I know many people who feel that religion has failed them, and who are philosophically adrift seemingly without anywhere to turn. If they are predisposed to philosophy and great arguments about purpose and alternative thinking, then like some of you, they find their own way. But what of those who are not so sophisticated. Could this be why people in developing nations, whose cultures are steeped in mysticism and religion, are often happier than us citizens of philosophically enlightened post industrial giants? Could God’s death simply be too much for many to bear…and still be happy?
You can ask "What if..." about anything ad infinitum and whatever answers I might provide will always be suspect. However, I might point out that the US is the exception to the rule and most developed nations are steadilly becoming less religious. Sweden presents an interesting example. It is now one of eleven countries worldwide to making hitting a child illegal. This was done not by the politicians who, understandably, would never dare to touch such an issue. It was done by popular mandate.

The Swedes basically come from a harsh fundamentalist Calvinist Protestant tradition and when interviewed many said they supported the mandate because they needed help overcoming the culture of blame and shame their religion had spawned. Notably they also outlawed publically shaming a child. As a result the politicians dedicated money to educating parents about alternatives and no more children have been taken away from their parents than occured before the mandate.

Such dramatic changes in adults and teenagers occur when we finally say to ourselves Enough! and we acknowledge our power to make change happen. It is that little accepting voice we are all born with that provides the guidance and motivation for such changes. Sometimes people say it is their allowing God into their lives, but clearly that is not always the case.

As Taoists like to say, "Many paths, one mountain." Maybe how you get there doesn't really matter and the less complicated, direct, and empowering the path the better. If there is a God, I'm sure that is what they would want.
 
  • #49
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by wuliheron
You can ask "What if..." about anything ad infinitum and whatever answers I might provide will always be suspect...
Yes that was a lousy choice of words. Your comments are all well considered and to a large extent I agree. I guess this argument comes down to a matter of my own observations, combined with the general trends for suicides, violent behavior, depression, anxiety, and the many ills of modern society. To me it seems that although there are many complicated reasons for these problems, the loss of or lack of belief in anything beyond simple existence is leaving many people very lost. My "what if" was really meant rhetorically I guess.
 
  • #50
110
0
This debate is interesting.your question was simple yet fundamental.you have asked whether good and bad can be defined in the absence of the belief in god and whether god less society is better than a god fearing one(which was the only kind existing till half a century ago.)I agree that merely saying “didn’t you know god does not exist, it’s only a figment of imagination!”does not solve anything.its amply clear that truth has nothing to do with it, people want to believe in god and I have a suspicion that they have to-to exist, to live their lives,to tide over difficult circumstances etc.the next question is why.

To illustrate lets talk a little about an even stronger illusion, I. What do we mean by I?surely we mean something much more fundamental than a collection of cells that we actually are.we are assigining ourselves through this word some speciality which lulls us into a totally false but extremely effective sense of seperation from everything else and I mean everything.this pizza is not I, this chair is not I, you are not i.i am I and I only.every animal has some form of this exclusiveness, invincibility if you like.or else why would you run from a tiger when you know you and this tiger are a part of the universe and that it matters little to the hydrocarbons that make you up whether it goes to a tiger stomach or stays where it is.what is I for a human is god for humanity.there’s no mistaking it the same strong illusion, the same sense of exclusivity that give us(mark that word!)a sense of belonging and purpose.this illusion of speciality is necessary to survive in the long run since without it we will not have the will to survive(would not run from a tiger etc.)next comes the question why do less intelligent animals don’t need god(I am in favour of excluding apes, dolphins etc. from this group as I have a suspicion that they have a rudimentary form)it’s because their brain is not controlled by that part where logical processes occur whereas our brain is. Logic finds truth and this truth about how ordinary we are is positively harmful towards our chances of survival. So we require a safety mechanism I and god so that though we may say I don’t exist or god doesn’t we cannot comprehend what we are saying.to be continued
 

Related Threads on No God? Why good?

  • Last Post
4
Replies
97
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
134
Views
14K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
9K
Top