SquiddyCracker
Banned
Sounds awful.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Atheism vs Theism |OT|
- Thread starter GTP_Daverytimes
- Start date
- Status
Sounds awful.
As I stated earlier, for all practical purposes, anything is possible, and in reality you cannot be sure of anything you know. Having probabilities be so incredibly low that one cannot fathom how unlikely a scenario is, is grounds for dismissing the scenario. Magic unicorns do not and have never existed. The probabilities are so low that meaningfully speaking, that is an accurate enough statement. If someone were to ask me point blank "Do you believe magical unicorns have ever existed" I would say no, no they have not. If pressed on the matter and my interviewer insists I am being irrational for claiming to have knowledge about
Magical unicorns
or anything else in existence, I would say
"Wow, you got me, yes perhaps the entire universe is a huge fucking lie and in fact we are being over-seen by unicorn overlords, but this is not a scenario even worth thinking about, it is senseless."
Imaginary beings do not exist until proven otherwise. A god is on the level of a magical unicorn. Never existed. Unless the universe is a lie. There's an incredibly low chance that is the case.
If you still insist that this is an irrational answer, then all answers to all questions are irrational.
Iapetus. Are you a bowl of talking icecream? Any answer is irrational as you have no idea whether you are one or not. If you try to answer definitively, remember that a divine being may be pulling the wool over your delicious eye scoops and your corporeal body is a simulation of a human but you are totally a bowl of delicious icecream.
Am I the abrahamic god? Giving any definitive answer would be irrational as I may in fact be the abrahamic god or any number of egyptian gods or maybe all of them together at once? How can I know? What if I decided to be born to a woman, wiped my divine memories and decided to live this life? Who am I to say otherwise?
Now you being a bowl of icecream and me being all gods which ever existed all at once may be by some incredibly unlikely but not technically impossible scenario, but I will have to politely agree to disagree with your assertion that it is irrational to make a definitive claim. We speak in absolutes all the time. I do not believe I am irrational for dismissing unbelievable delusions even if on an absolute technical level one can never be entirely sure.
"Inconvenient", yes, because it makes the whole thing about as productive as Simon the Stubborn Solipsist's interventions at a science summit. "Guys, guys, I know you want to discuss the specifics of this mission to Mars, but aren't you forgetting that the planet may not even exist in the first place?" Of course, you're right, Simon, but for fuck's sake. So much for meaningful discussion.
It depends on whether you think the laws of logic are important. If you choose to break those laws because they're inconvenient to you, you end up in a broken state. We saw that with the Powerball example, where if we make the incorrect and illogical jump from "there is a very small chance that I will win five times in a row" to "it is impossible that I will win five times in a row" we can then roll back from that position to a proof that it is impossible to predict a single coin toss correctly.
How we address these questions in everyday speech is up to us entirely. Of course we frequently make lazy approximations in everyday conversation. Ask me what time it is, and the level of accuracy you'll get in the response varies depending on how important that is. If I'm eBay sniping, the accuracy will be within a couple of seconds. If I'm vegging, it may be within a day or so. If I'm running an experiment at a particle accelerator, the accuracy will be prodigious.
In the same way, if we're talking about whether to buy a creme egg, I'll probably approximate HAMTOMET (may his cheek pouches ever be full) to non-existent. But if we're specifically discussing epistemology, then that's an invalid and irrational approximation.
I think I've been as clear as I need to a great many times that there's a huge difference between accepting that something is unproven/unprovable and lending it credence on a day to day basis. Every argument against my position seems to stem from an invalid claim that if you accept that the unprovable has not been proven you somehow have to constantly consider a wide range of unprovable things as viable and relevant. You don't. But you do have to accept that they aren't provable. And I haven't seen anyone attack that position while retaining any level of rationality.
Erigu is a particularly good example of this.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I think when people are talking about beliefs, they are talking about issues of trust, not pure reason. According to pure reason, there may always be that tiny possibility, but nobody functions according to this because it would basically be impossible to function when anything is possible all at once every single moment. So we accept certain things and trust in our perceptions of their likelihood. I don't doubt that some out there in the world are making the irrational claim you say, but I think a great many solid thinkers call themselves atheist as a reference to this trust in their best approximation rather than the raw description of the utmost logical answer possible. As you say, no one (at least no one here) seems to challenge it, so I don't quite understand why you are insisting the point so strongly. Is anyone here really taking on the title of atheist with such totality?
Haven't your interlocutors used the word "practical" a whole bunch so far? Seems pretty clear how we're approaching this, here.
And again, I fail to see what's left to discuss, how much of a meaningful discussion there still is to have, if we take your approach.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's an ultimately unproductive approach, that's all.
Religions are answers for life. Are the goal, the final point. A solution. "The final true".
Cience is a method to find the solution of life. Atheism is not about believe something that exist or not, is about the method used to live. I can't believe in a god because god is an answer, and I reject all answers because they mean follow some rules and behaviours with only one possiblity.
See that, religions tell us that Schrödinger's cat is death or alive. They may be true, but this is not the point, the point is undestand the possiblities, the need to find a method to go over it and undestand the situacion of the cat, all the possibilities.
So better be agnostic/atheist that follow just a believe, but please atheist, don't fall in the error to believe that god don't exist because you are allready using illogical.
Just say that god doesn't care, just as the probability of passing through a wall is possible because the cience say that but, of course, you wouldn't live thinking that you can pass through all the walls.
Cience is a method to find the solution of life. Atheism is not about believe something that exist or not, is about the method used to live. I can't believe in a god because god is an answer, and I reject all answers because they mean follow some rules and behaviours with only one possiblity.
See that, religions tell us that Schrödinger's cat is death or alive. They may be true, but this is not the point, the point is undestand the possiblities, the need to find a method to go over it and undestand the situacion of the cat, all the possibilities.
So better be agnostic/atheist that follow just a believe, but please atheist, don't fall in the error to believe that god don't exist because you are allready using illogical.
Just say that god doesn't care, just as the probability of passing through a wall is possible because the cience say that but, of course, you wouldn't live thinking that you can pass through all the walls.
Imaginary concepts formed outside the bounds of reality can be dismissed. There is no need to specially label them "unprovable" when conceptually they are indistinguishable from the impossible.
You being a bowl of icecream is impossible by any and all accepted standards of knowledge.
The abrahamic god is as much an impossibility as you being a bowl of icecream.
I being the abrahamic god is an impossibility.
The only special case where we can make an exception is in the thought experiment that the reality I exist in is a complete fabrication. This is not worth contemplating.
The problem with this approach is simply that for some reason, many posters here think that they cant move on with their lives and have a balanced approach towards all this if they do not rule out the possibility of such beings existing FIRST.
Humans face contradictions and self-delusions on an everyday basis. That does not mean that we cant operate "rationally" throughout the day, but it certainly means that there is no point in trying to "close off" a miriad of things simply because you feel like you have to, for whatever sake you want to. If you take the logical approach, you simply cannot. If you want to maintain the sense of rationality while being irrational regarding all this, that is when hypocrisy comes in, imho.
What? There are SO MANY of totally irrational examples in this thread that it would take ages to list them all. See, for example:
For you, maybe. For MANY it is worth contemplating. For you, 2,2,3 and 2,2,4 being different vectors might mean jackshit when you only want to operate in the realms of x,y (where 2,2,3 and 2,2,4 seems to be the same vector), but to outright say that just because it is outside our percieved realm of existence, it suddenly does not exist is quite a blind statement to make.
Oh, I dunno, man. Solipsism gets old pretty quick.
Am I god?
Perhaps you could become one if you convince someone to believe that you are and they are completely sincere in this belief. I found that when it comes to matters of faith the general public thinks truth is subjective.
I could be one already. Saying for certain would be a blind statement to make, seeing as how a god can do anything. It would be irrational to say for sure. We will have to admit it is simply unproven.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I think when the odds are so unlikely that you will not get the tiniest hint of anything conceivably within the realm of a net benefit of feedback in return for the greatest conceivable effort and input that humanity can invest, it is plenty reasonable to say that it is not worth it. Why would you explore anything so fruitless when there are still so many things which are likely to give you a return of expanded knowledge? I do not think it is hypocritical to say "forget about those, they are as good as naught and a waste to pursue" and take on that which is more assuredly at hand.
And, like Log4Girlz would seem to agree, I don't see how seeking affirmation of those other things brings anything meaningful. We just say "Okay, so anything is possible. Now what?" and then suddenly there is no reason to pursue anything over anything else. Even our perceptions and reasoning by which we determine what the odds of something are is called into question, because maybe there is some god of mischief actively fucking with our proper ability to factor the likelihood of realities and we are unaware. This path of reasoning is directionless, fruitless, without any due reason to even initiate investigation of any concept over another.
So, you can either live by that completely nebulous way of thought, or you can accept that for you to ever believe or think anything in any sort of coherent definition, you have some assumptions that you are treating as fact, and your language will reflect as much because it is an unreasonable burden to put qualifiers of ultimate uncertainty on every single statement and definition ever given. Go ahead and think you are having more integrity, but ultimately your chosen special contexts of when to get this literal and when not to are completely arbitrary. Whatever reasoning you use to draw the line is based on logic you are as uncertain of as any other ultimate truth. You do the exact same thing as we but at a less pragmatic... semantic event horizon... if you will.
"We just say "Okay, so anything is possible. Now what?" and then suddenly there is no reason to pursue anything over anything else. "
Do you know what does that? Reason out what to pursue? Agents. Intelligent agents. Artifical intelligence. They have a reasoning system, they scan the world they have placed in, they assign values to things that are around them, and based on those values, they act according to their own built-in (or later modified, if we are talking about a learning agent) preferences.
Humans do not work that way. Oh, we have some sort of priority reaction systems, and we have tons of stuff that affects us in unseen, unconscious ways. The reason to "pursue" something over anything else is because for SOME REASON (that might even be admittedly unknown to you, the agent), you PREFER that.
It is as simple as that. I do not feel like that you need to have a fear that for some reason, allowing things that you already do not care about to MAYBE exist somewhere, somehow would danger your everyday movements, choices and preferences if "left unchecked".
Edit: Also, on a personal note, I do not care about facts. I care about experiences. If I have a great time sitting in front of a computer, programming, writing an article or simply playing, that all looks the same to many of my relatives. They would say if they see me sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours: "oh, dear, but that is not the REAL life". For them, having the experience that is seemingly the "Real" one is more important than the quality of the experience itself. And if that is not something worth contemplating, I do not know what is.
Do you know what does that? Reason out what to pursue? Agents. Intelligent agents. Artifical intelligence. They have a reasoning system, they scan the world they have placed in, they assign values to things that are around them, and based on those values, they act according to their own built-in (or later modified, if we are talking about a learning agent) preferences.
Humans do not work that way. Oh, we have some sort of priority reaction systems, and we have tons of stuff that affects us in unseen, unconscious ways. The reason to "pursue" something over anything else is because for SOME REASON (that might even be admittedly unknown to you, the agent), you PREFER that.
It is as simple as that. I do not feel like that you need to have a fear that for some reason, allowing things that you already do not care about to MAYBE exist somewhere, somehow would danger your everyday movements, choices and preferences if "left unchecked".
Edit: Also, on a personal note, I do not care about facts. I care about experiences. If I have a great time sitting in front of a computer, programming, writing an article or simply playing, that all looks the same to many of my relatives. They would say if they see me sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours: "oh, dear, but that is not the REAL life". For them, having the experience that is seemingly the "Real" one is more important than the quality of the experience itself. And if that is not something worth contemplating, I do not know what is.
So I could be god right?
According to me, you are god already. You are the creator of your own body, your own interactions, your own experiences. You are god, god is you, as far as I am concerned. And when you decide to be the god of WAFFLES, you become one. Simple as that. But since this is an interactive experience when we talk about our shared reality, it is obvious that you being god means jackshit if you still have to play by the rules that we, collectively, have set up for god-god interactions.
To put this into some historical perspective: it does not matter whether "God" (the Biblical one) is real or not. What matters is that through him, for him, against him, there has been so much done that at a certain point, the question is not whether he is real or not, but what effect does his image, his idol (!) has in our world. And when looked from that point of view, God IS quite real. He had quite an effect. So did many other religious figures.
And following that up with something, let me tell you about a God I fear the most. It is an idol alright, and many inhumane deeds are happening all around us, still up to this very moment. It is called Money.
With maple syrup on top?
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Now I have lost track of the point you are apparently trying to make. What does this have to do with you calling us hypocrites for having a boundary of plausibility for making definitive claims? How does it demonstrate that I am wrong about you being no different than us, simply marking your boundaries elsewhere for reasons you haven't specified or defended?
I don't believe you are. I'm going to continue living my life as though you are not, without giving it a second thought. If you want me to change that position, make with the miracles - I've got some perfectly good water you can turn into wine.
Oh look, my position hasn't collapsed as a result of your example.
My point is that a strong need to put these "beings" down "for good", for all practical purposes, makes one cross the line towards irrationality. If you have no problems with that, fine. I have nothing against irrationality, I think that irrationality can be awesome. But I would not call it rationality.
And if I were to say I definitely wasn't god then I would be making an irrational statement according to you.
If you want to get deep enough, there are plenty of great thinkers who'd suggest situations in which you might be (some variations on Descarte's cogito allow for that).
I think it would depend on the context. The problem I have is not with taking the position that certain things are sufficiently unsupported that we should treat them as untrue. I do that all the time, probably with a lot of the same things as you do. The problem I have is with taking the irrational jump that because it is unhelpful to treat them as true, we are justified in determining that they are definitively false. I've shown why that's often unhelpful with the Powerball example. You seem to take the position that because the odds of winning 5 times in a row are infinitessimal (and I've already made my position clear on the dangers of trying to extend probability to the existence or other of deities - it's pretty much always based on subjectively allocated probabilities) it's justifiable to treat it as impossible. I take the position that this is dangerous, because once we take that jump, it leads to some bad things logically - working back from the "impossible to predict the Powerball numbers five times" claim, it's possible to prove that therefore it's impossible to successfully predict the result of one toss of a double-headed coin. It's very much the same sort of flaw some arguments by disingenuous theists exploit, which is why it disappoints me to see people who claim to be on the side of rationality and mock those they disagree with for ridiculous beliefs (or beliefs allegedly analogous to ridiculous ones) falling into the same trap.
So personally, while I'd take the position that I'm not god, if questioned more specifically on that point I'd have to admit the possibility but make it clear that without any more evidence either way, I'll stick with my default deity-free position. I just don't have that need that some people here seem to for a final definitive answer on these things, despite the fact that one isn't available - certainly not to the point that I'm willing to selectively disregard basic logical principles just so that I can have my answer.
But who's arguing that, here?
There is a difference between saying "I will not win the lottery 5 times in a row" and "it is impossible for me to win the lottery times in a row".
soul creator
Member
This seems to essentially be a matter of:
"No."
vs.
"I think the possibility is low enough that we should definitely not take it seriously, since we technically can not formally rule out all possibilities, but I suppose that in extremely rare cases, when the stars are all aligned it could technically happen."
I don't think shortcuts are always an inherently bad thing. And if someone may value more straightforward communication, a one word answer that communicates 98% of your position, may be better than a 44 word answer that communicates 100% of your position.
The first allows you to move on more easily to more important things, while the second, while being more technically true, can drag down the flow of a conversation. Sure, if we're specifically having a philosophical discussion on a message board about the limits of induction or something, then yeah, the more verbose answer would be needed, since it is more accurate. And those kinds of conversations can be useful sometimes. But for all practical purposes, I don't find the former shortcut particularly offensive in "normal" conversation. And I don't think the shortcut is "just as bad" or on the same level of irrationality as, say, believing in the literal existence of telepathic invisible superpowered beings.
I suppose we can argue for a removal of the word "impossible" from casual conversation, and limit it only to formal logic proofs, but I guess I just don't place something like that very high on my priority list, especially in "regular" conversation? *shrug*
And even if the "impossible" thing somehow ends up happening, putting egg on my face, I could just say "well shit, I guess I was wrong". I don't think my current "nope, there isn't a god" position significantly changes my mindset towards future occurrences.
"No."
vs.
"I think the possibility is low enough that we should definitely not take it seriously, since we technically can not formally rule out all possibilities, but I suppose that in extremely rare cases, when the stars are all aligned it could technically happen."
I don't think shortcuts are always an inherently bad thing. And if someone may value more straightforward communication, a one word answer that communicates 98% of your position, may be better than a 44 word answer that communicates 100% of your position.
The first allows you to move on more easily to more important things, while the second, while being more technically true, can drag down the flow of a conversation. Sure, if we're specifically having a philosophical discussion on a message board about the limits of induction or something, then yeah, the more verbose answer would be needed, since it is more accurate. And those kinds of conversations can be useful sometimes. But for all practical purposes, I don't find the former shortcut particularly offensive in "normal" conversation. And I don't think the shortcut is "just as bad" or on the same level of irrationality as, say, believing in the literal existence of telepathic invisible superpowered beings.
I suppose we can argue for a removal of the word "impossible" from casual conversation, and limit it only to formal logic proofs, but I guess I just don't place something like that very high on my priority list, especially in "regular" conversation? *shrug*
And even if the "impossible" thing somehow ends up happening, putting egg on my face, I could just say "well shit, I guess I was wrong". I don't think my current "nope, there isn't a god" position significantly changes my mindset towards future occurrences.
Interesting. I suppose merely out of curiosity, one could ask the question: If there's little to no difference between the low odds [and arguably no difference), how do you come up with a more likely version of god? or vice versa? What comes after 99.999999..? 99.999999999...?
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I do not think being barely within the spectrum of irrationality makes you the same as those who believe in a god. And I certainly do not mock people for believing in "any sort of god-thing in some form of which we have no conception or specifics" as opposed to those who claim the authority of the concept of a specific religion. I also believe that no matter what your claims are regarding the existence of god, simply by making any statement about anything you are implicitly saying no to all concepts which would directly contradict it.
Perhaps the reality is that what we perceive to be true is in fact the absolute truth of reality, whether or not we realize this or believe as much. In this scenario, all uncertainty would be the lies. When you make claims on what is rational and irrational, you draw boundaries that say no to these sort of concepts. I believe you are on the spectrum of unverified belief all the same as those who simply outright state what they say "no" to when evidence is not found. There is no way to be fully pure in your rationality. Definition requires a statement about what is and what is not.
Perhaps the reality is that what we perceive to be true is in fact the absolute truth of reality, whether or not we realize this or believe as much. In this scenario, all uncertainty would be the lies. When you make claims on what is rational and irrational, you draw boundaries that say no to these sort of concepts. I believe you are on the spectrum of unverified belief all the same as those who simply outright state what they say "no" to when evidence is not found. There is no way to be fully pure in your rationality. Definition requires a statement about what is and what is not.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I am saying EVERYONE does because it is impossible to even use words otherwise.
oh. okay. Fair enough.
edit: Reminds me of something Kant famously said in his critique of reason. give me a sec, and I'll get the actual wording.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Here is my view on this
No one can scientifically prove that God exists as a 'thing' No one can disprove God exists. The reason is God is not up 'there'. God is everywhere. Atheisms want to prove if God exists in a physical or natural form. If God is not in a physical or natural form but everywhere and everything, our very existence is the proof of God
The message is to believe in the unseen through the signs shown by God and prayers. It is up to the people to believe in God
No one can scientifically prove that God exists as a 'thing' No one can disprove God exists. The reason is God is not up 'there'. God is everywhere. Atheisms want to prove if God exists in a physical or natural form. If God is not in a physical or natural form but everywhere and everything, our very existence is the proof of God
The message is to believe in the unseen through the signs shown by God and prayers. It is up to the people to believe in God
huh?
The funny thing is both athiests and thiests are involved in teleological thinking - one denying, the other affirming. Getting people to challenge their positions is more difficult than one assumes. It's like we always have the right answer.
soul creator
Member
I replaced "God" in this post with "the Phoenix Force" and it made just about as much sense
Maninthemirror
Banned
That is your choice, if you want it to be a belief, go ahead and try it, it wont work without a push behind it
soul creator
Member
Yeah, as with most supernatural claims, I just need to somehow convince enough people to believe it so that it gets taken seriously (note: this does not require showing evidence of an actual Phoenix Force...since if there was evidence for it, it would be natural, and not supernatural)
weekend_warrior
Banned
No, but we can scientifically prove that things written in the bible are not true, like the world being 5,000 years old.
CornBurrito
Member
If .999999999999 = 1
why can't .0000000000001 = 0?
If god is anything and everything, then it ceases to have any value. And it becomes even more ridiculous that praying to god could have any impact whatsoever.
You could also replace the word "god" in your sentence with anything. Literally anything else. You've made god absolutely devoid of any value or meaning.
why can't .0000000000001 = 0?
If god is anything and everything, then it ceases to have any value. And it becomes even more ridiculous that praying to god could have any impact whatsoever.
You could also replace the word "god" in your sentence with anything. Literally anything else. You've made god absolutely devoid of any value or meaning.
Count Dookkake
Member
Is he in my toilet? Because there have been some unusual stains in there lately.
I am not the Abrahamic God iapetus. Despite my incomplete knowledge of the nature of reality, I will state that I am not that being. I apologize if this is an irrational answer to you.
I apologize that stating I am not the Abrahamic God with any certainty is lazy thinking to you.
I am quite certain that I am not. Unless the universe is a lie.
See? I always leave the chance of something. But otherwise, it is for all practical purposes the same as just saying it doesn't exist. We speak in absolutes all the time. No one has a problem in any debate or rational conversation in making absolute statement about the existence or nonexistence of all kinds of phenomenon. But God seems to be a regular exception. People take offense in general to putting him in the trash bin and just outright saying he doesn't exist.
In essence what we are saying is very similar to one another except I do not make the jump of judging perfectly reasonable statements as irrational because if the universe was a lie, then any imaginary statement could technically be true.
This is interesting. Would you mind explaining further? Or just link me to something if it's complicated.
Oh I don't know, I can imagine a few ways this could work.
We don't know enough to even make the assessment of whether or not we can prove or disprove such a thing's existence. That's a mighty big assumption you are making.
Buckethead
Banned
If God wants to prove his existence all he has to do is kill Courtney Love and resurrect Patrice O'Neal.
I feel like I'm being pretty reasonable here.
I feel like I'm being pretty reasonable here.
Well, it's trivial. If the probability of winning the lottery once is X, the probability of winning it 5 times is X^5. Knowing that X^5 = 0 we can calculate X = 0.
I'm assuming you can see where this is going. In order to win the top lottery prize, you have to match n balls (I'm assuming a very basic lottery structure - the same principle works for more complex models). If the probability of matching one ball is Y, the probability of matching n balls is Y^n - this is the same as X, the probability of winning the lottery once. So Y^n = X. But X = 0, so Y^n = 0. This gives us Y = 0.
Given that Y is the probability of matching one ball from b balls, the probability of matching one ball from c balls is (obviously) Y * b / c. Where c = 2 this is analogous to predicting a coin toss. Where c = 1 this is analogous to predicting a double-headed coin toss. But since Y = 0, Y * b / 1 is also 0.
Therefore the probability of predicting the correct outcome of a double-headed coin toss is 0.
Clearly it isn't. But every step in the reasoning is valid, and if we take the actual value of X^5 it all works out to give the right answer - you can predict a double-headed coin toss every time (Yes, I know. We're talking either a theoretical perfect coin or a system with rules for handling cases where the coin falls in such a way that neither head is showing - a retoss, for example...)
Correct.
We know that God, as literally described in the Bible, does not exist given many events described have been completely disproven.
So we can dismiss Creationists at least.
Sutton Dagger
Member
For those theists that claim God is not a physical thing and can't be tested by science, can you please explain the difference between something that doesn't manifest in physical reality (God in the universe) and something that doesn't exist?
Is Richard Dawkins Really the World's Leading Intellectual?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi...he-worlds-leading-intellectual_b_3226638.html
What say you gaf?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi...he-worlds-leading-intellectual_b_3226638.html
What say you gaf?
He's definitely not.
It's a poll. Which means the most well-known people are going to be near the top. Which is also why you've got Krugman, Nate Silver, Oliver Sacks, Steven Pinker, etc etc. It's not a good list for "world's leading intellectuals."
Edit:
For reference, this is the list that rabbi was ranting on about: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/world-thinkers-2013/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll