Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is the US hostile to science?
Topic Started: Oct 28 2005, 08:26 PM (2,857 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Horace
Oct 30 2005, 01:18 PM
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 12:41 PM
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 12:42 PM

Faith is as much a part of good science as skepticism.

If not, Einstein would still be a Patent Clerk....

I'm not sure I follow you.

Religious faith seems somewhat akin to saying "I believe in God and His divine works. I know I will never be able to prove it, but I have faith that it's true."

Scientific "faith" seems like saying, "I believe in this scientific theory. I will take it on faith that it's the best explanation, but I'll keep trying to disprove it or find more and more things that could only occur if the theory were true."

It's the part where scientists actively try to disprove things that I see missing from most (though not all) religious faith.

I think one can accurately characterize science as the process by which truth is pursued using as little "faith" as possible. When someone equates that faith, actively avoided and minimized, to the faith employed by believers in religion... you know you're not talking to someone to whom reasoning is going to be persuasive.

I used the example of Einstein on purpose. Many would argue that he was perhaps the best scientific mind of the best century that science has seen.

Yet....

Without a burning faith in his theory, Einstein may have never acheived any prominence within his circle of physicists at all, let alone the general public, or science at large. Faith is the belief in things not seen, and mostly not provable.

I submit that Einstein succored his science with very large dollops of faith....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
absolutely, Jolly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
Very Reaganesque of you, Jolly, extrapolating from a single example to draw a society-wide conclusion. You work in something associated with the field of science, so you should know about the dangers of extrapolating a conclusion from a sample size of one. Have you isolated the variables? Is it possible that there's more than one factor involved? Is it possible that, if our sample size was greater than one, we might get a slightly different result? For example (and this is just a hypothetical example), is it possible that many students at your school applied to lesser law schools in the great state of Louisiana, which has a system of code law, unlike the civil law in the other 49 states ... and therefore that they didn't have a heckuva lot of competition from students from other states? And how many schools did they apply to, and what was their overall acceptance percentage? If they each applied to 50 law schools, maybe each was rejected from 49 law schools and each got accepted to one unaccredited law school that had a 100% acceptance rate. That might change your conclusion, hmmm? I'm not saying it's so, but looking at those sorts of numbers from a single (probably small) college in a somewhat quirky state really doesn't prove much of anything.

As for what the numbers were from my undergrad program ... I haven't the slightest frickin' clue. That said, considering that my school was almost 20,000 strong, I'm willing to bet that the percentages weren't as good as yours. You can take that as an assumption, because I don't think it helps your point one little bit, for the reasons I've given above.



Sorry, that doesn't wash.

The initial premise of the thread is whether the U.S. is hostile to science, which quickly morphed as to whether religion was hostile to science.

I cited the school I attended. I could just as easily pointed out many religious based schools across my geographic region - that produce some pretty decent science grads.

Therefore, it seems absolutely ludicrous to me that someone would argue the hostility of religion to science in the United States, especially since many of the most faith-based schools also turn out good quality scientists - or at least people very capable of swimming into much deeper waters. It seems to me that in order for the folks that advocate secularism in education to advance their argument, they must at least show where secular schools are better, or even equal, to religious based schools in the education and quality of the people graduating with hard science degrees.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 03:30 PM
Horace
Oct 30 2005, 01:18 PM

I think one can accurately characterize science as the process by which truth is pursued using as little "faith" as possible.  When someone equates that faith, actively avoided and minimized, to the faith employed by believers in religion... you know you're not talking to someone to whom reasoning is going to be persuasive.

I used the example of Einstein on purpose. Many would argue that he was perhaps the best scientific mind of the best century that science has seen.

Yet....

Without a burning faith in his theory, Einstein may have never acheived any prominence within his circle of physicists at all, let alone the general public, or science at large. Faith is the belief in things not seen, and mostly not provable.

I submit that Einstein succored his science with very large dollops of faith....


He achieved that "faith" in his ideas through a process of deductive logic built on a foundation of knowledge created by all the great scientific minds before him. His "faith" had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the sort of faith you're equating it with, unless you think he got his theories from the Old Testament.

And he never asked anybody in the scientific community to take his ideas "on faith" regardless of your notion of why he believed them himself. He set about proving them within the established scientific framework.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 04:30 PM
I used the example of Einstein on purpose. Many would argue that he was perhaps the best scientific mind of the best century that science has seen.

Yet....

Without a burning faith in his theory, Einstein may have never acheived any prominence within his circle of physicists at all, let alone the general public, or science at large. Faith is the belief in things not seen, and mostly not provable.

I submit that Einstein succored his science with very large dollops of faith....

Religious faith and the type of faith you ascribe to Einstein's work are two completely and totally different things, and you know they are! To argue they are the same is to practice sophistry and makes any meaningfull discussion impossible.

But this is what the extremist right does alll the time, use the same word and pretend it has the same meaning in all contexts as if English were a precise language. (there are benefits to the use of Latin by the Catholic Church. it keeps word smeaning the same thing)

The extremist right will equate evolution (origin of the species) with the origin of the universe and pretend that their desire to impose a belief in a Creator as the ultimate origin is the same concept as to how the universe began to develop. It will equate the strict concept of a scientific theory with the much looser definition of theory used in every day speech.

It is through these techniques that they confuse thew debate and make it sound as if what they adhere to is of equal validity to what they are attacking. After all, evolution is a theory and so is intelligent design. It doesn't matter that one can be tested and the other cannot. But voila! They are of equal significance because they are both theories.

Poppycock!

And one wonders why we do not even want to approach teaching something like comparative religion in schools. It is simply not possible when such intellectual games are played by those who will stop at nothing to have their own minority religious views thrust on everyone else -- and fundamentlist Christian religious views are most definitely a very small minoity even within the broader concept of Christianity, much less in the much broader concept of worldwide religous beliefs.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
Without a burning faith in his theory, Einstein may have never acheived any prominence within his circle of physicists at all, let alone the general public, or science at large. Faith is the belief in things not seen, and mostly not provable.

I submit that Einstein succored his science with very large dollops of faith....



Yes, I think you're probably right. His later arguments with the quantum theory proponents 'God doesn't play dice, etc.' also rather bear this out - faith in his theories, that is, not God. I still find it absolutely incredible that modern technology appears to bear out so much of Einsteins work. The thing with Einstein, though, is that it wasn't blind faith. He had a lot of mathematical and scientific rigor in there as well to back up his beliefs. He's more the scientific equivalent of John Paul II, though, who had a lot of theological knowledge, rather than the Mr. 5'x5' televangelist who quotes scripture seemingly without knowledge of any deeper meaning.

Faith in itself can be a very positive force, and doesn't have to be religous. For a non-scientific and non-religous example (hence probably offending everyone :P ) One of my musical heroes, Thelonius Monk, a true original, required enormous faith to continue to plough his lonely furrow, only getting acceptance after an awful lot of pain.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
And one wonders why we do not even want to approach teaching something like comparative religion in schools. It is simply not possible when such intellectual games are played by those who will stop at nothing to have their own minority religious views thrust on everyone else -- and fundamentlist Christian religious views are most definitely a very small minoity even within the broader concept of Christianity, much less in the much broader concept of worldwide religous beliefs.


I think that's a bit over the top. Not teaching any kind of comparitive religion in schools is actually making things worse, in my opinion. If having religous ed. get's ID out of the science class, where it clearly has no place, and more importantly ensures that mainstream evolutionary theories are taught, then it's a very positive thing. As I said earlier, I can't think of another Westernised country that is having this debate, and let's face it there's extremist religious wackos everywhere, so you can't blame it all on them.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Oct 30 2005, 03:26 PM

Oh, I would absolutely not agree with teaching a religion that 'everybody is forced to accept' as Quirt put it. That would be positively medieval. And yes, I agree that people should be taught about atheism, buddhism, hinduism, etc. Why wouldn't you?

ahh-- John -- it is anything but medieval. The universities in the middle ages in Europe (e.g., Paris and Bologna) were open to Christian, Islamic and Jewish scholars. There was quite a bit of "interfaith" dialogue surrounding the development of sciences and philosophy. The texts of Aristotle, for instance, were recovered in the west through intellectual exchanges with Islamic scholars.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
ahh-- John -- it is anything but medieval. The universities in the middle ages in Europe (e.g., Paris and Bologna) were open to Christian, Islamic and Jewish scholars


OK, fair enough, I have to admit I didn't know that. You see, I talk for long enough, eventually someone feels obliged to step in and teach me something :smile:

I was actually responding to someone, Quirt I think, who'd pointed out that the constitution was written to avoid the kind of religious discrimination that went on in England, both in the middle ages and beyond. It certainly wasn't just England who discriminated, and it also wasn't just the middle ages, for that matter.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
It seems like Einstein's faith was more akin to dogged persistence and curiosity than religious faith.

He was also from all accounts a fairly religious man. I don't think he ever confused his faith in science with his faith in God.

As Ivory points out, there are centuries of church history where science coexists with religious faith. The two aren't necessarily incompatible. However, there does seem to be a sticky problem when people try to interpret the Bible literally, and that literal interpretation is directly contradicted by science.

Where I suspect we may differ is that I really don't think the point of the Bible was to state that the earth is 5,000 years old (or whatever the number is). To get buried and battle over those sorts of things strikes me as seriously missing the point. Needless to say, I'm not a literalist.

I do think it may be impossible to believe literally in the Bible and be a scientist. At minimum, I think it would require a lot of non-scientific mental machinations to justify taking pieces of science and discarding others.

When I read polls that say things like "85% of US citizens believe the Bible to be literal truth," or some such, I think they either don't fully understand what the Bible says, or they don't understand the question. My opinion, only. (I don't have a poll to back it up.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
The universities in the middle ages in Europe (e.g., Paris and Bologna) were open to Christian, Islamic and Jewish scholars


well at least until the council of basel, 1431.

"The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. This holy synod following in the footsteps of our saviour Jesus Christ, desires in deepest charity that all may acknowledge the truth of the gospel and thereafter abide in it faithfully. By these salutary instructions it desires to provide measures whereby Jews and other infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly in it. It therefore decrees that all diocesan bishops should depute persons well trained in scripture, several times a year, in the places where Jews and other infidels live, to preach and expound the truth of the catholic faith in such a way that the infidels who hear it can recognise their errors. They should compel infidels of both sexes who have reached the age of discretion, to attend these sermons under pain both of being excluded from business dealings with the faithful and of other apposite penalties. But the bishops and the preachers should behave towards them with such charity as to gain them for Christ not only by the manifestation of the truth but also by other kindnesses. The synod decrees that Christians of whatever rank or status who in any way impede the attendance of Jews at these sermons, or who forbid it, automatically incur the stigma of being supporters of unbelief.

Since this preaching will be more fruitful in proportion to the linguistic skill of the preachers, we decree that there must be faithful observance of the constitution of the council of Vienne, which ordered the provision in certain universities of teachers of the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Chaldean languages. So that this may be more adhered to, we wish that the rectors of these universities should add to what they swear to on taking office, that they will endeavour to observe the said constitution. It should be clearly laid down, at the councils of the provinces in which these universities are situated, that the teachers of the said languages are to be adequately recompensed.

Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public.

as for bolonga, yes a hebrew chair was established in 1466, but unfortunatly, it probably was not held by anyone jewish,since, like most of Italy’s Jews, the Bolognese were herded into a ghetto after the egregious papal bull of 1555, only to be expelled altogether from the city 38 years later.

just to set the record straight.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 07:30 PM
Horace
Oct 30 2005, 01:18 PM
Nina
Oct 30 2005, 12:41 PM
Jolly
Oct 30 2005, 12:42 PM

Faith is as much a part of good science as skepticism.

If not, Einstein would still be a Patent Clerk....

I'm not sure I follow you.

Religious faith seems somewhat akin to saying "I believe in God and His divine works. I know I will never be able to prove it, but I have faith that it's true."

Scientific "faith" seems like saying, "I believe in this scientific theory. I will take it on faith that it's the best explanation, but I'll keep trying to disprove it or find more and more things that could only occur if the theory were true."

It's the part where scientists actively try to disprove things that I see missing from most (though not all) religious faith.

I think one can accurately characterize science as the process by which truth is pursued using as little "faith" as possible. When someone equates that faith, actively avoided and minimized, to the faith employed by believers in religion... you know you're not talking to someone to whom reasoning is going to be persuasive.

I used the example of Einstein on purpose. Many would argue that he was perhaps the best scientific mind of the best century that science has seen.

Yet....

Without a burning faith in his theory, Einstein may have never acheived any prominence within his circle of physicists at all, let alone the general public, or science at large. Faith is the belief in things not seen, and mostly not provable.

I submit that Einstein succored his science with very large dollops of faith....

Jolly, you're using the word pretty loosely. "Faith in oneself" is jsut a synonym for self-confidence.
[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
I do think it may be impossible to believe literally in the Bible and be a scientist. At minimum, I think it would require a lot of non-scientific mental machinations to justify taking pieces of science and discarding others.


When I was a student I shared a house with someone who claimed to believe the literal truth of the bible (actually, it was the Koran, but the point still applies). He was also pursuing a PhD in theoretical physics. He seemed to be able to completely separate what he 'believed' in a religious context, from what he was doing with his studies, and then career. Maybe you could argue that he wasn't being strictly honest with himself or with me about what he actually believed.

I found it particularly irritating as he seemed to soak up the physics and the maths like a sponge, while I was busy bleeding from available orifice trying to grasp the ideas. :mad2:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Loosely?

No, don't think so.

Self-confidence can be shaken. True faith is a much harder nut to crack...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Jolly
Oct 31 2005, 09:28 AM
Loosely?

No, don't think so.

Self-confidence can be shaken. True faith is a much harder nut to crack...

Isn't that a bit of a tautology? True faith is true faith if it remains stable under duress; otherwise it isn't true faith.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Let's face it, true faith is just someone being absolutely convinced they are right about something. This can be true faith in Jesus as the son of God, a true faith that evolution explains the development of mankind, a true faith that there is no God, or even a true faith that Venusians are communicating via their son's train set.

OK, maybe the last one is delusional, but to the person having the delusion it is an absolute fact.

As a confirmed and experienced fence-sitter, I don't really understand this kind of absolute conviction, and often find it quite worrying. There's also degrees of faith. Someone can have absolute faith in God, but still be willing to internally debate His (or Her :) ) exact nature.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Oct 31 2005, 02:19 PM
Let's face it, true faith is just someone being absolutely convinced they are right about something.

As a man of faith, I have to disagree with this. I don't think faith is complete without doubt. It is the doubt which, when worked through, makes the faith stronger. And, as one reaches a deeper faith, there is more doubt.

Faith, to me, is a journey. It is a constant search for what is deeper than that which can be understood through the rational mind alone.

I believe that those of faith who have no doubts have not examined their faith. And to me, an unexamined faith is not a strong faith. It is simply stubborness in belief.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Maybe....or maybe not.

I don't think there is any question that everybody questions their Faith at some point...but...at some point you've either got to fish, or cut bait - particularly on the large issues.

Or you will never walk in all of the Grace that is given you....

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jolly:

In the Catholic experience, as one goes through the journey of faith there are stages of doubt -- the "dark night" of the senses, the "dark night" of the soul -- as one moves from the "purgative" state to the "illuminative" state to the "unitive" state.

To get a glimpse of this, I'd encourage you to read this article, especially on the States and their accompanying consolations and desolations.

You are right, that one must continue in the path, and that is the only way that you will walk in the Grace -- but the road is narrow and steep, and if we want to advance in Christian perfection we would do well to understand the difficulties of that journey so that we do not have a shallow or facile faith that is susceptible when intense life experiences rock us.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
All joking aside, I envy people with strong faith. I had it until my late teens, a total conviction that God was there and that he loved me.

I don't have it any more, in fact I'm almost sure that there is no God, and I regret this loss of faith. I don't think I can really help what I believe, though, so it seems a bit unfair if I get sent to hell for being as honest as I can be. Of course, I don't believe in hell, but hopefully you take my point. I'd like to get that faith back, but I don't think I will any time soon.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Nov 1 2005, 09:11 AM
All joking aside, I envy people with strong faith. I had it until my late teens, a total conviction that God was there and that he loved me.

I don't have it any more, in fact I'm almost sure that there is no God, and I regret this loss of faith. I don't think I can really help what I believe, though, so it seems a bit unfair if I get sent to hell for being as honest as I can be. Of course, I don't believe in hell, but hopefully you take my point. I'd like to get that faith back, but I don't think I will any time soon.

It's certainly not a Catholic position that a loss of faith = eternal damnation.

Be true to your self and continue searching. I have complete faith that you will be alright.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Thanks :)
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
And a good article it was...

I'm not on Dwain's level as a theologian, as I'm much too simple-minded and direct. I categorize Faith into essentially three levels:

1. Little or none.

2. The Faith of the Saved. These are people who have labored under their own doubts and convictions, who have come to the Christ seeking Salvation, and forgiveness of sin. Most believers fall into this category.

3. The Faith of the Pentecost. Or perhaps more accurately, a second working of Grace. In a Wesleyan sense, Sanctification.

That is not to say that the believer cannot backslide into non-belief - I am not a proponent of the "once-saved, always-saved" contingent.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Quote:
 
That is not to say that the believer cannot backslide into non-belief - I am not a proponent of the "once-saved, always-saved" contingent.


This is the kind of statement that I have a problem with. I feel that a person can only believe what they believe, it's very largely an involuntary process. I know that you won't agree with this, but I believe that in a spiritual context that our actions are more important than our beliefs.

In addition, if there is a God, and if he is the Christian God, it seems more than a little unfair that as a non-Christian Ghandi isn't saved, whereas, to pick a horrible example, Jerry Falwell has some chance of heaven. I'm not saying that Falwell can't and shouldn't be forgiven (that's not my decision), but that maybe he should be further down the queue than Ghandi, who to my eyes at least was much closer to living the Christian ideal.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Just to point out, in the Catholic and all traditional apostolic view points, Ghandi is not automatically damned to hell. No one is competant to judge to subjective disposition of another's soul. Jesus said ""If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give
to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." He also said things like in Matt 25 about what it really means to love and serve God through caring for the poor, etc.

The Christian path is a journey toward perfection of the soul, which includes learning to love God, love your neighbors, love yourself, and love all other good material things in right proportion to their ultimate value.

One of the most interesting points of Ratzinger's (Pope Benedict XVI) was an invitation to atheists to "behave as if God existed". It would seem if all men and women of good will -- Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Jew, agnostic, and atheist -- behaved as if there really was an objective moral order, as if there really was "right and wrong", "good and bad", as if the great principle was (1) there is a higher power in the universe, and (2) you are not it, as if the goal was to get rid of the ego and attachments rather than to inflate it and acquire things -- then indeed the world would be a better place and people would be happier and have more peace and joy.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply