Science and Religion - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-02-2013, 04:26 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Isn't it human existentialism and social interaction, or maybe mortality that led God and religion to arise in the first place? And if so, didn't it arrive naturally?
Yes, but in an ignorant world. I meant with our current knowledge of things.
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 04:34 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I think it's a very natural thing. It's also basic deduction of causation, is it not? Science has a difficult time explaining this sort of...human nature. Some of us are able to rationalize through that science but many cannot. This is also why I believe anti-theism is pretty damn wrong (note - not atheism, but anti-theism). There is a lot not accounted for in terms of basic human need. And most anti-theists, formerly including myself through most of my 20's, opine from a place of luxury that not everyone else has.
What sort of human nature does science have difficulty with? (Just not sure what part you're referring to)

I consider myself leaning toward the anti-theism camp. I believe all the good religion can do doesn't require religion. But much of the bad it does happens simply because of religion.
You're not giving people - the ones perhaps not in a place of luxury - enough credit. There's so much more you can tell an individual to give them hope - real hope. not the postponed hope of a better life to come after this one. I feel it's in those conditions that religion becomes a little more nefarious and predatory
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 05:54 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
What sort of human nature does science have difficulty with? (Just not sure what part you're referring to)
Emotional need? I might be able to find a better descriptive later within the reaches of my brain. Just bored and typing...

Quote:
You're not giving people - the ones perhaps not in a place of luxury - enough credit.
We have an entire history of the whole of humanity saying one thing and your Godless hypothetical saying another. If this were a scientific pursuit. I like the side with all the evidence versus none.

Have you ever known any religious people that have lost their religion and have completely fallen apart? They exist. How about people in true despair? Whether it is health issues or the impoverished or otherwise. How about addicts that have no other recourse (according to their own psychology) but to call out to a God that might not even exist according to you or I? All of recorded history is full of this kind of stuff. And accompanied by some system of belief. A yearning for something greater than one's self.

I could also go on a lengthy diatribe here about general human ignorance. Much of which, I would guess, you would similarly use to show the folly of religion. And how does this ignorance suddenly rectify itself? When we can see as societies, even Western societies, a dumbing down of the culture. Advances in technology actually accentuate this do they not? We are more and more asking the culture to NOT think. How does this lead to a progression where God (as concept) has no place? Again, I am a former (near or actual) anti-theist. But I've been through all these topics a thousand times in my own head and in conversations with others. I am comfortable where I've landed.

You say all the good religion can do doesn't require religion but that does not involve the basic human emotional needs of millions outside of yourself. People like you, me and others - are able to rationalize, and use reason and logic (and so on) but there are many people that don't. You can say I am not giving them enough credit - all I am doing is observing what has happened over the course of humanity. Humans tend to place Order over Chaos.

Think about your own view. And what ultimately leads people to religion (it's not just what is taught to them). And explain how that goes away. And if it doesn't go away, it doesn't make any difference how much an objective view says it's not needed. It's needed, if it is, because people want it. "Want" is the not the best word...need it. Again, this is part of the initial question I need to try to do a better job of articulating. Philosophy was never a great interest of mine. I like facts and logic and science, etc. But I've tried to become a hack science/religious pundit over the years as you can tell.

I think it is very important to make one distinction here. God, belief in a God, belief in a higher power (from the God of Abraham to some kind of...collective consciousness) and religion can be mutually exclusive. I know you know this good and well, JT, I am just making the emphasis. I don't think people in the year 2100 will be more inclined to follow religions as much as I think there might be a new religion resembling, for lack of a better example, Deism. I just don't think it goes away. Ever. Because we can't explain everything away with science. Even if we can, we can't get people to listen. There are otherwise intelligent people that refuse to believe in Evolution. It's not for lack of education, it's for a simple incuriosity to hear different. That is the kind of emotional response I am talking about. Maybe I can elaborate later on.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 12:27 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Perhaps. But they you can attribute any quality of the universe you want to just something we can't observe.
That's true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
There's nothing about it that suggests they pop in and out of existence at just the perfect manner to support the universe.
But yes, we are to believe there is no guidance or predetermined patterns because there is not a shred of evidence for either
The point I was really trying to make is that the "random" accident did not just happen once at the Big Bang - it's been happening every single moment in every single square nanometer of the cosmos for over 14 billions years now...those are ghastly odds that are growing exponentially larger every single moment the universe does not just dissolve or dissipate.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
What perfect pattern do you mean? Either way, you can't use probability in reverse like that. The probability of me seeing license plate number ADHR 274 today out of all the license plates in the world was infinitely small. So small in fact to be statistically impossible. But since we can't use probabilities in reverse that way, it's irrelevant.
That's a good point if we are talking about one single event - but what the panelists in the video seem to be saying, and what Sting Theory tries to explain - is that ineach moment our universe must be filled with incalculable "accidents" surrounding each frickin particle in the entire cosmos (and has been true for over 14 billion years ) just to sustain the reality we can observe. The math demands that everything should instantly disappear - yet it doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
(Einstein didn't believe in something greater. His god was metaphorical)
A metaphor for what?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

Oh, no, no. I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't ask questions. Rather, I was suggesting we should sometimes recognize that some questions are meaningless (ie what is the meaning of life?).
I must respectfully diagree with you there - I think it is a valid question indeed, and I've spent most of my adult life trying to answer it. Of course, it's a question that's not easily answered, but that doesn't make it meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I will concede asking questions about the behavior of quantum particles is well worth exploring, but it's completely within reason that at some base layer in the onion, things just are.
That's funny you said this - not sure if was on purpose. Of course, that is exactly how God defines himself (I AM). Meaning, at some base layer in the onion, God Just Is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

I'm sure different people have different scales with which they apply preconceptions. I have no doubt you'd be reasonable enough to change your mind when presented with something compelling (as evidenced by your willingness to push the veil (and thus, god?) further back in light of new understandings). But like you mentioned to be in another thread, I'm not here to convert you; I'm just here to share my views and listen to others
No, I don't feel like you're trying to convert me and I am thoroughly enjoying this thread. I'm happy you started it. Yes - I'm willing to push the veil back in my understanding of God and this amazingly complex and mysterious universe, but my relationship with Him is based on something else, something just as mysterious as these spooky particles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Sagan's god was also more of a metaphor. When he speaks of spirituality, he isn't talking about supernatural spirituality. More of the contemplate-the-vastness-of-the-Universe awe (You can probably, on occasion, add smoke-a-joint-and to the beginning of that string). Harris, Dawkins, Krauss, etc also talk about this kind of spirituality. I experience it myself and believe it's even more fulfilling than anything supernatural because it doesn't require a leap of faith and the inkling of doubt that certainly must creep in
I think I understand what you're saying. I remember feeling that way several times before my own conversion - so I do no think it is unique to those that believe in God. Yet, I would still like some clarification on how God is used as a metaphor. I would think that this is the only metaphor that would never work (assuming by God we mean the perfect, omniscient, and omnipresent being and not Zeus).
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 12:41 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
That's true.


The point I was really trying to make is that the "random" accident did not just happen once at the Big Bang - it's been happening every single moment in every single square nanometer of the cosmos for over 14 billions years now...those are ghastly odds that are growing exponentially larger every single moment the universe does not just dissolve or dissipate.



That's a good point if we are talking about one single event - but what the panelists in the video seem to be saying, and what Sting Theory tries to explain - is that ineach moment our universe must be filled with incalculable "accidents" surrounding each frickin particle in the entire cosmos (and has been true for over 14 billion years ) just to sustain the reality we can observe. The math demands that everything should instantly disappear - yet it doesn't.
I dunno. This seems like a bit of getting lost in the numbers. Philosophers encounter a similar phenomenon when they spend too much time in their thought experiments. The Universe doesn't evapourate into nothing, but there's no reason to think it's a god keeping it from happening. What sort of design would that be if the only thing holding it all together is his magic? There's clearly something keeping it from happening and when it's sorted out (if it indeed isn't getting lost in the equations), god will be pushed back further into the fringes

Quote:
A metaphor for what?
For the laws of physics. Hawking also uses the term god in this way. Neither of them are suggesting a god actually exists


Quote:
I must respectfully diagree with you there - I think it is a valid question indeed, and I've spent most of my adult life trying to answer it. Of course, it's a question that's not easily answered, but that doesn't make it meaningless.
Well I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Fair enough


Quote:
That's funny you said this - not sure if was on purpose. Of course, that is exactly how God defines himself (I AM). Meaning, at some base layer in the onion, God Just Is.
Just semantics though. I wasn't implying god was at the centre of it (I'm sure you're shocked). It just so happens we used similar terminology.

Quote:
No, I don't feel like you're trying to convert me and I am thoroughly enjoying this thread. I'm happy you started it. Yes - I'm willing to push the veil back in my understanding of God and this amazingly complex and mysterious universe, but my relationship with Him is based on something else, something just as mysterious as these spooky particles.


Quote:
I think I understand what you're saying. I remember feeling that way several times before my own conversion - so I do no think it is unique to those that believe in God. Yet, I would still like some clarification on how God is used as a metaphor. I would think that this is the only metaphor that would never work (assuming by God we mean the perfect, omniscient, and omnipresent being and not Zeus).
It's just their way of speaking about the laws of the universe in an anthropomorphic way.
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 12:44 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Emotional need? I might be able to find a better descriptive later within the reaches of my brain. Just bored and typing...



We have an entire history of the whole of humanity saying one thing and your Godless hypothetical saying another. If this were a scientific pursuit. I like the side with all the evidence versus none.

Have you ever known any religious people that have lost their religion and have completely fallen apart? They exist. How about people in true despair? Whether it is health issues or the impoverished or otherwise. How about addicts that have no other recourse (according to their own psychology) but to call out to a God that might not even exist according to you or I? All of recorded history is full of this kind of stuff. And accompanied by some system of belief. A yearning for something greater than one's self.

I could also go on a lengthy diatribe here about general human ignorance. Much of which, I would guess, you would similarly use to show the folly of religion. And how does this ignorance suddenly rectify itself? When we can see as societies, even Western societies, a dumbing down of the culture. Advances in technology actually accentuate this do they not? We are more and more asking the culture to NOT think. How does this lead to a progression where God (as concept) has no place? Again, I am a former (near or actual) anti-theist. But I've been through all these topics a thousand times in my own head and in conversations with others. I am comfortable where I've landed.

You say all the good religion can do doesn't require religion but that does not involve the basic human emotional needs of millions outside of yourself. People like you, me and others - are able to rationalize, and use reason and logic (and so on) but there are many people that don't. You can say I am not giving them enough credit - all I am doing is observing what has happened over the course of humanity. Humans tend to place Order over Chaos.

Think about your own view. And what ultimately leads people to religion (it's not just what is taught to them). And explain how that goes away. And if it doesn't go away, it doesn't make any difference how much an objective view says it's not needed. It's needed, if it is, because people want it. "Want" is the not the best word...need it. Again, this is part of the initial question I need to try to do a better job of articulating. Philosophy was never a great interest of mine. I like facts and logic and science, etc. But I've tried to become a hack science/religious pundit over the years as you can tell.

I think it is very important to make one distinction here. God, belief in a God, belief in a higher power (from the God of Abraham to some kind of...collective consciousness) and religion can be mutually exclusive. I know you know this good and well, JT, I am just making the emphasis. I don't think people in the year 2100 will be more inclined to follow religions as much as I think there might be a new religion resembling, for lack of a better example, Deism. I just don't think it goes away. Ever. Because we can't explain everything away with science. Even if we can, we can't get people to listen. There are otherwise intelligent people that refuse to believe in Evolution. It's not for lack of education, it's for a simple incuriosity to hear different. That is the kind of emotional response I am talking about. Maybe I can elaborate later on.
I'm not ignoring this. I will respond
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 01:52 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

For the laws of physics. Hawking also uses the term god in this way. Neither of them are suggesting a god actually exists
Sounds a bit like the Stoic use of the term Logos - the governing principle of the universe.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 01:55 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

I wasn't implying god was at the centre of it (I'm sure you're shocked).
Oh - I knew that. I was just appreciating the irony.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 02:44 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 08:49 AM
I'm yet to determine if I can contribute anything much to this thread, but I am glad that it exists. This forum needs to be broadened beyond a stale and one-note emphasis on current affairs (often from an exclusively US perspective).
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 07:49 PM   #40
Refugee
 
Cactus Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Mighty Jagrafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxaroedenfoe
Posts: 2,146
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Einstein, Hawking and Darwin were/are Pantheists, whatever they are
__________________
Cactus Annie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 09:07 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:49 PM
They're still atheists
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 10:13 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,963
Local Time: 04:49 PM
I figured that I'd throw in my thoughts on this issue, since it's something about which I think a lot.

I can relate very strongly to the feeling of wanting to find God in the universe, because that's a feeling that I've felt extraordinarily strongly. But my (god-given?) senses give me little reason to. I am about as far as one can get from being an expert on physics, but my limited knowledge gives me no forward reason to believe in a god, and I am quite certain that most experts in the field would feel the same way. It is easy to generate god of the gaps-style arguments, especially with quantum physics, which many people use as a god of the gaps argument for just about anything without understanding it at all. I've also been drawn into the mind/body problem as a great gap into which one can insert God. How does objective reality generate subjective qualia, the experiences in our mind which seem rather divorced from objective reality? Why do red's wavelengths produce a particular sensation? It's easy to talk about biology and evolution and the like, but all that talk skirts around a fundamental issue: the experiential seemingly having a property of radical emergence from the physically objective. That's primarily where I've tried to insert God, and still occasionally do. And although I do believe that the mind/body problem is still an issue, God seems like a solution only in the sense that His existence would provide a neat and tidy explanation for everything. That's hardly strong grounds to warrant my belief.

And yet, I just have this incredibly hard time shaking that there is a God out there, organizing the universe and my life. Perhaps I'm wired that way. Perhaps that colors my rather friendly views towards religion, as I can empathize with religious people very strongly. I often feel an intuitive pull towards the existence of a god. Perhaps that pull ought to serve as a warning to me, because I know how a strong feeling for a god can coexist with a dearth of scientific evidence for that feeling's validity, and I can see how easily that can push people towards believing in scientifically unjustifiable things. I cannot really let myself be religious, but not allowing myself to be religious takes an override of mind over emotion, and I doubt that I will ever feel emotionally certain in my beliefs.

The type of religious faith that I respect most greatly is that which throws out all pretense of being based on reasonable science, and that which does not pin its hopes to future scientific discoveries. I believe very strongly that science will never find real evidence of a god. I also believe that it will always leave questions. But, if a question cannot be reached via science, then a certain answer can, by definition, never be reached for it. To me, that leaves faith as a beautiful thing of feeling that there must be something great organizing things, that there must be a why. Such a belief is unprovable and untestable, but I strongly respect those who hold it. At the same time, I have a somewhat cynical view of humanity, as creatures that tend to discover what they believe and then discover why they are "correct", bending evidence to make it work. That happens, and it lends credence to the theory that religious belief is just something that we are semi-programmed to have in spite of its absurdity.

And yet... it's tough to not believe.
__________________
digitize is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 12:53 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I figured that I'd throw in my thoughts on this issue, since it's something about which I think a lot.

I can relate very strongly to the feeling of wanting to find God in the universe, because that's a feeling that I've felt extraordinarily strongly. But my (god-given?) senses give me little reason to. I am about as far as one can get from being an expert on physics, but my limited knowledge gives me no forward reason to believe in a god, and I am quite certain that most experts in the field would feel the same way. It is easy to generate god of the gaps-style arguments, especially with quantum physics, which many people use as a god of the gaps argument for just about anything without understanding it at all. I've also been drawn into the mind/body problem as a great gap into which one can insert God. How does objective reality generate subjective qualia, the experiences in our mind which seem rather divorced from objective reality? Why do red's wavelengths produce a particular sensation? It's easy to talk about biology and evolution and the like, but all that talk skirts around a fundamental issue: the experiential seemingly having a property of radical emergence from the physically objective. That's primarily where I've tried to insert God, and still occasionally do. And although I do believe that the mind/body problem is still an issue, God seems like a solution only in the sense that His existence would provide a neat and tidy explanation for everything. That's hardly strong grounds to warrant my belief.

And yet, I just have this incredibly hard time shaking that there is a God out there, organizing the universe and my life. Perhaps I'm wired that way. Perhaps that colors my rather friendly views towards religion, as I can empathize with religious people very strongly. I often feel an intuitive pull towards the existence of a god. Perhaps that pull ought to serve as a warning to me, because I know how a strong feeling for a god can coexist with a dearth of scientific evidence for that feeling's validity, and I can see how easily that can push people towards believing in scientifically unjustifiable things. I cannot really let myself be religious, but not allowing myself to be religious takes an override of mind over emotion, and I doubt that I will ever feel emotionally certain in my beliefs.

The type of religious faith that I respect most greatly is that which throws out all pretense of being based on reasonable science, and that which does not pin its hopes to future scientific discoveries. I believe very strongly that science will never find real evidence of a god. I also believe that it will always leave questions. But, if a question cannot be reached via science, then a certain answer can, by definition, never be reached for it. To me, that leaves faith as a beautiful thing of feeling that there must be something great organizing things, that there must be a why. Such a belief is unprovable and untestable, but I strongly respect those who hold it. At the same time, I have a somewhat cynical view of humanity, as creatures that tend to discover what they believe and then discover why they are "correct", bending evidence to make it work. That happens, and it lends credence to the theory that religious belief is just something that we are semi-programmed to have in spite of its absurdity.

And yet... it's tough to not believe.


That's a great post.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 12:59 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
They're still atheists
I think that might be a bit strong of a definition. I would agree they would not accepts an Anthropomorphic/Abrahamic type of God - or that anything about God can even really be discussed - but they often seem to accept an idea similar to the Stoic's concept of Logos (as mentioned earlier).
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 02:31 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I've also been drawn into the mind/body problem as a great gap into which one can insert God. How does objective reality generate subjective qualia, the experiences in our mind which seem rather divorced from objective reality? Why do red's wavelengths produce a particular sensation?
The mind/body problem doesn't seem like such a problem to me. I see no reason to support dualism as a required phenomenon. It would seem to me that consciousness, and thus the 'mind', is more a byproduct of memory than anything intangible . I'm sure we've all (maybe not all) experienced a night or two in college when our conscious brain has taken the night off, yet we're still able to 'function' more or less as a sentient being (reading through Dennet's Intuition Pumps it struck me as a bit odd that nobody has really approached consciousness in this way... or maybe they have. I'm not that well read on the subject). Why do red wavelengths of light produce a given qualia within us? Because in order for us to reacted differently to different wavelengths of light, they must produce a different sensation. It's a bit of a non question as to why we see red as red. We must see it as something different; it could be completely arbitrary.

Quote:

It's easy to talk about biology and evolution and the like, but all that talk skirts around a fundamental issue: the experiential seemingly having a property of radical emergence from the physically objective. That's primarily where I've tried to insert God, and still occasionally do.
Can you elaborate a bit on this?



Quote:
The type of religious faith that I respect most greatly is that which throws out all pretense of being based on reasonable science, and that which does not pin its hopes to future scientific discoveries.
I feel the same. I tend to cringe and feel embarrassed for the debaters I listen to try and use scientific discoveries to prove their side of the debate. It's a bit of a dishonest pursuit (not a knock for anyone here. while I feel theres a bit of "the gaps" going on, at least actual evidence isn't being twisted. I can respect that).

Quote:
I believe very strongly that science will never find real evidence of a god. I also believe that it will always leave questions. But, if a question cannot be reached via science, then a certain answer can, by definition, never be reached for it. To me, that leaves faith as a beautiful thing of feeling that there must be something great organizing things, that there must be a why.
I guess I can understand this, but when god keeps getting pushed back into the fringes, it makes me question how much pushing it will take for someone to concede defeat (maybe a bit strongly worded....I'm too tired to think of something different ).
You need only go back a couple hundred years for god to be forefront in our lives. He was the reason for the cycles of the sun and moon. The reason for the seasons. He put all living things on the Earth as they are today. Created the Earth and stars. But now he has been regulated to the very small and the very long ago; to singularities beyond our current technological gaze and to influencing probabilities at the quantum scale. When do you say uncle?
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com