Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 126

Thread: Supernatural?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Supernatural?

    In religious debates and the like, the word "supernatural" is often used. But I'm not sure that all parties are going by the same criteria for when something qualifies as "supernatural" or what it means to be "supernatural" so I'm forwarding how I define it in terms of the common debate here. I think a very pertinent qualifier for "supernatural" is "that which is not accounted for by current scientific understanding" (that's not necessarily a complete definition but I very much hold that that is a pertinent part of the definition and likewise the focus here).

    But of course as time goes on we learn more and more so some of what's currently not accounted for by current scientific understanding could be accounted for in the future.

    So let's say that hypothetically that what we consider as ghosts actually exist - there ARE disembodied consciousness that sometime reside in particular locations. And let's also say hypothetically that in twenty years science will confirm that this actually exists and the existence of ghosts becomes an accepted scientific reality.

    So in that scenario, it seems clear that ghosts would no longer be considered "supernatural". And likewise because ghosts currently fit the definition of "supernatural" does not mean that they don't actually exist (since what is unaccounted for now might be discovered later). That's not to say that one can't successfully argue that ghosts don't exist but I hold that one can't successfully argue that they don't exist just because they fit the definition of "supernatural".

    Anyway, I'm posting this in part to forward how I define supernatural in terms of the debate. While one can certainly argue that a certain supernatural something does not exist, it is not an accepted premise, going by the definition of "supernatural" I'm using here, that it doesn't exist just because it's qualifies as supernatural.

    And btw, if you (whoever you are) are using a different definition of "supernatural" in your arguments, feel free to argue for that definition.

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Supernatural is defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

    So by definition, it is anything that science has yet been able to explain or disprove. I agree with your point that when something is explained by science, it is no longer considered supernatural - it's where the term of God in the Gaps came from.

    Religious folk tend to couch their beliefs in very poorly defined terms - ghosts, demons, angels, soul, etc. They're all considered supernatural to keep them out of the reach of science - indeed, modern theists even claim that their god cannot even be explained by science since he is outside of the natural realm. So it's not really a matter of classification at the root of an atheist's dispute, it's the fact that theists use the term to hand wave away their obligations to explain anything. It's commonly known as the '...because God' argument; theists say 'God works in mysterious ways'.



  3. #3
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    When you say "that which is not accounted for by current scientific understanding", what , specifically, can fall into the category of "that"? Does "that" refer to an actual real-world event, such as spontaneous human combustion? Can "that" be merely an account of a thing, such as the belief of a remembered event of spontaneous human combustion? It might be useful to distinguish between the two, since people can have all sorts of thoughts/beliefs that occupy real estate in their brains, none of which correspond to any actual past/present/future real-world event.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In religious debates and the like, the word "supernatural" is often used. But I'm not sure that all parties are going by the same criteria for when something qualifies as "supernatural" or what it means to be "supernatural" so I'm forwarding how I define it in terms of the common debate here.
    Agreed, too often people do talk past each other just because of a different definition for a given word.

    In a general physics conversation, this definition isn't too bad.

    In a religious context, this is not what I think of at all though (not saying I am correct here, just how I see the meaning behind the word)!!
    In this case I think of it more like this example:

    "God suspends the laws of the universe, in a very specific time/place to achieve a particular result."


    God made the laws of our universe, only God can do things that would violate these laws. Since God does these things with a "thought", is immaterial, and not a part of this universe, I don't see science explaining a supernatural event ever.

    Further, if science could explain how God could perform the supernatural, it still couldn't be replicated in lab since it would still violate the laws of the universe (whether such laws are known to man or not...). And you still would not be able to make predictions about possible future super natural events based on said knowledge.

    Supernatural is unexplainable by science by definition to me, or it's meaning seems to diminish to little/nothing.

    Great idea for a topic

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    I would say that if you want to examine the word supernatural, we should look at some of the things it is attributed to.
    So I think the OP does well to examine Ghosts as an example. However I don't make the distinction that the OP makes, such to say that once science explains Ghosts fully and completly then it would no longer fall under the term "supernatural".

    So, some examples of super-natural.
    Raising of the dead, such as Lazerous and Christ.
    Walking on water
    As a point to push the limits, Any healing at all.

    So in what way are the first 2 outside of science? Suppose we could take have Christ walking on water in any number of "experimental" environments. In what way would science come up empty in accurately describing the event? If it is only because the event happened once, or that it is in the past and we don't have access to the forces that caused it. Then suddenly any past event is by definition "supernatural".
    Such as the beginning of the universe. That would by definition be super-natural.


    Now to push the envelope a bit, what about healing of any kind.
    While it may seem "natural" because it occurs on a regular basis, the event of healing is pretty much due to forces that science is not really able to effect very much. Things like the Placebo effect, while we may be able to predict a rate of it, would probably best fall under the category of "super natural". Spontaneous recovery from cancer and various other illnesses, who's causes are totally outside of sciences ability to explain a cause of. (Again, something that science can measure and predict, but which forces are outside of our access). I think also the fact that for all the hospitals and Dr's and "science" that is brought to bare on sickness and diseases, it is ultimately the body and some pretty squishy reasoning that people recover from any illness at all, while others die from the same thing.


    ---good topic--
    To serve man.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Suppose we could take have Christ walking on water in any number of "experimental" environments. In what way would science come up empty in accurately describing the event?
    How could science explain or quantify Jesus being able to suspend gravity by thought alone?

    However, if Jesus were available for testing on his ability to walk on water, at least we would know the phenomena exists.

  7. #7
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Yeah, I don't see anything new or useful, here. One the one hand we've got a proposal that says the "supernatural" is effectively "things we observe - or things that people claim to have observed - but don't understand"; things that could eventually become "natural" if we discover the mechanisms behind it. And all the while another proposal that suggests that either 1) some things could still be "supernatural" in origin even if we DO understand them or 2) there's some things science could never explain, therefore supernatural (which is effectively the first definition minus the discovery). This has been said a million times over, and it goes nowhere.

    It's like people just really want there to be some MaGiCaL aspect of reality, no matter where science or other forms of investigation leads us.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Yeah, I don't see anything new or useful, here. One the one hand we've got a proposal that says the "supernatural" is effectively "things we observe - or things that people claim to have observed - but don't understand"; things that could eventually become "natural" if we discover the mechanisms behind it. And all the while another proposal that suggests that either 1) some things could still be "supernatural" in origin even if we DO understand them or 2) there's some things science could never explain, therefore supernatural (which is effectively the first definition minus the discovery). This has been said a million times over, and it goes nowhere.

    It's like people just really want there to be some MaGiCaL aspect of reality, no matter where science or other forms of investigation leads us.
    Yeah, and I don't even see a point to this post other than to complain about others lack of "useful" information.

    Why is new information necessary before we can define the term supernatural?

    If you have a more accurate or otherwise better definition of supernatural please forward it.

    After all, the point of the thread was to get people on the same page with regards to the term, not spell out some new as yet undiscovered "truth".

  9. #9
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yeah, and I don't even see a point to this post other than to complain about others lack of "useful" information.

    Why is new information necessary before we can define the term supernatural?

    If you have a more accurate or otherwise better definition of supernatural please forward it.
    Well, I never said I have a better definition. I said there's nothing new or useful here; it's the same old noise. That's because 1) we've been playing this game about the meaning of "supernatural" since 2003, and I've yet to see anything even remotely resembling a useful definition and 2) as an example, there's a thread on this about three years ahead of you there, hoss. Click here

    P.S. In the course of this thread, let's just see if Mican budges at all from his proposed definition. Maybe this post will be regarded as "supernatural" in predicting that it won't move one iota in a way that actually means anything.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, I never said I have a better definition. I said there's nothing new or useful here; it's the same old noise. That's because 1) we've been playing this game about the meaning of "supernatural" since 2003, and I've yet to see anything even remotely resembling a useful definition and 2) as an example, there's a thread on this about three years ahead of you there, hoss. Click here

    P.S. In the course of this thread, let's just see if Mican budges at all from his proposed definition. Maybe this post will be regarded as "supernatural" in predicting that it won't move one iota in a way that actually means anything.
    Ok, I'll play.

    From you from your link:
    "“Supernatural” typically means that it transcends nature; that is it separate and distinct from nature; that is unobservable from the natural world."

    How did you make the enormous leap from "transcends nature" clear over to "unobservable from the natural world"?????
    If a supernatural event was unobservable to the natural world there would not be an event to discuss would there? We wouldn't even know it happened. This makes no sense to me at all, maybe I just don't get your point yet. Help me out here please...

    You seem to be saying supernatural events could be happening all the time, but there is no way for us to know?

    A supernatural event (in this case) is God suspending natural law at a particular time/place, SPECIFICALLY for the humans directly involved (the rest of the universe being unaffected), and you are saying any human is incapable of noticing?

    Knowing Mican, I doubt he will move, however, If I may ask:
    What would it take for his positon to "actually mean something"? His position in this thread doesn't seem contentious??

    I have read your posts for years, and generally have an idea where you are going, but I am at a loss currently.
    PM me if you like, but I am quite curious what is on your mind on this subject

  11. #11
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How did you make the enormous leap from "transcends nature" clear over to "unobservable from the natural world"?????
    ....
    What would it take for his positon to "actually mean something"? His position in this thread doesn't seem contentious??
    Well, first, it's not my leap. Notice that I said that "supernatural" is typically regarded in this way. It doesn't mean that I regard it in this way. The reason I said that is to address those who are skeptical of those who investigate "supernatural" claims; From the ghost-hunter who says to the scientist 'Hey man, like, the spiritual world is outside of your science, dude.' to the pious religious leaders who may say something like 'God is the intangible creator of the universe, and I don't have scientific evidence for this claim because it is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one' (I don't know how much of this you've seen, but it happens quite a lot in these discussions).

    But my difficulty with the problem does stem from the observability issue. Tell me; how does one observe something IN THIS universe and conclude that it came from OUTSIDE this universe? Think about it now; resist the urge to answer for the sake of answering. The fact is that, as far as our ability to observe the universe is concerned, we don't know what the outside of our universe looks like. We have no idea what its contents or characteristics are, so we are not equipped to claim anything about it. So if the "supernatural" means something like "outside of or beyond the observable universe", I don't see how we overcome the observability problem.

    On the other hand, if "supernatural" means something like "not yet understood by science", then really any kind of mystery can fall into the realm of "supernatural", from "God" to "the reason Dionysus enjoys Star Trek". Additionally, if the "supernatural" is something that COULD be understood by science, but isn't understood YET, then what do we mean by "supernatural" except "something strange in the neighborhood that we don't yet understand"? This is why I asked: "When you say "that which is not accounted for by current scientific understanding", what , specifically, can fall into the category of "that"? Does "that" refer to an actual real-world event, such as spontaneous human combustion? Can "that" be merely an account of a thing, such as the belief of a remembered event of spontaneous human combustion?"

    So, for a proposed definition to actually mean something, if would have to include something useful, or provide some insight or clarity that actually furthers the conversation. So far, all I've seen is the same old problems.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    2) there's some things science could never explain, therefore supernatural (which is effectively the first definition minus the discovery). This has been said a million times over, and it goes nowhere.
    I think you may have misunderstood my point.
    I'm not sure science will be able to explain how an immaterial being, from a different "universe (plain of existence???)", and is timeless can with only a "thought", create a universe out of absolutely nothing. That is a tall order indeed. How would one measure such an event?

    Now if Jesus were to make himself available to be scientifically tested while he walked on water or was dead and came back to life, these things science could measure/test. Science could show a dead body for instance. Science could measure "life signs" when the person came back to life.
    But, could science ever explain how such an event happened?? Again, a very tall order, and not where I was going with my comment.

    The best definition (in a religious sense) of supernatural I have heard is more like:

    The natural order of the universe is suspended in a very particular way, at a very specific place and time, with intent, without affecting the rest of the universe.

    I am unconvinced a ghost could qualify even remotely. It is a "dead human" after all. If a soul existed when the persons body was alive, there is nothing odd about it still hangin out after the body dies. Isn't that how Christians define a soul?
    I see nothing at all supernatural about a ghost. Definitely odd, since I have never experienced one, and don't know anyone that says they have, but supernatural, no...

  13. #13
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I think you may have misunderstood my point.
    I'm not sure science will be able to explain how an immaterial being, from a different "universe (plain of existence???)", and is timeless can with only a "thought", create a universe out of absolutely nothing. That is a tall order indeed. How would one measure such an event?

    Now if Jesus were to make himself available to be scientifically tested while he walked on water or was dead and came back to life, these things science could measure/test. Science could show a dead body for instance. Science could measure "life signs" when the person came back to life.
    But, could science ever explain how such an event happened?? Again, a very tall order, and not where I was going with my comment.

    The best definition (in a religious sense) of supernatural I have heard is more like:

    The natural order of the universe is suspended in a very particular way, at a very specific place and time, with intent, without affecting the rest of the universe.

    I am unconvinced a ghost could qualify even remotely. It is a "dead human" after all. If a soul existed when the persons body was alive, there is nothing odd about it still hangin out after the body dies. Isn't that how Christians define a soul?
    I see nothing at all supernatural about a ghost. Definitely odd, since I have never experienced one, and don't know anyone that says they have, but supernatural, no...
    I don’t think we disagree at all. It seems like every definition of “supernatural” you’ve seen is as opaque and useless as any
    I’ve ever seen.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I don’t think we disagree at all. It seems like every definition of “supernatural” you’ve seen is as opaque and useless as any
    I’ve ever seen.
    Would you then find defining say gravity or time equally "useless"?

    Or is it just that which relates to God is "useless", or I don't understand???

    ---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    How can you say that it doesn't affect the rest of the universe when there are religions that crow about their miracles about it all the time? And what about when people pray - that's asking for much more than a "particular way"? And isn't the point of religion in the first place affecting ALL places and ALL time - that's literally the goal of a religion: to promote itself!

    To say that a supernatural action only affects a tiny bit of the universe is laughably NOT true!
    You ARE kidding me right?

    If natural law (IOW that which makes our universe even possible) were suspended in the way Christians claim, and it affected the whole universe instead of a specific time/place we wouldn't be here to discuss it, as the universe as we know it would cease to exist.

  15. #15
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Would you then find defining say gravity or time equally "useless"?

    Or is it just that which relates to God is "useless", or I don't understand???
    Well, this is why I said to resist the urge to answer the question simply for the sake of answering, earlier. I’ll ask again: If a person experiences something from INSIDE the natural world, how do they possibly conclude that what they experiened is something OTHER THAN natural?

    Here’s another question: When you say that “X” is immaterial, what does it mean for that thing to BE? If it doesn’t exist in ANY material way (even abstracts such as ideas materially exist in SOME way; in brains, on paper, etc) in what sense does the immaterial thing EXIST?

    The inability of any proposed definitions of “supernatural” to provide any useful input in answering questions like these is why I say they are useless. It’s got nothing to do with God or theology or religion or spirituality. It has to do exclusively to do with weird-ass claims like “I expericed something not of this world” and “God is immaterial”. I don’t know how to make any sense of such claims.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, this is why I said to resist the urge to answer the question simply for the sake of answering, earlier.
    I appreciate your patience, I'm trying hard to understand and think I may have your point

    ---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I’ll ask again: If a person experiences something from INSIDE the natural world, how do they possibly conclude that what they experiened is something OTHER THAN natural?
    Sorry, I guess I missed it the first time.

    Tough question, but worth while. It could be difficult, but since (in this case) God is doing it "specifically for you", I'm guessing "you" would understand (according to the definition I proposed).
    It does seem as likely as Sigfried and Roy actually made a tiger disappear in front of me some years ago...

    ---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Here’s another question: When you say that “X” is immaterial, what does it mean for that thing to BE? If it doesn’t exist in ANY material way (even abstracts such as ideas materially exist in SOME way; in brains, on paper, etc) in what sense does the immaterial thing EXIST?
    To be fair here I am just parroting the Christian position on "immaterial". Squatch and I have a multi month conversation about this, and we just don't agree yet

    I agree with you, I can't make sense of it either. I still find in these types of conversations though, as Micam pointed out with this thread, to talk about something, one must have a definition of that thing that people agree on, to even be able to talk about it....

  17. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,373
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    If a person experiences something from INSIDE the natural world, how do they possibly conclude that what they experiened is something OTHER THAN natural?
    The research work of Dr. Bruce Greyson and his colleagues at the University of Virginia begins to address this question. What they have found and published in their papers/books from studying thousands of case studies of people around the world (theists-atheists) who have had a near death experiences and who have lived and regained consciousness, have some common unnatural traits in how they describe their experience. They include:

    Life Review (See some being of light showis them scenes from their life and as they watch they feel the joy or pain of the moment they are watching);

    God -- whatever their religion is, they experience the Godhead;

    Unlimited knowledge;

    Shown the future;

    Some have seen colors never seen on earth;

    Musicians have heard music notes not known to man;

    Tunnel of light


    Here’s another question: When you say that “X” is immaterial, what does it mean for that thing to BE? If it doesn’t exist in ANY material way (even abstracts such as ideas materially exist in SOME way; in brains, on paper, etc) in what sense does the immaterial thing EXIST?
    Perhaps one way it exists is at a higher frequency/ vibration rate that we can’t yet measure.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  18. #18
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The research work of Dr. Bruce Greyson and his colleagues at the University of Virginia begins to address this question. What they have found and published in their papers/books from studying thousands of case studies of people around the world (theists-atheists) who have had a near death experiences and who have lived and regained consciousness, have some common unnatural traits in how they describe their experience.
    Sorry, but these experiences are quite natural and have zero to do with god or religion. It;s just the brain having a last few moments of hyperactivity.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23672150

    "The lead author of the study, Dr Jimo Borjigin, of the University of Michigan, said: "A lot of people thought that the brain after clinical death was inactive or hypoactive, with less activity than the waking state, and we show that is definitely not the case.

    "If anything, it is much more active during the dying process than even the waking state."

    They also bring up a VERY important issue that I have brought up for years whenever this issue comes up:

    But he added: "One limitation is that we do not know when, in time, the near-death experience really occurs. Perhaps it was before patients had anaesthesia, or at some safe point during an operation long before cardiac arrest.

    So yes. There is zero supernatural about NDE's.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You ARE kidding me right?

    If natural law (IOW that which makes our universe even possible) were suspended in the way Christians claim, and it affected the whole universe instead of a specific time/place we wouldn't be here to discuss it, as the universe as we know it would cease to exist.
    My point is that you can’t say that theists are arguing that a supernatural act is limited in scope whilst simultaneously expanding it. That’s not the first contradiction that theists make but it does not make sense.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    My point is that you can’t say that theists are arguing that a supernatural act is limited in scope whilst simultaneously expanding it. That’s not the first contradiction that theists make but it does not make sense.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Would you expand on:
    "you can’t say that theists are arguing that a supernatural act is limited in scope whilst simultaneously expanding it."

    Or give me an example of what you mean. I don't understand how the act is being "expanded"?

    Again, my point is, natural law can only be broken in very specific instances or the would be no universe as we know it.

    ---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming that is the one and only criteria for ghosts being generated.
    How is a ghost supernatural? It is a human soul!!

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bias Against the Supernatural
    By Kong in forum Religion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: August 25th, 2011, 11:32 PM
  2. Supernatural Forum?
    By Oh snap in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 06:13 PM
  3. Definition of the supernatural
    By chadn737 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: December 1st, 2007, 04:02 PM
  4. Do you believe in the supernatural?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 09:06 AM
  5. Why believe in the Supernatural?
    By Withnail in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: May 5th, 2004, 08:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •