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 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Pascal's Wager purports to be a cost-benefit analysis of a/theism, the results of which may be summarized as follows:
    If atheism is correct:
    The atheists have gained nothing by believing, and the theists have lost nothing by believing.
    If some brand of theism is correct:
    The atheists/non-believers are destined for eternal torment, while the believers are destined for Heaven.
    Thus, it is better to be a theist, because you're more likely to get a favorable result in the second case, while the first result is identical.

    Before we go any further, it should be noted that Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the truth of theism (if it were, it would be a fallacious appeal to the consequences of a belief, and this would be a very short thread indeed), but rather an argument for belief in theism. A subtle distinction, but one worth noting.

    Now then, Pascal's Wager has two fundamental errors:
    The first, and by far the most grave, is a false dilemma fallacy: it relies on the notion that either 1) Atheism is true or 2) Some brand of theism in which believers are rewarded and unbelievers are punished is true. But there is no reason why this should be so. There could very well be cases in which theism is true but theists gain no benefit (i.e. one where god doesn't reward belief) or even one where atheists get a better deal than theists (perhaps god rewards disbelievers, doesn't like faith, etc). There is no reason to assume that if theism is true, there will be rewards for the believers. This then, particularly the examples in which atheism nets a higher reward than theism, counterbalances the claimed benefits of theism, and thus negates them.

    The second flaw, and the more minor one, as well as the less clear one, is the assumption that no costs are incurred by believing. This is rarely true, however. Many religions demand tithes of some sort, and nearly all demand that one attend religious services or in some other way devote time to the faith. We also have the opportunity cost incurred by, for example, the lack of choice present in the moral codes many religions provide. This is, of course, dependent on what variety of theism one refers to, or even whether all the "costs" mentioned are really costs, but at the very least, the matter is not nearly so clear-cut and simplistic as Pascal's Wager would have us believe.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  2. #2
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    If I may add to that..

    Pascal's Wager is often based around the assumption that the two possibilities, Hell or no Hell, are in comparable likelihood. Though, for most Atheists, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero. Thus, the argument is only likely to convince those who already believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidels.org
    "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

    This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

    Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

    Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

    Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

    Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

    Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.

    Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

    1. One does not know whether God exists.
    2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.
    3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
    4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

    There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

    The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

    Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

    Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

    In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

    Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Tek Nectar
    Pascal's Wager is often based around the assumption that the two possibilities, Hell or no Hell, are in comparable likelihood.
    This is inaccurate. Provided the probability of God's existence is non-zero and the payoff matrix (specifically the infinite payoff of Heaven and the infinite punishment of Hell) is accurate, the exact probability is irrelevent: infinity times a non-zero number is still infinity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidels.org
    Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

    Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?
    This is irrelevent if we take the Wager as a general argument for theism (though it certainly dismisses it as an argument for, say, Christianity). Believing in any God is better than atheism (provided the argument holds true). Thus, I don't think we can really count this as a valid argument against the Wager.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    I'll wager that Pascal won his wager - but we'll never know for sure. I read on one of the sites about this subject that he wrote his wager on a piece of scratch paper, using both sides of the paper and he scratched out many words, making many corrections. I don't think he was that sure of what he thought.

    P.S. I love that source infidels.org ... "how will we decide which commandments to follow?" - follow all of them of course!
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  5. #5
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    This is inaccurate. Provided the probability of God's existence is non-zero and the payoff matrix (specifically the infinite payoff of Heaven and the infinite punishment of Hell) is accurate, the exact probability is irrelevent: infinity times a non-zero number is still infinity.
    You're speaking with humans here, Castle. I can tell you, as an Atheist, that I am not moved by the argument simply because I don't see my destination in Hell as likely. Your math equation is irrelevant, because it isn't even likely to come up.

    There is a possibility that a god-like entity is watching you, and is judging what you do. If you ever eat kiwi again, this god will send you to suffer in the max amount, for the max amount of time. Infinity times a non-zero number is still infinity. Are you scared?

    I certainly hope not.

    Why..?

    I'll let you answer that question yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    This is irrelevent if we take the Wager as a general argument for theism (though it certainly dismisses it as an argument for, say, Christianity). Believing in any God is better than atheism (provided the argument holds true). Thus, I don't think we can really count this as a valid argument against the Wager.
    I disagree. It accurately illustrates the hopelessness of the tempted wager, even if one is to obey. Given, of course, simply being a theist is not enough to get you into paradise. (notice, Atheism as a PLUS is a possibility that cannot be ruled out)

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Castle, your version of Pascal Wager is not the correct one. Or at least you chose one of the weaker versions out there.

    The stronger version which circumvents all the problems you've identified is this one:

    If Christianity is true (which includes Heaven and Hell existing):
    Believe in God - Finite loss, infinite gain
    Disbelieve in God - No gain, infinite loss

    If Christianity is false
    Believe in God - Finite loss
    Disbelieve in God - No gain, no loss

    Note that I am stipulating the worst-case scenario here - that believing in Christianity is a form of "loss" on Earth because of wasted time praying and reading the Bible, etc. However in most cases, believing in Christianity brings great spiritual gain and benefits for the believer while on Earth.

    Thus, you can see that the most rational position for a person who wants to minimise losses and maximise gains would be to believe in God, because no matter how costly it is to believe, it is more than outshadowed by the eternal happiness you will receive if it is true.

    Not that this conclusion holds even if the likelihood of Christianity being true is very small. Let's say Christianity only has a 0.1% of being true. 0.1% of infinity is still infinity - your gains are still infinite if Christianity is true, and still outpace your finite losses. Such is the beauty of a promise of eternal happiness.
    Trendem

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Tek Nectar
    There is a possibility that a god-like entity is watching you, and is judging what you do. If you ever eat kiwi again, this god will send you to suffer in the max amount, for the max amount of time. Infinity times a non-zero number is still infinity. Are you scared?
    Nah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tek Nectar
    Why..?
    Never liked kiwi Just kidding. Because the claim is unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiated claims bear no weight. For instance, I could make precisely the same claim about any action, and thus, all actions would have the same stigma attached to them. Thus, the claim is useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tek Nectar
    Given, of course, simply being a theist is not enough to get you into paradise.
    It is provided you get the right brand of theism, and the right god exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem
    Castle, your version of Pascal Wager is not the correct one. Or at least you chose one of the weaker version out there.
    I tried to choose a version that wasn't patently flawed. Yours is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trendem
    If Christianity is true (which includes Heaven and Hell existing):
    Believe in God - Finite loss, infinite gain
    Disbelieve in God - No gain, infinite loss

    If Christianity is false
    Believe in God - Finite loss
    Disbelieve in God - No gain, no loss
    The problem lies in the last line. It falls to my first objection, and rather painfully at that. What if, say, Islam is true? Then Muslims go to Heaven, and the last line is amended to (or, more accurately, the following is appended to the last line) "Muslims-Finite loss, infinite gain". What if god sticks atheists in Heaven and everyone else in Hell? Then the last line becomes "Atheists-No loss, infinite gain". Etc. Btw, by this scenario, atheists win, being the only group not having the "finite loss" part
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    What if god sticks atheists in Heaven and everyone else in Hell? Then the last line becomes "Atheists-No loss, infinite gain". Etc. Btw, by this scenario, atheists win, being the only group not having the "finite loss" part
    Keep dreaming.

    Have you noticed that every religious debate you start becomes hypothetical after a few posts?
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    1,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    This is inaccurate. Provided the probability of God's existence is non-zero and the payoff matrix (specifically the infinite payoff of Heaven and the infinite punishment of Hell) is accurate, the exact probability is irrelevent: infinity times a non-zero number is still infinity.
    Nonsense, Castle. Someday you'll grow up. Then you'll realize that a 'next to zero' probability is not a 50/50 proposition regardless of the consequences.

    Do you move manufacturing to China? Big up front costs, but the labor cost is now 10% of domestic costs. If they remain below 50% of domestic costs for 5 years you break even. If they remain below 100% of domestic labor costs for 8 years, you are at least sufficiently ahead for your investment to have paid off.

    Based on exhaustive research, you conclude that the chances of the price of Chinese labor approaching even 20% of domestic labor costs in the next 15 years is next to zero.

    If you say 'build' and your research is right, you get bloody rich.

    If you are wrong, you're drummed out of the company sans pension.

    Do you build? Based on the data I've provided?

    Of course!

    Real life isn't some parlor game, Castle. It's real life. Decisions have to be made on the quality of the data available.

    Pascal's wager is not relevant to real life, as there is no data that any god, pink unicorn. squamiflitch, or plamflamjam exists to wager for or against.
    To begin to think is to begin to be undermined.
    Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning

    Who knows most, doubts most.
    Robert Browning

  10. #10
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Never liked kiwi Just kidding. Because the claim is unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiated claims bear no weight. For instance, I could make precisely the same claim about any action, and thus, all actions would have the same stigma attached to them. Thus, the claim is useless.
    Exactly! You get it now. And most Atheists feel the same way about any mythology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    It is provided you get the right brand of theism, and the right god exists.
    Provided by what? What use is an argument that provides such things?

    "If you choose to play the lottery, you will win. If you don't play the lottery, you will lose."

    "But sir, what if we choose the wrong lottery ticket?"

    "No, that's provided in the argument."

    Translation..

    "If you become a theist, you'll enter a version of paradise. If you stay an Atheist, you will go to a version of Hell"

    "But sir, what if we choose the wrong religion?"

    "No, that's provided in the argument."

    If you assume such things, the argument is pointless and pathetic.

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    1,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    As the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math, theology is a tax on people who are bad at logic.
    To begin to think is to begin to be undermined.
    Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning

    Who knows most, doubts most.
    Robert Browning

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdPersonPlural View Post
    As the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math, theology is a tax on people who are bad at logic.
    That has to be a fallacy of some sort. A lottery is just as taxing on people who are good at math.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  13. #13
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop View Post
    That has to be a fallacy of some sort. A lottery is just as taxing on people who are good at math.
    No.. people who are good at math don't play the lottery. Or at least, they don't play seriously... They play just for the kicks.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Tek Nectar View Post
    No.. people who are good at math don't play the lottery. Or at least, they don't play seriously... They play just for the kicks.
    That is a generalization - which is a fallacy.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  15. #15
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop View Post
    That is a generalization - which is a fallacy.
    You're right. My bad.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    The problem lies in the last line. It falls to my first objection, and rather painfully at that. What if, say, Islam is true? Then Muslims go to Heaven, and the last line is amended to (or, more accurately, the following is appended to the last line) "Muslims-Finite loss, infinite gain". What if god sticks atheists in Heaven and everyone else in Hell? Then the last line becomes "Atheists-No loss, infinite gain". Etc. Btw, by this scenario, atheists win, being the only group not having the "finite loss" part
    Your objection is baseless. All those scenarios fall into the "Christianity is false" category. If the Christian God rewards Muslims/Buddhists/unbelievers, then that is not in accordance with the Bible, and Christianity cannot be said to be true.

    When I said "Christianity is true", it means that the Christian doctrine is true - i.e. Christians go to Heaven and all others to Hell.
    Trendem

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    I'll repost something I mentioned in a previous thread:

    Okay. So let's say I postulate that there exist magical unicorns that punish those who don't believe in them for all eternity. Those who do believe in them go to magical unicorn paradise.
    IF NON-UNICORN BELIEVERS ARE RIGHT:

    Cost of not believing: Nothing.
    Benefit of not believing: Nothing.

    Cost of believing: Nothing.
    Benefit of believing: Nothing.

    Not believing thus enjoys no comparative advantage to believing.

    IF UNICORN BELIEVERS ARE RIGHT:

    Cost of not believing: Everything.
    Benefit of not believing: Nothing.

    Cost of believing (right): Nothing.
    Benefit of believing (right): Everything.
    So, not believing in any claim which, if true, could have bad consequences for you is a bad decision.

    Consider: Given the number of religions on Earth which demand total devotion, and given the infinite number of faith based claims I could make (which, if true, could have bad consequences for non-believers), every theist belonging to an exclusive religion denies all faith based claims with consequences for non-believers but one. Theists deny infinity - 1 (= infinity) faith claims with consequences for non-believers, while atheists just deny one more. Consequently, how is atheism a worse decision than theism?
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Theists deny infinity - 1 (= infinity) faith claims with consequences for non-believers, while atheists just deny one more. Consequently, how is atheism a worse decision than theism?
    First off, there aren't an infinite number of faith claims. Even if they were, no one person is aware of all of them, and so can only reject a finite amount of faith claims.

    Second, atheism is worse because it doesn't even take a shot. It's like a multiple-choice question with thousands of possible responses; atheism selects the "none of the above option"--which has no benefit, and potentially huge costs. Why NOT be a theist? Nothing is gained by being an atheist, and nothing is lost by being a theist.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  19. #19
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    First off, there aren't an infinite number of faith claims. Even if they were, no one person is aware of all of them, and so can only reject a finite amount of faith claims.

    Second, atheism is worse because it doesn't even take a shot. It's like a multiple-choice question with thousands of possible responses; atheism selects the "none of the above option"--which has no benefit, and potentially huge costs. Why NOT be a theist? Nothing is gained by being an atheist, and nothing is lost by being a theist.
    Not at all true.

    Atheism is identical to being true to oneself, being honest with one's beliefs, in regards to every Atheist.

    That seems redundant, but makes your argument pathetic.

    If the god over our world is a just god, in terms of our perception of what just is, then being an Atheist is NOT a none of the above choice.

    Not to mention the possibly small, but undeniable possibility that a god like entity would favor the skeptical.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Rebuttal to Pascal's Wager

    Quote Originally Posted by Tek Nectar View Post
    Not at all true.

    Atheism is identical to being true to oneself, being honest with one's beliefs, in regards to every Atheist.
    Okay. I agree. It is being true to yourself, if you are an atheist. That doesn't make you right in your beliefs; it just makes you sincere.

    That seems redundant, but makes your argument pathetic.
    How?

    If the god over our world is a just god, in terms of our perception of what just is, then being an Atheist is NOT a none of the above choice.
    Yes it is. Atheism is acceptance of the claim that God does not exist (not necessarily that Truth and Justice don't exist--just that God doesn't). At the very least, it is a refusal to accept the claim that God exists.

    Not to mention the possibly small, but undeniable possibility that a god like entity would favor the skeptical.

    Fine. I already covered that; if you choose to be an athiest in order to please such a God, then you aren't an atheist at all--because you implicitly believe that such a God exists (making you a theist), otherwise it wouldn't be a motivation.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Rebuttal to the Cosmological Argument
    By Castle in forum Religion
    Replies: 391
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2014, 06:49 AM
  2. Replies: 113
    Last Post: February 12th, 2012, 02:33 PM
  3. Pascal's Wager
    By PallidaMors in forum Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2009, 01:53 PM
  4. Birthday Wager
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 4th, 2004, 10:32 AM
  5. Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 28th, 2004, 09:06 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
  •