U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2016, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,862 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
I don't have to prove it. It is proving itself.


If you think a little deeper about the common sense theory, there would be nothing in existence at all. But we already know that there is existence and, therefore, there had to be an Uncreated that created it all. That Uncreated is God. Who created the Uncreated? Uncreated does not need to be created.

The reason you asked, who created God despite God being Uncreated.

You can't use cause and effect theory, reject it, and then use it again. There is only One Uncreated Creator rather than "ultimate uncreated creator" too.

Philosophically, you have just gone round walking and come round crawling. Ultimate 'thing' is not 'nothing'. Once a philosopher flips over, he begins to see nothing as the thing. Once he flips over again, he asks, if...
Therefore, philosophical 'nothing' is Uncreated God for many.
The fact is human are existing and they have to exist and live optimally till the inevitable.


However, that you are existing and living do not give you the right to claim there is an uncreated God.
If you insist you will have to prove it.
If you cannot you [as a fallible human] have to remain silent.


Quote:
You can't use cause and effect theory, reject it, and then use it again. There is only One Uncreated Creator rather than "ultimate uncreated creator" too.
You are the one who is using 'cause and effect' theory and reject it.


You implied there must be a creator to all creations.
Then you stated God is uncreated, the exception to the rule of cause and effect.
What right and justifications do you have to insist God is uncreated.


Why you have to believe in a God that is uncreated and defy the law of cause and effect is due to psychological desperation within your brain as with all theists.
Theists are so naturally-psychologically desperate that they will bring in all sorts of deflections and excuses to defend the indefensible. Point is if theists give in and admit their lie then they will be psychologically doomed.

The difficulty of getting the truth [why God cannot exists] through is because the majority of human beings i.e. > 6.5 billion humans being are trapped in the same psychological dilemma.
It will be quite some time before the truth [God cannot exists] will prevails with the majority, perhaps in another 100 years.


It will be truer for your own self if you can understand why God cannot exists in reality, but on the other hand, you have no choice but to believe in [or assume] a non-existent God for psychological reasons.


I suggest you listen to this ex-Muslim's explanations of the very heavy emotional psychological impact of leaving Islam and the need to defend the existence of a God. Note especially at 16:21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65O2mAZ8CHQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2016, 01:16 AM
 
3,167 posts, read 1,038,277 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The fact is human are existing and they have to exist and live optimally till the inevitable.

However, that you are existing and living do not give you the right to claim there is an uncreated God.
If you insist you will have to prove it.
If you cannot you [as a fallible human] have to remain silent.
I don't go to people claiming there is an unncreated God. I don't go to other people's homes, knock on their doors and claim there is an ucreated God. In this forum, discussig Islam,
it is I that have been told that you have 'proof' that there is no God.

Quote:
You are the one who is using 'cause and effect' theory and reject it.
No. I did not mention 'cause and effect' theory first but you mentioned it and rejected it and then used it again to ask me 'who created God'.

Quote:
You implied there must be a creator to all creations.
Then you stated God is uncreated, the exception to the rule of cause and effect.
What right and justifications do you have to insist God is uncreated.
REASON! If there is cause and effect then there has to be a cause for the first effect. That Cause has to be there without effect. And that Cause is otherwise believed as God.

Quote:
Why you have to believe in a God that is uncreated and defy the law of cause and effect is due to psychological desperation within your brain as with all theists.
Now your psyhological desperation has dragged you back to use the theory (law?) of cause and effect but you can't reason that there had to be the origin of both cause and effect or else this theory cannot be used as applying in every case. In Islam, the first cause is the command ('ruh') "Be" ("come into existence") and it is.
Do you have a better explanation for the first cause? I will be happy to learn about the first cause if you have a better explanation. I have an open mind.

Quote:
Theists are so naturally-psychologically desperate that they will bring in all sorts of deflections and excuses to defend the indefensible. Point is if theists give in and admit their lie then they will be psychologically doomed.

The difficulty of getting the truth [why God cannot exists] through is because the majority of human beings i.e. > 6.5 billion humans being are trapped in the same psychological dilemma.
It will be quite some time before the truth [God cannot exists] will prevails with the majority, perhaps in another 100 years.
Why in 100 years? The truth is that the majority of human beings have never believed in God. In 100 years, both of us will be aware if God exists or never will be aware if there is no God.

Quote:
It will be truer for your own self if you can understand why God cannot exists in reality, but on the other hand, you have no choice but to believe in [or assume] a non-existent God for psychological reasons.
It will be truer for your self if you can understand how cause and effect began. What is the starting point and how it was triggered.

Finally, I have made it clear that I believe in an uncreated God not because I have a clear proof of His existence but I 'believe' so, using reason already expressed, there had to be an uncreated God or else there can be no existence and no evolutionary process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 02:12 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,583,862 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
I don't go to people claiming there is an unncreated God. I don't go to other people's homes, knock on their doors and claim there is an ucreated God. In this forum, discussig Islam,
it is I that have been told that you have 'proof' that there is no God.
If you claim "god exists" privately, I have no issue with that.
However since you claim "god exists" in a public forum, the onus is on you to provide proof.


It is intellectually childish to ask others to prove a negative.
The option is on me to decide whether I want to provide the proof of the negative to reinforce my point. I have proof it is impossible for God to exists. It is not obligatory of me to prove a negative. I will do it in a book soon. It is too complex to do it in a few statements in a forum like this, but note it is not imperative me to prove a negative, God do not exists.

Quote:
No. I did not mention 'cause and effect' theory first but you mentioned it and rejected it and then used it again to ask me 'who created God'.
That is the problem with your limited intellectual range.
You did not mention 'cause and effect' but it is implied in your point. You did not even realize you were invoking the 'cause and effect theory'.
Get it.

Quote:
REASON! If there is cause and effect then there has to be a cause for the first effect. That Cause has to be there without effect. And that Cause is otherwise believed as God.
There is no reason for a first cause at all.
The reason for a first cause is due to psychological desperation to prevent one [the majority] in falling into a state of DOOM.

Quote:
Now your psyhological desperation has dragged you back to use the theory (law?) of cause and effect but you can't reason that there had to be the origin of both cause and effect or else this theory cannot be used as applying in every case. In Islam, the first cause is the command ('ruh') "Be" ("come into existence") and it is.
Do you have a better explanation for the first cause? I will be happy to learn about the first cause if you have a better explanation. I have an open mind.
It is so easy for any one to claim a first cause, but that in my view is due to psychological desperation to avoid psychological DOOM.
There is no first cause and no better explanation for it.


The counters to the first cause theory are;
1. Hume destroyed the principles of cause and effect as a psychological issue.
2. Note the principles of Dependent Origination in Buddhism. There are no causes, there are only conditions -Nagarjuna.
3. Meno Paradox - you will not be able to know what you don't know in the first place.
4. Many others.

Quote:
Why in 100 years? The truth is that the majority of human beings have never believed in God. In 100 years, both of us will be aware if God exists or never will be aware if there is no God.
The truths is 90% of humans are theists at present, i.e. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, others.
If you look at the present there is a rising trend of non-theist as compared to 100 years ago.
This is because of the development of intelligence, spirituality, wisdom, psychological confidence, expansion of various knowledge at present.


100 years?? I am optimistic with the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, many humans will understand the truth why God is an illusion that is necessary for an inherent psychology issue.
Especially, genomics, Connectome Project, etc.


When humans has alternatives to understand this desperate psychology and able to manage it confidently they will have no need for God. This is what has been going on with Buddhism, Jainism, and other non-theistic religions.


I am not saying people will convert to Buddhism, i.e. another religion, but humanity will extract the main principles and practices from current non-theistic religions and combine with other advance knowledge to establish a generic spirituality [non-theistic] that is fool proof and acceptable by all voluntarily.


Then we will not have any more religion-inspired evils and violence. Humanity can then focus on other evils and violence.

Quote:
It will be truer for your self if you can understand how cause and effect began. What is the starting point and how it was triggered.
Note Science is already doing that with the Big Bang with reasonable proofs but yet they admit that is the best guess and not necessary the ultimate reality. If there is a better theory Scientists are willing to change their minds.
On the other hand, theists insist without proof God as the first cause is the ultimate reality.
See the difference. Science is psychological confident of their knowledge while theists are psychologically desperate and will cling to anything [like a drowning man who will even grab on straws to survive] that is seemingly truer as final without proof and questions.


Quote:
Finally, I have made it clear that I believe in an uncreated God not because I have a clear proof of His existence but I 'believe' so, using reason already expressed, there had to be an uncreated God or else there can be no existence and no evolutionary process.
Note what you 'believe' is basically faith, i.e. belief without proofs nor reasons.
Therefore you cannot claim you are using good rational reason.


From another perspective, you may be using "reason" but it is not reason-proper.
Note reason proper is like using good logic and critical thinking which is some sort of high level skill that need to be developed.


You may be using "reason" to think God exists, but that is barbaric crude reason.
All animals and primitive people use such crude instinctual reasoning to facilitate survival.
It is a kind of shallow thinking not the deep kind of philosophical thinking.
Kant labeled this a 'Pure Reason' in this case pure = crude, instinctual and barbaric.


For example, in the old days human see [really saw] the Sun move across the sky.
So they reason the Sun move instead of the Earth, they reason [infer] the Earth is fixed.


However it was the kind of sophisticated and deep thinking that gives us the truth, in reality it was the Earth that move [orbit] round the Sun.


Most can understand there are levels of reasoning if they visit a tribe in the Amazon to compare their reasoning with those of the tribes.


This issue of crude & barbaric reasoning versus high level critical reasoning is the same with the issue of 49:14 where I differentiated crude barbaric believing [0-1] and high level believing proper [3-10].

Last edited by Continuum; 03-04-2016 at 02:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 04:07 AM
 
3,167 posts, read 1,038,277 times
Reputation: 289
You are wrong to say that I believe without proof and reason.

Now the reason is crude.

Peace
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 08:22 AM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,713 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
You are wrong to say that I believe without proof and reason.
The reasoning you try to use is faulty and has already been destroyed.

"10. Shifting the Burden of Proof

a.k.a. You can't prove God doesn't exist, False criteria fallacy, fallacy of questionable criteria
Premise:
I know God exists. If you disagree, prove otherwise. Oh you say you can't prove God doesn't exist? That's because you know he does!
Critique:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the way the real world and science work. When you say God exists, you are making an extraordinary claim; therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. A position that God doesn't exist is not a "belief," it's the standard position we all start out with until we're indoctrinated into religious schools of thought. People aren't born believing in Jesus. They start out atheist: lacking belief. There is no counter-claim necessary. Nobody has to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either.
Furthermore, it's technically impossible to prove a negative of this nature. I can no easier prove God doesn't exist than you can disprove my claim that I have an invisible, ethereal unicorn in the trunk of my car. I say I do. It's not my fault he disappears when you look there. Prove he isn't there. You can't.
A famous counter-spin on this argument is the Russell's teapot claim. How do you know there isn't a magical teapot hovering around earth that is responsible for creation? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there."

6. First Cause Argument

a.k.a. something can't come from nothing, Cosmological Argument, Every effect has a cause, First law of thermodynamics proves God exists
Premise:
Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God.
Critique:
Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God? Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.
If there's a recurring theme in any of these arguments, it's that theists pick and choose which tenets of science they want to embrace (the ones that help prove their claims) and ignore all the rest as if they don't exist. These theories are part of a complex interconnected system. It's intellectually dishonest and unethical to ignore evidence that counters your supernatural claims. The First Cause Argument ignores huge amounts of contradictory evidence, as do many of the arguments herein.
More importantly, as we are only half-way into the most common arguments for God, I'm sure you've heard most of these before. And the next five will likely not be a surprise either. The real surprise is that these arguments have been bandied about for hundreds of years. And the refutations of these claims have also been present. This is a testament (no pun intended) to how many religious leaders willfully ignore the flaws and downright misrepresentations in their claims. These critiques are nothing new. A hundred years ago, famous people like Robert G. Ingersoll gave public speeches outlining the same issues. Don't think your neighborhood pastor or priest isn't aware of the faulty logic he is foisting on his flock. It may be their livelihood and they have an interest in saying these stories, but ask yourself if you have as much of a personal advantage in believing the stories told by people who know they aren't true?

1. Argument from Design

a.k.a. Teleological argument, Every creation must have a creator., Intelligent Design, argument from complexity, Argument from final consequences, Special pleading, Ad-hoc reasoning.
This argument has been floating around ever since religion was invented, but was made famous by British Christian apologist William Paley using his watchmaker argument, which was parodied by Bertrand Russell with his Celestial Teapot version.
Premise:
The most common analogy used to illustrated the Argument from design is the "watchmaker argument". If you found a watch on the ground, you never met the watchmaker, but you know from its design, the beauty of it; the way each piece was intricately designed to work together, that this watch had a creator.
Theists point to the human body; the precise way each of our organs work with each other and claim it's the most amazing "creation" of all, and surely there was some sort of creator behind it.
Critique:
This most famous argument for God is also the easiest to completely deflate. If anything sufficiently complicated must have a creator, then who created God? It's as simple as that. However, when you point out this flaw in theist logic, they commit another logical fallacy: special pleading to claim that God is the exception to the rule and doesn't need to have a creator.
Furthermore, every example to date a theist can make to suggest that humans are too complex to have "happened by accident" (another false claim) has been debunked by scientists. The famous Dover trial put the argument from design on trial and the theists failed miserably to prove their case.

Top ten arguments for the existence of God - FreeThoughtPedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,284,120 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
The reasoning you try to use is faulty and has already been destroyed.

"10. Shifting the Burden of Proof

a.k.a. You can't prove God doesn't exist, False criteria fallacy, fallacy of questionable criteria
Premise:
I know God exists. If you disagree, prove otherwise. Oh you say you can't prove God doesn't exist? That's because you know he does!
Critique:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the way the real world and science work. When you say God exists, you are making an extraordinary claim; therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. A position that God doesn't exist is not a "belief," it's the standard position we all start out with until we're indoctrinated into religious schools of thought. People aren't born believing in Jesus. They start out atheist: lacking belief. There is no counter-claim necessary. Nobody has to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either.
Furthermore, it's technically impossible to prove a negative of this nature. I can no easier prove God doesn't exist than you can disprove my claim that I have an invisible, ethereal unicorn in the trunk of my car. I say I do. It's not my fault he disappears when you look there. Prove he isn't there. You can't.
A famous counter-spin on this argument is the Russell's teapot claim. How do you know there isn't a magical teapot hovering around earth that is responsible for creation? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there."

6. First Cause Argument

a.k.a. something can't come from nothing, Cosmological Argument, Every effect has a cause, First law of thermodynamics proves God exists
Premise:
Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God.
Critique:
Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God? Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.
If there's a recurring theme in any of these arguments, it's that theists pick and choose which tenets of science they want to embrace (the ones that help prove their claims) and ignore all the rest as if they don't exist. These theories are part of a complex interconnected system. It's intellectually dishonest and unethical to ignore evidence that counters your supernatural claims. The First Cause Argument ignores huge amounts of contradictory evidence, as do many of the arguments herein.
More importantly, as we are only half-way into the most common arguments for God, I'm sure you've heard most of these before. And the next five will likely not be a surprise either. The real surprise is that these arguments have been bandied about for hundreds of years. And the refutations of these claims have also been present. This is a testament (no pun intended) to how many religious leaders willfully ignore the flaws and downright misrepresentations in their claims. These critiques are nothing new. A hundred years ago, famous people like Robert G. Ingersoll gave public speeches outlining the same issues. Don't think your neighborhood pastor or priest isn't aware of the faulty logic he is foisting on his flock. It may be their livelihood and they have an interest in saying these stories, but ask yourself if you have as much of a personal advantage in believing the stories told by people who know they aren't true?

1. Argument from Design

a.k.a. Teleological argument, Every creation must have a creator., Intelligent Design, argument from complexity, Argument from final consequences, Special pleading, Ad-hoc reasoning.
This argument has been floating around ever since religion was invented, but was made famous by British Christian apologist William Paley using his watchmaker argument, which was parodied by Bertrand Russell with his Celestial Teapot version.
Premise:
The most common analogy used to illustrated the Argument from design is the "watchmaker argument". If you found a watch on the ground, you never met the watchmaker, but you know from its design, the beauty of it; the way each piece was intricately designed to work together, that this watch had a creator.
Theists point to the human body; the precise way each of our organs work with each other and claim it's the most amazing "creation" of all, and surely there was some sort of creator behind it.
Critique:
This most famous argument for God is also the easiest to completely deflate. If anything sufficiently complicated must have a creator, then who created God? It's as simple as that. However, when you point out this flaw in theist logic, they commit another logical fallacy: special pleading to claim that God is the exception to the rule and doesn't need to have a creator.
Furthermore, every example to date a theist can make to suggest that humans are too complex to have "happened by accident" (another false claim) has been debunked by scientists. The famous Dover trial put the argument from design on trial and the theists failed miserably to prove their case.

Top ten arguments for the existence of God - FreeThoughtPedia
The Question was why does Khalif, not why you don't believe. He answered why he believes. It is a moot point if that is not sufficient reason for you to believe. I doubt if any of us have any intention to make you believe. That is your choice alone and no one has the right to make you believe what you yourself do not verify as true.

I doubt you will agree with any theist's reasons for believing, but you are not them and they are not you. We all have the responsibility to only believe that which we our self have found reason to believe.

I do not expect nor desire you to believe that which you your self have not found to be true.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 08:52 AM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,713 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
The Question was why does Khalif, not why you don't believe. He answered why he believes. It is a moot point if that is not sufficient reason for you to believe. I doubt if any of us have any intention to make you believe. That is your choice alone and no one has the right to make you believe what you yourself do not verify as true.

I doubt you will agree with any theist's reasons for believing, but you are not them and they are not you. We all have the responsibility to only believe that which we our self have found reason to believe.

I do not expect nor desire you to believe that which you your self have not found to be true.
And there were Nazis that believed in Hitlers cause, and true believers who followed Jim Jones into mass suicide and millions died believing in Mao.

The problem is that the belief of Muslims leads straight into terrorism and pedophilia and rioting and genocide and mass rape and all the rest. You have the proof right in front of you.

FrontPage Magazine - What Islam Isn't
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 08:56 AM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,713 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post

I do not expect nor desire you to believe that which you your self have not found to be true.
And let's finish your thought, which you have posted in the past.....I deserve this:

Qur’an 22:19-22 “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods”

Muslims say I am a hater. Yes, I hate this kind of sick, evil hate which you call 'love'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,284,120 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
And let's finish your thought, which you have posted in the past.....I deserve this:

Qur’an 22:19-22 “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods”

Muslims say I am a hater. Yes, I hate this kind of sick, evil hate which you call 'love'.
It is not a question of deserve.

I do not know what you deserve. I am certain you will be rewarded for the good you do in life. I also know that You are free to choose any path in life you desire to follow. The destination is the result of the path you choose. People do not get sent to Hell, they go of their own free will and with knowledge of what their destination will be.

As for the "Punishments of Hell, I follow a school of thought that believes those are metaphors or similes to help us understand that which we can not comprehend. I do not have the faintest idea of what heaven or hell are. I can not comprehend the concepts of the unseen, but based upon the metaphors I feel that heaven is my preferred destination.

I do not want you or anyone else to ever be tortured for any reason, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to make your own decisions to choose your own destiny and to believe as you your self have verified.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,556 posts, read 17,647,836 times
Reputation: 15631
Belief in something doesn't make it true. There are many things that the majority of mankind once believed that have been demonstrated incorrect. We once believed the earth was flat. That the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was the center of the universe. That protons, neutrons and electrons were the smallest building blocks of matter. That Pluto was a planet. That pollution was blocking sunlight and would bring on a new ice age. All of these are demonstrably wrong of course.

If "belief" is the only criteria, Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster have as much plausibility as any deity. Prove that they don't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top