Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lilly

Why I Think God Exists

637 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

back to earth
On 7/3/2017 at 4:23 PM, Will Due said:

 

I have proof of God's existence in my personal experience, but proof is irrelevant, that's why it's not valid for another.

Being desirous of doing God's will is valid but it doesn't happen because there's proof of God's existence, and it also doesn't occur because of what is believed. 

That's the purpose of this mortal life. To decide. To decide what you want to want, and to do it before much can be known, understood or proved. 

 

But from Zoroastrian    belief   ....  and that is based on their personal experience 

The purpose of this mortal life  is   ' to lead a good happy and enjoyable life '     .... I came to the same conclusion  . . . .   without  'faith' .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
On 7/3/2017 at 5:56 PM, Will Due said:

As a post script, you're probably aware that my purpose for participating in this forum is to bring the existence of the Urantia Book to the attention of anyone who may find it useful for determining what's real in life, when most of what can be known is often fraught with doubt and confusion. It's a crazy world.

The Urantia Book is epochal revelation. The fifth time to this world. It is an extraordinary literary work, and its authorship is unquestionably super-human.  

'Unquestionable ' ?   Is that  a decision you made on faith ? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
On 7/4/2017 at 1:43 PM, Tatetopa said:

Maybe not so random, the bang is implied in the mathematics of the matter energy thing.   Fish gotta swim, and birds gotta fly,and expansions gotta happen in the sweet by and by. 

TIger  got  to hunt

Bird got to fly

Man got to ask himself,  " Why, why, why ? "

Tiger got to eat

Bird got to land 

Man got tell himself he understand  . 

;) 

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
12 hours ago, Will Due said:

While at work, isn't a scientist having a unique personal experience

 

 

Yes, and remains so until qualified by others having the same non-unique  'experience'  (and other qualifiers)  .  And it moves from subjective to objective . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
11 hours ago, Will Due said:

Do you support "the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples?"

 

So you support Eugenics ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

I get it.

You are not very intelligent, but you like getting involved in controversial topics on the internet.

Good luck.

Don't quote me again, thanks.

lol  I  have been  tested  repeatedly  with standardised  objective testing as having a very high intelligence  

You simply don't like or agree with what i say

 That is fine but   please dont make personal attacks when you cannot refute the opinion or information presented

I am interested in many things, including the realm of religion, faith, belief, and the supernatural, but also dreams psychology sociology  and many areas of the humanities   Basically these all flow from my interest in human cognition, neurology, and self aware intelligence/consciousness . So yes of course i take part in discussions on those topics. I wont stop just because you dont like what i say.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
Just now, back to earth said:

So you support Eugenics ? 

 

I do NOT support "the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples?"

Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

and please define  ' inferior people's '    ( I dont mind if you offer a Urantia Book definition ) 

One part in the Book I 'liked'  ( agreed with, if true ) was where it said something like  'Man advanced greatly  when he introduced laws that forbid him to be able to kill his wife at will ' .

But thats general and not   'specific to certain peoples'  being inferior 

 

  1. 1.
    lower in rank, status, or quality
     
  2. low or lower in position.
     
  3. a person lower than another in rank, status, or ability.

What are the  'certain people's '  traits that are 'inferior '     ( ie  less than others  )  ? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
3 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

I get it.

You are not very intelligent, but you like getting involved in controversial topics on the internet.

Good luck.

Don't quote me again, thanks.

Now you have done it ! 

 ....be prepared for a tsunami of quoting you . 

Edit ... but dont stop posting !     .  A  breath of fresh air ...  it is like      :)  

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

I have genuine concerns about your mental health.

I think you should avoid controversial sites like this, seriously. Go see your GP. I don't mean this unkindly at all.

 

I am one of the few people on this site who (due to my own  unusual  life experiences  and my own need to know my  neurological and psychological health)  has had numerous mental and neurological health checks and passed every one with flying colours.

Thus i am one of the few who can know for certain that  i am not just sane, but highly grounded in reality and highly functional , to quote a couple of the assessments 

Your problem is  that you are extrapolating into other peoples' lives and experiences, using only your own limited knowledge and experience of what our universe contains.   Ie you believe that what is true for you ,and normal  in your life, is universally true and normal for everyone, and that no one can possibly have real experiences beyond those which  you have.

  You believe that gods do not exist and thus, that anyone who claims to have encountered one has something wrong with them.

Having met  gods and ghosts. I could counter claim, using the same logic and rationale, that there is clearly something wrong with people who absolutely maintain these things do not exist merely because they believe they do not and have no experience with them.  This would be based on my knowledge of, and decades of experience with such things.   Maybe they need to see a doctor to find out why their perception and senses are so limited and faulty. :)  i mean what IS wrong with a person who cannot detect a real ghost or god standing along side of  them. 

Tell me, on what factual or evidential  basis do you judge my intelligence, and what errors of fact can you find in any of my posts.? 

Lastly,  where else can people discuss such things safely  but on sites like this, which are specifically designed to do so, with rules for etiquette and behaviour built into them.

 it sounds very much as if you simply want to silence all opinions which run counter to your own. 

That smacks of fear.

A person strong in their own opinions and beliefs has no need to ask others to be silent

Rather they will engage them in debate and discussion. allowing their argument to make their point  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
27 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Yes, and remains so until qualified by others having the same non-unique  'experience'  (and other qualifiers)  .  And it moves from subjective to objective . 

Actually subjective and objective aren't defined or limited  like that  An individual can have objective experiences and make objective assessments  as well as subjective ones  if every individual assessment was subjective then original error would be compounded rather than eliminated by multiple such  assessments  Multiple assessments eliminate the errors of perception or subjectivity but reinforce the  objective estimations and conclusions Thus, science is based on many individual experiences compared with each other  in a process which establishes accepted norms rules etc. . You cant move an objective assessment to a subjective one, or vice versa.  They are constructed on different principles   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately

I honestly think this thread is now getting a bit volatile and out of hand.

Point of fact is, anyone can believe what they wish to believe. As there is no definitive proof for the absence/existence of god(s) one cannot claim them to be objectively true. What this means in this context is that anyone can believe a god/goddess exists or doesn't exist in their own personal life, but as no one can prove either argument there is currently no place for those claims in reality until such a time as verifiable evidence is found to support them.

Please keep things civil, there is no need to be insulting to anyone you do not agree with as that is immature. 

:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
40 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I do NOT support "the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples?"

Do you?

That depends what you mean by 'civilised'   'inferior '  etc   ... ( do you see where I am going here ? ) 

[ Remember, I have told you I was in one of the first ever Urantia Book  Reader's  groups in Australia  ( pre internet ) and also I  presented 'papers' at  'Urantia Conferences' . ]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

I honestly think this thread is now getting a bit volatile and out of hand.

Point of fact is, anyone can believe what they wish to believe. As there is no definitive proof for the absence/existence of god(s) one cannot claim them to be objectively true. What this means in this context is that anyone can believe a god/goddess exists or doesn't exist in their own personal life, but as no one can prove either argument there is currently no place for those claims in reality until such a time as verifiable evidence is found to support them.

Please keep things civil, there is no need to be insulting to anyone you do not agree with as that is immature. 

:)

Herein lies the dilemma You say that no one can  claim the objective existence of gods because  there is no definitive proof of their existence.

this simply is not true for everyone.although it may appear true from  within your perspective.  An individual can have and hold quite clear definitive evidences and proofs for the existence of gods yet not be able to transfer those to another person who will not accept  their validity on faith  Eg i know what i ate for breakfast and have evidence of it.  It is not a matter of belief or subjective experience. However i could now NEVER offer evidences or proofs  about what i ate   The same is true for many humans' encounters with gods and other entities.  I stand by my claims about the physical existence of an entity humans have come to think of as ga god and its independent  existence, power, and concern for me.  i also stand by my claim that i had two pieces of buttered toast for breakfast.

in my life the two things are of the same ordinary everyday nature and offer to me exactly the same quality of  evidences for their reality .   

there are two forms of human contact with gods One is a conceptual one where we learn or create a conceptual model of a god and base our beliefs about it on that construct.

 The other is where we encounter a being, with god like qualities and powers, either in full manifestation or in part,eg as energy light   voice  etc. and have to integrate its existence into the rest of our physical reality. There the reality drives our perception or understanding,  whereas in the first instance our perception creates or drives the form of the god.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Herein lies the dilemma You say that no one can  claim the objective existence of gods because  there is no definitive proof of their existence.

this simply is not true for everyone.although it may appear true from  within your perspective.  An individual can have and hold quite clear definitive evidences and proofs for the existence of gods yet not be able to transfer those to another person who will not accept  their validity on faith  Eg i know what i ate for breakfast and have evidence of it.  It is not a matter of belief or subjective experience. However i could now NEVER offer evidences or proofs  about what i ate   The same is true for many humans' encounters with gods and other entities.  I stand by my claims about the physical existence of an entity humans have come to think of as ga god and its independent  existence, power, and concern for me.  i also stand by my claim that i had two pieces of buttered toast for breakfast.

in my life the two things are of the same ordinary everyday nature and offer to me exactly the same quality of  evidences for their reality .   

there are two forms of human contact with gods One is a conceptual one where we learn or create a conceptual model of a god and base our beliefs about it on that construct.

 The other is where we encounter a being, with god like qualities and powers, either in full manifestation or in part,eg as energy light   voice  etc. and have to integrate its existence into the rest of our physical reality. There the reality drives our perception or understanding,  whereas in the first instance our perception creates or drives the form of the god.    

Definitive proof pertains to evidence that is verifiable by others. If one cannot present this evidence to another in order for that other to come to the same conclusion via said evidence (regardless of that person's beliefs), the claim has not been proven. Objective truths are testable by anyone and always give the same result. That is why they are called objective truths. As of this point in time, there is no verifiable evidence pertaining to the existence/absence of god(s), hence why claims relating to either side can be dismissed until such a time as there is. ^_^

Edit: In regards to what you ate, you can prove that via science. Not that you would ever need to.

Edited by Unfortunately
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
56 minutes ago, back to earth said:

That depends what you mean by 'civilised'   'inferior '  etc   ... ( do you see where I am going here ? ) 

[ Remember, I have told you I was in one of the first ever Urantia Book  Reader's  groups in Australia  ( pre internet ) and also I  presented 'papers' at  'Urantia Conferences' . ]

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot about that.

Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going. But that might be due to my strained degenerate intellect and inferior genetic ancestry.

It would help if you can elaborate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 hours ago, Will Due said:
4 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

The problem is, religion is not amenable to logic.

The fact that mankind has a history of many gods, none of whom have answered any prayer or entreaty, or have given any indication they exist, seems to be neither here nor there to the religious folk.

Quite otherwise sensible people believe, or would like to believe, in a god. It is akin to mental illness.

My belief is that religion is drummed into children when they are most vulnerable (they are pre-programmed to learn language and other stuff which helps ensure survival), and it can take a lifetime to get it out of the brain.

It is disappointing that in the 21st Century we still have a  branch of learning called "Theology", which is taught in colleges. It should more properly be called Mythology or History.

True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

Despite having my particular belief system, I think eugeneonegin has a point. I get his point of it not being amenable to logic. I can see that. So, is religion what you say it is? I decided to check out a couple of definitions of it. 

Quote

religion: 

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of theuniverse, especially when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritualobservances, and often containing a moral code governing theconduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreedupon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs andpractices:
a world council of religions.

From here.

So, I would think religion is how it's played out by those who are part of it. The experience of it, I don't know. I would think that the experiences would be broken down to numerous subjective ones. Since, there is different types of religions and it's practices, so different types of experiences and even broken down to the variety of the different individuals within the congregation. I don't think one can say religion is one certain thing to label in experience, but in participating as a goal. 

1 hour ago, back to earth said:

I am ignoring every single thing you write  ..... 

 

Now, you're getting there.... ;)    :tu:  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
19 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Despite having my particular belief system, I think eugeneonegin has a point. I get his point of it not being amenable to logic. I can see that. So, is religion what you say it is? I decided to check out a couple of definitions of it. 

From here.

So, I would think religion is how it's played out by those who are part of it. The experience of it, I don't know. I would think that the experiences would be broken down to numerous subjective ones. Since, there is different types of religions and it's practices, so different types of experiences and even broken down to the variety of the different individuals within the congregation. I don't think one can say religion is one certain thing to label in experience, but in participating as a goal. 

Now, you're getting there.... ;)    :tu:  

 

I'd just add one thing about religion. 

There is religion, and then there's true religion. The unifying and ennobling religion of the spirit—the religion of personal spiritual experience.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dhurfjooydig
3 hours ago, back to earth said:

 and for the scientists it is called 'quantum theory '   .... 'dark matter'  .... 'alternate universes ' ......     :rolleyes:

Don't forget 'retrocausality' ... the idea, related to quantum theory, that causation can run backwards ... that is, that the future is capable of influencing the past.

Sounds like just another form of religious ideation to me (similar to 'theology') or perhaps high achieving schizophrenic delusion ... the result of a pathological alienation from the natural world that's endemic in modern society.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
2 hours ago, Will Due said:

I'd just add one thing about religion. 

There is religion, and then there's true religion. The unifying and ennobling religion of the spirit—the religion of personal spiritual experience.

 

I mean no offense with this statement but there is no such thing as a 'true' religion, there are many different religions and each would argue that they are the true religion, therefore logically we have to conclude that (as of yet) there is no one true religion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately

In regards to my last post I also want to note that a persons spiritual journey is called their spirituality, this happens regardless of religion although religion can influence this for some people. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am one of the few people on this site who (due to my own  unusual  life experiences  and my own need to know my  neurological and psychological health)  has had numerous mental and neurological health checks and passed every one with flying colours.

Thus i am one of the few who can know for certain that  i am not just sane, but highly grounded in reality and highly functional , to quote a couple of the assessments 

Your problem is  that you are extrapolating into other peoples' lives and experiences, using only your own limited knowledge and experience of what our universe contains.   Ie you believe that what is true for you ,and normal  in your life, is universally true and normal for everyone, and that no one can possibly have real experiences beyond those which  you have.

  You believe that gods do not exist and thus, that anyone who claims to have encountered one has something wrong with them.

Having met  gods and ghosts. I could counter claim, using the same logic and rationale, that there is clearly something wrong with people who absolutely maintain these things do not exist merely because they believe they do not and have no experience with them.  This would be based on my knowledge of, and decades of experience with such things.   Maybe they need to see a doctor to find out why their perception and senses are so limited and faulty. :)  i mean what IS wrong with a person who cannot detect a real ghost or god standing along side of  them. 

Tell me, on what factual or evidential  basis do you judge my intelligence, and what errors of fact can you find in any of my posts.? 

Lastly,  where else can people discuss such things safely  but on sites like this, which are specifically designed to do so, with rules for etiquette and behaviour built into them.

 it sounds very much as if you simply want to silence all opinions which run counter to your own. 

That smacks of fear.

A person strong in their own opinions and beliefs has no need to ask others to be silent

Rather they will engage them in debate and discussion. allowing their argument to make their point  

I apologise, Mr Walker.

I believe I can spots errors of facts in your posts, but my response was too personal and unpleasant.

Perhaps it is I who should stay away from threads about religion!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

I apologise, Mr Walker.

I believe I can spots errors of facts in your posts, but my response was too personal and unpleasant.

Perhaps it is I who should stay away from threads about religion!

Thank you. It takes a big heart and a good sense of self esteem to apologise. i accept it wholeheartedly in the spirit with which it was offered  

I am always willing to discuss or debate any differences in fact, opinion or values. As you might guess, i enjoy listening  to, arguing with, and debating, all forms of belief opinion etc. I've been like it since i started to talk, apparently.    To me, only outcomes can determine the relative value of a set of beliefs values etc.

I know my style can come across as impersonal and even confrontational. In a sense that is because i am not so interested in personalities as i am in opinions or ideas,.and i argue and present them as strongly as i can.

 The basic principle is to separate the idea, opinion or value, from the person presenting it, and stick to arguing only against the idea not the person.

 Every one holds different ideas opinions and values, some radically so.

All are allowable until acting upon them brings harm.

I am not sure you can appreciate how much your words mean to me.    

You are a person who actually seems to read and comprehend what i write, and accept it as  my genuine opinion etc,  no matter how weird.  . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, Unfortunately said:

I mean no offense with this statement but there is no such thing as a 'true' religion, there are many different religions and each would argue that they are the true religion, therefore logically we have to conclude that (as of yet) there is no one true religion.

I guess it depends on ones definition of truth.  It is possible that one religion has got it right, and all the others have it wrong.

Personally, i think they all have parts right, and parts wrong.

I like your second post. It is the individual spiritual path of a person, and the  way the  connect personally (either conceptually or physically)  to their gods spirits etc.,  which is important

 It is like a cat with several homes. While the cat is the same, it can be perceived and treated very differently by several different people, because THEY are different, and have different  personalities, needs and attitudes. 

  In turn the cat will change nature and personality in responding to the different treatments it receives at the hands of each individual.  It might come and sit on the lap of one person, yet not let another pick it up.  It might be calm and peaceful with one and energetic and playful with another.   Gods, and even god constructs, can be much the same, as they adapt ( and we adapt them)  to our needs and purposes. . 

Basically religions are  also the same which is why there are so many different ones.  It is because,  while some people have common needs and perceptions, others are very different, with different needs and perceptions.   A religion  must be "fit for purpose" for it to be useful and functional to an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
7 hours ago, Unfortunately said:

Definitive proof pertains to evidence that is verifiable by others. If one cannot present this evidence to another in order for that other to come to the same conclusion via said evidence (regardless of that person's beliefs), the claim has not been proven. Objective truths are testable by anyone and always give the same result. That is why they are called objective truths. As of this point in time, there is no verifiable evidence pertaining to the existence/absence of god(s), hence why claims relating to either side can be dismissed until such a time as there is. ^_^

Edit: In regards to what you ate, you can prove that via science. Not that you would ever need to.

No i cannot now prove to you  what i ate for breakfast and never will be able to. It is potentially provable but not practically so

proofs or evidences are singular. ie only one person needs to establish a proof or find evidence, to make something a known scientific fact. However, for it to be accepted by the scientific community, it needs to be repeated and verified under laboratory conditions (you cant do that with my  last breakfast)  

Basically it goes like this.  CCertain things are, and  certain things are not.  It doesnt matter if NO ONE ever discovers them, they exist and are real and true  or the y do not exist and are unreal and untrue .

 Once one human being discovers them the y become known and factual.   That person can test their nature and reality by applying physical testing and scientific method and establish their existence and something of their nature beyond doubt

 However the process of gaining scientific credence and acceptance of such a claim of fact or knowldge   is complex and involves many conditions  This process  advances knowledge because it brings many minds to the task ,  but is not absolutely essential for an individual to establish scientific or factual knowledge and understanding  A claim can be prove by one individual using scientific method and testing.  Nothing else is needed  it is only general acceptance of the claim which requires peer review and repetition.  Ias an adolescent i made my own explosives fuses and timers etc

 i did this from  reading about how ealry gunpowder evolved and gradually working out what chemicals were used  how to get the mixes of chemicals right and produce an effective product  I did this entirely by myself by experimentation, trial and error  with no access to any scientific material like formulas,  adult or other help.

  In the end i made and used a wide range of pyrotechnics from   traditional gunpowder  and more modern mixed explosives to rockets to colorful displays .    i did this totally alone. i used scientific method to  prove, demonstrate and come to know that what i had read about as a general principle was real and actually worked   There was no need for me to verify this or have it checked by another  to validate its truth  The results proved it.

yes objective truths are objective and this is why the y can be established and verified by a single individual . Any one else doing as i did would have produced the same results .  but hey did not need to repeat the experiments or process for ME to know what i had done and that the knowledge i had gathered was accurate.  T hat was evident and proven by the process and results .  

there is verifiable evidence pertaining to the existence of "gods" There is just little opportunity to examine and verify it :)  

Verifiable evidences, as in my experiments, demonstre themselves   eg  if inertia is overcome, then an expenditure of energy is required, SO if a "god"  alters something permanently,   in a physical way, it has required energy to do so  if a god speaks and is heard by a number of people or appears and is seen by a number of people then an expenditure of energy is required and this could be captured on film or by other methods   The expenditure of energy can be measured observed recorded etc . even if only by the persons present to observe the event.  if a god heals you there will be evidences of that healing. If a god removes an addiction there will be medical evidence this has occurred.  if a god throws you out f the way of a passing bus there will be evidences of that occurring.   if a god leads you out of a desert or a jungle through explicit direction and instruction, then your escape is evidence of the accuracy of the gods information and guidance.

The problem is that those with no experience of such things naturally tend to disbelieve they occur and yet the y are occurring to human beings every minute of every day, all around the world.  Really only when confronted with irrefutable personal evidence of a gods existence will some people be able to accept that they exist .

i know because i was once one of those  people who politely laughed at the idea of real powerful and protective entities. guarding, guiding, mentoring, and empowering human beings.  i would have gently laughed a t and pitied someone like my present self, who tried to explain the reality and nature of such entities.  its like encountering a real space alien when you totally rejected the idea that they existed.  Experience and knowledge  MUST, logically and rationally, trump a belief/disbelief construct. Reality no matter how much it goes against  belief/disbelief,   must supercede  belief.   Thus i now have no  choice.

it is not possible for me to believe or disbelieve in  the existence of the entities we call gods  I know the y exist . just as  i know that  when you mix certain chemicals together they go bang  just as i know what i had for breakfast. .  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.