| Is science compatible with religious belief(s)? Why or why not? Discuss and debate. |
 |
| If you take the Genesis in the bible symbolically, reconciliation is possible. That's how I reconciled my belief in religion and science but I abandoned the former long time ago. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
| Warhammer 40k says it is |
 |
| I'd say so, both things require belief. |
 |
| Some people will substitute some beliefs with others, but calling them "compatible" is like saying that an iPhone will fit in a Galaxy case when you have to modify both of them to make it work. There are things like Deism which is atheism with spiritual beliefs, but Christianity, Islam, or any of the other major religions save Buddhism are not really compatible with science. |
  |
| In my case, absolutely. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| what was know as science is subject to change, and what we think of as incompatible may not in fact be incompatible... but based on the current state of affairs... depends on the religion, obviously... and i mean: one's personal religion... their interpretation of the message ..very primitive ideas are more often compatible than not (god exists, be good to people) ..certain religions, mainstream and niche, focus on science instead of mysticism, or incorporate the idea that they should change if science ever contradicts their message (satanism, some buddhist paths) ..but any of the mainstream religions could be made compatible with a liberal interpretation (christianity, judaism) although it wouldn't necessarily make you popular with other religious people, and it wouldn't necessarily make you popular with scientific minded people |
 ~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
| Being a realist doesn't mean to abandon religions, so, yeah, they're compatible, why'd they not be ? |
 |
| nope the origin of humanity for example on the bible (Adam and Eve) is not compatible with science, that is one of the most obvious difference |
| What people are failing to realize is that, throughout the history, it has only been 'religious scientists' that have contributed to our progress. Atheist scientists may have provided for some 'guidance' or broadened the people's understanding of science but ultimately, their contributions are in no way comparable to the contributions made by religious scientists. As long as you have a 'philosophy' behind your scientific pursuits, you have a 'sense of wonder' which is pivotal to any scientific undertaking. Modern day Empiricists or Atheist scientists deny themselves that sense of wonder which ultimately only stunts their own growth. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: The majority of scientists are atheists partly because anyone who has that level of education will start to question their own beliefs. Some will continue to believe things that they know are ridiculous, but most of them won't. There is nothing better or worse about the ones who continue to believe as long as they do their job correctly and don't let their beliefs get in the way of doing what they're supposed to.What people are failing to realize is that, throughout the history, it has only been 'religious scientists' that have contributed to our progress. Atheist scientists may have provided for some 'guidance' or broadened the people's understanding of science but ultimately, their contributions are in no way comparable to the contributions made by religious scientists. As long as you have a 'philosophy' behind your scientific pursuits, you have a 'sense of wonder' which is pivotal to any scientific undertaking. Modern day Empiricists or Atheist scientists deny themselves that sense of wonder which ultimately only stunts their own growth. |
|
| Yes cuz god is the og concept |
 |
zombie_pegasus said: geniobastardo said: The majority of scientists are atheists partly because anyone who has that level of education will start to question their own beliefs. Some will continue to believe things that they know are ridiculous, but most of them won't. There is nothing better or worse about the ones who continue to believe as long as they do their job correctly and don't let their beliefs get in the way of doing what they're supposed to.What people are failing to realize is that, throughout the history, it has only been 'religious scientists' that have contributed to our progress. Atheist scientists may have provided for some 'guidance' or broadened the people's understanding of science but ultimately, their contributions are in no way comparable to the contributions made by religious scientists. As long as you have a 'philosophy' behind your scientific pursuits, you have a 'sense of wonder' which is pivotal to any scientific undertaking. Modern day Empiricists or Atheist scientists deny themselves that sense of wonder which ultimately only stunts their own growth. And how would they beliefs get in their way ? |
|
zombie_pegasus said: The majority of scientists are atheists partly because anyone who has that level of education will start to question their own beliefs. Some will continue to believe things that they know are ridiculous, but most of them won't. There is nothing better or worse about the ones who continue to believe as long as they do their job correctly and don't let their beliefs get in the way of doing what they're supposed to. This epidemic of 'science being revelatory' is something I've observed only among Christians and a very small minority of Muslims. If you look back at the past, you'll find names of scientists who apparently discovered things that went against their 'religion' but they were still religious; not because they were content with living in cognitive dissonance but because to develop a greater scientific understanding of the world, one must have an equally firm understanding of his religion. I'm a Muslim. I know that there's nothing in the Quran that could deny what science has to offer. Neither does science has anything that is in contradiction with the Quran. Problem is with the 'understanding of religion' that most possess. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Satan-sama said: I'm sure that there are plenty of ways. Some religions are against abortions and scientists are the ones who figure out the best way to give abortions.And how would they beliefs get in their way ? |
|
geniobastardo said: zombie_pegasus said: The majority of scientists are atheists partly because anyone who has that level of education will start to question their own beliefs. Some will continue to believe things that they know are ridiculous, but most of them won't. There is nothing better or worse about the ones who continue to believe as long as they do their job correctly and don't let their beliefs get in the way of doing what they're supposed to. This epidemic of 'science being revelatory' is something I've observed only among Christians and a very small minority of Muslims. If you look back at the past, you'll find names of scientists who apparently discovered things that went against their 'religion' but they were still religious; not because they were content with living in cognitive dissonance but because to develop a greater scientific understanding of the world, one must have an equally firm understanding of his religion. I'm a Muslim. I know that there's nothing in the Quran that could deny what science has to offer. Neither does science has anything that is in contradiction with the Quran. Problem is with the 'understanding of religion' that most possess. Yep, only Muslims can understand this, Quran is flawless, completely compatible with science. |
|
zombie_pegasus said: Satan-sama said: I'm sure that there are plenty of ways. Some religions are against abortions and scientists are the ones who figure out the best way to give abortions.And how would they beliefs get in their way ? Abortions are against religions but religions aren't against learning how to do it, at least in Islam. You're free to learn whatever you want. |
|
| yes Aureolus said: The Catholic Church has done more for science then any secular institutions. |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
Aureolus said: Like what they did to Galileo? And scaring scientists like Darwin to not scrutinize humans like he did to animals to establish his evolutionary theory that ultimately applies to humans as well?The Catholic Church has done more for science then any secular institutions. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
NekkoArc said: Aureolus said: Like what they did to Galileo? And scaring scientists like Darwin to not scrutinize humans like he did to animals to establish his evolutionary theory that ultimately applies to humans as well?The Catholic Church has done more for science then any secular institutions. 2 cases of 'blasphemy' do not equate a thousand cases of 'progression'. I will not exonerate Christianity off the crimes it committed to Galileo and Darwin and a few more scientists. But those cases, in no way, undermine the efforts exerted by the Catholic Church. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
NekkoArc said: oh look a "hurr durr Galileo is house arrested the Catholic church was bad and anti skience"Aureolus said: Like what they did to Galileo? And scaring scientists like Darwin to not scrutinize humans like he did to animals to establish his evolutionary theory that ultimately applies to humans as well?The Catholic Church has done more for science then any secular institutions. this was explained many times and too bad that public education do not concentrate on two sided history |
DiginarcissaOct 4, 2015 3:47 AM
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
NekkoArc said: Aureolus said: Like what they did to Galileo? And scaring scientists like Darwin to not scrutinize humans like he did to animals to establish his evolutionary theory that ultimately applies to humans as well?The Catholic Church has done more for science then any secular institutions. There's been several Catholic scientists that have made significant contributions to science and mathematics. I think I recall that the Catholic church even made science and maths compulsory subjects in the universities they founded (could be wrong though, I read about this years ago). It's true Catholicism (and other religions) and science have had their differences and disputes, but they're definitely not mortal enemies of one another. |
|
| Science has proven that not only is the universe well over 10 billion years old but there are individual organisms living on Earth that are other 10,000 years old, specifically a tree that is over 40,000 years old. That has been scientifically proven so that also disproves the universe being only 6,000 years old and easily proves Noah's arc to be false. You could attribute these to poor translations or whatever you feel like, but if science always replaces "facts" from your holy book then you are admitting that a fairly large percentage of said book is likely to be false. I know that some people choose to keep their religion for comfort even when they accept it as being mostly false, but I still don't completely understand why. A good analogy for how I feel is a jigsaw puzzle. When you're making a jigsaw puzzle and you have a piece that looks like it could fit in a certain place but that place already has a piece in it then there should be no reason to take that piece out. You already know that the piece in there fits and the piece in your hand doesn't. In a way you have two puzzles: one for science and one for religion. If you use the religion puzzle to determine your mindset but then replace most of the pieces with the ones from the science puzzle, how religious are you? |
|
SnugglyWhuggly said: Granted there were scientists like Newton.NekkoArc said: Like what they did to Galileo? And scaring scientists like Darwin to not scrutinize humans like he did to animals to establish his evolutionary theory that ultimately applies to humans as well? There's been several Catholic scientists that have made significant contributions to science and mathematics. I think I recall that the Catholic church even made science and maths compulsory subjects in the universities they founded (could be wrong though, I read about this years ago). It's true Catholicism (and other religions) and science have had their differences and disputes, but they're definitely not mortal enemies of one another. But using science for validating religious narratives means that religious "science" has already lost it's purpose. Science seeks to discover natural facts, not vindicate religious narratives. It just becomes a disingenous doctorine to facilitate and establish the status quo. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
geniobastardo said: That's not simply "two case". Read my second statement.NekkoArc said: Like what they did to Galileo? And scaring scientists like Darwin to not scrutinize humans like he did to animals to establish his evolutionary theory that ultimately applies to humans as well? 2 cases of 'blasphemy' do not equate a thousand cases of 'progression'. I will not exonerate Christianity off the crimes it committed to Galileo and Darwin and a few more scientists. But those cases, in no way, undermine the efforts exerted by the Catholic Church. |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
| As of now, it still is, though it is not looking very pretty for religion. |
 |
geniobastardo said: Your comment is misleading as you're talking about having a philosophical motivation. I do agree and think that does help, but that doesn't automatically make things compatible, that's why you can be of any religion and a scientist. Tom Cruise the scientologist could be a scientist. What people are failing to realize is that, throughout the history, it has only been 'religious scientists' that have contributed to our progress. Atheist scientists may have provided for some 'guidance' or broadened the people's understanding of science but ultimately, their contributions are in no way comparable to the contributions made by religious scientists. As long as you have a 'philosophy' behind your scientific pursuits, you have a 'sense of wonder' which is pivotal to any scientific undertaking. Modern day Empiricists or Atheist scientists deny themselves that sense of wonder which ultimately only stunts their own growth. Right now there's no scientific evidence that actually points towards a god of the bible or quran, just the possibility of a god that created the universe. Atheist scientists study the science that religions don't want to study such as macroevolution. With the amount of evidence for macroevolution we have today there's only one reason that religions have accepted micro yet fought against macroevolution this whole time. Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan have both admitted that whatever the answer, something completely amazing must have created the universe. That kind of thinking isn't far from yours. That kind of thinking is slightly different to religious scientists because religious scientists spend their lives trying to refute what we already know to fit a creator. If you follow Dawkins you don't need to do that because once we've found everything out about the origin of life that still leaves the possibility of god available. It's a win win. No one can help but pick specific cases for this I just wanted to probe you on the relevance and significance of religious scientists. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
NekkoArc said: geniobastardo said: That's not simply "two case". Read my second statement.2 cases of 'blasphemy' do not equate a thousand cases of 'progression'. I will not exonerate Christianity off the crimes it committed to Galileo and Darwin and a few more scientists. But those cases, in no way, undermine the efforts exerted by the Catholic Church. I disagree 0% |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
SnugglyWhuggly said: NekkoArc said: Like what they did to Galileo? And scaring scientists like Darwin to not scrutinize humans like he did to animals to establish his evolutionary theory that ultimately applies to humans as well? There's been several Catholic scientists that have made significant contributions to science and mathematics. I think I recall that the Catholic church even made science and maths compulsory subjects in the universities they founded (could be wrong though, I read about this years ago). It's true Catholicism (and other religions) and science have had their differences and disputes, but they're definitely not mortal enemies of one another. it's true that a catholic can be a good and useful scientist and that the catholic church can fund plenty of good and useful research without making itself look bad but secular 'institutions' are the present and future secular 'scientists' are growing in number, whereas a long time before there were not many at all and they are playing a large role in what constitutes very speedy advances in science with plenty of emotion and wonder and desire to understand the world for the poetry that is existence.. ..i don't understand the idea that they have no sense of wonder ..it makes more sense for me that a devoutly catholic person would not have it ..as eternal life and supernatural knowledge are just around the corner for them, but atheists are short of time to enjoy the curiosity of life ..and yet i would never say that it's in any way common for a catholic person to be devoid of wonder ..that would be untrue |
VoltiiOct 4, 2015 4:03 AM
~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
Dawkins said: geniobastardo said: Your comment is misleading as you're talking about having a philosophical motivation. I do agree and think that does help, but that doesn't automatically make things compatible, that's why you can be of any religion and a scientist. What people are failing to realize is that, throughout the history, it has only been 'religious scientists' that have contributed to our progress. Atheist scientists may have provided for some 'guidance' or broadened the people's understanding of science but ultimately, their contributions are in no way comparable to the contributions made by religious scientists. As long as you have a 'philosophy' behind your scientific pursuits, you have a 'sense of wonder' which is pivotal to any scientific undertaking. Modern day Empiricists or Atheist scientists deny themselves that sense of wonder which ultimately only stunts their own growth. Right now there's no scientific evidence that actually points towards a god of the bible or quran, just the possibility of a god that created the universe. Atheist scientists study the science that religions don't want to study such as macroevolution. With the amount of evidence for macroevolution we have today there's only one reason that religions have accepted micro yet fought against macroevolution this whole time. Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan have both admitted that whatever the answer, something completely amazing must have created the universe. That kind of thinking isn't far from yours. That kind of thinking is slightly different to religious scientists because religious scientists spend their lives trying to refute what we already know to fit a creator. If you follow Dawkins you don't need to do that because once we've found everything out about the origin of life that still leaves the possibility of god available. It's a win win. No one can help but pick specific cases for this I just wanted to probe you on the relevance and significance of religious scientists. What I hate more than science aiming to vilify religion is the science that is used to prove religion. My stance on my religion is clear: Nothing corroborates it, nothing goes against it. Hence, anything proven or rejected has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. And so was the case with almost every scientist of the Islamic Golden Age. Case in point: Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Algoritmi and many more. They were all 'empiricists' which is the denomination adopted by the modern atheist scientists. If your religion (only considering Islam here) stops you from conducting any study on any matter, then there's a flaw in your religion. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: Yeah, threats from the most powerful organization at the time is completely innocuous.NekkoArc said: That's not simply "two case". Read my second statement. I disagree 0% |
incisorr said: i love it when people start acting like some neutral almighty unbiased godly judge and they even believe their own shit, suddenly its not their thoughts and opinions anymore but the righteous justice god way, they are unbiased, non-subjective, they just are! To be honest, everyone is like this quite often, me included, but i don't forget myself and i still post a lot of personal shit which is what forums are made for , if they didn't want us to have our own style and posts it would be an article instead a forum thread. |
geniobastardo said: What do you mean by science vilifying religion? In what way would it do that with what I said earlier? Dawkins said: Your comment is misleading as you're talking about having a philosophical motivation. I do agree and think that does help, but that doesn't automatically make things compatible, that's why you can be of any religion and a scientist. Right now there's no scientific evidence that actually points towards a god of the bible or quran, just the possibility of a god that created the universe. Atheist scientists study the science that religions don't want to study such as macroevolution. With the amount of evidence for macroevolution we have today there's only one reason that religions have accepted micro yet fought against macroevolution this whole time. Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan have both admitted that whatever the answer, something completely amazing must have created the universe. That kind of thinking isn't far from yours. That kind of thinking is slightly different to religious scientists because religious scientists spend their lives trying to refute what we already know to fit a creator. If you follow Dawkins you don't need to do that because once we've found everything out about the origin of life that still leaves the possibility of god available. It's a win win. No one can help but pick specific cases for this I just wanted to probe you on the relevance and significance of religious scientists. What I hate more than science aiming to vilify religion is the science that is used to prove religion. My stance on my religion is clear: Nothing corroborates it, nothing goes against it. Hence, anything proven or rejected has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. And so was the case with almost every scientist of the Islamic Golden Age. Case in point: Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Algoritmi and many more. They were all 'empiricists' which is the denomination adopted by the modern atheist scientists. If your religion (only considering Islam here) stops you from conducting any study on any matter, then there's a flaw in your religion. This is what I meant by picking specific cases, it's inevitable. The way you describe the Islamic golden age sounds like it's the perfect religion yet we have no idea how they would do science today. Western Christianity have creation museums, apologetics, half accepting science the list just goes on and on. That wouldn't only be trying to use science to prove religion it would also be denying and stopping progress of science because of religion. There shouldn't even be conflict, scripture tells you there's nothing like god you could imagine. Yet there's clearly something about all life evolving itself that is denied. I guess I'm more intrigued how some religious people can believe in macroevolution and others can't. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| Religious institutions don't condemn science, they condemn any science that goes against their foundations until they need to change their views. Like how the Church followed Aristotles view of the universe until they were grudgingly proven wrong by Galileo and changed again. |
TheConquererOct 4, 2015 6:36 AM
| I've been here way too long... |
| Evolution and Darwin's law says no. |
| The Bible is flawless, and completely compatible with science. The problem is that developing an in-depth understanding of both the Bible and modern science and how they aren't contradictory takes a well balanced understanding of physics, biology, mathematics, political philosophy, psychology, and literature. Oh, and a version of the Bible that hasn't been tampered with by Talmudite publishing companies. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| The original bases of science had a concept of a creator/ a god before the uprising of modern day science. But to my perspective you need science to understand religion to a depth |
| Curious is the case of man. He runs towards the world he can never catch, and runs away from death he can never escape. |
| lol nope |
| I think that they're both compatible. I think that the big bang theory and genesis kind of say the same thing. the whole idea of the two is just a sudden "boom. things exist now." I feel like the two different scenarios, one involving a god and one only involving science, appeal and make sense to different people. |
| I think Buddhism is one of the ones closer to science or at least soft science like psychology. There are a few religions that do not really contradict sciences. They only fit in the areas science does not touch on well. of course there still are religions that completely go against science. |
Dawkins said: What do you mean by science vilifying religion? In what way would it do that with what I said earlier? This is what I meant by picking specific cases, it's inevitable. The way you describe the Islamic golden age sounds like it's the perfect religion yet we have no idea how they would do science today. Western Christianity have creation museums, apologetics, half accepting science the list just goes on and on. That wouldn't only be trying to use science to prove religion it would also be denying and stopping progress of science because of religion. There shouldn't even be conflict, scripture tells you there's nothing like god you could imagine. Yet there's clearly something about all life evolving itself that is denied. I guess I'm more intrigued how some religious people can believe in macroevolution and others can't. Basically, it was a remark at how people (especially those associated with science) have increasingly begun to believe that science and religion are totally incompatible with the later being archaic, bloody and totally against progression of mankind. It's pathetic when they use 'science' to belittle religion. Religion is only 'perfect' when the people follow it as it is meant to be. And you already know that if I sit down recounting what Muslims of today are doing wrong, it'll take you a whole day to read. As for what method those scientists would've adopted in this age- well, according to Robert Briffault in his ''The Making of Humanity'', 'modern science' as we know today, finds its inception in the Islamic Golden Age. Point to note here is that, all the scientists of that age were 'empiricists' which is basically what the scientists of today are following. I doubt their methods would have been any different. Also, it's just the 'science' that develops, not the methods. If you look at the scientific world today, you'll see people following Aristotelian, Platonian or Avicennian logic or method. And all those are more than thousand or thousands of years old. The only problem is with how the religious beliefs of the religious have evolved. Can you see a practicing Muslim being an Empirical scientist today? Me neither. I'm intrigued in what you're intrigued in. Except I have the answer. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
xDbladerx said: Well, they tried to attack Galileo when he discovered that the Earth is revolving the sun not vice versa.Saberforlife said: Evolution and Darwin's law says no. Yep. Most science other than evolution is compatible though. |
SaberforlifeOct 4, 2015 8:33 AM
geniobastardo said: That would be only on the assumption that a religion was perfect to begin with.Religion is only 'perfect' when the people follow it as it is meant to be. |
| yes |
 Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
| Organized religions are definitely not compatible with science. |
| The Tao of Physics. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - Yesterday |
27 |
by Dracowyn
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Dracula, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or Frankenstein(books)?Absurdo_N - Apr 23 |
11 |
by xthewarwithinx
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Yesterday |
23 |
by Ejrodiew
»»
24 minutes ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
676 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
44 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
43 |
by LordSozin
»»
2 hours ago |