|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2008 07:22:47 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Louis:
No comments on God's almighty creation, the domesticated banana? (Incidentally, were it not for the banana's "non-slip grip", they'd be flying out of people's hands and causing widespread famine, chaos, and silent movie slapstick setups).
O'Rielly's on Fox, but it's all the same. To think that he and others like him consider themselves "journalists" would be reason for the throatiest of guffaws, if it were not so painfully sad. |
Not defending Bill necessarily but he does not categorize himself as a journalist but as a commentator like Rush Limbaugh.... and yeah the banana thing is a little ridiculous. |
Said categorization being completely self-serving. He and Rush both want to claim journalism cred until they get called on their sh*t - - then they're "just entertainers." |
You might be right (i don't watch/listen enough to really know). I think both are a little bullying of those they interview (Geraldo) that i've seen imo. I do know that the last time I did watch Bill he did make the remark that he was not a journalist but a commentator. Perhaps, like you say, he only makes that distinction when it fits his position. |
|
|
|
05/05/2008 09:05:47 PM · #152 |
| O'Reilly is a WWI-era propagandist who enjoys more respect as a true journalist from Americans than Bob Woodward. Shocking. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 11:50:40 AM · #153 |
| Haven't read it, but will probably pick up Atheist Universe. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 12:57:27 PM · #154 |
Already posted this in the Science and Theology thread, but for an interesting discussion by a number of "Very Smart People" - this is worth a look - Templeton Foundation: Does science make belief in God obsolete?
Best quote coming from Hitch (deeply flawed, alcoholic, narcicisstic, brilliant old Hitch).
Originally posted by Hitchens:
Religion, remember, is theism not deism. Faith cannot rest itself on the argument that there might or might not be a prime mover. Faith must believe in answered prayers, divinely ordained morality, heavenly warrant for circumcision, the occurrence of miracles or what you will. Physics and chemistry and biology and paleontology and archeology have, at a minimum, given us explanations for what used to be mysterious, and furnished us with hypotheses that are at least as good as, or very much better than, the ones offered by any believers in other and inexplicable dimensions.
Does this mean that the inexplicable or superstitious has become "obsolete"? I myself would wish to say no, if only because I believe that the human capacity for wonder neither will nor should be destroyed or superseded. But the original problem with religion is that it is our first, and our worst, attempt at explanation. It is how we came up with answers before we had any evidence. It belongs to the terrified childhood of our species, before we knew about germs or could account for earthquakes. It belongs to our childhood, too, in the less charming sense of demanding a tyrannical authority: a protective parent who demands compulsory love even as he exacts a tithe of fear. This unalterable and eternal despot is the origin of totalitarianism, and represents the first cringing human attempt to refer all difficult questions to the smoking and forbidding altar of a Big Brother. This of course is why one desires that science and humanism would make faith obsolete, even as one sadly realizes that as long as we remain insecure primates we shall remain very fearful of breaking the chain. |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:14:06 PM · #155 |
Another long post, from here, referenced in my recent post here. Why does one bother? Because of the reasons given in a user comment on a different Harris book: "No doubt, many good and loving people would be offended or hurt if they read this book. But that simply proves Harris' point. These people have been so blinded by faith that they cannot even consider the possibility they have been led astray. Hopefully, a good number of religious people will muster the courage to read the book anyway."
Review from Books in Canada follows.
Consider the following information, as supplied by Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith: In the most powerful nation in the world, a land of space programs, fibre optics, genome mapping, and open heart surgery, more than three-quarters of the populace believes that the Bible was, in fact, authored by God. Two-thirds believe in the existence of Satan. And nearly half takes “a literalist view of creation.” (Which means, as Harris points out, that these people place the birth of the universe “2500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer.”)
The degree to which any of the above amuses, dismays, or terrifies you is probably the degree to which the following questions seem worth asking: What can we conclude about ourselves when even the denizens of the richest and most scientifically advanced country-one founded on Enlightenment principles-have succumbed to such intellectually indefensible views? What does our future hold when we seem incapable, or at least unwilling, to apply the rationality we’ve used to tame our physical world against the rioting fancies of our spiritual life?
There are any number of Gods an atheist can rail against. For Harris, a doctoral candidate in neuroscience at the University of California, the object of his enmity is not so much the God believed to guide the outcomes of Grammy award shows and NBA semi-finals, nor the one who elicits swaying, feel-good warbling in little white chapels. It’s the vengeful ones from ancient canons who impel worshippers to put fire and sword to infidels, especially now that the swords are long-range and the fires bring mushroom clouds. As he says, take billions of people subscribing to competing religious traditions-each of which calls on its adherents to shun or slaughter unbelievers-add overpopulation, dwindling resources, and the supreme lethality of twenty-first century war-making, and what you have is “a recipe for the fall of civilization."
Given the danger that religious faith poses to all of us in this era of suitcase nukes and FedExed contagions, Harris demands to know why it’s so often given a free pass in our discourse. Why is “criticizing a person’s ideas about God and the afterlife impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics and history is not?” Why is the role that faith plays in, say, a suicide bombing discounted in favour of political or economic reasons? As he argues, a religious belief “is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person’s life.”
Ultimately, Harris decides that faith is a mode of insanity that escapes such a designation because of its ubiquity. If a lone individual believed that Jesus Christ can be eaten in the form of a cracker for salutary metaphysical effect, or “that God will reward him with seventy-two virgins if he kills a score of Jewish teenagers,” his treatment would almost certainly include routine sedation, a monochromatic wardrobe, and scheduled walks in guarded courtyards.
Harris strives to understand the curious partitioning that takes place in the human mind, where otherwise reasonable people require no corroboration for their theological convictions. “Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him,” he says, “or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else.” Tell the same person that an unseen deity “will punish him with fire for eternity” if he fails to accept every improbable claim in his holy book, and “he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
So what has this uncritical acceptance of our religious texts wrought? Harris points to armed conflicts in Palestine, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Sudan, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and the Caucasus-places, he says, where “religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years.” Closer to home, he points to the incursions made on the American scientific community and education system-the banning of stem cell research, for instance, or the blocking of efforts to teach evolutionary theory in the classroom. He points to the zealous prosecution of drug offences, and the continuing illegality of certain consensual sexual practices, as evidence of an American legal system still contaminated by archaic Christian notions of sin. And he points to the U.S. administration’s hijacking by evangelical elements whose foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Israel, is deeply informed by apocalyptic scenarios foretold in the book of Revelation.
Of all the sources of unreason that Harris passes judgement on (and the docket lists some unlikely defendants; even Einstein, Jung, Noam Chomsky, and Gandhi are issued reprimands), two are particularly controversial. The first is Islam. Harris calls it a religion of “irrescindable militancy” with stridently imperialistic ambitions. He dashes the argument that the Koran expressly prohibits suicide-it contains only one ambiguous line: “Do not destroy yourselves”-and cites the results of large polls conducted in the Arab world that show widespread support for suicide bombing directed at civilian targets. He quotes, chapter and verse, the Koranic exhortations to wage jihad and seek martyrdom, and he avers that a cold war stand-off against the armies of a nuclearized Muslim theocracy would be virtually impossible, given their beliefs about the afterlife.
The second contentious target, more unexpectedly, is that prevailing admixture of religious moderation and relativism we see in the West. Harris contends that our championing of pluralism and tolerance helps stifle criticism of religious extremists. “By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates,” he says, “betray faith and reason equally.” While Harris is right to condemn such hypocrisy in theory, it seems to me that moderation in practice is infinitely preferable to more malignant strains of religiosity-especially as Harris himself claims in a later chapter that Muslim moderation could be the only factor that averts a chain of wars between the House of Islam and foreign powers.
If, in reading this far, you’ve concluded that this is an angry book, you’re not wrong. Harris says he began writing it on September 12, 2001, and it shows: his tone is often aggrieved and his proscriptions are unsparing. But it’s a brilliant book, too, and not just because of some sightly efflorescence of rage. The author’s erudition, rhetorical dexterity, moral scrupulosity, and welcome humour give his arguments a force too often lacking in other polemics. When I began reading The End of Faith, I carried in my mind the charges often laid against atheists, like those of philosopher John Gray in his recent book Heresies: that they often suffer a doctrinaire rigidity of thought; that their attempts to repress religious impulses are as dangerous and futile as attempts to repress sexual ones; that their hope for a human world governed solely by reason is itself a kind of faith. But Harris’s work seems immune to such indictments. He acknowledges the solace, social cohesion, and transformative experiences that religion has brought believers, and he allows that humans cannot live by reason alone. Ultimately, it’s not the validity of our spiritual pursuits that he attacks, but the hopelessly retrograde belief systems that have sprung up around them. What he wants us to contemplate are the benefits offered by Eastern mystical disciplines which he contends are arrived at systematically and neither engender nor require any incredible views concerning this life or the next one.
On The End of Faith’s back cover are three written endorsements. Two come from essentially secular sources. The third, ridiculously, is from the president of the Union Theological Seminary in New York, who praises Harris for providing “a wake-up call to religious liberals”-while betraying no discomfort at the fact that Harris has otherwise brutally invalidated his world view. Herein lies this book’s essential tragedy. Atheists who pick it up will nod smugly along through its 336 pages, delighted to see the reasons for their doubt so strenuously hurled back at them. Religious believers, secure behind bulwarks of impregnable dogma, will take the measure of its contents from beginning to end and then serenely, selectively, dismiss them. I cannot imagine a book as important as this one making less of an impact on the minds of the reading public. Its title is a vain plea, not a forecast.
-- Matt Sturrock (Books in Canada)
|
|
|
|
05/08/2008 05:12:54 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Of all the sources of unreason that Harris passes judgement on (and the docket lists some unlikely defendants; even Einstein, Jung, Noam Chomsky, and Gandhi are issued reprimands), two are particularly controversial. The first is Islam. Harris calls it a religion of “irrescindable militancy” with stridently imperialistic ambitions. He dashes the argument that the Koran expressly prohibits suicide-it contains only one ambiguous line: “Do not destroy yourselves”-and cites the results of large polls conducted in the Arab world that show widespread support for suicide bombing directed at civilian targets. He quotes, chapter and verse, the Koranic exhortations to wage jihad and seek martyrdom, and he avers that a cold war stand-off against the armies of a nuclearized Muslim theocracy would be virtually impossible, given their beliefs about the afterlife.
|
After reading this book this is what stuck to me the most. This is what I believe will happen to our world. The only question that will remain unanswered until that event is which of our wonderful religions will be the catalyst. |
|
|
|
05/08/2008 05:57:34 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Louis:
Of all the sources of unreason that Harris passes judgement on (and the docket lists some unlikely defendants; even Einstein, Jung, Noam Chomsky, and Gandhi are issued reprimands), two are particularly controversial. The first is Islam. Harris calls it a religion of “irrescindable militancy” with stridently imperialistic ambitions. He dashes the argument that the Koran expressly prohibits suicide-it contains only one ambiguous line: “Do not destroy yourselves”-and cites the results of large polls conducted in the Arab world that show widespread support for suicide bombing directed at civilian targets. He quotes, chapter and verse, the Koranic exhortations to wage jihad and seek martyrdom, and he avers that a cold war stand-off against the armies of a nuclearized Muslim theocracy would be virtually impossible, given their beliefs about the afterlife. |
After reading this book this is what stuck to me the most. This is what I believe will happen to our world. The only question that will remain unanswered until that event is which of our wonderful religions will be the catalyst. |
I do think that humanity appears to be in a race - will we advance our moral understanding as a species fast enough to outrace our own self-destructive and tribalist tendencies? I'll admit that it remains much less than a sure thing that we can, but I remain, stubbornly, optimistic on this count.
There is a tendency to see the theocratic and irrational forces at work in the world as strong and mighty enemies. I think this is an incorrect conception, however. Instead I would argue that these forces have actually been profoundly weakened in the modern world.
The human animal is a curious and questing creature. Inherently it wants to know why, and is rarely satisfied to rest upon the stale dogmas and discoveries of the age preceding its own.
As the wealth of human understanding increases, the theocratic and irrational in turn lose their previously unchallenged right to dominate the cultural discourse. Their manic desires to turn back the clock of progress are not only wrong-headed, but futile. They have been forced to bend, change, accommodate, and capitulate on almost all fronts in order to remain relevant, credible, and acceptable to their followers.
I'm not arguing here, as other nonbelievers have historically done, that "religion" is destined to die out. I don't see and end of religion, or even of faith, anytime soon - and a complete end perhaps never. But if it is to survive - and I think it will - it will have to continue to evolve to match the understandings and expectations of those it wants to retain as followers. The theocratic and the irrational has never advanced the ball of civilization, but civilization does eventually manage to drag the theocratic and irrational trailing along behind. Those that refuse to adapt to the knowledge of new ages will become increasingly marginalized and their numbers increasingly reduced.
Looked at in this light, the intensity of fundamentalists in the modern age is not a sign of strength, but rather of desperation - the mania of the wounded animal. But a cornered and wounded animal is dangerous, and there are many within these dying movements that would gladly choose immolation over enlightenment, destruction over change.
Message edited by author 2008-05-08 19:46:32. |
|
|
|
05/08/2008 07:39:21 PM · #158 |
Good points all, echoing very strongly the central theme of the Harris book. If by religion you mean faith, and by faith you mean belief without evidence -- belief that is by turns contradictory, self-referring (and self-perpetuating), and in any other realm of human experience simply mad -- then I think it must die out, for the sake of the species. If you're referring to a kind of extra-faith spirituality, then I, as Harris and others, think that it deserves investigation -- but not at the expense of evidence, scientific inquiry, or reason.
You're also right in calling the resolve of militant religionists or fundamentalists desperation, rather than strength. |
|
|
|
05/08/2008 10:29:13 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Good points all, echoing very strongly the central theme of the Harris book. If by religion you mean faith, and by faith you mean belief without evidence -- belief that is by turns contradictory, self-referring (and self-perpetuating), and in any other realm of human experience simply mad -- then I think it must die out, for the sake of the species. If you're referring to a kind of extra-faith spirituality, then I, as Harris and others, think that it deserves investigation -- but not at the expense of evidence, scientific inquiry, or reason.
You're also right in calling the resolve of militant religionists or fundamentalists desperation, rather than strength. |
Spot on shutterpuppy. I never thought of it that way. I always saw fundamentalism as a concentration of what a majority was calling for. Always thought that these leaders were speaking for the people. How naive of me to have believed that, now that I think about it. I don't share your optimism though, I wish I did. I'm more with Louis on this point. I do not see this planet with a population of 8, 10, 12 billion getting along together religiously, we're hardly getting along today. This planet we live on will become the cesspool mess we call the Middle East if religion is still around in the form it is in today's world. |
|
|
|
05/10/2008 02:18:59 PM · #160 |
Another beautiful day.
A thought...
I'm so happy that this one particular sperm (cell) managed to squeak and sliver its way to another cell (egg) after coitus, and then managed to penetrate its outer shell to fertilize the egg. If it had been any other sperm among millions, I wouldn't be here writing this. Was it a miracle? No. It was physics. The only miracle was that my parents actually met and then got along together well enough to have married and then had sex.
Yes I have lots and lots of free time. ;-\
Edited to add:
THIS IS A JOKE
Just in case some don't get it.
Message edited by author 2008-05-10 15:23:13. |
|
|
|
05/10/2008 02:32:05 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Another beautiful day.
A thought...
I'm so happy that this one particular sperm (cell) managed to squeak and sliver its way to another cell (egg) after coitus, and then managed to penetrate its outer shell to fertilize the egg. If it had been any other sperm among millions, I wouldn't be here writing this. Was it a miracle? No. It was physics. The only miracle was that my parents actually met and then got along together well enough to have married and then had sex.
Yes I have lots and lots of free time. ;-\ |
You have too much free time if you are pondering your parents sex life and your conception;) |
|
|
|
05/10/2008 09:37:18 PM · #162 |
Think of your conception, you'll soon forget
what Plato puffs you up with, all that
"immortality" and "divine life" stuff.
"Man, why dost thou think of Heaven? Nay
consider thine origins in common clay"
is one way of putting it, but not near blunt enough.
Think of your father, sweating, drooling, drunk,
you, his spark of lust, his spurt of spunk.
-- Palladas of Alexandria
Message edited by author 2008-05-10 21:40:47. |
|
|
|
05/11/2008 01:25:18 AM · #163 |
Ah, yes. The benefits of proper education in the classics.
;)
Originally posted by Louis:
Think of your conception, you'll soon forget
what Plato puffs you up with, all that
"immortality" and "divine life" stuff.
"Man, why dost thou think of Heaven? Nay
consider thine origins in common clay"
is one way of putting it, but not near blunt enough.
Think of your father, sweating, drooling, drunk,
you, his spark of lust, his spurt of spunk.
-- Palladas of Alexandria |
|
|
|
|
05/11/2008 10:20:27 AM · #164 |
|
|
|
05/11/2008 11:54:28 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by togtog:
I don't really think any of us will know until we know. :) |
An interesting proposition considering that once your brain ceases to function, you will no longer have the capacity to know or feel anything.
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Was your enlightenment a gradual conversion over a period of time or was it a sudden epiphany? Was there a mourning period, as if you lost a part of your identity, or did you feel pure elation to your new found truth, maybe a mixture of both at first. |
Probably about the same as when doubts over flying reindeer and elves producing "Made in China" toys eventually led to the conclusion that there is no Santa Claus (no matter how firm the convictions of my peers). No mourning, no guilt, and nothing taken away from those who continued to believe, but relief and personal satisfaction at finally "getting" what makes so much more sense in retrospect. I spent the last two weeks in ancient parts of Europe and as I sat in church yesterday (don't ask), I couldn't help but picture the scene as a Greek temple, with all that time and energy wasted on tributes to Zeus, etc.
An interesting article that might help explain such beliefs. |
|
|
|
05/11/2008 02:10:04 PM · #166 |
| Thanks Shannon. Good article though not too precise about how the author of the book arrived at his conclusions. I'm going to pick it up if I see it locally. |
|
|
|
05/12/2008 10:00:14 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by redjulep:
I fall in the "spiritual but not religious" category. Definitely not Christian. |
Amen, Sistah!!!
I have faith: in mankind, in nature. I live as some would say is "christianlike" yet I am not doing it in the name of anyone or anything. I am living that life BECAUSE TO ME IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I believe in energy, kharma. I believe in kindness and non-judgemental attitudes. I believe in gratitude and forgiveness. I find more "god" in the stillness of a forest or the smell of the rain, than any dogma or doctrine can preach along the way. |
|
|
|
05/12/2008 05:03:50 PM · #168 |
Israelites sue God for breach of covenant
Message edited by author 2008-05-12 17:04:07. |
|
|
|
05/12/2008 05:18:37 PM · #169 |
Classic! Ya gotta love the Onion, thanks Louis.
Edit to say I think the Israelites have a very strong case.
Message edited by author 2008-05-12 17:19:32. |
|
|
|
05/12/2008 05:23:40 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Originally posted by redjulep:
I fall in the "spiritual but not religious" category. Definitely not Christian. |
Amen, Sistah!!!
I have faith: in mankind, in nature. I live as some would say is "christianlike" yet I am not doing it in the name of anyone or anything. I am living that life BECAUSE TO ME IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I believe in energy, kharma. I believe in kindness and non-judgemental attitudes. I believe in gratitude and forgiveness. I find more "god" in the stillness of a forest or the smell of the rain, than any dogma or doctrine can preach along the way. |
That's my kinda church!! |
|
|
|
05/12/2008 05:28:54 PM · #171 |
|
|
|
05/12/2008 05:31:56 PM · #172 |
Can't have a trial without a defendant.
Gives a whole new meaning to the word absentia. |
|
|
|
05/12/2008 06:21:43 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Good points all, echoing very strongly the central theme of the Harris book. If by religion you mean faith, and by faith you mean belief without evidence -- belief that is by turns contradictory, self-referring (and self-perpetuating), and in any other realm of human experience simply mad -- then I think it must die out, for the sake of the species. If you're referring to a kind of extra-faith spirituality, then I, as Harris and others, think that it deserves investigation -- but not at the expense of evidence, scientific inquiry, or reason. |
I've been wanting to respond to this, but also needed some time to gather my own thoughts as my own impressions in this area are still forming. And I apologize in advance for the rambling nature of this post, which is a direct consequence of my own lack of solid conclusions in this area.
-----
I'm not talking about extra-faith spirituality in the Harris sense. I also think that this topic it is worth looking at scientifically, but must admit to being highly skeptical. (I found that section of Harris, and Dawkins's discussion of memes very odd and out of place in their arguments. These areas may be valid points of study, but in both cases the discussions were, in my opinion, unnecessary and ended up detracting and confusing their primary points.)
When I say that I don't see religion/faith dying out, I'm simply stating what I think to be a probable outcome, not what I would see as the most desirable outcome. But while I might want to see a point and time when the human species abandons faith (non-evidence based belief), I think that our evolutionary baggage makes this leap very improbable.
Science has recently been looking at the way the human brain handles dichotomy - mutually exclusive or contradictory belief. It turns out our brains don't have any problem with dichotomy, we humans have no difficulty holding multiple, conflicting beliefs at the same time. A hypothetical example of this might be the evolutionary biologist able to hold a firm belief in some form of supernatural god, while at the same time being completely aware and accepting of all evolutionary evidence for a materialistic "creation." This facility for dichotomous thinking is what I believe has allowed us to advance our physical understanding of the world, without having to abandon our inclination to supernatural belief. (It would also seem to be part of what prevents us from advancing our moral understandings as quickly as we seem to be able to advance our scientific knowledge.)
This inclination can only go so far, of course, before it begins to cause serious mental strain. As we learn more and more about the materialistic nature of things, certain dichotomies become increasingly sharp and increasingly difficult to hold. Even most devout believers in the modern world will not be able to sustain a belief in an earth-centered universe, for example, unless they completely close themselves off to the modern knowledge base of available information.
I think that as our materialist understanding increases this range of sustainable supernatural belief in opposition to scientific knowledge will necessarily have to contract -- barring, of course, theist success in achieving an actual rollback of human knowledge. Religion and faith in this conception may have to dwindle to pale imitations of its former self in years to come -- as I would argue it has already done in comparison to the religious faiths of history. Yet it seems likely to remain in some form.
If we ever manage to actually throw off this aspect our of humanity entirely, it may only come about when we are able and comfortable with taking control of our own evolutionary destiny. At that point, however, I'm not sure that we would still be "human" in the sense we think of now. It may be that our future fully rational selves - if the species can manage to not kill itself off before then - would be as dissimilar to us as we are to our primate ancestors and be looked upon as just as animalistic and simple-minded as we look upon chimpanzees now.
I guess, in the end, I would be happy if we could reduce faith-based thinking in humanity to a mere curiosity. A psychological coccyx, so to speak, the mental equivalent to our vestigial tail. Something to perhaps inspire us to certain forms of harmless ritual and vague spiritual palpitations, but that doesn't interfere with rational discourse in daily life as religion most definitely does now.
(Or, to paraphrase Grover Norquist - My goal is to reduce the inclination in humans for faith-based thinking to the point where we could drown it in a bathtub.) ;)
Message edited by author 2008-05-12 18:27:13. |
|
|
|
05/13/2008 12:26:46 PM · #174 |
Einstein thought religion "childish".
Message edited by author 2008-05-13 12:26:57. |
|
|
|
05/13/2008 12:52:29 PM · #175 |
Interesting article. He does dismiss orginized religions, including his own jewish faith, but it seems that he did believe in an intelligent being or disigner, just not one that answers prayers. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:45:17 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:45:17 PM EDT.
|
