Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 07:21 AM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 08:28 AM
 
ArsTechnica posted a graph of the data (the source is paywalled )
New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith | Ars Technica

It really looks more like two distributions, not one. One flat line (intelligence constant across all "% athiest") and the other a vertical line ("%athiest constant across all intelligences). It's really hard to believe that there's a causal relationship (in either direction ), if the entire "slope" is between 0-10% atheist, and in the area between 10-100% atheist there is no further rise at all. How can only the "first 10%" of one's atheism account for the entire effect? What does it mean to be "10% atheist" anyway?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 08:48 AM
 
So atheists believe that their religious opinions are somehow more valid than others. Proof?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So atheists believe that their religious opinions are somehow more valid than others. Proof?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 01:09 PM
 
The lack of pirates is causing global climate change, it's true.

Natural cynics are more intelligent than those who aren't, because we tend to distrust everyone's motivations. That goes for cynicism across the entire spectrum, not just religious institutions.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 03:45 PM
 
All meta-analysis means to me is you're not doing your own work and boosting the chances said lack of work is tainted by someone else's shit methodology.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 01:10 AM
 
The study goes way back. It wouldn't surprise me if atheists were more intelligent in the 20's considering what 'against the grain' thinking that was. Now days outside of small towns and old people non-religious seems to be the norm.

I saw a stat that said religious right gave the most to charity. The religious right is also stereotyped as being the greedy wealthy class strategically oppressing everyone else. Surely intelligence isn't needed for such a thing. In any case I'd rather be thought of as a nice, naive, pushover, stupid, charitable, religious person than intelligent, uncaring, cutthroat, nonreligious - which seems to be the way society is going.

I feel really uplifted when I read this stuff done in the name of science; what a great use of time. Tons of good things are sure to follow! About as productive as bible thumpers screaming "God hates ____"
it's not about you
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 01:45 AM
 

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 01:48 AM
 
Here's a couple more.

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 12:22 AM
 
Just stumbled across this news today.
Christian family home after ill-fated Pacific voyage to escape US tyranny
...
An Arizona family who set sail for the tiny island of Kiribati to escape abortion, homosexuality and "the state-controlled church" in the US are back home after their boat foundered in the Pacific.
I'll grant it's a miracle they survived, with their newborn and 3yr-old. But I'm leaning towards agreeing with the study results. And I wouldn't want to be their neighbor. They didn't say what their next plan was ...
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 01:21 AM
 
The premise of this thread is bigoted and hateful. Shame on you.

The party of tolerance, ladies and gentlemen.


     
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 02:20 AM
 
I've met many people that are religious and non-religious that are intelligent and some that are damn near retarded. While not being religious myself, I do notice that for some it gives them purpose and hope, which helps them strive to be better people. More power to them as long as they do not lecture the "non-believers" about how they are wrong. I'm all for what helps people live a fuller life, and in my experiences, most religious people do not try to cram their beliefs down anothers throat. Wish I could say the same for most atheist. The agnostics are pretty cool though and usually enjoy a theological debate (more so the history is fascinating, such as I find myself).
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 04:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
More power to them as long as they do not lecture the "non-believers" about how they are wrong...Wish I could say the same for most atheist.
I've met plenty from both "sides" that exhibit this intolerance of each other.

***

You know why? Because we're all people, and all people suffer from the human condition. Denouncing a group of people because their ideology is different then yours is prejudice; the very definition of prejudice. Setting out to prove one group is better then another is discrimination, the very definition of discrimination. I'm not saying there aren't alot of religious people who fit this bill, but the buck has to stop somewhere. Live and let live, eh?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The party of tolerance, ladies and gentlemen.
Uh, is party mentioned somewhere?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 04:34 PM
 
If it was, look out...

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 07:48 PM
 
Wow, I've learned so much in this thread. Like apparently, cynicism causes intelligence! Who knew?!

Seriously, I think it's pretty clear what's going on. Smart people challenge things, while stupid people just accept what they are told.

Hence, in a predominantly religious world, most stupid people accept what they've been taught to believe, while smart people will critically access it, with some accepting it and some rejecting it.

If we lived in a world which was predominantly atheist, we should expect the opposite result.

It's important to note I'm only talking about "the existence of God," and not tangential issues like creationism. Smart people do naturally reject demonstrably false doctrines.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Here's a couple more.
There's no doubt that (some) religion is compatible with science, and religious people are capable of works of great intelligence. But science does not require or imply religious notions.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
In any case I'd rather be thought of as a nice, naive, pushover, stupid, charitable, religious person than intelligent, uncaring, cutthroat, nonreligious - which seems to be the way society is going.
So... why not just *be* nice and charitable and leave your position for or against religion out of it?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Detrius View Post
So... why not just *be* nice and charitable and leave your position for or against religion out of it?
Now we're getting somewhere! Now why can't people just be intelligent and leave one's position of atheist or religious out of it?

lpkmckenna
Wow, I've learned so much in this thread. Like apparently, cynicism causes intelligence! Who knew?!
Actually he implied that intelligence causes cynicism... or to challenge things...
it's not about you
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2013, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Actually he implied that intelligence causes cynicism... or to challenge things...
He just likes to try and pick fights with me, without actually thinking about it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2013, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Smart people challenge things, while stupid people just accept what they are told.
So, when presented with this study result, did you challenge it or just accept it as it was told to you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2013, 07:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
He just likes to try and pick fights with me, without actually thinking about it.
Sounds like he was told that smart people challenge things, while dumb people do what they're told, so in order to be smart he did what he was told by challenging you whenever possible
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2013, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So, when presented with this study result, did you challenge it or just accept it as it was told to you?
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Sounds like he was told that smart people challenge things, while dumb people do what they're told, so in order to be smart he did what he was told by challenging you whenever possible
I C WAT U DID THAR!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2013, 09:58 PM
 
"Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, analysis of over 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades concludes "

How ironic, I seem to remember many studies by religious scholars and theologians calming the same thing about scientists and atheists. Funny how those vested interests work isnt it?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 04:21 AM
 
To the starter of this thread, do you like the university system? Brought to you by the Catholic church. Do you like all of the literary works from ancient greece and rome? Preserved by catholic monks from being destroyed by the roving hoards of Pagan and/or atheist barbarians from the north. Do you like the hospital system? Brought to you by the church. Do you like the progress we had from the steam engine and the still? Brought to you by protestants of England.

Do you like Espresso? Brought to you by monks again.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
To the starter of this thread, do you like the university system? Brought to you by the Catholic church. Do you like all of the literary works from ancient greece and rome? Preserved by catholic monks from being destroyed by the roving hoards of Pagan and/or atheist barbarians from the north. Do you like the hospital system? Brought to you by the church. Do you like the progress we had from the steam engine and the still? Brought to you by protestants of England.

Do you like Espresso? Brought to you by monks again.
Do I like the university system? No. Far too much faith is put into people being able to regurgitate what others (some of whom are life-long university dwellers) have said or written.

Do I like all of the literary works from ancient greece and rome? I haven't read all of them. Luckily not just Catholic monks saved books, I'm sure the Orthodox Christians did a bit of hoarding. And I'd love to see a reference backing up your statement.

Do I like the hospital system? Love it. Bit of a search on Wikipedia seems to contradict your statement though.

Do I like the progress we had from the steam engine and the still? Yes. Some interesting links to a Google search of "industrial revolution religion"
What was the influence of religion during the industrial revolution? - Yahoo! Answers
How did the Industrial Revolution change views on religion
Protestantism and its Influence on the Industrial Revolution

I wouldn't change any history, but for all those plus points that you mention above, one could search for "crimes committed by christians/muslims/hindus" etc. to see some arguments that back up the analysis.

My own personal opinion is that yes, religious people are less intelligent since they tend to close off a large amount of literature due to their obsession that only the bible/koran/yellow pages should be believed.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So, when presented with this study result, did you challenge it or just accept it as it was told to you?
I'm not knowledgeable on the subject to check their methods and their math. But if it that holds up to peer review then I'm willing to accept it. I don't have to individually challenge it, that's what the peer review process is for. It's also why most of these attention grabbing news stories about scientific research are ill-timed.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 11:31 AM
 
So in response to the study people keep bringing up past accomplishments of religion, as if that as any bearing on the present. This makes about as much sense as asking blacks why they vote Democrat when it was Lincoln who freed the slaves.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I wouldn't change any history, but for all those plus points that you mention above, one could search for "crimes committed by christians/muslims/hindus" etc. to see some arguments that back up the analysis.
Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin....

My own personal opinion is that yes, religious people are less intelligent since they tend to close off a large amount of literature due to their obsession that only the bible/koran/yellow pages should be believed.
Those are folks who believe in the "Five Solaes" Wasn't Robespierre a Soli Deo gloria ? (Cult of the Supreme Being)
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 12:30 PM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So in response to the study people keep bringing up past accomplishments of religion, as if that as any bearing on the present. This makes about as much sense as asking blacks why they vote Democrat when it was Lincoln who freed the slaves.
In all fairness the study is about just as worthless at it's authors feel religion is today. What are we trying to prove here, again? (other then forming the basis for a hate group)
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
In all fairness the study is about just as worthless at it's authors feel religion is today. What are we trying to prove here, again? (other then forming the basis for a hate group)
Define worthless.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 03:07 PM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I'm not knowledgeable on the subject to check their methods and their math. But if it that holds up to peer review then I'm willing to accept it. I don't have to individually challenge it, that's what the peer review process is for.
Would it surprise you to learn that this journal is not peer reviewed? Did you check that it was, or that anyone had claimed that it was? Take a look at the website for PSPR (the R is for "review", ironically; a different meaning than "peer review"), and compare it to the page for PSPB (bulletin). The latter describes the peer review process, the former doesn't mention it.
PSPR - Society for Personality and Social Psychology
PSPB - Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Furthermore, the latter describes itself as for "empirical" papers, while the former is for "theoretical" or "conceptual" articles.

It's hard to take the claim seriously (the claim that challenging input is the basis of the observed correlation in the OP), when those supporting the claim are challenging neither the data, nor even checking on the status of those to whom they've outsourced this task. Basically all critical thinking stops as soon as they hear something they like the sound of. Nothing wrong with that, it's a sound time-saving strategy*, but it does contradict the "we're the ones who challenge things" story.

*the "other" side is going to check it regardless, why not just let them do the hard part?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 06:24 PM
 
I've read peer reviewed papers which were flat out wrong.

It's not like I'm some science savant either. I tried to replicate their data using their equations and it didn't work. Tracing through all the references, I found out they got a bunch of equations wrong.

Peer review didn't accomplish dick.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2013, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Would it surprise you to learn that this journal is not peer reviewed? Did you check that it was, or that anyone had claimed that it was? Take a look at the website for PSPR (the R is for "review", ironically; a different meaning than "peer review"), and compare it to the page for PSPB (bulletin). The latter describes the peer review process, the former doesn't mention it.
PSPR - Society for Personality and Social Psychology
PSPB - Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Furthermore, the latter describes itself as for "empirical" papers, while the former is for "theoretical" or "conceptual" articles.

It's hard to take the claim seriously (the claim that challenging input is the basis of the observed correlation in the OP), when those supporting the claim are challenging neither the data, nor even checking on the status of those to whom they've outsourced this task. Basically all critical thinking stops as soon as they hear something they like the sound of. Nothing wrong with that, it's a sound time-saving strategy*, but it does contradict the "we're the ones who challenge things" story.

*the "other" side is going to check it regardless, why not just let them do the hard part?
Due to the obviously inflammatory nature of the news posts I would not be surprised if its not a peer reviewed journal.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 09:16 AM
 
Many years ago Carl Sagan said that the more they found out in astronomy, the more they realized how little they knew.
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Many years ago Carl Sagan said that the more they found out in astronomy, the more they realized how little they knew.
Along the same lines : If the brain was simple enough to understand, we'd be so simple we couldn't.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Peer review didn't accomplish dick.
Is it better than nothing or completely worthless?

Are you saying its about as useful as the Nintendo Seal of Quality logo?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 03:58 PM
 
Anti-science arguments against Climate Change:

"Man cannot destroy the Earth, only God can."

"Even if it's true, why bother when the End Times is a hand?"

Be honest, this is why you are against it.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
Anti-science arguments against Climate Change:

"Man cannot destroy the Earth, only God can."

"Even if it's true, why bother when the End Times is a hand?"

Be honest, this is why you are against it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 05:31 PM
 
^^ I'm taling to god damnit. And don't tell me he's not real...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is it better than nothing or completely worthless?

Are you saying its about as useful as the Nintendo Seal of Quality logo?
It's definitely better than nothing, but when people say things like "that's what peer review is for" have something of a false sense of security.

Scientists can be both sloppy and political.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No one, it's the typical drive-by trolling.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 08:26 PM
 
^^ Yet I speak the truth.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2013, 09:59 PM
 
That a tiny portion of the religious community believes that? Big deal.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2013, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That a tiny portion of the religious community believes that? Big deal.
Okay, tell me the real reason you don't believe in climate change besides religious reasons, please.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2013, 02:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
Okay, tell me the real reason you don't believe in climate change besides religious reasons, please.
Holy Vishnu, that's hilarious! I do believe in climate change. I've said it here many times on this forum, and announced on here awhile back that my garage, home, everything will be converting over to fuel cells and solar by the end of this year (we even use EVs). You're the second person, in this thread, to make a ridiculous judgement over me based on ignorance.

Don't know why I'm talking to you though, you likely won't say anything else until the next "drive-by".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2013, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
Okay, tell me the real reason you don't believe in climate change besides religious reasons, please.
I'd entertain this little intellectual exercise if I thought that your reason for "believing" in climate change had anything to do with the science itself and wasn't simply to stick-it to your caricature of religious people. After all, you've been decidedly absent in any of the more exhaustive discussions on this topic.

Otherwise, I'll let you, as the most vocal atheist on this board; demonstrate exactly how intellectually superior you are.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2013, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Holy Vishnu, that's hilarious! I do believe in climate change. I've said it here many times on this forum, and announced on here awhile back that my garage, home, everything will be converting over to fuel cells and solar by the end of this year (we even use EVs). You're the second person, in this thread, to make a ridiculous judgement over me based on ignorance.

Don't know why I'm talking to you though, you likely won't say anything else until the next "drive-by".
My bad. But if I am the second person on this thread to misinterpret your thoughts, then maybe you're not making yourself clear...no?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2