Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
Tez, on proving the existence of God logically ...
March 3, 2006
1:50 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Guest,

{If believing in God made a difference, scientists would have been believers. Instead only 7% of them are believers.}

Where do you get that statistic? And believers in what? In my experience, scientists tend to be pretty open-minded about most subjects, religion included.

March 3, 2006
2:32 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

{Watch a wild bird, You can easily see the state of constant anxiety in which they live; ever watching for predators, nervous and careful. }

I wouldn't say birds suffer from anxiety. They seem to me more like robots than anything else -- ever watchful because that's how they're designed. They just do what their instincts tell them to do.

{How can you not hold your God responsible for the damage that you think your Satan has wrought???}

Because God can fix any damage Satan has wrought. If we choose to forgive those who wrong us and ask God for help in coming to grips with the damage, he will help us heal, and we'll be better people for it in the end.

{Is is that you are frightened into saying and believing anything that you believe will appease your God?}

I haven't told you anything that I don't sincerely know is true.

{What sort of a God would create Satan with less intelligence than that required to know the results of his rebellion}

You're assuming people always do what they logically know is in their best interest. Reading just one support thread on this site will immediately let you know this isn't so.

{You remind me of the adherents of other primitive religions, whose beliefs you would undoubtedly hold as laughable.}

I don't laugh at anybody's honest convictions.

{Sticking up for your God here should earn you some good 'body points'. With a belief system like you have espoused, He sure needs your support.}

God doesn't need anybody to stick up for him. He's God; he'll be God no matter what you or I think about him. He created us; he certainly knows how to stick up for himself.

I have the privilege of telling you things that God has revealed to me. When I do this, it is God who sticks up for me, not vice versa.

{Because some guy sees a vision of Satan this convinces you that Satan exists????}

I already knew enough about Satan to know this guy was telling the truth. I referenced him because he told of his own personal experience. He's a second witness to what I'm saying.

{Because it serves to reinforce your 'security blanket'?}

You are laughing at my honest convictions. I don't like it. I'm through talking with you for tonight.

Seeker

March 3, 2006
2:40 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

omw,

Very eloquently put! You have a wonderful way of expressing yourself.

Seeker

March 3, 2006
10:03 am
Avatar
nice guy
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was just wondering why people don't think that God exists. I have found in a lot of cases that people that are very intelligent seem to think too much and just don't accept God. If there wasn't some sort of higher power how could so many miricles happen? By miricle I mean some people may have a serious illness for years and all of a sudden it dissapears. Or if you cut your finger and it heals how can that not be a miricle? I think that someone who doesn't accept that there is a God who created everything has had something in there life that changed their way of thinking, wheather it was a dramatic experience or something inside that is painful. I was a C student in school so I can't argue with someone who is extremely intelligent because I can't win that battle. For me being able to pray is kind of like someone meditating. It lowers my blood pressure and just gives me quiet time to gather my thoughts. Actually, I do know personally about a miricle that happened. My dad had some blood vessels in the back of his eye that burst and the doctors said that he would have to have surgery and may loose the vision in his eye. Many people prayed for him, including me, and before he had to go in for the surgury the vessels somehow formed back together again and he can see perfectly now. That is why I believe in God. Some people may call him by other names but who cares. I have learned that religion (can) be a bad thing but God can only be a good thing.

March 3, 2006
1:31 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

seeker,
thanks for the compliment. I just love Tez though....not literally, but you know.

March 3, 2006
1:43 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest...
Statistics mean nothing. It is a matter of will and the heart...a relationship. Even some Christians who profess to be Christians are not truly Christians. It means "Christ in you". And with Christ in you, one's heart changes, their choices change, their peaceful existence changes, to name a few. The fact that 7% of Scientists are beleivers, most likely means nothing to God....He isn't counting percentages, that is something that man does to cause division, contempt, or raise hairs. God loves the other 93% who aren't believers just as much. God isn't counting.

March 4, 2006
4:03 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

nice guy,

I believe that everybody knows deep down there is a God. I don't know if you're a Christian, but the Bible says that even the devils know there is a God, and tremble.

I was once an atheist for a period of about four months, and I would tell anybody who'd listen, and everybody who wouldn't, that there was no God. But deep in my heart I knew there was, and that I was rebelling against him. I refused to do at the time what he wanted me to do.

Once I decided to do what he wanted me to do, I lost all desire to be an atheist.

Seeker

March 4, 2006
4:16 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

on my way and guest,

There's something else we must consider. Some of the 93% of scientists who said they are not believers... assuming this statistic is true ... could have been lying.

I was a grad student for about a year, and there was a palpable anti-religious bias among the officials at the university. If a poll were made of religious beliefs at the university, I could easily see many professor being afraid to not be politically correct ... they might lose promotions, grant money, etc. So it would be reasonable to assume that a significant number of these 93% might be believers who were reluctant to profess their faith.

BTW, I'm not accepting the 7% statistic until and unless guest shows us what study produced it, how and in what manner the profs were polled, how the questions were worded, etc.

I'm not from Missouri, but my motto in this case is "Show me!"

I also agree with OMW that God does not regard statistics, but the individual person.

Seeker

March 4, 2006
10:15 am
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

found an interesting website this morning, it talks about the Bible, it's history,the archaeology, translations, etc.

it is: everystudent.com

if anyone wants to take a look at it.

March 7, 2006
12:41 pm
Avatar
nice guy
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Seeker,
I am a christian.

March 8, 2006
3:10 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

nice guy,

Well, glory be, you are a Christian. How'd I miss that from your earlier post? WEll, I'm a seeker, not necessarily a finder. :o)

Take care.

Seeker

March 8, 2006
12:34 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

seeker,

>> I'm not accepting the 7% statistic until and unless guest shows us what study produced it, how and in what manner the profs were polled, how the questions were worded, etc. << Here's stuff: ---------------------- [Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.] Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%. ------------------ I dont have more information on this survey but its popular, and all over the internet. I dont know what the survey exactly asked. I dont think they asked for names though - arent surveys supposed to be anonymous? I'm sure the questions asked were simple: "Do you believe in God?" etc.etc. Why are you having a hard time believing in this survey? You really think most scientists do believe in God? Maybe you'd LIKE to believe that, but its not true.

March 8, 2006
12:38 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Seeker, here's the page from Nature itself -the magazine that did the survey:

http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....a0_fs.html

Oh there you go! It says it was anonymous, so no, your theory that they were scared of people finding out they believed in God is wrong as I expected:

------------------------

For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists". It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question1. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.

----------------

You can see some exact wordings of the questions too. Even the profssor's email is given at the bottom, you can email him and ask: [email protected]. Ths article was published in Nature at 23 July 1998

March 8, 2006
11:52 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Guest,

The survey you cited is only of the "great" scientists, which includes only those in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Here's what one website (http://www.nasonline.org/site/....._main_page) says about the NAS:

"The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government."

It was created by and issues reports to the Federal gov't. It funds research by universities, students, etc. It's hardly an a-political organization, then, and is hardly to be expected to be representative of scientists as a whole.

So even if your survey results were accurate, they would only pertain to the NAS.

Besides all this, you assume that scientists are always logical in their motives and act only in the name of true science. An assumption that may or may not be true -- they are first and foremost people, subject to the same weaknesses, illogicalities, and evil that we all are. Why should we expect they are any purer in their motives than anybody else? It's illogical to do so.

Seeker

March 9, 2006
10:01 am
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,
I agree with seeker's last post. while reading this thread i thought the same even before reading his post....and i also ask, why are scientists considered over theologians who have also studied? Theologians are also scientists in some sense of the word.

The path basically boils down to beleiving or not beleiving and what that means to someone. Every path has a detour to take one off of the path.

March 9, 2006
2:15 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Guest,

{Why are you having a hard time believing in this survey? You really think most scientists do believe in God? Maybe you'd LIKE to believe that, but its not true.}

It doesn't bother me if scientists don't believe in God. I understand in the 1920s, many leading scientists were atheists. Whether they, or any particular group of people, believe in God or not has no bearing on whether or not there is one.

What bothered me is the results of this survey being accepted at face value without any serious questioning into its validity. What bothered me is the implication that just because they're scientists, they somehow are wiser than the general public.

When it comes to religion, everybody is an equal, even ministers, pastors, and Billy Graham himself.

{your theory that they were scared of people finding out they believed in God is wrong as I expected:}

I offered it as a possible scenario, nothing more. Because you didn't tell us anything specific about the survey, I had nothing to go on.

Take care, Seeker

March 9, 2006
7:08 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Guest_guest.

I see that you have held the fort very well in my absense. Good on ya bro.

The main point of this thread is, as I see it, whether or not rationality should play a part in what religious belief we adopt.

There are so many religious beliefs involving so many different Gods and their differing attributes.

If one chooses to believe in some concept of a God based upon emotional 'feel good' considerations then the chances of being 'even in the ball park' are severely diminished.

If careful consideration is given to some religious belief system focusing on its coherence and its congruency with the world in which we live, then we have half a chance of being 'right'.

Blind belief results in a Jihad terrorist screaming "Allah Achba" as she blows herself and innocent civilians, both Muslim and other adherents, to pieces.

Righteous unquestioned religious belief based justification allows Christian fundamentalists such as Bush to drag the US and its allies into the mess it has created in Iraq.

Isreal's Judaic beliefs, equally irrational and those of their Islamic 'hosts', has resulted in terrible upheavals.

Warmongering seems least to occur amongst athiestic nations such as Tibet wherein Buddhist beliefs have a highly rational and non-thiestic nature. China with its Chinese Buddhist, Confucian, Taoist religions, all non thiestic, seem to be the least imperialistic and warmongering of the world's nations. China only responded to US agression in Korea and withdrew its forces at the end of that conflict. The nominally Christian US forces are still there.

When one has blind belief in their God, and thus 'righteousness' being on their side, it encourages an arrogance and intolerance that seems to bring out the worst in human nature.

From my perspective, athiests seldom prosletyze their beliefs on others except as a reaction as is the case on this site.

I must strongly stress that I am not either a theist or an athiest but an agnostic. I believe that we cannot know for sure and for certain either way whether any kind of a God exists or not.

At best we can only choose to believe what we believe.

However, to believe in the Pastafarian Spagetti Monstor as the one and only true God is no more irrational than believing in the existence of the JudeoChristian God as espoused in the bible.

Whilst very much more powerful that us humans, the God in the Christian bible is very conditionally loving, and apparently neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact were He to exist, the Christian deity hardly qualifies for the position that He purportedly holds.

March 9, 2006
8:04 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

Good to hear from you again. You apparently took a break from the site. I was wondering where you were.

{From my perspective, athiests seldom prosletyze their beliefs on others except as a reaction as is the case on this site.}

What about the man who brought the case to a US circuit court to declare the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? He claims to be atheist. If that isn't prosletyzing his beliefs onto the rest of us, I don't know what is.

There are many similar cases, especially in attempts to ban any and all references to God from our schools, including some pretty outrageous ones. If that's not prosyletizing for the atheistic "faith", I don't know what is.

You might claim this is done in reaction to Christian pressure. But Christians aren't the only ones who should be expected to be tolerant of others' viewpoints, especially when Christians appear to be in the majority here (in the US).

{I believe that we cannot know for sure and for certain either way whether any kind of a God exists or not.}

I agree with you with one caveat. We can't know if God exists unless we individually seek after him and are willing to do what he wants us to do.

Otherwise we're left with an uneasy feeling that he might very well exist.

Seeker

March 10, 2006
7:59 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

"What about the man who brought the case to a US circuit court to declare the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? He claims to be atheist. If that isn't prosletyzing his beliefs onto the rest of us, I don't know what is."

I wouldn't call that prosletyzing his beliefs. I would call it fighting for his rights not to have to have to pledge his allegiance swearing under a god in which he has no belief. I would say that he is fighting for his rights to be publicly sincere and true to himself.

How would you feel about swearing your allegiance under the 'Tooth Fairy' just because the majority of people were gullible enough to believe in the existence of this God with wings and a preference for teeth?

If you opposed such insincerity being imposed upon you would that be trying to convert people to some other belief? I think not. The guy probably doesn't give a tinker's curse about what the rest of the country believes. He most probably only cares about his own rights to be sincere and not be penalized for his 'virtue' of self-integrity.

It is you Christians who in legislation want to impose your beliefs on him. I'm all for what he has done. Good on him. I thought religious freedom in your country didn't mean that a belief in the Christian God was compulsory and thus exempt from this freedom of belief!

To thine own self be true - especially when 'swearing' under some imaginary deity publicly.

You said:

"We can't know if God exists unless we individually seek after him and are willing to do what he wants us to do."

From my perspective, that statement is only your very naive and blinkered belief. It has nothing to do with a belief based upon rational thinking.

Why don't you choose to believe in the existence of either Ganesh or Durga, or Vishnu or Shiva or Brahma or Om or Shanka or Allah or Krishna or Isis or Ra or Dianna or Thor or Achilles or Medusa or the Goddess Venus or ... ... ... ...?

Who needs to consider the coherence and rationality of what we believe- just believe anything uncritically? Is that it?

Perhaps your cultural socialization might have played a small part in your
irrational belief - you think?

"Otherwise we're left with an uneasy feeling that he might very well exist." So to avoid this fear disguised as uneasiness, you choose to believe in case? Not me buddy! I recognize nonsense - i.e. the absense of reason - when I see it.

March 10, 2006
9:47 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, it depends what you mean by "God" and what you mean by "prove" and what you mean by "logic."

For example, you could do a simple syllogism.

"God is Love."

"Love exists."

"Therefore God exists."

But really, it seems more natural to use poetry or something than logic.

For example, as a child I was taught to say a prayer before eating:

"God is great, God is Good. Let us thank him for our food. Amen."

As an adult, I believe that there are things greater than myself. I believe in Goodness. I believe I have things to be thankful for. Isn't that enough?

In his book People Of the Lie Scott Peck observed that given human nature, the remarkable thing is not that there is so much human evil in the world. The remarkable thing is that there is so much good.

I believe in the Big Bang. Everything in the Universe originated from a single point. And so I believe that everything is connected.

When I was a child, kids used to say "everyone is your brother, in God's way." Now I know without a doubt that each of us are literally blood relatives. I observe the relatedness and connectedness of all life on our planet, and that gives me joy.

For me, the scientific or logical persuit of God is not about proving that God does or does not exist; instead it is about observing and measuring the interconnectedness of things, and imagining what the significance of that interconnectedness is.

And it is about observation. Because if the universe did indeed originate from an act of will by a conscious Creator, then he/she/they have left their fingerprints all over the place.

March 11, 2006
6:56 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Worried_Dad

On the 10-Mar-06 you said:

" you could do a simple syllogism.

"God is Love."

"Love exists."

"Therefore God exists."

Yes but your first premise that "God is love" is not beyond dispute. That a God of love exists who created all isn't congruent with the type of predatory world in which all sentient beings are either predating or being predated upon.

I would maintain that your initial premise is flawed. Therefore your final conclusion is equally flawed.

My point yet again is that if an omnipotent, omniscient and unconditionally loving God who created all, existed then suffering in any sentient being whatsoever wouldn't!

Suffering is a direct result of vulnerability and threats to our wellbeing. Old age and death is a certainty for those who survive ilness and trauma into old age. What sort of a God would create a world in which such certainties exist?? Certainly not a loving God - logically speaking.

What sort of God would create viruses Nile Fever and Paralysis. What sort of a God would create AIDS. What sort of a God would create homosexuals only to watch them suffer in a mainly heterosexual intolerant society??? One can go on and on with examples that substantiate the belief that a loving God does not exist. However a case for the existence of cruel, sadistic God might be made. But even a case for that would be difficult to argue unless omniscience was excluded.

March 11, 2006
7:41 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Oh, good, the mighty Tez.

Yes, of course, some people may disagree with my first premise. I regularly disagree with myself six times before breakfast. Not to say that I am a disagreeable person. Wait, maybe that is what I'm saying.

Actually my point there was "it depends what you mean by God."

If by "God" you mean "Love" then you have a good premise. A lot of people woud say just that. God is Love. Nothing more, Nothing less. Period. Not the creator of west nile virus, or anything else. Just love.

March 11, 2006
10:58 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Hi Tez, thanks for the post. Hmm ,dont know what to say to it since I agree with it.

Seeker:
>>
What about the man who brought the case to a US circuit court to declare the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? He claims to be atheist. If that isn't prosletyzing his beliefs onto the rest of us, I don't know what is. << Originally, it was the Thiest who put the "Under God" thing - he was trying to impose his beliefs on everyone else. Now that there's 25 million athiests in the US, they shouldnt have to use that pledge. That athiest guy is undoing the original imposition. What there should be is something nuetral which everyone agrees with. Instead right now "under God" is there, with which athiests dont agree with. Do you get what I'm trying to say? I'm surprised that you are saying the Athiest is forcing his beliefs unto others by wanting to get away with the "under God" thing. He's definitely not. What do you think now?

March 12, 2006
1:25 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest,

Originally, it was the US Congress, 400 some congresspeople -- in 1954, I believe -- that added teh phrase "under God" to the Pledge. Last year, I think it was, it was three judges who removed it.

The Congress is accountable to the people; they're up for reelection every two years. Those judges aren't; they're appointed for life, if I remember correctly.

Which group do you suppose more accurately reflects the will of teh people?

{What there should be is something nuetral which everyone agrees with.}

Whenever you have more than one person, you'll have disagreements. Nobody will ever perfectly agree on this.

As far as the pledge goes -- the knife cuts both ways. You claim the Theist is "trying to impose his beliefs on everyone else" while the atheist guy is "undoing the original imposition".

The knife cuts both ways. You could say either side is trying to impose their will on teh other. It's a democracy -- that's what invariably happens. The majority is supposed to prevail, while not unduly imposing upon the minority.

March 12, 2006
1:30 am
Avatar
free2choose
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
100sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez said: "When one has blind belief in their God, and thus 'righteousness' being on their side, it encourages an arrogance and intolerance that seems to bring out the worst in human nature."

The same could be said for self-righteous indignation and disbelief. Believe me, I know.

Tez also said: "My point yet again is that if an omnipotent, omniscient and unconditionally loving God who created all, existed then suffering in any sentient being whatsoever wouldn't!"

What I hear you saying is that if an all knowing, truly loving God existed, Then Noone or nothing on this planet would suffer and there would be no predators and no prey....
We would all just co-exist in blissful happiness and satisfacion, Right??

I too view myself as an agnostic, meaning I do not know what to believe in. I do have a problem with Christianity, like the self-righteousness and hypocrisy, but i do not NOT Believe in some type of God or Greater Spiritual Conectedness of all things.

Most Christians would tell you that the "negative" that happens in this world, at least between humans, is the work of the devil, or God's giving us free-will. I think thats bull shit.

One of the things I do think is possible is this. Balance. Even down to a cellular level, we require a delicate balance to survive and thrive. I think spiritually, it's the same way. I have found that my greatest growth and awakenings come after suffering the most. How can one truly experience joy without knowing sadness? Peace, without torment? Love without fear? If everyone was happy all of the time, and that was our only state of being, how would we know to appreciate it??

One thing I believe is "God is everything". In the Bible it says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega". In the AA Big Book it says "God either is, or He is not."

God could possibly be simply the connection between all living things. It's not that this omnipotent God above and removed is looking down on us and allowing suffering to happen. Maybe it's more like God is the suffering, and also the peace...because really, spiritually speaking, we need both to be complete, balanced.

Just some of my thoughts.

Erica
Free2Choose

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
36
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 111118
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38715
Posts: 714564
Newest Members:
Marek, ssdchemical33, jack1palmer, SURUMANQ, petersmith98, ChristenD
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information