|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2008 04:09:33 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Along a similar theme, would you find the current winning Masters Free Study entry sacrilegious, as some of the comments appear to indicate? |
Actually, only one comment was at all negative, and it was delivered by our resident intolerant ultra-right-wing "hater". |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:13:01 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Along a similar theme, would you find the current winning Masters Free Study entry sacrilegious, as some of the comments appear to indicate?
Does the motivations of the creator of the image matter in if the image would be considered offensive or not? |
No I don't and yes it would. Motivations are everything, are they not? Piss Christ, I found to be offensive mainly out of motivational reasons. It seemed like an image that, to me, used a cherished icon for merely "shock value". I found nothing redeeming in it. (That's my opinion) Anyway, De Sousa's shot is pretty sweet. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:30:18 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Along a similar theme, would you find the current winning Masters Free Study entry sacrilegious, as some of the comments appear to indicate?
Does the motivations of the creator of the image matter in if the image would be considered offensive or not? |
No I don't and yes it would. Motivations are everything, are they not? Piss Christ, I found to be offensive mainly out of motivational reasons. It seemed like an image that, to me, used a cherished icon for merely "shock value". I found nothing redeeming in it. (That's my opinion) Anyway, De Sousa's shot is pretty sweet. |
So for example, that image if I made it and if you made it would be quite different in outcome and potential offense, and potentially sacrilegious, or not, even if we made exactly the same image? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:31:15 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Huh???
What belief? I stated posts ago that I have NO belief one way or the other about an afterlife because I believe that it's fallacious to live as if there is or isn't.
|
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess I was going off your line "If we live the best we can while we're here, then that will be reflected if there is a judgement day, as I see it." Perhaps I did not read enough into the "IF" and should just understand you as thinking there is no afterlife. |
Jason, you tell me not to put words in your mouth and then you turn around and do it to me.
What I said a couple pages ago is this, verbatim:
One thing I thought of that I'd like to add since the discussion went down the path of it.......
I don't have any opinion one way or another as far as a belief of an afterlife.
I think it muddies what we're supposed to be doing here.
If there isn't, then if we've done the best we can, then that stands on its own merits.
If we live the best we can while we're here, then that will be reflected if there is a judgement day, as I see it.
Either way, because that's what makes sense to me, I have managed to dismiss it as a pertinent issue because I need to be the best person I can in this life, be it all there is, or whatever....it was an unusual, yet gratifying thing to be able to be accepting of that.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:35:31 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Either way, because that's what makes sense to me, I have managed to dismiss it as a pertinent issue because I need to be the best person I can in this life, be it all there is, or whatever....it was an unusual, yet gratifying thing to be able to be accepting of that. [/b] |
I guess this is quite different than my thinking. Whether or not there is an afterlife, to me, would seem very important as "forever" is much longer than 80 years. Knowing what the afterlife holds and what your actions in this life have to do with it (if anything) would be important. To just "dismiss" it, I think, is pretty shortsighted. Now if you DON'T believe in an afterlife, then your system seems reasonable. But to just be agnostic about it? Lazy or dangerously ignorant. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:37:31 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So for example, that image if I made it and if you made it would be quite different in outcome and potential offense, and potentially sacrilegious, or not, even if we made exactly the same image? |
Could be. It would again depend on the motivation the picture was created with for me. If I didn't have access to that motivation then the two identical pictures would be judged identically, I guess.
Am I being led to slaughter here? ;) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 04:39:56 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, they are equivalencies; both statements are "belief that." "Belief in" comes into play when you identify a God, buy into His religion, adopt His codes as your codes, and so forth. Does that clarify things?
Here's a very specific "belief in" for you:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.
AMEN."
R. |
Ok. If you are saying the level of detail in the belief takes it from "believe that" to "believe in" then I'm fine. Atheism, in general, probably has fewer "details" than a specific flavor of theism. Good enough? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 05:20:41 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I being led to slaughter here? ;) |
No, I'm doing something somewhat heretical for rant and actually talking about photography and meaning. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 05:46:15 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ok. If you are saying the level of detail in the belief takes it from "believe that" to "believe in" then I'm fine. Atheism, in general, probably has fewer "details" than a specific flavor of theism. Good enough? |
More or less. Look at it this way; if I believe that there IS a God but don't DO anything about it, that's not "believing IN him", it's not a belief system from my perspective.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 08:53:54 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Jac:
According to some of my religionist friends, they would take care of some unfinished business knowing they wouldn't have to answer to their god anymore. That scared the hell out of me and I never again spoke about religion to these people. |
That's what scares me, too.... |
And I'd like to repeat...
Accurate or otherwise, religion DOES serve a purpose. We cant deny there are people in this world that needed religion to keep them going. These people do not have a sense of purpose or direction, and continuously seeks a guide in their life. These people benefits from the set of rules that religion provides. And then we have another group of people that needs religion, these are those who needs hope. Good examples are those suffering from illnesses, or loss the will to live. Religion provides these people with the hope of an afterlife, or new beginnings (depending on religion types). And thirdly, religion provides a form of control and self discipline for the type of people that otherwise would have caused harm to either himself or the people around him. This aspect of religion is usually in the form of punishment and rewards, for instance, the promise of an afterlife, or reincarnation, or everlasting afterlife of suffering or happiness (again, your mileage may wary depending on the religion). So as you can see, religion has a strong purpose for most people.
Now, there is a reason why, as you mentioned, that people with strong belief in religion may appear arrogant, think theirs is the only true religion or way, or try to force their ideas on others. This is easily explained. Look at it this way - after you bought a Canon, you try to tell everyone else that Canon is THE camera to buy. This could be driven by selfishness (hoping for larger user base, more support, etc), or non-selfish reasons, to share the joy you got from Canon products. I would like to call this the "mental trap" whereby you are so convinced that something is THE thing to do/get, you closed your mind towards any other alternatives, and continuously lend your support to that particular product/brand (or religion) without question. But of course, the Canon thing was just an example to show my point. Religion is much more larger than that. It is a way of life, and as such, it answers why believers of faith is so reluctant to accept the existence of other religions/Gods besides their own.
And then, we have the non-faithfuls. To the people of faith, these non-faithfuls are like lost lemmings, without a guide or purpose, and assumed to be living miserable lives because of not believing in God, or a particular religion. I would like to point out that, just because you have a Canon camera and is enjoying life with it, doesnt mean that those without a camera (note, not just using other brands, but without a camera entirely) are living boring lives. These people are just like the non-faithfuls. They live their lives just like anyone else, but just do not have the interest in photography, or in cameras nor lenses.
All that said, I have an underlying question which I hope I could find a good answer to - why is it that people put more emphasis and priority into their religion than into the God they believed in? Which is more important to these people, God or religion? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 09:23:04 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I would say that is what religion is, your moral compass. |
The simple fact that people of all cultures, religions, and even NO religion can exhibit moral behavior demonstrates the falsehood of that assumption. |
That must be my ignorance. What would else would you base as your moral behavior than on something you believe in? |
News flash: you were not amoral before you believed in whatever you believe in. Monkeys, dogs, and perhaps many other animals demonstrate a sense of fairness, and I'm pretty sure they're not relying upon ancient texts to do so. Humans MUST generally cooperate and respect one another by evolutionary imperative or they would not have survived as social animals. Your inherent sense of morality and the guidance of your parents largely determine which parts of any given belief system you subscribe to, not the other way around, and even the most fervent theist justifies discarded parts of his religion as irrelevant or "allegorical" when they don't match his own beliefs. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 11:53:58 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Jac:
According to some of my religionist friends, they would take care of some unfinished business knowing they wouldn't have to answer to their god anymore. That scared the hell out of me and I never again spoke about religion to these people. |
That's what scares me, too.... |
And I'd like to repeat...
Accurate or otherwise, religion DOES serve a purpose. We cant deny there are people in this world that needed religion to keep them going. These people do not have a sense of purpose or direction, and continuously seeks a guide in their life. These people benefits from the set of rules that religion provides. And then we have another group of people that needs religion, these are those who needs hope. Good examples are those suffering from illnesses, or loss the will to live. Religion provides these people with the hope of an afterlife, or new beginnings (depending on religion types). And thirdly, religion provides a form of control and self discipline for the type of people that otherwise would have caused harm to either himself or the people around him. This aspect of religion is usually in the form of punishment and rewards, for instance, the promise of an afterlife, or reincarnation, or everlasting afterlife of suffering or happiness (again, your mileage may wary depending on the religion). So as you can see, religion has a strong purpose for most people. |
Originally posted by Marx:
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of manĂ¢€”state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. |
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 23:55:55. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:04:16 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess this is quite different than my thinking. Whether or not there is an afterlife, to me, would seem very important as "forever" is much longer than 80 years. Knowing what the afterlife holds and what your actions in this life have to do with it (if anything) would be important. To just "dismiss" it, I think, is pretty shortsighted. Now if you DON'T believe in an afterlife, then your system seems reasonable. But to just be agnostic about it? Lazy or dangerously ignorant. |
To you, maybe it is, but you don't seem to want to even try to see my point of view. I'm not asking you to accept it, or try to change the way you feel. That's part of the way I view things is to try and see others' viewpoints so that I may better understand them.
You, on the other hand, apply your perspective and tell me that it's important whether or not there's an afterlife even though I've explained to you something like six times in as many different ways what I believe about it, why, and how that has me living my life.
And you tell me I'm shortsighted, lazy, and dangerously ignorant with no concern for how that might make me feel, giving no credence or respect for my beliefs, and I'm guessing it's simply because you have some sort of entitlement thing going on that allows you to just judge others' beliefs as wrong, clueless, or just plain flat unworthy of the decency of consideration.
You asked me to explain my beliefs, more correctly, you challenged me to explain, and then justify them, I attempt to do so, you argue, denigrate, belittle, and then pretty much dismiss them.
Is it any wonder why people who are anything but of your faith get exasperated with you and don't much care for wht you stand for? You are exactly the reason that I cannot stand the status quo in organized religion.
Where is your compassion, your caring, your willingness to try and understand who I am and what I'm about if I'm your brother in God's eyes?
If I'm completely lost to the savior by your definition, doesn't your religion state that I even more need your compassion, and that you should learn about me so that I may be saved by your God?
You have made it abundantly clear that you hold nme and my beliefs in what I would consider to be virtually ignorant, stupid, and dangerous to my soul.
Regardless of what you actually mean, that is what you have managed to convey.
I want nothing to do with that kind of treatment. I don't want salvation from your kind.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:13:49 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
snipped for brevity |
Sometimes you have to scream at people to tell them the bridge is out. I know it doesn't feel good to have people tear and question your beliefs. Hmmm, the shoe is on the other foot a la the gay marriage thread. Wasn't I subjected to many days of similar treatment? I'm just provoking you to thought. Your worldview seems solid on the surface, but I think if you dig below you find a mire of conflicting and confounding ideas. I'm encouraging you to think them through instead of push them aside. It only leads to a stronger, reasoned faith.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 00:14:12. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:20:55 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I would say that is what religion is, your moral compass. |
The simple fact that people of all cultures, religions, and even NO religion can exhibit moral behavior demonstrates the falsehood of that assumption. |
That must be my ignorance. What would else would you base as your moral behavior than on something you believe in? |
News flash: you were not amoral before you believed in whatever you believe in. Monkeys, dogs, and perhaps many other animals demonstrate a sense of fairness, and I'm pretty sure they're not relying upon ancient texts to do so. |
Ok, I guess I get to delve into this. I agree with some of what you say Shannon, but I think you are mistaken in your understanding of "morality". To start with the definition from the dictionary:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct:
Do note that morality is "being in accord with" and a "system of ideas". Genetic evolution has potentially provided us with such drives as Cooperation and Self-preservation. I will accept this as a given. However, there are many instances where these drives are in conflict with each other. Quickly you can see how Cooperation and Self-preservation could be in conflict in a given situation. Do you risk your life to help someone else? Morality is a system by which to decide which action between the two is right. It is not the action itself. Cooperation is not morality. Knowing WHEN to cooperate is morality (or part of a moral system).
Evolution may give us the universal building blocks, but only a code of conduct can take those blocks and build a structure. That code of conduct is NOT a product of evolution. It is either a product of the mind of man or a product of a supreme being.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 00:22:23. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:42:20 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Evolution may give us the universal building blocks, but only a code of conduct can take those blocks and build a structure. |
Those building blocks still form the basis of our morality- the basic sense of right and wrong common to humans and apparently some animals. IMO, THAT is the source of your morality. You are selectively applying whichever parts of religious or cultural precepts fit your inherent beliefs, discarding the rest, and then trying to claim the result is the source. Nuh uh. If that were the true source, then you must also accept the more unsavory parts of the Bible (slavery, stoning, the subordination of women, etc.) as moral without trying to justify or explain it away, and it would be extremely unlikely to find agreement on basic human rights among geographically and culturally diverse people. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:56:36 AM · #192 |
like i was trying to say, those of faith should stop trying to convert the non-faithfuls,
and those non-faithfuls should let those with faith continue on with what they believed.
i think the real problem is when those of faith treats the non-faithfuls "lost lambs",
while the non-faithfuls treats the faithfuls as "lemmings"
humans are funny organisms - no wonder we need to diversify the ways to govern them all! lol
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 00:57:07. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:09:41 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Evolution may give us the universal building blocks, but only a code of conduct can take those blocks and build a structure. |
Those building blocks still form the basis of our morality- the basic sense of right and wrong common to humans and apparently some animals. IMO, THAT is the source of your morality. You are selectively applying whichever parts of religious or cultural precepts fit your inherent beliefs, discarding the rest, and then trying to claim the result is the source. Nuh uh. If that were the true source, then you must also accept the more unsavory parts of the Bible (slavery, stoning, the subordination of women, etc.) as moral without trying to justify or explain it away, and it would be extremely unlikely to find agreement on basic human rights among geographically and culturally diverse people. |
Let's keep the theology side out of it for simplicity sake. We can get to that later. The building blocks are NOT the "basic sense of right and wrong". Cooperation is not always "right" (cooperating with the enemy). Self-preservation is not always "right" (fighting in a just war). We need someone to come along and tell us WHEN cooperation is right and WHEN self-preservation is right. THAT is morality and THAT is not a product of evolution (other than indirectly, ie. the human mind evolved). The point in bringing this up comes when you start claiming other animals are MORAL. We can see evidence of actions such as cooperation or self-preservation, but those are merely actions. If we had evidence of animals making a judgement of when it was proper to cooperate and when it was proper to utilize self-preservation, then we may have something. But we don't have that. We can't possibly hope to get at it because we aren't them (and thus can't see into their minds). I just want to make this clear because you like to keep saying that animals employ morality (and if you don't SAY that, you INFER it).
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 01:10:32. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:17:50 AM · #194 |
Cooperation and self-preservation ain't morality. That would be things like a sense of decency, compassion, honesty, fairness, justice, etc., and those ARE the basic building clocks. Nice try, though.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 01:18:27. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:21:00 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Cooperation and self-preservation ain't morality. That would be things like a sense of decency, compassion, honesty, fairness, justice, etc., and those ARE the basic building clocks. Nice try, though. |
Whoa. You want me to dig up the quote by you listing "Cooperation" as a basic part of morality in the Gay Marriage thread? And why isn't self-preservation moral? It's clearly part of our genetic makeup? What makes this not moral? And is it immoral or amoral? and why?
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 01:21:36. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:27:14 AM · #196 |
Just to state the record:
Originally posted by Shannon:
Rare or not, it's been amply documented among social animals. It's hardly insignificant, and even cooperation requires an innate sense of right and wrong. |
Originally posted by Shannon:
we share a common evolutionary ancestry that emphasizes cooperation and compassion to overcome our lack of fangs and claws in order to survive. |
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:40:47 AM · #197 |
bah hum bug
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 01:42:35. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:40:26 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
snipped for brevity |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes you have to scream at people to tell them the bridge is out. I know it doesn't feel good to have people tear and question your beliefs. Hmmm, the shoe is on the other foot a la the gay marriage thread. Wasn't I subjected to many days of similar treatment? I'm just provoking you to thought. Your worldview seems solid on the surface, but I think if you dig below you find a mire of conflicting and confounding ideas. I'm encouraging you to think them through instead of push them aside. It only leads to a stronger, reasoned faith. |
Jason, you don't scream at the answer when YOU ask them the question. And you didn't ask, you demanded.
I thought you were interested in the what and why of my beliefs. I neither wanted nor invited you to tear at them. If you think that your perspective on my beliefs is going to provoke me in any way shape or form, you are mistaken. Anyone knows that you won't find a lamb in the lion's den.....I wasn't looking for guidance or answers from you. Taking your resentment from the grilling you got in the gay marriage thread out on me, and my beliefs, after asking me about them is just unconscienable.
You're not provoking me to thought; you merely demonstrated that instead of your religion being understanding and loving that it is rigid and narrow-minded in its behavior. This is why I have no use for your type of religion. I have a personal relationship with the God of my understanding. I do my best, as I understand his wishes for me, and I try to keep my eyes and mind open for guidance. I think it shows common sense and humility to openly state that I don't have any answers as to how it goes in the big picture. I am merely one man doing his best to be a decent person as God would have me be.....some days I do okay, others.....
It's funny, but the only person giving me a hard time about my beliefs has been you. Mousie even made a comment about my being open about them, and I got a kind PM from one of the openly atheistic participants stating that if more people felt the same way as I towards the personal aspect of religion, we'd all be a little better off.
I know you pride yourself in your debating skills, and we all know that's not one of my stronger suits, but you have kind of just shown us all that you certainly don't have any sense of decorum and respect for others' beliefs. That's okay in the context of the intellectual discussion I suppose, but you've really been the only one who has really run roughshod over eneryone else in regards to their core beliefs, or their choice to have none as regards to your standards.
I'm very comfortable with, and have great strength in my beliefs as I learn and grow in my faith, and like life, it's a process that will be ongoing 'til the end. Apparently, you either don't care about, have no interest or respect for other's beliefs, or even worse, just completely dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't conform to the rigid standards of your religion......that very same religion that would condemn a whole segment of society simply for having been born gay.
Not to digress too much, but that in and of itself is very telling. My own church is diametrically opposed to the concept that a religion should condemn people, especially for something that is who they are, not a choice. So if that's part of a reasoned and strong faith, no thanks, I'll stick with what I got.
It's funny, but what I have discovered here in this thread is that the atheists, the agnostics, the people who have no belief system as it fits your self-proclaimed standards have demonstrated themselves to be the curious, open, and respectful people. I like them, and am delighted to engage with them and hear about what they think. Thay seem to have no problem just talking about it, and not trying to have me see the light and come to their way of thinking. Not once has anyone gone after you to try and sway you, yet you've come after my faith, and their lack of interest in faith, like a terrier on a rat.
I have been treated more decently, and with respect, in spades, by the lost, misguided souls (As I'm assuming you would view them given your indicated beliefs.) in this thread than by the spokesperson for the Christians.
I wish you all the best, with all my heart, but I am done having you pick at me after trying to openly and honestly tell you about myself after you asked.
Best of luck to you with your journey.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 08:02:59 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to state the record: |
Originally posted by Shannon:
Rare or not, it's been amply documented among social animals. It's hardly insignificant, and even cooperation requires an innate sense of right and wrong. |
Yes, cooperation requires an innate sense of morality, and if social animals demonstrate cooperation they must have a basic sense of right and wrong. I did not say cooperation IS morality. People and animals must understand what's beneficial to the group in order to cooperate, but you wouldn't say slavery or discrimination is immoral because it offends your sense of cooperation. (?!?!) You would draw upon your sense of fairness, justice, etc., and the same goes when you try to interpret what your god would want (my god wouldn't endorse slavery or wife beating because it's not right). If morality came from religion, then people who have not been exposed to the Bible should not share a common sense of fairness and justice, a sense of what's RIGHT, unless it's an innate trait. Once you make that leap, you cannot argue that morality comes from religion. Your only hope of avoiding a natural evolutionary source is to try to claim that you were created with morals by a god, but then that wipes out a host of other arguments (including the need for a tree of knowledge of good and evil).
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 11:22:33. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:07:56 AM · #200 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to state the record:
Originally posted by Shannon:
Rare or not, it's been amply documented among social animals. It's hardly insignificant, and even cooperation requires an innate sense of right and wrong. |
Originally posted by Shannon:
we share a common evolutionary ancestry that emphasizes cooperation and compassion to overcome our lack of fangs and claws in order to survive. |
|
Actually, he didn't at all say that cooperation was a basic part of morality. Check the first sentence. He said the reverse: that right and wrong is a basic part of cooperation. The second quote does not show him suggesting that cooperation is a basic component of morality.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:53:48 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: 08/02/2025 07:53:48 PM EDT.
|
