Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Does Atheistic secularism really promote violence?
This topic contains 212 replies, has 38 voices, and was last updated by 
X11 2 years, 2 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Does Atheistic secularism really promote violence?
No
But statements like that divide us on religious vs. non-religious lines are divisive. Seems obvious, doesn’t it.
I’m an agnostic, but too many religious people s~~~ on atheists only to bitch about “angry atheists”.
So, what is the real agenda driving you to want to pit my Christian MGTOW brothers against my Atheist MGTOW brothers ?
And when do I get lumped in with the Atheists for you to pit others against ?
Frank V.
Science and atheism are most certainly religions.
Wrong on both counts.
Science is about the testable. Religion is not. They’re not the same thing. They’re not opposites. They’re completely different matters. We’re talking comparing apples to poetry.
Any “scientist” who claims there’s no god is a bad “scientist”.
Science doesn’t claim god does not exist. Science merely says: “Prove it.”
Science is about the testable. Religion is not. They’re not the same thing. They’re not opposites. They’re completely different matters. We’re talking comparing apples to poetry.
Theoretical science is about as reliable as religious belief. Big bang theory – Garden of Eden. Neither are provable, or factual. And yet a large portion of the population believes in either one or the other. So I do see science and religion sharing some very similar characteristics.
We can barely get to the moon and back, and scientists speculate about the origins of the Universe? That does not strike you as the least bit whimsical?
I won’t even go into the whole fake moon landings debacle.
There is a great portion of science which is reliable, provable. Certainly. Technology, advances in various fields. These are all tangible. I have no problem believing in my cell phone.
But science constantly disproves itself as it advances forward. Which does raise the question, of how true anything can be, when in 20-50 years it will be disproved. Never mind 300-500 years from now, where what we know to be true, will seem like a joke or superstition. A relic.
People would wonder, how did they believe in such things? And your answer to this, would be testable science?
I think science knows far less than it doesn’t. And the little it does know, it pushes very much like a religion. At least from my point of view. That does not mean I don’t like technology or modern conveniences. I just see science as the new cult of today. Just as religion has been the reigning king of cults for the last 2000+ years.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
Big bang theory – Garden of Eden. Neither are provable, or factual.
From that statement it’s fairly clear you understand neither. Nor even the definition of proof.
First off, it’s the first chapter of Genesis that’s purportedly comparable to the big bang theory (though not really if you really understand it), not the Garden of Eden. That comes later in chapter two.
Secondly, the big bang theory is not some story pulled out of someone’s ass to make a philosophical point. It doesn’t have some Yawhoo (née Marduk) lighting a giant firecracker at the beginning of everything. It’s not even a story.
No, the big bang is an explanation for the very real and observable phenomenon that every galaxy in the universe red-shifted, and the farther a galaxy is from us, the more red shifted it is. That means they’re all flying away from us and each other and the farthest ones are the fastest, relative to us. So the universe didn’t just explode. It’s still exploding. Again, this is directly observable. Get yourself a big enough telescope and a prism and you can check yourself. The big bang theory is just winding that observed explosion backwards. If everything is flying apart, there must be some point back when everything was all squished together.
And it actually is testable and predictive. Among other things, the big bang theory predicted omnidirectional background radiation, and guess what? In the 1960s we f~~~ing found it. Everywhere.
But science constantly disproves itself as it advances forward.
Again, you don’t know what proof means. It does not mean “confirm” as you believe. It means to test.
And the whole point of science is to disprove our current understanding of things, not to confirm it. Science is not about knowing “the truth” but about improving our understanding. You cannot improve your understanding until you discover that your current understanding is incorrect.
People would wonder, how did they believe in such things?
And again you show you fundamentally don’t get it. Science is not about believing. It’s about doubting. It’s about testing. It’s about learning.
And your answer to this, would be testable science?
If you actually understood what science is about, and why religion and science are completely alien to each other, you would know that there’s no other kind of science. Science IS testing things.
I won’t even go into the whole fake moon landings debacle.
Oh for f~~~’s sake.
Are you going to tell us the earth is flat next?
No, the big bang is an explanation for the very real and observable phenomenon that every galaxy in the universe red-shifted, and the farther a galaxy is from us, the more red shifted it is.
I understand the theory. But that is my point exactly. That they are merely that.
Also, I am not saying religion and science are empirically identical. I am suggesting that they share common attributes.
For example. People used to worship God. Now they worship money and technology. The cult of yesterday was religion. The cult of today is science and atheism. The object of worship has shifted. It can be seen in the hands of people, walking around in a zombie like state, staring at their phones. That is the new religion, and science and technology gave rise to it. God creates. But then so does science and technology. So here we have yet another shared characteristic between the two.
Science is cult like, because if you question their theories and postulates, people like yourself get visibly perturbed over it. They get defensive and resort to insults. That is just what happens when you speak to religious people about religion.
Are you starting to see my point?
They are all f~~~ing theories, and nothing more than that. Yes, we have amazing tech here on this planet, but anything beyond this blue ball, is all speculation.
I will repeat for clarity. We can barely get to the moon and back. Do you think anyone on this planet, is remotely qualified to make assertions about the origins of an Infinite Universe?
I can see that you have strong “beliefs” with regards to science. I don’t share those beliefs. I think scientists, are the new bulls~~~ artists, having completely trumped religion. And when someone is in a dominant position, they can make many assertions with very compelling and well crafted explanations and arguments. Scientists call this bulls~~~ – data. I’m old school, and still refer to it as bulls~~~.
When we can travel to somewhere well beyond this galaxy, perhaps make contact with more evolved alien races. When we gain the ability to probe more deeply into the actual Universe. I would be more inclined to believe those theories. Until then, it’s just a puff of smoke told by priests in lab coats. A cult in disguise. Using math and technology, in place of God and the Bible.
That is where science and religion, line up perfectly with one another.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
Theoretical science is about as reliable as religious belief. Big bang theory – Garden of Eden.
$100 says you have never educated yourself on BB theory or studied the data.
Typical of religious folk intellectual dishonest and kinda cowardly defending their fragile beliefs because they are scared to let the slightest doubt enter their mind.
Its amazing science is so successful given the primitive forces working against it for centuries.
Science is cult like, because if you question their theories and postulates, people like yourself get visibly perturbed over it. They get defensive and resort to insults. That is just what happens when you speak to religious people about religion.
No you are talking s~~~ and we try point that out, you perceive it as an insult.
Why do theists insist atheism and science are religions, is it to try elevate religion or reduce science??
If atheism is a religion then so is mgtow, football, stamp collecting, politics, being a fan of any book or television series.
You people really have nothing constructive to contribute. You just try and trivialise every to the inane level of your belief in ancient desert myths written by primitives as facts.
Prove that your useless god actually does something.
There would be no atheists if there was just one bit of credible god evidence.
You have absolutely nothing, own it.
$100 says you have never educated yourself on BB theory or studied the data.
Ok, maybe you didn’t comprehend or read my previous posts. I will elucidate. I am not remotely religious.
You yourself referred to it as BB theory. That is my point entirely. That while it is all very well put together and researched. It is still just that, a theory.
If you’re going to chime in with a comment, at least take the time to read what I already wrote.
You mentioned the word primitive. Let me reduce my message to a simpler form, perhaps then you will understand what you overlooked the 1st time around.
Science. Good. Technology. Good. Masterbation. Better than good. Women. Better than masterbation, but more costly. Science here on Earth, within the confines of human understanding. Amazing, some impressive things have been innovated, understood. Created. Science extended beyond this blue ball, into a vast Infinite Universe. To which we have never physically traveled further than the moon. And I don’t mean probes. But manned flights. Suggests that people here have limited qualification to comment on the vast infinite Universe. When scientists make theories about events that took place billions, trillions of years ago, perhaps eons. That is where their level of understanding simply cannot reach, and becomes mere speculation. Not any different than religion.
Masturbation. Still very good. Women. Unfortunately, still very cunning and costly. Human innovation and science. Amazing in areas we understand. Using math and science to create postulates about the Universe. Religulous. I might as well be reading about Adam and Eve.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
You yourself referred to it as BB theory. That is my point entirely. That while it is all very well put together and researched. It is still just that, a theory.
You don’t appear to understand what a theory means in science, are you aware of the missions to collect data for the BB are. Have you seen the data, are you aware of the limitations of the data, are you aware of the current status of impending missions, what data they are collecting and his and what they they are planning to do with it. Are you aware of the multiple lines of evidence of unrelated phenomena that support each other independently and what data they collected, how it was collected and the limitations of the data. The design of future experiments.
Are you aware of how all thus supports and explains many other fields and phenomena coherently.
Are you aware of the advanced mathematical framework underlying it, the numerical code to crunch umbers on supercomputers to run simulations make precise predictions that are testable by experiment and observation.
Are you aware now cosmology is studied by doing experiments at the sub-nuclear level not by men flying around in rockets.
I get sick of you lazy c~~~s that think you know something.
Flying to the moon not far enough away huh, do you know how long it took humans just to sail to the horizon of the ocean, achieve heavier than air flight for a few feet and now we have thousands of planes flying hundreds of passengers all around the world. We did all that in a few hundred yesrs once we dumped god as an explanation for how s~~~ happens, religion kept us slaves.
Those primitive c~~~s that write the bible never travelled more than walking distance from where they were born in the dirt. They progressed nothing in thousands of years.
Religious c~~~s should be banned from all access to medicine, electricity, communication, modern medicine, food production, transport etc, they deserve to be wandering the deserts of Iraq f~~~ing goats etc.
You still seem to think that I’m religious, or am making an argument for religion.
This indicates a remarkably high degree of stupidity.
I may not agree with sidecar, but he’s both sharp and intelligent. You’re a f~~~ing moron. Just spouting off. You’re not even clear on what points I am making. Or where my argument lies.
Repeating myself is obviously not going to help.
Yes, I am aware of the science. No, I don’t think it proves anything beyond the limits of their present understanding. Which cannot and does not reach trillions of years back. Regardless of the complexity of the methods used, or the math or any other details. It’s intricate, but has inherent limits. Very similar to your intellect and reading level.
Imagining that science can explain the entire origin of the Universe, given the limits of our understanding is not only absurd, it’s mentally retarded. It’s an infinite Universe. And yes, traversing at least outside of this galaxy, would be a good start. Before we extrapolate about things that are in the realm of the infinite.
Just move on to irritating someone else. I don’t give a f~~~ about you or your mindless nonsense.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
Anonymous1Of course it does. Atheism is the most violent of all religions.
You’re not just saying this because you’re deeply religious are you?
Of course you aren’t.
God bless.
Yes, I am aware of the science. No, I don’t think it proves anything beyond the limits of their present understanding. Which cannot and does not reach trillions of years back.
First you have to prove the universe existed trillions of years. You haven’t, you just stated it as if it was true. That’s your first fallacy.
The actual evidence has a specific value, if you think this is incorrect you need to refute the entire body of evidence you haven’t so you are making a baseless claim.
You have assumed the universe is infinite, you have not demonstrated this, nobody has. That is two baseless claims without evidence.
Your other completely messed up piece of logic is this;
”
No, I don’t think it proves anything beyond the limits of their present understanding. ”No f~~~ing s~~~ sherlock that’s all kinds of f~~~ed up. Its equivalent to:
you can’t currently be in possession knowledge of knowledge you don’t currently possess.
Also “Imagining that….”. Imagination is not constrained by current knowledge yes we can imagine that X even if I currently don’t X.
I can imagine world peace may happen that’s why it’s called imagination.
Just lol when discussions about atheism always involves a theist bringing up the big bang like atheism is another word for astro-physics and cosmology.
First you have to prove the universe existed trillions of years. You haven’t, you just stated it as if it was true. That’s your first fallacy.
I think I was fairly clear in my last response. You continue to display your stupidity. Trying to engage me in some form of debate, when I told you that I don’t give a s~~~ about you or your ramblings.
I have nothing to add to what has already been said. Please feel free to debate someone else. Lot’s of people on this forum.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
First you have to prove the universe existed trillions of years. You haven’t, you just stated it as if it was true. That’s your first fallacy.
I think I was fairly clear in my last response. You continue to display your stupidity. Trying to engage me in some form of debate, when I told you that I don’t give a s~~~ about you or your ramblings.
I have nothing to add to what has already been said. Please feel free to debate someone else. Lot’s of people on this forum.
I thought one reason why some went MGTOW was to avoid pointless arguments.
All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.
Wow, this is really inappropriate and is only causing divide within community.
The choices we make, not the chances we take, determine our destiny
Wow, this is really inappropriate and is only causing divide within community
As the religion topic usually does. Seeing a lot of these in the last few days.
Full moon or something?
Wow, this is really inappropriate and is only causing divide within community
As the religion topic usually does. Seeing a lot of these in the last few days.
Full moon or something?
I don’t mind having discussions, but really, what’s the point? Nobody is changing anyone’s opinion on the matter. No matter how quality the argument may be on the other side.
I understand the theory.
No. Obviously you do not. Because in your earlier post you claimed the big bang is untestable. I had to explain to you how it actually is testable, and has been tested. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a theory.
But that is my point exactly. That they are merely that.
And by using the word “merely” you demonstrate that you don’t understand what a theory is, either. There is nothing “merely” about a theory.
Also, I am not saying religion and science are empirically identical. I am suggesting that they share common attributes.
And I am straight up telling you that they do not. If you believe that they do it is only because you understand neither. They’re not even comparable.
Religion is all about certainty. Usually false certainty. At best unverifiable “certainty”.
Science is all about perplexity. Honest perplexity.
The cult of today is science and atheism.
Nope. Not a cult. And repeatedly calling it that will not make it so.
Why can’t religious people ever think in anything but religious terms? How, exactly, does one “worship” atheism when the very definition of atheism is that there’s nothing’s whatsoever to worship? “Oh great and powerful nothing whatsoever, please don’t bother to grant me the things I want and protect me from the things I don’t. Because you can’t. because you don’t exist.” Why can’t you see how that doesn’t even work?
For that matter, how does one worship money? Do they pile it all up in a temple and pour virgin goats blood on it while singing its praises? Of course not. They spend it. That’s not worship. It’s utility.
Science is cult like, because if you question their theories and postulates, people like yourself get visibly perturbed over it.
Wrong. You are confusing excitement for perturbation. The best times in science are when the unexpected happens. On the contrary, it’s the religious who become perturbed when the rational tell them: “Prove it.”
At most rational people get annoyed when the gullible continue to repeat the same baseless assertions without ever offering any actual evidence to back their position up. And “muh holy book says” or “I seen bigfoot” are not actual evidence. But that’s all the religious have got.
If someone questions the big bang like this: “I doubt the big bang because I’ve discovered a whole new class of galaxies very far out that are blue shifted towards us,” science would be all over that s~~~ looking for those blue shifted galaxies. But science gets tired of refuting over and over again retarded claims of: “I doubt the big bang because muh holy book.”
Are you starting to see my point?
You don’t have a point. All you have are the same baseless assertions repeated ad-nauseum.
They are all f~~~ing theories, and nothing more than that.
Again you demonstrate you don’t know what a theory is.
Do you think anyone on this planet, is remotely qualified to make assertions about the origins of an Infinite Universe?
I just f~~~ing told you how. Are you really that intentionally stupid? It’s not about “qualifications”. It’s about observations. Observations that you could make yourself if you would ever stop wallowing in smug ignorance and look for yourself.
But just because you choose to be willfully ignorant, don’t assume everyone else is ignorant as well.
You make your arguments based on baseless assertions and assume everyone else does the same. And you are wrong about that as well.
Since every place in the universe is flying away from every other place, there has to be a point in the past where it was all the same place. If you see a ball flying to your right, it means it’s coming from your left. It’s the only logical conclusion. Do you have a different explanation? Where do you think the ball is coming from?
And if everything really was squished up all together, there would be consequences of that. It would result in things like omnidirectional background radiation. We hadn’t yet detected this when the big bang was first observed, but the big bang predicted that it should be there. In fact that was one of the strongest arguments against it originally – nobody had ovserved this background radiation. But then, surprise surprise, we found it: omnidirectional background radiation f~~~ing everywhere. Just as predicted by the big bang.
I’m old school, and still refer to it as bulls~~~.
In other words, you’re willfully ignorant.
And I will give you the scientific answer to that statement. You claim it’s all “bulls~~~”.
PROVE IT.
Repeated assertions are not proof. Do you actually have anything else to offer?
An argument is only useful if you can take it to Vegas, and you could have made a lot of money back in the 1950s betting on the existence of omnidirectional background radiation. You will never make any money there trying to bet on the existence of god.
I think it’s a GOOD discussion to get yourself thinking, and in critical thinking. Getting back to the original post, was irreligious Hitler the cause of all those WWII deaths, or the CHRISTIANS who followed him? People need to think for themselves, as individuals, to determine what is right or wrong, not follow a person. That is one reason why I dislike blind nationalism.
Getting back on point, there are good and moral atheists, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I’ve already presented my evidence that secularism doesn’t promote violence in the world today — countries that are highly secular, but do not have high homicide rates. I think secularism COULD promote violence if secularists elected to persecute religious groups–we saw such persecution in the Soviet Union — the communists wanted only ONE power center — no competing power centers, whether civic OR religious — but that was more about POWER than religion. One could also argue the conquest of North and South America and wonton killing of native populations, was motivated by thinking that our God is the true God, but you could also argue it was all about material gain, just like most other conquests in human history.
Similarly, religious groups often persecute each other, AND secularists — especially extremist movements like Wahabbism, which I do consider to be evil.
X11: You cannot prove the universe existed billions of years ago because we cannot observe the past. You CAN estimate the age of the universe based upon its expansion rate, and through other means. This isn’t certainty; it’s a best estimate with the best facts and theories we have available at any given time. As more observations are made, the uncertainty narrows further.
Could a Sky Daddy have created the earth and stars in motion, all emanating from a central point, with light already being transmitted billions of light-years away from the star that emitted it to create the perception of a Big Bang? And created a uniform cosmic background radiation? Yes, that’s all possible. Most scientists go by Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is usually correct. And why did God create these illusions? Why did God create a universe of stars and galaxies, nebulas, and even all the ‘extra’ planets beyond sun, moon, and Earth in our own solar system? It is a useful exercise to pose such difficult questions.
Nobody is saying the Universe is ‘trillions’ of years old as you alluded to; estimates converge on just under 14 billion years. Even 1 trillion is 1,000 billion and thus 71 times any modern estimates. That said, this has little to do with religion, other than ‘literalist’ beliefs. I’ve known plenty of PhD scientists and researchers; most are atheists, but those that believe in God are more like Deists or believe in God as nature, like Einstein. Few are rigid ‘denominationalists’ or literalists who believe in, say, a 6,000 year Earth.
Sternorian: Science is not a cult, because one theory can overtake another, the way relativity provided a better explanation than classical mechanics, for particles moving at high velocities. And the way in which quantum mechanics provides a better model for interactions at a small scale. The strong force and weak force — very different than forces on large statically charged bodies obeying a simple inverse square law, which was understood long before quantum mechanics.
A ‘cult’ is centered around rigid beliefs and/or a personality; science is centered on provable hypothesis — the body of knowledge is ever-growing, very different than a fixed dogma. Einstein’s Relativity won the day due to explanatory power, real world experiments, not due to Einstein’s personality. Cold Fusion was debunked because nobody could replicate the results, to cite but two examples.
Sidecar: You get it, you must be a scientist — I’m an engineer. Science is not ‘fixed’, it is ever-evolving based on new findings. A good example for the non-scientists: Take the age of the earth. Lord Kelvin inaccurately predicted it, based on time required to cool a molten earth and heat imparted by the sun; a thermodynamic model — he did not account for the as-yet-unknown phenomena of radioactive decay in the 1860’s, and so, came up with the 20-400 million year range, grossly erroneous. Once radioactivity was discovered and understood, better estimates were obtainable. Science is a PROCESS, not an endpoint.
Science is all about perplexity. Honest perplexity.
“Let me control the text books, and I will control the state.” – Adolf Hitler
Here is Rupert Sheldrake addressing the fact that the big bang is a tissue of assumption and speculation. Exactly what I have been saying.
“And so they now have arrived at the position that 96% of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy. Who’s nature is totally unknown to us. The matter and energy you and I learned about at school is less than 4% of reality. So how do we know that the total amount of dark energy is conserved or is the same, can be converted to regular matter and energy.
Can regular matter and energy disappear and turn into dark matter and energy. Nobody has a clue. Therefore this fixed law, the assumption that it’s all the same. Sounds really solid. Unquestionable. But when you think about it, it turns out to be really flaky and just a kind of illusion.”
“I do hang out with some cosmologists. And I do ask them this kind of thing. And I asked them, why do you have all this dark energy and matter and how can you just invent it? They said, well it’s not an invention, it’s a hypothesis. Well, that’s just quibbling over words. But then how do you know the big bang really happened? Well, the answer is it fits their equations. If you assume all the laws of nature are the same today as they were in the beginning and haven’t changed. You take the expanding universe as we can observe it today and you just crank it back in time, obviously it’s getting bigger and bigger now, so if you crank it back in time it gets smaller and smaller. Until you reach a point where it is vanishingly small. And that’s the big bang.
The whole thing is a tissue of assumption and speculation. It’s not a fact. It’s a theory and not very well supported by facts. There aren’t that many facts involved. And the dark matter and dark energy are theories. There is no independent theories for them, and nobody knows what they are.”
Fascinating stuff. Seems like a theory is not at all a form of proof. But you seem to believe that it is. And by your logic, I’m the one who does not understand the meaning of proof? Seriously?
I have listened to the science for and against. And there are gaping holes in these theories. To the degree that it easily rivals religious lore. Is no more provable than the stories found in religious texts.
Here is Rupert addressing the 10 dogmas in science. From his book the Science Delusion.
“The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in. This is a very wide spread belief in our society. It’s the kind of belief system that people say
‘I don’t believe in God, I believe in science.’ It’s a belief system which has now been spread to the entire world. But there is a conflict in the heart of science, as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis and collective investigation as science as a belief system or a world view. And unfortunately the world view aspect has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very life blood of the scientific endeavor. Since the late 19th century, science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief system or world view which is essentially that of materialism, philosophical materialism. And the sciences are wholly owned subsidiaries of the materialist world view. I think as we break out of it, the sciences will be regenerated.What I do in my book, The Science Delusion, is take the 10 dogmas or assumptions of science and turn them into questions. Seeing how well they stand up if you look at them scientifically. None of them stand up very well.”
And this last video, while not accurate on all counts. Certainly raises some excellent points and questions. It does a reasonable job at pointing out some of the holes, contradictions, found in the theories of science.
Debating something which is inherently speculative and without any sound basis in fact. Is not a good idea to begin with. You have your point of you. Which is rooted in the belief that scientific theory regarding the Big Bang constitutes proof. That science of today, has the ability to make assertions about things which took place billions of years ago. I completely disagree with this point of view. Stating that science lacks the instrumentation, technology and resources to prove the theories it posits. And that’s probably as far as this discourse is going to go, if we want to keep it outside of the realm of arguments and squabbling.
X11: You cannot prove the universe existed billions of years ago because we cannot observe the past. You CAN estimate the age of the universe based upon its expansion rate, and through other means. This isn’t certainty; it’s a best estimate with the best facts and theories we have available at any given time. As more observations are made, the uncertainty narrows further.
FrankOne, you raise excellent points. I agree with most of what you have written. Glad to have a neutral and objective voice in the dialogue. Yes, let’s return the focus of thread back to the OP’s question. As this tangent is not very productive.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
