.
i'm gonna be honest, i did not know you were a boy
i am not reading all that shit baddood;
Oh, I get those all the time too. 5thgrade;
Quote from: Snowy620 on October 28, 2010, 05:52:18 PM
akudood;
You precious. Can I keep you? I'll feed you and take care of you. <3
Can't say either side is better than the other
You both were pretty idiotic
Quote from: Snowy620 on October 28, 2010, 05:55:50 PM
I wasn't putting anything behind my argument, to be honest. doodhuh;
Sorry, didn't mean for that to sound so rude. I just meant you kinda provoked him and looked like the typical teenager mad at religion.
He was being serious >_<'
hey everyone he has imaginary friends
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 28, 2010, 06:00:03 PMtypical teenager mad at religion.
this is like, almost every atheist i've ever met.
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 06:18:56 PM
this is like, almost every atheist i've ever met.
because we have to deal with idiots loool
I'm not reading all that. Someone give me a paraphrase.
Quote from: Cookie on October 28, 2010, 06:21:28 PM
I'm not reading all that. Someone give me a paraphrase.
god is real believe or die
that is stupid
u jelly atheist?
Wow you came off like a huge asshole.
To be honest, athiests like you piss me off way more than over the top christians. Why can't people just accept that people believe in different shit? You're the one who commented on his status, cut him some slack.
I friend requested you.
Quote from: Strongbob on October 28, 2010, 06:24:51 PMWhy can't people just accept that people believe in different shit?
Proposition 8
telling him flat out there is no god is probably worse than him telling you there is
just shut the fuck up
hey it's like i'm really on /r/atheism
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 06:19:54 PM
because we have to deal with idiots loool
I don't know. Sometimes people go out of their way to cause trouble for somebody else and bring them down and make them feel worthless.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 06:22:07 PM
god is real believe or die
that is stupid
u jelly atheist?
Sounds like a 13~15 year old on facebook pretending to know what they're talking about.
Quote from: Live on October 28, 2010, 06:31:40 PM
I don't know. Sometimes people go out of their way to cause trouble for somebody else and bring them down and make them feel worthless.
Yeah, I stopped answering the door for Jehovah's Witnesses akudood;
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 06:33:28 PM
Yeah, I stopped answering the door for Jehovah's Witnesses akudood;
Everyone does though O_0 giggle;
Quote from: Live on October 28, 2010, 06:31:40 PM
I don't know. Sometimes people go out of their way to cause trouble for somebody else and bring them down and make them feel worthless.
I've moved on and no longer attempt to correct others with regard to religion. I have my own spirituality and sense of being. It is enough. I am not an atheist, but I am a believer in the common decency of man, and you don't need teaching to realize this.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 06:19:54 PM
because we have to deal with idiots loool
i respect agnostics.
my respect for atheists seems to wane as i get older. usually it's the other way around, i'd assume.
asshole atheism is only annoying irl.
Uhh that kids refers to Jesus as Yahweh. Yahweh is God not Jesus. Maybe he believes in the Holy Trinity then yeah I guess you could kinda refer to Jesus as Yahweh.
You should have jumped on him when he said Darwin's prayers weren't answered and asked him why. His argument sucked though, especially the story about his mom: This happened so it's for sure because of God.
btw it seems like you don't know much about religion either since you did not provide a good argument. You should have explained the big bang theory (seems like you don't know much of it though) and evolution.
Both of you need to actually think about religion before just saying "HURR IM RITE U WRONG"
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 07:08:22 PM
i respect agnostics.
my respect for atheists seems to wane as i get older. usually it's the other way around, i'd assume.
you mean agnostics whose logic could be applied to every other god or mythical being or ghosts or aliens yet they chose not to believe in those
or agnostics who fall under the subset of atheism
also i like how just telling someone that god isn't real in a comment on facebook is the point where atheists are assholes but apparently implying one's life cannot be happy or good without god isn't assholish.
or passing laws to enforce religious morality
why is it that the threshold for atheists being an asshole always seems to be much lower than what religious people get away with on a daily basis
Because atheists are in the minority? der
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 07:54:17 PM
Because atheists are in the minority? der
better a muslin who believes in god then a heathen
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 07:56:17 PM
better a muslin who believes in god then a heathen
prrty much
I think the only reason religion is so popular is because it gives people goals (in a way). Rewards them for being good and makes them feel like they're a part of something bigger. Know what I mean?
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 07:52:27 PM
you mean agnostics whose logic could be applied to every other god or mythical being or ghosts or aliens yet they chose not to believe in those
appropriate standards of evidence. in other words, common sense. fairies and pixies do not apply, as their abstract services are rather meaningless.
Quote from: Socks on October 28, 2010, 08:09:30 PM
appropriate standards of evidence. in other words, common sense. fairies and pixies do not apply, as their abstract services are rather meaningless.
thor
yahweh
krishna
færies
what are the standards of evidence and common sense required for some that aren't for others
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 08:17:04 PM
what are the standards of evidence and common sense required for some that aren't for others
i have no intention of arguing this matter with you, so i'll simply clarify my previous statement. when o
ne thinks of the divine, the fundamental reason for doing so is to ponder creation--our genesis. in this sense we cannot escape our reality, of beginning and end, but we can wonder where that rule came from and why it is here. you cannot deny that this is a powerful and meaningful question, not limited to the domain of any practice. unless the possible existence of fairies serves some similar function, they are nothing more than theoretical phantoms which have no persuasive relevance.
Celtic lore speaks highly of færies
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 07:52:27 PM
also i like how just telling someone that god isn't real in a comment on facebook is the point where atheists are assholes but apparently implying fuck's life cannot be happy or good without god isn't assholish.
or passing laws to enforce religious morality
why is it that the threshold for atheists being an asshole always seems to be much lower than what religious people get away with on a daily basis
But it was kinda obvious that he was just posting there to start something. Or hoping that something would get started.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 07:52:27 PM
you mean agnostics whose logic could be applied to every other god or mythical being or ghosts or aliens yet they chose not to believe in those
or agnostics who fall under the subset of atheism
also i like how just telling someone that god isn't real in a comment on facebook is the point where atheists are assholes but apparently implying fuck's life cannot be happy or good without god isn't assholish.
or passing laws to enforce religious morality
why is it that the threshold for atheists being an asshole always seems to be much lower than what religious people get away with on a daily basis
because religious people dont get away with a whole lot on a daily basis. i dunno about where you live, but here if you even express your theism in the slightest people will laugh at you. the mere mentioning of jesus is funny.
i think we all love the play the victim. because it's almost as fun as throwing down the race card. it's easy to blame others. at the end of the day, the only REAL victims in the world are the jews. because lol jews.
the people chose to pass prop 8. whether or not you agree with them pretty much doesn't matter. and btw the two bold words are both very different, so i guess that's where the problem is.
the whole point of agnosticism is that there's probably some divine being that orchestrated some sort of beginning of life. you can't just pick a god and be happy with it, they (in theory) looked at all of the religions and didnt find any that made logical sense to them. so they say, atheism assumes too much happened based off of chance, and the thought of a god that likes circumcized penises is strange, so let's assume that it's something else.
there is a middle ground. the thought that there isn't is pretty ignorant.
I remember when i had my first beer.
How about that crazy California with their crazy prop 8 and prop 19.
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:06:20 PM
How about that crazy California with their crazy prop 8 and prop 19.
go to europe. democracy sux, im sorry
im too old and tired for these kind of debates. so i dunno if i'll partake. i dunno, depends on how senile im feeling.
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:08:46 PM
go to europe. democracy sux, im sorry
They don't have democracies in Europe?
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:08:46 PM
go to europe. democracy sux, im sorry
I wouldn't go as far as to say we're a
democracy here in Amerikaland.
Quote from: Fandango on October 28, 2010, 09:10:28 PM
I wouldn't go as far as to say we're a democracy here in Amerikaland.
What are we?
Oh hey some guy tried to convert me on the streets today too...
He was trying to sell some book on Hinduism I believe... I could pay him any amount for it... It looked kind of cool so I was tempted, but I would have only paid a dollar for it and that seemed like it would have been mean. He was a pretty poor salesman though, saying generic things like "you look like a cool guy" and "oh your major is political science? awesome!"
The political science being awesome part totally cost him akudood;
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:09:27 PM
They don't have democracies in Europe?
europe isn't as religious as america. did you not know this?
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:12:28 PM
What are we?
I dont know. A democratic republic. giggle;
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:01:14 PM
because religious people dont get away with a whole lot on a daily basis. i dunno about where you live, but here if you even express your theism in the slightest people will laugh at you. the mere mentioning of jesus is funny.
oh it must be so awkward being part of the 85% of the population
Quotethe people chose to pass prop 8. whether or not you agree with them pretty much doesn't matter.
i thought the point was something about other people's beliefs and why atheists are such assholes or something.
though i guess we can use proposition 39439 which passes laws based on and funded by atheists as an example of those asshole atheitss
Quoteand btw the two bold words are both very different, so i guess that's where the problem is.
yeah i mean saying a fictional being isn't real is so much assholish than trying to tell a person that their life sucks and they are unhappy
Quotethe whole point of agnosticism is that there's probably some divine being that orchestrated some sort of beginning of life.
wait what
Quoteyou can't just pick a god and be happy with it, they (in theory) looked at all of the religions and didnt find any that made logical sense to them. so they say, atheism assumes too much happened based off of chance, and the thought of a god that likes circumcized penises is strange, so let's assume that it's something else.
are you making up what agnosticism is
Quoteatheism assumes too much happened based off of chance
methinks you
doth protest too much listen to too many apologetic arguments
Quote
there is a middle ground. the thought that there isn't is pretty ignorant.
too lazy to find that 1-7 thing.
though i think it's more ignorant to give equal credence of the belief of something in spite of the lack of supporting evidence and the lack of believe of something due to the lack of supporting evidence
Quote from: YPR on October 28, 2010, 09:14:37 PM
Oh hey some guy tried to convert me on the streets today too...
He was trying to sell some book on Hinduism I believe... I could pay him any amount for it... It looked kind of cool so I was tempted, but I would have only paid a dollar for it and that seemed like it would have been mean. He was a pretty poor salesman though, saying generic things like "you look like a cool guy" and "oh your major is political science? awesome!"
The political science being awesome part totally cost him akudood;
wait what the lol they have hindus in america converting people?
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:15:28 PM
europe isn't as religious as america. did you not know this?
What does this have to do with democracy sucking and me moving to Europe?
Do you mean those props would be more likely to pass in Europe?
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 09:19:04 PM
wait what the lol they have hindus in america converting people?
Yes, I believe they're Bhakti. Not so much converting as trying to sell a book of stories about the Hindu gods I think confuseddood;
They're really nice anyway girl;
Completely unrelated maybe, but I met some Tibetan Buddhists last year and they were the funniest, warmest people I have ever met.
Quote from: Fandango on October 28, 2010, 09:27:50 PM
Completely unrelated maybe, but I met some Tibetan Buddhists last year and they were the funniest, warmest people I have ever met.
I bet all Tibetan Buddhists are just like that.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 09:19:04 PM
oh it must be so awkward being part of the 85% of the population
They're not quite as vocal as half the asshole atheist i've met are.
Quotei thought the point was something about other people's beliefs and why atheists are such assholes or something.
you should know me by now i never remember the point of what im arguing
Quotethough i guess we can use proposition 39439 which passes laws based on and funded by atheists as an example of those asshole atheitss
what does this mean
Quoteyeah i mean saying a fictional being isn't real is so much assholish than trying to tell a person that their life sucks and they are unhappy
you said implying and telling. im trying to make a point out of that. what it comes down to is essentially telling the other party that they're stupid. would you rather someone told you that you're a moron, or that they implied it? being told straight out is hard hitting, having it implied is just kind of awkward and degrading. they're both not nice, but, oh well.
Quotewait what
are you making up what agnosticism is
agnosticism is belief that there's some sort of divine force that acts without having a sort of religion set up to worship him. what else would it be.
Quotemethinks you doth protest too much listen to too many apologetic arguments
i dont understand yo
oh
wait wait wait, how could atheism
not operate off of chance? how else could it be organized without the belief in an organizer? big bang happened by chance, earth was formed by chance, earth became inhabitable instead of mars and venus because it ended up just far away from the sun, microorganisms evolved because of that.
it all roots in an event that could or could not have happened. but it did. correct
Quotetoo lazy to find that 1-7 thing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quotethough i think it's more ignorant to give equal credence of the belief of something in spite of the lack of supporting evidence and the lack of believe of something due to the lack of supporting evidence
of course you do why would you not
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:24:19 PM
What does this have to do with democracy sucking and me moving to Europe?
Do you mean those props would be more likely to pass in Europe?
what do you think
Quote from: YPR on October 28, 2010, 09:26:19 PM
Yes, I believe they're Bhakti. Not so much converting as trying to sell a book of stories about the Hindu gods I think confuseddood;
They're really nice anyway girl;
what the hell is wrong with you passing up those books and not giving the guy any money?
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:28:24 PM
I bet all Tibetan Buddhists are just like that.
You get the feeling that they were absolutely completely utterly genuine when they talk. There was no bullshit. When they said they were interested in what you were saying, they were. It was........satisfying.
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:29:42 PM
what do you think
I think you should be more clear.
Quote from: Fandango on October 28, 2010, 09:30:55 PM
You get the feeling that they were absolutely completely utterly genuine when they talk. There was no bullshit. When they said they were interested in what you were saying, they were. It was........satisfying.
That's how they trick you into their vans full of candy.
Quote from: Socks on October 28, 2010, 09:30:17 PM
what the hell is wrong with you passing up those books and not giving the guy any money?
I only had 13 dollars, all of which I owed to a friend saddood;
Damn it Socks you sold me better than he did :'(
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:33:12 PM
I think you should be more clear.
That's how they trick you into their vans full of candy.
Oh.
I wish I knew that before they coaxed me into their van full of candy.
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:33:12 PM
I think you should be more clear.
europe = not religious
america = religious
america = no gay rights, contradicts bible
europe = not religious, doesnt care about bible, chances are theyre cool with gays because why else hate them
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:34:53 PM
europe = not religious
america = religious
america = no gay rights, contradicts bible
europe = not religious, doesnt care about bible, chances are theyre cool with gays because why else hate them
But my brain is teensy, teeny small.
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:34:53 PM
europe = not religious
america = religious
america = no gay rights, contradicts bible
europe = not religious, doesnt care about bible, chances are theyre cool with gays because why else hate them
:(
Hey man, let's cut back on the thrusters and slow down a bit.
i dont even remember why im pissy
but chances are i have a bad reason.
now im pissed because i always reuse the same figures of speech and it's annoying because then i feel retarded.
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:38:34 PM
i dont even remember why im pissy
but chances are i have a bad reason.
I think you will develop Alzheimer's
Quote from: YPR on October 28, 2010, 09:33:51 PM
I only had 13 dollars, all of which I owed to a friend saddood;
Damn it Socks you sold me better than he did :'(
knowing myself i would have still given him that money and accepted the books genuinely, as if at bargain and under gift. then i would have worried about paying my friend all the way home. i guess i'm prone to being extremely generous and deceptively naive when approached for compassionate services, especially by people at miserable ends.
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:39:29 PM
I think you will develop Alzheimer's
i think im already retarded in some way im not entirely aware of yet
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:41:13 PM
i think im already retarded in some way im not entirely aware of yet
It's never too early to begin decaying. giggle;
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:34:53 PM
europe = not religious
america = religious
america = no gay rights, contradicts bible
europe = not religious, doesnt care about bible, chances are theyre cool with gays because why else hate them
This is really a broad generalization...
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 09:29:42 PM
They're not quite as vocal as half the asshole atheist i've met are.
confirmation bias methinks
if they're not quite as vocal then why was obama's religion such a huge issue in the last election
why is gay marriage such a huge issue
why do individuals of certain religious (or non religious) backgrounds have no chance of winning elections in their districts?
Quoteyou should know me by now i never remember the point of what im arguing
that is expected from
your kind akudood;
Quotewhat does this mean
such a proposition doesn't exist. i can't think of any legislation that intends to restrict the equality or freedom of people to attempt to impose "atheist values".
the inverse of banning gay marriage--allowing it--doesn't force any values upon christians does it. they are perfectly free not to get a gay marriage. oh no those evil atheists
you said implying and telling. im trying to make a point out of that. what it comes down to is essentially telling the other party that they're stupid. would you rather someone told you that you're a moron, or that they implied it? being told straight out is hard hitting, having it implied is just kind of awkward and degrading. they're both not nice, but, oh well.
Quoteagnosticism is belief that there's some sort of divine force that acts without having a sort of religion set up to worship him. what else would it be.
uh no it isn't?
agnostic theism maybe but not agnosticism as a whole...what you described is far from agnosticism
Quotei dont understand yo
oh
wait wait wait, how could atheism not operate off of chance? how else could it be organized without the belief in an organizer? big bang happened by chance, earth was formed by chance, earth became inhabitable instead of mars and venus because it ended up just far away from the sun, microorganisms evolved because of that.
no one knows why the big bang was formed, however if it wasn't formed no one would be here to say it was formed by chance, so it either happened or it didn't so if it happened the chance is irrelevant.
formation of the earth is not chance. such a process has been repeated throughout the universe. hundreds of extrasolar planets and planets in our own solar system, as well as observed formation of stars and their circumstellar disks show that this is not chance.
about earth being inhabitable just because it's "just far enough away from the sun" is a stupid argument. venus and mars also fit in that zone as do many discovered extrasolar planets. WAIT JMV ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IT ISN'T CHANCE THAT LIFE AROSE ON A PLANET THAT WAS IN THE GOLDILOCKS ZONE? this probably still doesn't make much sense to you if you think a sky wizard did it.
uh let me try to put it in simple terms. if you line 100 people up and put a gun on a pivot with that can rotate 5.6Ã,º left and right and start firing the gun. is it chance that someone in the range of the pivot got hit and not the 99th person in line? sure it's possible that no one could get hit, but being in the range where being hit is possible is not chance because something outside the range wasn't hit.
of course with planets it gets more complicated but your example is stupid
you mean microorganisms evolved on a planet where life formed rather than one that didn't? DAMN WHAT CHANCE IS THAT.
Quote
it all roots in an event that could or could not have happened. but it did. correct
lol go take a science class and a statistics class sir
Quote
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
i was talking more about tardnosticism and whatever you made up
imo god is an opinion and u jsut need to open you're mind too it
Quote from: Nyerp on October 28, 2010, 10:00:22 PM
imo god is an opinion and u jsut need to open you're mind too it
Your open onion is invalid
Quote from: Nyerp on October 28, 2010, 10:00:22 PM
imo god is an opinion and u jsut need to open you're mind too it
jmv is such an asshole
imo understanding science is not required when you have faith and you can say the atheists are close minded akudood;
atheists should just open they're mind to it man. they need to stop being so close mined to ignorance of how science works and fall back on faith because the misunderstanding is not making sense
that is just my equallyvalid opinion though
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 09:52:01 PM
confirmation bias methinks
if they're not quite as vocal then why was obama's religion such a huge issue in the last election
why is gay marriage such a huge issue
why do individuals of certain religious (or non religious) backgrounds have no chance of winning elections in their districts?
that is expected from your kind akudood;
such a proposition doesn't exist. i can't think of any legislation that intends to restrict the equality or freedom of people to attempt to impose "atheist values".
the inverse of banning gay marriage--allowing it--doesn't force any values upon christians does it. they are perfectly free not to get a gay marriage. oh no those evil atheists
you said implying and telling. im trying to make a point out of that. what it comes down to is essentially telling the other party that they're stupid. would you rather someone told you that you're a moron, or that they implied it? being told straight out is hard hitting, having it implied is just kind of awkward and degrading. they're both not nice, but, oh well.
uh no it isn't?
agnostic theism maybe but not agnosticism as a whole...what you described is far from agnosticism
no fuck knows why the big bang was formed, however if it wasn't formed no fuck would be here to say it was formed by chance, so it either happened or it didn't so if it happened the chance is irrelevant.
formation of the earth is not chance. such a process has been repeated throughout the universe. hundreds of extrasolar planets and planets in our own solar system, as well as observed formation of stars and their circumstellar disks show that this is not chance.
about earth being inhabitable just because it's "just far enough away from the sun" is a stupid argument. venus and mars also fit in that zone as do many discovered extrasolar planets. WAIT JMV ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IT ISN'T CHANCE THAT LIFE AROSE ON A PLANET THAT WAS IN THE GOLDILOCKS ZONE? this probably still doesn't make much sense to you if you think a sky wizard did it.
uh let me try to put it in simple terms. if you line 100 people up and put a gun on a pivot with that can rotate 5.6º left and right and start firing the gun. is it chance that someone in the range of the pivot got hit and not the 99th person in line? sure it's possible that no fuck could get hit, but being in the range where being hit is possible is not chance because something outside the range wasn't hit.
of course with planets it gets more complicated but your example is stupid
you mean microorganisms evolved on a planet where life formed rather than fuck that didn't? DAMN WHAT CHANCE IS THAT.
lol go take a science class and a statistics class siri was talking more about tardnosticism and whatever you made up
i dont know
it's ok you are like 15
oh there are more to that post
i go off the observable and the empirical. filling the gaps with the unobservable and the unempirical is not reasonable.
i know to the degree that i know any other deity is also factual.
uh i would say 6, 6.5 if you find that 1-7 scale
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 10:24:06 PM
it's ok you are like 15
I think he said he was 15, unless you mean red dicks.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 10:24:06 PM
it's ok you are like 15
17,
and a halfbtw i didnt get your example with the gun can you explain it to me
also why do i need to know stats i dont get it
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 10:25:55 PM
17, and a half
and you know the world baddood;
Quote
btw i didnt get your example with the gun can you explain it to me
[/quote]if someone is in a position to get shot and another person not in a position to get shot, the person in the position to get shot has an infinitely higher probability of getting shot than the person who was not in such a position.
now say that there were hundreds of millions in each group. if one person got shot in that group yes there is chance and probability that that 1 individual got shot but for any individual to get shot is a different story.
Quote
also why do i need to know stats i dont get it
billions of planets over billions of light years over billions of years.
probability, causality, etc.
do you believe our current understanding of physics is correct? in the past scientists have been entirely wrong because the system they followed was wrong. what makes now different from then? 500 years down the line, what are the chances that they won't be laughing at our attempts to understand the universe?
Quote from: Khadafi on October 28, 2010, 10:35:35 PM
and you know the world baddood;
of course i read therefore i am
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
do you believe our current understanding of physics is correct? in the past scientists have been entirely wrong because the system they followed was wrong. what makes now different from then? 500 years down the line, what are the chances that they won't be laughing at our attempts to understand the universe?
of course i read therefore i am
Newton did the best he could with the efforts and discoveries of those before him, and tried to figure out how the universe works. Einstein did the same thing, and so did the teams and teams and teams of scientists who fleshed out particle physics in the mid-20th century. Every effort matters because every scientist is working with a model that works, at least for everything that has been observed (or choose to observe). Even if relativity is entirely wrong, it will still inform and define the extent of the next model that comes out. All of that scientific effort is worthwhile steps.
Quote from: TheSequel on October 28, 2010, 09:12:28 PM
What are we?
Capitalism?
I do not know a lot about any religion, but I am not 'Atheist' because I know I believe in something definately. Just do not know what religion. doodhuh;
Also, why snowy be so mean? huhdoodame;
hi god here. the only people who are right atm are the mormans. thats all cya
Quote from: Fandango on October 28, 2010, 09:27:50 PM
Completely unrelated maybe, but I met some Tibetan Buddhists last year and they were the funniest, warmest people I have ever met.
I have a friend that's a Buddhist, but I'm not sure to what branch--he has told me there's plenty of them.
He found me a branch that was suited for me, but the organization's miles from where I live. ;__;
He's also very good with providing insight and answers that fit in with my value system.
Quote from: Snowy620 on October 28, 2010, 05:48:16 PM
I'll put it in spoilers because it fuckhuge.
It reminds me of typical, preteen suburban youth. 5thgrade;
I read the entire thread while listening to Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 in F major, BWV 1047: Allegro. I imagined you all with silly accents that you would hear on Monty Python.
Other than that I have nothing to offer to this discussion. 5thgrade;
Quote from: Snowy620 on October 29, 2010, 09:20:14 AM
He got too pushy. :(
No you comment on his post, you intentionally say what you say to make him feel more horrible for your enjoy. That is very mean. >_<'
The proper response would have been to not say anything at all, but you let it get out of hand. Nice going.
Quoteabout earth being inhabitable just because it's "just far enough away from the sun" is a stupid argument. venus and mars also fit in that zone as do many discovered extrasolar planets.
Ummm, no they don't. Did you not think about the horrible weather conditions on Venus, or maybe the composition of Earth like the gases it colided with may not be the same gases that formed venus or maybe the matter is not the same? And yes they are looking for other stars with planets that are around the same distance away from the star and based off the stars size, but the closest star, Alpha Centauri is like 15 lightyears away so it's really hard to tell if there are planets orbiting the binary star system. We can do it, but it's hard.
Quote from: XLR on October 28, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
do you believe our current understanding of physics is correct? in the past scientists have been entirely wrong because the system they followed was wrong. what makes now different from then? 500 years down the line, what are the chances that they won't be laughing at our attempts to understand the universe?
of course i read therefore i am
yes I believe they are close to correct, because we've input information on how stars should move into a computer because actually waiting for stars to move would be impossible in a lifetime, and the data shows what happens to the stars, and if variables and physics were wrong then the charts would probably be way off, but we assume everything is correct because we got the most logical answer out of it.
Sorry if this doesn't really make sense, but here's another explaination that may be more articulate;
scientists theorized how the stars would move and how they would turn into giants or super giants and when they would die off and become dwarfs or brown stars or whatever, and when they did all the research and doppler effect stuff to find the direction it was moving, the computer results were what they were expecting. Leading me to believe they were correct and our physics are correct. Again sorry I don't have hard facts, just pulling what I learned in astronomy class, which was very interesting and reinforced my belief in the big bang theory. Let me remind you that there are billions of stars in our fuck galaxy, and hundreds of galaxies are visible with telescopes. If you look at a space image, and a star looks more like a line than a dot, that is a galaxy.
We also believe that if we can see far enough into space, we can see the birth of the universe. Because the stars that we see in the sky are just images of what they looked like years ago. Example, if Alpha-Centauri is 15 lightyears away, it takes 15 years for that light to reach us. We are seeing what it looks like 15 years ago.
It's a little hard to get your head around, but it is my current belief; I'm open to it being wrong, because it's just something I was told by some dude who's really into stars.
Quote from: Methree on October 30, 2010, 06:42:52 PM
We also believe that if we can see far enough into space, we can see the birth of the universe. Because the stars that we see in the sky are just images of what they looked like years ago. Example, if Alpha-Centauri is 15 lightyears away, it takes 15 years for that light to reach us. We are seeing what it looks like 15 years ago.
It's a little hard to get your head around, but it is my current belief; I'm open to it being wrong, because it's just something I was told by some dude who's really into stars.
if a giant mirror was placed far far away in space can people look into the past? confuseddood;
ya
like all the stars we see are 200000000000000000000 years old
Just because a theory models the results really well, even perfectly, doesn't make it true. It just means it fits the data; whether all the quark models actually reflect what's going on in nature has yet to be seen. Certain things have worked out fantastically, like modeling the weirdnesses in the orbit of Mercury, and in Doppler shift and the expansion of the universe, but often even more crazy and unverifiable things get theorized, and observational physics takes years to get up. So yeah, tldr trust the power of the model but don't assume it's cold hard truth (whatever that is).
The only truth is the one most likely. Science deals in probabilities, belief is all about conviction. It's why my badge weighs more, when it is lighter.
You shouldn't have bothered. There is no point in even talking about religion anymore, it only causes people to get mad as to who is right and if you happen to be an atheist yo are automatically labeled an asshole. At the end of any argument it boils down to the fact that if there isn't any sort of proof, evidence, or even the smallest amount of science in it, then you should probably not revolve your life around it under false protection and hope. Honestly I could give less of a care about people's beliefs, but you gotta wonder what makes them pick and choose from their holy books what to follow and their blind "faith". Also, you did kind of come off as a dick, no need to incite an argument.
WHO GIVES A SHIT
japan. bitch. noob. owned.
Quote from: Sheets are Swaying on October 30, 2010, 08:19:34 PM
Just because a theory models the results really well, even perfectly, doesn't make it true. So yeah, tldr trust the power of the model but don't assume it's cold hard truth (whatever that is).
This.
[/quote]
Quote from: Analysis Paralysis on October 30, 2010, 07:49:14 PM
if a giant mirror was placed far far away in space can people look into the past? confuseddood;
i tried to really think about that, but the question is vague as is my answer; yes.
edit*** i think i figured it out. For one, we wouldn't see ourselves necessarily because the Earth doesn't emit light, so if we were looking for our star, the Sun, in the mirror we could find it, but if the mirror is say 10 lightyears away from the sun, it would take 10 years for the light to travel to the mirror, and 10 years for it to travel back. So we would see the sun 20 years ago.
Quote from: steal on October 31, 2010, 03:45:45 AM
I didn't read most of this thread, but in my experience I feel like it's just as ignorant to claim yourself as an atheist as it is to put faith behind a deity/religion.
THANK YOU
Quote from: steal on October 31, 2010, 03:45:45 AM
I didn't read most of this thread, but in my experience I feel like it's just as ignorant to claim yourself as an aghostist/a-unicornist as it is to put faith behind a paranormal
seems silly now doesn't it
once again disbelief in something due to absence of supporting empirical evidence is not comparable to belief in something in spite of the absence of such evidence
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
seems silly now doesn't it
once again disbelief in something due to absence of supporting empirical evidence is not comparable to belief in something in spite of lack absence of such evidence
I think he means that thinking that there is no possible way any kind of god could exist is just as ignorant as saying any kind of god exists.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 07:13:47 PM
seems silly now doesn't it
once again disbelief in something due to absence of supporting empirical evidence is not comparable to belief in something in spite of the absence of such evidence
THANK YOU
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 07:15:51 PM
I think he means that thinking that there is no possible way any kind of god could exist is just as ignorant as saying any kind of god exists.
saying there is no god is not the same as saying there is no possible way that any kind of god could exist.
99% of atheists have not made such a claim.
conversely, a huge majority of theists have much the claim that there is no possible way that anything could exist without a god.
hold on let me find the copypaste thing since people still seem not get it
QuoteContrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is
a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice,
it belongs in the same TAP or temporary agnosticism box as the
controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. God's
existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, dis-
coverable in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to
reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and
unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never
proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available
evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far
from 50 per cent.
Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities
seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God
along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum
is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven
milestones along the way.
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include
it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the
nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief
without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular
books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang).
Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one
to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence
category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number,
category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count
myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7-1 am agnostic only to
the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the
garden.
The spectrum of probabilities works well for TAP (temporary
agnosticism in practice). It is superficially tempting to place PAP
(permanent agnosticism in principle) in the middle of the spectrum,
with a 50 per cent probability of God's existence, but this is not
correct. PAP agnostics aver that we cannot say anything, one way
or the other, on the question of whether or not God exists. The
question, for PAP agnostics, is in principle unanswerable, and they
should strictly refuse to place themselves anywhere on the spectrum
of probabilities. The fact that I cannot know whether your red is
the same as my green doesn't make the probability 50 per cent. The
proposition on offer is too meaningless to be dignified with a prob-
ability. Nevertheless, it is a common error, which we shall meet
again, to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence
is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and
his non-existence are equiprobable.
oh then more lol russells teapot
[spoiler]
QuoteAnother way to express that error is in terms of the burden of
proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand
Russell's parable of the celestial teapot.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the
business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather
than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a
mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and
Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an
elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my
assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is
too small to be revealed even by our most powerful
telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my
assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable pre-
sumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I
should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, how-
ever, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in
ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday,
and instilled into the minds of children at school,
hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark
of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of
the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor
in an earlier time.
We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I
know, worships teapots;* but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to
declare our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot.
Yet strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for
sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away
from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotisin.
A friend, who was brought up a Jew and still observes the
sabbath and other Jewish customs out of loyalty to his heritage,
describes himself as a 'tooth fairy agnostic'. He regards God as no
more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either
hypothesis, and both are equally improbable. He is an a-theist to
exactly the same large extent that he is an a-fairyist. And agnostic
about both, to the same small extent.
[/spoiler]
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 07:21:17 PM
saying there is no god is not the same as saying there is no possible way that any kind of god could exist.
99% of atheists have not made such a claim.
conversely, a huge majority of theists have much the claim that there is no possible way that anything could exist without a god.
hold on let me find the copypaste thing since people still seem not get it
I was just trying to reword what he said...
However, isn't atheism the belief that there is no god?
Also, a lot of theists also have doubts. You're overly generalizing.
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 07:27:38 PM
I was just trying to reword what he said...
However, isn't atheism the belief that there is no god?
Also, a lot of theists also have doubts. You're overly generalizing.
trying to reword what he said doesn't make sense when such a rewording does not fit the context of the conversation
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god: such includes believing there is no god
there are billions of theists so even 1% is a lot. an over generalization is not such when people are killed due to those beliefs which should not occur in the presence of doubt.
and going back to the 1-7 thing i posted, you will find far more in 1 than you will find in 7.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 07:32:33 PM
trying to reword what he said doesn't make sense when such a rewording does not fit the context of the conversation
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god: such includes believing there is no god
there are billions of theists so even 1% is a lot. an over generalization is not such when people are killed due to those beliefs which should not occur in the presence of doubt.
and going back to the 1-7 thing i posted, you will find far more in 1 than you will find in 7.
You're too biased to have a conversation with on this subject.
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 07:35:22 PM
You're too biased to have a conversation with on this subject.
coughcoughi want to be like jung and have an identity from the past possess me cry;
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 07:35:22 PM
You're too biased to have a conversation with on this subject.
Ad hominem: surrogate for having ample supporting details for an argument since ~298,000BCE
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 08:06:02 PM
Ad hominem: surrogate for having ample supporting details for an argument since ~298,000BCE
You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 08:12:17 PM
You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.
PROOF
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 08:12:17 PM
You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.
young man it's not very wise to resort to insulting him akudood;
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 08:12:17 PM
You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.
ad hominem again you are a great debater
I do not always have to be right. I just do not argue when I have reasonable doubt which implies that I am incorrect. It's called
not being a moron.
I am not implying that only theists kill people for their beliefs. I am implying that if they had any
reasonable doubt concerning those beliefs they would not kill in the name of such beliefs. As demonstrated every day such is not the case and shows that many people will not doubt the existence of their deity. Conversely, very rarely do you hear of someone killing in the name of atheism since there is no set dogma labeling "the evil ones", "sinners", "enemies". I am not arguing that religious people are worse and atheists are better; the statement that theists kill in the name of theism is factual and based on thousands of years of history. No fuck justifies a war or crusade on the lack of belief in something. People cite Stalin and such as those who have murdered in the name of atheism. This is also historically incorrect as they targeted churches specifically for the reason that they detracted from the absolute authority of the state. This happens very frequently whether in a state-imposed atheism or a state run religion.
I am also anti-genocide am I disallowed from arguing the negative effects of genocide now? I am anti-homophobia. Am I unfit to discuss the flaws in homophobia? I am anti-flat earth. Is my argument in presenting opposing evidence ignorant?
how should i erase a bias? just accept everything some fuck says because their book tells me to? No, being educated--being intelligent--requires filtering out the shit and requiring evidence before mulling it over. It does not call for the act of hearing an idea or opinion and supposing it has equal value to pre-existing ones which may have much more research and backing into it.
Speaking of ignorance; how so? I am very aware of both scientific theory and theology; religious history or scientific discoveries.
I think you are the ignorant fuck relying on ad hominem attacks, miscellanea from the book of logical fallacies, and resistance to the idea of providing evidence and support for an argument.
Every time I argue religion with someone here some dumbass always resorts to the 'lol u so bias and close minded' yet how often do they ever offer fuck fucking piece of evidence to back up what they say? I provide numbers, stats, dates, people, journals, studies, theories, laws, etc. They provide a passage in a self citing book.
So fuck off with your "hurr durr ignorance" bullshit and learn that, contrary to a satirical thread, not all viewpoints are equal but all should offer evidence to back them up and rejecting such because of a lack of support is not ignorance or close mindedness.
I feel I have to repeat myself incessantly with this shit.
Quote from: Analysis Paralysis on October 31, 2010, 08:23:41 PM
young man it's not very wise to resort to insulting him akudood;
oh no plz dont ban what me ever shall i do
I'm reporting Jimmy for flaming
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 08:33:45 PM
ad hominem again you are a great debater
I do not always have to be right. I just do not argue when I have reasonable doubt which implies that I am incorrect. It's called not being a moron.
I am not implying that only theists kill people for their beliefs. I am implying that if they had any reasonable doubt concerning those beliefs they would not kill in the name of such beliefs. As demonstrated every day such is not the case and shows that many people will not doubt the existence of their deity. Conversely, very rarely do you hear of someone killing in the name of atheism since there is no set dogma labeling "the evil ones", "sinners", "enemies". I am not arguing that religious people are worse and atheists are better; the statement that theists kill in the name of theism is factual and based on thousands of years of history. No fuck justifies a war or crusade on the lack of belief in something. People cite Stalin and such as those who have murdered in the name of atheism. This is also historically incorrect as they targeted churches specifically for the reason that they detracted from the absolute authority of the state. This happens very frequently whether in a state-imposed atheism or a state run religion.
I am also anti-genocide am I disallowed from arguing the negative effects of genocide now? I am anti-homophobia. Am I unfit to discuss the flaws in homophobia? I am anti-flat earth. Is my argument in presenting opposing evidence ignorant?
how should i erase a bias? just accept everything some fuck says because their book tells me to? No, being educated--being intelligent--requires filtering out the shit and requiring evidence before mulling it over. It does not call for the act of hearing an idea or opinion and supposing it has equal value to pre-existing ones which may have much more research and backing into it.
Speaking of ignorance; how so? I am very aware of both scientific theory and theology; religious history or scientific discoveries.
I think you are the ignorant fuck relying on ad hominem attacks, miscellanea from the book of logical fallacies, and resistance to the idea of providing evidence and support for an argument.
Every time I argue religion with someone here some dumbass always resorts to the 'lol u so bias and close minded' yet how often do they ever offer fuck fucking piece of evidence to back up what they say? I provide numbers, stats, dates, people, journals, studies, theories, laws, etc. They provide a passage in a self citing book.
lol
[spoiler]sorry i had to giggle;[/spoiler]
Quote from: Thyme on October 31, 2010, 08:37:34 PM
lol
[spoiler]sorry i had to giggle;[/spoiler]
fag homoname
u mad?
lol
completely missing the point of my replies
good argument nick
Why has a mod not replied to my report?!
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 08:44:01 PM
good argument nick
I'm not arguing anything. You just didn't even take a look at what I was replying to.
oh snap it's the after-argument
Quote from: TheSequel on October 31, 2010, 08:44:11 PM
Why has a mod not replied to my report?!
becuz it would be too biased and ignorant.
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 08:44:31 PM
I'm not arguing anything. You just didn't even take a look at what I was replying to.
uh i quoted and replied to it but ok
you can have more ad hominem and throw in a few others if you want because it will make whatever you say that much more compelling
Quote from: TheSequel on October 31, 2010, 08:45:01 PM
oh snap it's the after-argument
you didnt read what i said you just quoted and replied
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 08:39:37 PM
i dont like idiots lol
i personally like to think he meant nick but idk
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 08:46:22 PM
uh i quoted and replied to it but ok
Not really, you went on a huge tangent, crying "Ad hominem!!!" the whole time.
Now to go back to what I was originally referring to
Quote99%of atheists have not made such a claim.
Quoteconversely, a huge majority of theists have much the claim that there is no possible way that anything could exist without a god.
you can't make such broad, sweeping assumptions.
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 08:54:06 PM
Not really, you went on a huge tangent, crying "Ad hominem!!!" the whole time.
I only actually said that when you didn't make any argument except claiming i was biased.
Unless that was some magical invisible text in there because the first mention of Ad Hominem was in reply to that post and you didn't make an argument there. nice try though.
it's ok that you have no actual argument and are just being a reactionist. larouche does it too.
Quote
you can't make such broad, sweeping assumptions.
i just did
and other than the 99% which is probably wrong but statistically the point remains there was no generalization or assumption
i dont even know what you are trying to argue except 'hurr dur ignorance becuz i dun know what it means'
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 09:00:15 PM
i dont even know what you are trying to argue except 'hurr dur ignorance becuz i dun know what it means'
I think there's the misunderstanding. I was never trying to make an argument out of anything in my original replies doodhuh;
YOU BRATS NEED JESUS IN YOUR LIFE.
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 09:04:00 PM
I think there's the misunderstanding. I was never trying to make an argument out of anything in my original replies doodhuh;
you tried to reword what steal said even though it would have made no sense in the context he replied to
and then somehow claimed i was making assumptions on what people think
loool
then you said i was ignorant or biased and claimed other stupid stuff
Quote from: Classique on October 31, 2010, 09:04:33 PM
YOU BRATS NEED JESUS IN YOUR LIFE.
Tyler, convert me to your ways. yes;
I'd bend over for Jesus.
What if Jesus had a small dick?
What's with all the lies people? Why make up stuff at all?
ad hominem
alien hominid
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 09:05:47 PM
you tried to reword what steal said even though it would have made no sense in the context he replied to
and then somehow claimed i was making assumptions on what people think
loool
then you said i was ignorant or biased and claimed other stupid stuff
I was rewording it because I didn't quite get it, and I was wondering if that is what he meant.
I claimed you were making assumptions after you were claiming to know every theists' and atheists' beliefs. Clearly we're not understanding each other so I think it's best to drop it to avoid further confusion.
you called me names and now want me to drop it
well you're a dick
who has dick parties in his dick circle of jerks
dick
[spoiler]claim confusion and get out of my awesome post akudood;
that's how it works akudood;
dick
[/spoiler]
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 09:06:49 PM
What if Jesus had a small dick?
I'd leave him for Satan.
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 09:15:44 PM
who has dick parties in his dick circle of jerks
you're just mad you never received an invitation
Quote from: Kapitän Deutschland on October 31, 2010, 09:16:37 PM
you're just mad you never received an invitation
i have jerk parties in a jerk circle of dicks
why would i want to go to a dick circle of jerks
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 09:17:31 PM
i have jerk parties in a jerk circle of dicks
why would i want to go to a dick circle of jerks
dont knock it until you tried it
take it to srs discussion u guise
I wasn't paying attention, who was calling who an ad homo? baddood;
jesus I hate myself
I was such a cunt akudood;
I should find him and say sorry.
there's some little jewish kid around here who walks around and asks "why aren't you jewish?????"
where are his parents
Quote from: Pancake Persona on November 09, 2012, 05:54:23 AM
there's some little jewish kid around here who walks around and asks "why aren't you jewish?????"
where are his parents
That sounds like me when I was younger, but it was more of me not knowing that not everyone was jewish and christain. befuddlement
why would you bump this myface;
where are the jew parents
Quote from: Tectite on November 09, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
why would you bump this myface;
I was looking for the time capsule and found this instead. goowan
found it
not bumping it until the 20th akudood;
Lol first time reading the first post
What a dick goowan
Quote from: Tectite on November 09, 2012, 10:16:28 AM
found it
not bumping it until the 20th akudood;
i thought we bumped it on the twelfth? huhdoodame;
Quote from: wawi on October 31, 2010, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: Khadafi on October 31, 2010, 09:05:47 PM
you tried to reword what steal said even though it would have made no sense in the context he replied to
and then somehow claimed i was making assumptions on what people think
loool
then you said i was ignorant or biased and claimed other stupid stuff
I was rewording it because I didn't quite get it, and I was wondering if that is what he meant.
I claimed you were making assumptions after you were claiming to know every theists' and atheists' beliefs. Clearly we're not understanding each other so I think it's best to drop it to avoid further confusion.
i remembered why i hated jmv now lol
he's always so inconsiderate for feelings for the benefit of reason cry;
Quote from: Snowy on October 28, 2010, 05:53:57 PM
Quote from: Classique on October 28, 2010, 05:53:19 PM
Oh, I get those all the time too. 5thgrade;
You precious. Can I keep you? I'll feed you and take care of you. <3
Kaz is taking care of me. baddood;
whoa whoa whoa
what is this
Musta been before Horse came into the picture.
Quote from: ClassicTyler on November 12, 2012, 06:07:50 PM
Musta been before Horse came into the picture.
WORLD WORLD YOU VE SEEN THEIR FACES, perfectly
Quote from: Aigis on November 09, 2012, 03:49:12 PM
Quote from: Snowy on October 28, 2010, 05:53:57 PM
Quote from: Classique on October 28, 2010, 05:53:19 PM
Oh, I get those all the time too. 5thgrade;
You precious. Can I keep you? I'll feed you and take care of you. <3
Kaz is taking care of me. baddood;
whoa whoa whoa
what is this
it's back when nuthuggers weren't my pants, they were your hands.
Quote from: Snowy on November 12, 2012, 07:33:17 PM
Quote from: Aigis on November 09, 2012, 03:49:12 PM
Quote from: Snowy on October 28, 2010, 05:53:57 PM
Quote from: Classique on October 28, 2010, 05:53:19 PM
Oh, I get those all the time too. 5thgrade;
You precious. Can I keep you? I'll feed you and take care of you. <3
Kaz is taking care of me. baddood;
whoa whoa whoa
what is this
it's back when nuthuggers weren't my pants, they were your hands.
where do you buy your comebacks from the lame comeback store?
Quote from: N o t S i d on November 12, 2012, 07:34:39 PM
Quote from: Snowy on November 12, 2012, 07:33:17 PM
Quote from: Aigis on November 09, 2012, 03:49:12 PM
Quote from: Snowy on October 28, 2010, 05:53:57 PM
Quote from: Classique on October 28, 2010, 05:53:19 PM
Oh, I get those all the time too. 5thgrade;
You precious. Can I keep you? I'll feed you and take care of you. <3
Kaz is taking care of me. baddood;
whoa whoa whoa
what is this
it's back when nuthuggers weren't my pants, they were your hands.
where do you buy your comebacks from the lame comeback store?
no, that's actually a conversation we had
http://boyah.net/forums/index.php/topic,51907.msg964189.html#msg964189