ecnarf

Abilities? Talents? You've got to be kidding me.

Maybe neither one of them really exists.

hey, it wasn't me crying. at all.

There can be happy cries in that context!

Troglodytes! There is still black forest ham!

You clearly misunderstood the context.

Well I've yet to see a stockbroker fake his death and make a big comeback.

IT'S ALL FAKE he'll be making a huge comeback. For serious. It's how wrestling works.

You told me there were no good cries.

Of all the horrors Stephen King could dream up...

Like most things in life, he faked his death. ... too soon?

You're dead to me. Got that? DEAD. P.S. Hey you think you can come out to the bars with us later? Or should I just ask your wife straight away?

Dude, are you going to let her safety and privacy concerns control you?

IT BEGINS! Save yourself.

Your obsession with looking at other people's dresses is approaching a voyeuristic fixation. Seriously. There are bridal magazines and google image search and the like. Isn't it easier to go that route?

There better not have been an open bar, because otherwise I will FUCK YOU UP for not inviting us.

Yep. Nothing like blowing stupid amounts of money on a vanity party for something that's 50% likely to fail anyways.

...AND we weren't invited.

Hmm. The gypsy's spell is unusually strong.

Where the hell do people get the idea that the united states was founded as a christian nation?

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is where we get into a debate of semantics and exceptions. When I use the word philosopher or the word scientist, its pretty obvious what I'm talking about. It was not Einstein the philospher who formed the theory of relativity, it was einstein the theoretical physicist. There is an enormous difference. In science and math, there is a clear right and a clear wrong; not so with philosophy. The beginnings of life have their origins in chemistry. There has been no evidence found that there is a need for the supernatural in starting life. Anyways. The current thought is that naked RNA molecules were the starting of life - it's self-replicating and a good carrier of information. DNA is sort of the mirror image of RNA, but with uracil replaced by thymine, and is far more stable and replicates more true to form (which is why it's become genetic material for all life forms). Once a molecule has both the ability to self-replicate and pass down information in a hereditary fashion, life has begun. What's that now? Which is utterly meaningless. In other words, perfectly useless. As for the physics part, if they don't make any sense, odds are it's because they don't really make any sense. Philosophers have a habit of being perfectly useless when it comes to using science in their work.

I can't fucking stand all these adverts for search sites that have neato features that only idiots would have to use. For example, sites advertise that if you do a search for "hybrid car", it will come up with a list of searchwords including "Toyota Prius". Honestly. What possible use could that have?

Lauren I've just spent the last 8 months (not to mention the two years before that in high school) studying science. I know I'm biased, but it's fairly obvious that scientists have a better grasp on reality than philosophers. Furthermore, you haven't been studying whether or not god exists, you've been in an armchair lightly pondering the possibilities and creating loopholes for god to hide out in (or, to be charitable about it, in a cramped lecture hall listening to someone in an armchair do the same). To say that there is a theistic god actively participating in the universe is a hypothesis that should have observable outcomes. If what we call "evolution" was really god just dicking around with the genetic code, then there wouldn't be so much evidence for evolution. There would be clear and identifiable points at which genes made an inexplicable leap that separated one species from another not explicable by natural laws. We would further expect that such theistic speciation occurs around us. We would see new species created before our very eyes. Interestingly, evolution does occur around us every day and its effects are visible, measurable and testables. To suggest that there are gaps, missing links or whatever else is to prove your own ignorance of the subject. And, as Richard Dawkins would say, to call someone ignorant is to pay them the compliment of not calling them stupid or wicked. Ultimately, "god" would have observable effects on the world around us. To suggest design from our observable reality, again, shows utter ignorance of it. The human body is largely a relic from a time when we were quadrapeds. Our sinuses are patheticlally vulnerable to infection, our immune systems weak, our joints prone to sprains and dislocations and arthritis, our appendices and spleens perfectly useless, our eyes have blind spots and plenty of people have to wear eyeglasses because of how poorly their eyes function. The birthing process is immensely painful and has historically had a high casualty rate. Men have nipples - WHY? Every organism on the planet uses the same molecule for delivering energy, adenosine triphosphate. Every last one. If there were a divine being manipulating the process, why wouldn't some organisms use a different molecule? Why are all bacteria prokaryotic cells and all life forms eukaryotic cells that have absorbed prokaryotic cells? Why is the Calvin cycle the one primarily responsible for generating energy across all species? If this god is benevolent and loving as so many religions like to think he is, have you considered the massive and unquantifiably enormous amount of suffering occurring on this planet? Not just in humans, but in animals. Predator wolves hunting down and snapping the necks of sick and young deer. Snakes and spiders whose venom digests victims internally. And so on and so on. I'm guessing you understood very little of that. Not that there's anything wrong with not knowing what I've studied, but you'll have to accept why I'm sceptical of your claim to have been studying the possibility of an existence of god when you are so very ignorant of his purported creation. As for the claim of a deistic god that does not actively participate in the universe and exists "outside" of anything else, that has got to be one of the more useless beliefs floating around society. There is a god... who does absolutely nothing, who doesn't hear you, and doesn't care. If such a being did exist he wouldn't be worth a minute of my time, much less my praise or "belief". And in contending his existence, where did he come from? That a being capable of creating an entire universe and immense set of physical laws simply existed on its own is vastly more ludicrous than suggesting that the quarks and subatomic particles around us simply existed on their own and everything else has followed. If god is the cause of everything, what is the cause of god?

I thought something was missing....

Well now you've outdone yourself.