Romy

Umm... Recently (in Israel) a pedophile man was interviewd, and he admitted that the acts he had committed were sort of an addiction, and that addictions can be cured. He said that for 2 (or was it 5?) years now, he's "clean", and that after psychiatric help and some medication, he can stop, and did stop, and that anyone with this sort of an addiction should do his best at trying to cure it. Currently he's in a relationship with a mature woman. So I don't know about the "subjects" going crazy part... I'd add a video, but it's in Hebrew so that would be pointless...

47, yeah Felix :)?

People usually compliment my fleshy, soft lips :P. To each his own I guess.

But can't you also include race as one of those factors? I can, but that could never be properly measured. Even if one race is statistically more tending to... experience heart attacks, it could be for other reasons and not necessarily because of the race, which would mean that even if it was/is correct, you can't know that for sure, and thus any researches are mostly inaccurate and pointless.

Because they are principled, already make enough money, and are willing to give some up to not give in to the freedom-hating scumbag Chinese government? Maybe, but I am not buying it. Neither is China. :roll: I'm pretty sure China couldn't give a damn for Google's reasoning, unless it was something that didn't collide with their ideology.

A mystery? What's mysterious about Yom Kipur :S? I like my men like I like my glue. Useful at times. A long, well constructed, never-ending argument.

Then they'll be like.. "Dude, I'm not listening to your anymore..." It's not smart to pull out sarcasm every time you disagree with something because...

48....

Continueing what flyingjj said, I'm also pretty sure pervertions are a psychological cause, and not a conditional one.

I like my men like I like my cookies. Sweet and edible. Yom Kipur.

Felix meant 31... which makes your post 32... which makes mine 31 :).

I did that on purpose only on the first picture, 'cause my brother told me to (O.O...), the rest is natural :thumbsup: .

Whether that's true or not, cannot be 100% proven though, for the reasoning I gave in my last post.

[hide=Reply to Rien_Adelric (Pt. 2)] You don't seriously mean that, eh? If you do, you should think the same about anything that couldn't be proven not to exist, including fairies, leprechauns, demons, ghosts, monsters, Bigfoot, FSM, the invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus, Russel's Teapot, and another infinite number of possibilities. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, then yes, all of these creatures could exist somewhere out in one or more of the infinite number of universes. Who knows, when quite literally anything could be possible? I hope you don't take it as offensive, but having doubts towards the existence of leprechauns is pointless. No one, NO ONE, in their right mind, would think, or even doubt whether or not Russel's Teapot exists, even though, technically, it's possible. Quite frankly (again, no offence), your judgement seriously lacks if you question any of the above example's inexistence. [a record so broken that you can't see the pieces]Saying that atheists are responsible to prove God doesn't exist, is like saying that the entire world is responsible to prove leprechauns don't exist. Atheists don't tell a story, they doubt many. Also, atheists don't make a positive assertion, but rather a negative one. Read my previous post for a better explanation.[/a record so broken that you can't see the pieces] Sure, it could possibly exist despite all that. I still don’t like how it’s been warped from an inventive, valid protest against intelligent design into the crude, religion-bashing cudgel it’s become to today, though. :P Easily, because FSM, and any other God, cannot be proven not to exist. Proof FSM exists- FSM is perfect. Perfection requires existence. Therefore, FSM exists. And that concludes the satirical part of my post :D. I wasn't discussing God in general, I was discussing any specific Gods. However, I believe that statement God be said about God in general. It's fairly possible that the first (ever) to come up with a religion, either knew they were wrong/inventing something, or were under illusinative drugs or w/e. I'm not saying that's definitive, I'm saying it's possible. The reason I'm brining up that assumption, is that I can't think of anyone who'd be born (nowdays, as I only live for 18 years, tomorrow :P), and would personalize a God. I could see someone thinking God exists in a deist way perhaps, but nothing specific. "God doesn't exist" is fairly a negative statement, don'ch'think? Not at all. It’s a positive assertion from what I can see, in all honesty. Yeah, I think we both know my answer is. It was just a misunderstanding regarding "positive"'s definition. Except, as I said, defining God as unproveable, fills theists' argument with pointless "air". Sure, it means their statements could never be disproven, but that does not mean there's any truth in them. The same could be said of atheists’ arguments. There are no facts to be had, so of course the debate is rife with “fluff”/“air” on both sides. We’re debating our personal opinions; would you seriously expect anything else as a result? Because atheists make negative assertions, and theists make positive assertions, and support them with a negative assertion ("God cannot be proven to exist/not exist"). Theists' negative assertion fills their argument with what I had named as "pointless air". Their argument cannot be proven, yet it doesn't hold any more truth than "Mr.Green is God" and "There's no way to prove that". [broken record]Atheists don't tell stories, they doubt stories.[/broken record] Don’t worry, I feel to same way. :-w There is no evidence, no proof on either side. Nothing can be done about that; there is simply no way to “prove” anything in this debate. And so, because of this, how is it anyone’s “responsibility” to do so anyway? Both ‘strong’ theists and ‘strong’ atheists make positive, absolute assertions regarding God’s existence, so they would both be liable if anything could be done in the first place. Since it’s impossible to support either of these statements with facts, however, neither side can reasonably be expected to provide anything substantial. Hmph... First, atheists make negative assertions. Second, theists fill their argument with pointless air by defining God. Third, Qeltar's quote (from my previous post) seems relevant here. Fourth, I think anyone who thinks logically should expect proof before believing anything, not to mention strictly following and worshipping. I don't understand your reasoning here. Sure, I agree that you could call God "real" in the name of the concept's influence, regardless of whether or not it really is real, but what does that have to do with whether or not God really is real, or even the possibility of that? That "therefore" you put there seems quite pointless... This became something of a tangent. My point was that religion/belief in some form of deity already has “real” effects on mankind and the Earth, and so it doesn’t take a terribly large leap-of-faith to consider the possibility that one or more of the deities worshipped here actually does exist and is making itself/themselves known subtly. I believe the odds of this being accurate is minuscule, but I wouldn’t outright deny the possibility of it being true, seeing as how “God’s hand” can already be sensed in many of our earthly affairs to begin with (after a fashion). Again, I don't see how God's existence by your definition (that he had affected our world even if he doesn't really exist) is any relevant to his real existence. Even if 100% of the world believes in something, that doesn't make it true, and that's not what you should rely on when trying to find the truth. Oh, and it neither implies anything about the truth. But I did take that possibility into consideration. As I had already mentioned, I was a great believer in God, and ended up dismissing the idea. I really don't see why you'd call someone "Close-minded" for disbelieving in something without proof. The part where you eventually dismissed the possibility is what I see as “closed-minded”. By dismissing the possibility, no matter how small you may deem it to be, you are not remaining “open” to the question at large. Always leave yourself open to some small doubt; very little (if anything at all) is “guaranteed” or absolutely certain in this world. I did not dismiss the possibility, I dimissed the probablity, and the reasoning behind worshipping that probablity. God could possibly exist, but the way I see it, the odds are as good as leprechauns' existence. [/hide] Hallelujah...

[hide=Reply to Rien_Adelric (Pt. 1)] The possibility remains open even for FSM? Why/why not? When something is illogical, I believe it is safe to dismiss the idea without proof, especially since those who claim it to be true, also give it the definition, and by definition, it cannot be proven to exist. The future will never be able to prove God doesn't exist, because by definition, God's existence/inexistence is not proveable. Even if we somehow manage to find out how it all started, I'm certain not everyone will dismiss the idea, and find a way around in making that discovery something that wouldn't necessarily disprove God. Except I don't believe there's no God, I disbelieve in God. Please explain to me the difference then, as Im certainly not seeing any, heh. Qeltar explained it well enough IMO- It's not about certaincy. I'm well aware that the possibility of a God exists, I just find it pointless, and quite frankly rediculous, to believe in him, until proven. I think your labels are a bit too simplistic, but if I must pick one, then 'Strong' atheist seems like the best option. By positive/negative, I don't mean strong or weak, I mean exactly that- positive/negative. "I am hungry" is a positive statement. "I am not huntry" is a negative one. The reason this makes a difference, is the ability to prove the statements. "I own a dog" is something I can easily prove if I really do own a dog. "I do not own a dog", on the other hand, is something that I cannot really 'prove', the other side will have to rely on my answer and and trust it, as a clear proof cannot be given. Even if I brought the other side all the way to my house and showed them there's no dog, it's not enough to prove that beyond doubt. "God exists" (a positive statement) is something that shouldn't be impossible to prove. However, the definition of God openly means that his existence cannot be proven. Just like "Mr.Green is the only true God" and "I can't prove that" together don't mean anything, because you can only rely on the other side, and never see proof. I could just as easily take FSM or the invisible pink unicorn as examples. Technically, both are Gods, neither can be proven/disproven to exist, yet no person with the right mind would really believe they exist, or even be agnostic towards their existence. Really? So if today the whole world does anything it possibly could to find Bigfoot, for 100 years, and Bigfoot will not be found- Does that prove, beyond the slightest doubt, that Bigfoot does not exist? [broken record] Same could be said for FSM, yet no one would really think FSM exists.[/broken record] What if you found out that the people telling you this, were told by their parents that story? And that their parents' parents' parents have had similar experiences? The fact that most of the world, even 100% of the world, believes in something, does not make it any more true than if only one person believed in it. Currently, most of the world (as in, over 50%), are on the scale of either homophobic-gay-hater to thinking-gays-are-doing-something-wrong. Does that mean that you should even consider that "truth"? Let them think what they want to think. Most of them also think that an imaginary creature turned water into wine, or sea into blood. Bottom line is, I think that anyone who'd strictly follow something that cannot and will not be proven, is a fool. If that hurts my credibility, then so be it. If anyone is offended, they should probably try to figure out why I said what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, the purpose of that quote is not to discredit the other side, but rather make it examine it's argument. "The is no God" is a negative statement. "There is a God", is a positive one. I already explained the difference up the post. Umm... what? A positive assertion is said about something in a positive manner ("I own a dog"), and a negative one is said about something in a negative manner ("I do not own a dog"). The type of statement (positive/negative) doesn't directly say anything about it's truthfulness. However, [broken record]a positive one is supposed to be easier to prove (unless filled with something that opposes that, such as the definition of God), and a negative one is supposed to be harder to prove.[/broken record] " I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument." You dont find that to be wrong in the slightest? As I said somewhere above, its asking a loaded question, since no evidence exists to support either side of the debate. Another loaded question would be, for example: So, have you told anyone about how you beat your wife, yet?. It would be underhanded to ask this of someone, no? Theres really not much of a difference between the two; youre trying to unfairly trap someone in asking such a question. I don't see how your example is relevant here. Who cares whether or not it's a loaded question? We're discussing truth, not nice manners. If you were going to discuss truth with that guy that beat his wife, without letting any 'nice manners' get in your way, you'd ask him that question. [/hide] Meh, and to think I'm only halfway to answering your posts....

I'm better than you because I'm turning 18 in about 10 hours :D.

You'd become green, and that's not in season either... It's not smart to vote for democrats ( :blink: ) because...

32... Jeez, we were at 3! Now it's 32 :(!

What can I say? It's absurd that anyone could think they could even measure these things properly. Food, environment, economical position, and even work-place, are all factors that could make certain diseases more likely to occur, so even if statistically, more people of a certain race have cancer for instance, it could possibly just be that a large portion of that race is more exposed to the sun or something like that.

So you actually believe that white people are less likely to get sick than black people? Nope. However theres proof that certain races are more susceptible to certain diseases than other races. Examples: White people: Osteoperosis\Huntington's Black people: heart disease, sickle cell anemia Jewish people: Tay sachs Just those off the top of my head. So a Jew with a white mommy and a black daddy is going to have a rough time getting past 30...

Dude what's wrong with your lips? What about my lips? Nothing, nothing. I'm not easily offended, you can say what you had on your mind :).

Rock-mommy is not going to be very happy about it #-o ... It's not smart to stick it to "the man" because...

3. Sowie Felix, I'm just not always on the computer :/...

3. I was out, just got home, sowie Felix.

4