Romy

You're more of a debater type of poster, that's why it doesn't matter too much. If you were someone like wongtong, posting events in her life all the time (I'm not hating), maybe it would. You might say she's a ...master... ...debater *waits for rim shot* [Lord I make corny jokes on TIF, I swear I'm not this bad in real life] Master debater? Wow, I wonder what made you think that (seriously). Either way, I'll take it as a compliment :), thanks. He meant masterbater xD You're just so...so....Ahh!

9/10 Same reason. :smile:

What bothers me most, is that if God really does exist, some theists are way too arrogant claiming to know what he wants/thinks.

Hax? That post just made me laugh. A lot.

6.

Not even Google knows what that means, and it's the closest we will ever come to having a god. Like omg. It's not like 20 bazillion percent of us are in high school. All hail the new god! Oh no, I'm yet to see concrete proof of his existence :blink: ! Lol....

Dude what's wrong with your lips? What about my lips?

5.

I could have gotten mine in March last year.... Meh.

That's "hobbyism" :P. Don't judge people based on their hobbies!

It looks like your knife though :ohnoes: As for the issue itself: He may have lived, but he's probably going to have some brain issues from it. You don't get stabbed in the head and come out of it unharmed. If I remember correctly, they said he's going to be okay in that area. Something of a 1 in 10,000 thing I think it was?

7.

Mine's on sunday :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes: !! I'm super nervous and scared :blink: ...

It's my sister's b day :), and mine's on friday, yay!

But that makes my December 2012 theory fall down the drain :o :sad: :evil: :anxious: :boohoo:

[hide] 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. Except I don't "believe there's no God", I "disbelieve in God". Again, I don't think it's atheists' job to prove there's no God. I guess you already understand my point here though, after reading it twice in this post. Surely there lies the possibility that FSM is real despite it being the fruit of Henderson's imagination, you must admit. FSM can be perfectly compared to God on the basis that neither own evidence of existence. "Pics or it never happend". As I've said quite a few times on this topic, someone who's completely unaware of any form of religion or God, is very likely not to believe in any specific God, not to mention not believe any God at all. When someone as described reaches 30, any religion presented to him would certainly be seen as a fairy tale and nothing more. Atheists do not present a story, it's theists that do. Atheists just doubt that story. "God doesn't exist" is fairly a negative statement, don'ch'think? 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. For that paragraph alone, I can present the Mr.Green case again. I'm afraid I don't understand. I'm well aware of the "FSM" argument, but how does that apply to the paragraph you've quoted? Wow, I feel like I'm repeating the same things again and again... Because if I presented the "Mr.Green-as-a-God" concept, it would be my job to prove it correct, yet if I stated here that Mr.Green isn't a God, no one would expect me or want me to prove my statement, even though the opposing statement couldn't be disproven. You probably already know what my answer is here :). 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... 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.[/hide] That sure was long :ohnoes: !

[hide=My response..:] That's the main point of my argument. There's no need to prove something doesn't exist. You wouldn't expect me to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist whether someone first claimed that he does and whether not, despite the lack of evidence that supports Bigfoot's inexistence. Except I don't believe there's no God, I disbelieve in God. No it's not, it's definitely a negative asserertion... The burden of proof does not stand here, just as it doesn't stand for someone who claims Bigfoot doesn't exist. I obviously couldn't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, even if that's the truth. Dedicating my whole life (and let's go as far as saying my children's life, and my children's children's life) to walking around the world, checking everywhere, and not finding Bigfoot, is not enough to prove beyond the slightest doubt Bigfoot doesn't exist, but for someone to say that Bigfoot does exist, it may take a while, but if he really does, he could eventually be found. I get your point, but think you're wrong. The mere definition theists give God, makes it impossible to prove he exists. And here lies the problem. What if I told you an unbelieveable story, not necessarily about the supernatural, and claim that I could never prove it to be true, wouldn't my credibilty fall down the drain? What can I say? I find it absurd that so many adults wholeheartly believe in something that cannot and will not be proven. Again, because the fact that there's no proof for a positive statement (such as "There is a God") is enough to dismiss it IMO. 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. Just as I explained up this post, it's quite usually impossible to prove a negative statemet. When someone states 2 statements, one claiming that "There is a God" (a positive statement) and that "I can't prove God exists", he fills his argument with pointless "air". He presents a positive statement, something which should be proveable, and supports it with a negative one. "Mr. Green is God", "I can't prove that", together mean nothing. I probably should have clarfied myself better here. When I say "enslave", I mean "strictly follow". What I meant by that quote is, that I'd never be fully religous, unless I see concrete proof. To further explain myself here, I'll give you an example. If someone believes that some amulet they're carrying will bring them luck- there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, I may be skeptic about that amulet, but the one carrying it (probably) wouldn't worship that amulet or risk their life in it's favor. " 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." Alright. [/hide] Lol, apparently, I quoted you too much on this post. I'm splitting it :P!

Google IS YouTube....

Well, if he really was hacking, and they saw it, I doubt their response was any more pleasant.

Yeah, we're getting closer to December 21st 2012... :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes:

Why?

10/10 I've been seeing you on the Games forum for years now....

I like my men like I like my (very own amazing) Spongebob Squarepants boxers! Good-looking and... loose :P. The 'Forum Games' forum!

Sowie, I was on a hurry that time :^_^: ! 10.... Yay, team B is going to win again!